I am going to tie the war in Iraq, OIL, and the responsibility of the left for creating that war, all together.First, I want to say out loud that I promised myself when I started this blog that I would try to make it entertaining, AND informative. It can’t be just ONE of those, and it really is far too easy to just take pot shots at the left and ridicule them, even thought it does take some skill to be entertaining while doing so.

With that in mind, I have to try to avoid writing an article on the “nine second” Senate farce of today. Apparently the Dems felt they needed to be the mouse that roared as they gaveled in and gaveled out a meaningless expression of “power”, in order to make sure that Bush did not have the opportunity to make a recess appointment for the Assistant AG. Yahoo for them. Wow. Big move on their part.

What I would rather focus on is the failures of the left, most notably on National Energy Policy, over the decades, as driven by the left of the Democrat party- and illustrate how they are responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in the Middle East.

Let’s start with one basic premise of the left.”The war in Iraq is over oil.”

OK. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, “You’re right.” I mean, we can make the argument, pretty easily, that the US is not gaining any OIL benefits at this time for attacking Iraq. That would normally be enough to dispel the idiotic logic of the left that the war was about securing some kind of oil windfall for the west or the United States.

On the other hand, there might be a reason to concede ONE thing when those on the left say “The war is over oil.” We could concede that, were there NO oil in Iraq, there would have been no reason to go into Iraq after September 11th, right?

WRONG.

Afghanistan is not exactly oil rich. Yet we went in there because their was a perception of threat from there, after September 11th. It had nothing to do with oil. (Some will argue it has to do with a proposed pipeline… whatever.)

Similarly, were there no oil in Iraq, the perception of a huge threat was there, in the form of WMD.

My point is, “we did not invade either country purely due to oil interests.” No matter how many times we repeat that, we still come back and find the left saying we invaded Iraq for OIL.

So, I have a bitter pill for the left to swallow.

For decades now, the green movement has killed Nuclear Power plants; has attacked Coal Power plants; has fought the expansion of US refineries; has fought to breech Hydroelectric Dams. At every turn, where energy can be obtained, the far left is there, to tell you, wagging their finger “Nuh-UH UHahhhhh!”

For a Country that won the race to the moon- we have been crippled from producing our OWN energy by the green left.

Nuclear energy is (especially now) incredibly reliable. Even INCLUDING the Chernobyl accident, the amount of accidental deaths worldwide per year eclipse that “disaster” by incredible numbers.

France obtains a majority of their energy (electric) from Nuclear plants. And they have done so for DECADES, without incident. Do most of us really think that with all of the environmental regulations on everything in this country that we are as lax and apt to have the accidents that the USSR had? Yet, the left will not budge on any proposal to move into true “energy independence”, as they cannot stomach the “costs”.

What is the cost? US lives, or a few Caribou? War in the world, or storing Nuclear Waste in Yucca Mountain?

The reality is, in this Country, we are so preoccupied with being “perfect” and submissive to the littlest squeak of the left that we are selling our energy future down the tube.

And while the left pushes that future farther and farther out, the more likely it is that US forces will have to DIE fighting to maintain order in a part of the world that has OIL that is ready to be pumped out of the ground.That is, if you believe the left when they say the war(s) are about oil in the first place.

Sounds like a bit of a logical conundrum to me. I mean, IF you are on the left and believe the war (or any war in the Middle East) is a product of U.S. interest in OIL, then you have to come to the conclusion that barring the U.S. from utilizing energy sources that we have available to us, NOW, which might make us more independent of foreign oil, is also a “vote for war”, so to speak. Can you really have it both ways???

How many lives are lost in the next “War over Oil” when Ted Kennedy and friends prohibit clean wind turbine energy off the coast of Natucket?

How many lives will be on the minds of greenies the next time a war over oil erupts in the Middle East, and they spent their time fighting offshore drilling near Florida or California?

When the next Nuclear plant is not opened or developed due to the left, will there be signs showing the faces of the next generation of youth to die in the next “war over oil in the Middle East”?

How many soldiers lives does one Nuclear Power Plant represent? How many Caribou might have to be slightly inconvenienced in ANWAR to avoid the next war?

The far left, especially on energy, has to start realizing that there are consequences to their obstruction of U.S. Energy Policy expansion. If they want to support the idea that the wars are about oil, they DO have some control over how important oil IS.

I think one could make the argument that the blood of our soldiers is on the hands of the Greenies…