During a town-hall meeting in Denver on Friday, Republican presidential frontrunner John McCain seemed to say that the Bush White House invaded Iraq for oil. In a give-and-take discussion about the Iraq war, McCain said Democratic plans to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq "would lead to catastrophe and chaos." Then he added:

"I just want to promise you this: My friends, I will have an energy policy ... which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East. That will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."

Uproar followed his remark. Later in the day, McCain urgently tried to deflect criticism. He said he had been referring to the first Gulf War of 1991, launched by President Bush's father (although that previous war wasn't mentioned in the town-hall meeting).

"By eliminating our dependency on foreign oil, we will not have our national security threatened by a cutoff of that oil," he reiterated.

Well, it sounds as if McCain means that both Bush wars against Iraq were for oil. Judging by current $4-a-gallon gasoline prices, the wars failed to achieve a cheap petroleum supply.

Since all White House pretexts for invading Iraq in 2003 turned out to be false, we have asked repeatedly why the second Bush administration clamored for the war. Was it for oil? - or to protect Israel? - or to finish the first President Bush's vendetta against Iraq's dictator? - or to install permanent U.S. military bases there as part of a "neoconservative" strategy to use America's superpower status for worldwide sway?

Historians far into the future probably will debate this unanswered question.

During a town-hall meeting in Denver on Friday, Republican presidential frontrunner John McCain seemed to say that the Bush White House invaded Iraq for oil. In a give-and-take discussion about the Iraq war, McCain said Democratic plans to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq "would lead to catastrophe and chaos." Then he added:

"I just want to promise you this: My friends, I will have an energy policy ... which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East. That will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."

Uproar followed his remark. Later in the day, McCain urgently tried to deflect criticism. He said he had been referring to the first Gulf War of 1991, launched by President Bush's father (although that previous war wasn't mentioned in the town-hall meeting).

"By eliminating our dependency on foreign oil, we will not have our national security threatened by a cutoff of that oil," he reiterated.

Well, it sounds as if McCain means that both Bush wars against Iraq were for oil. Judging by current $4-a-gallon gasoline prices, the wars failed to achieve a cheap petroleum supply.

Since all White House pretexts for invading Iraq in 2003 turned out to be false, we have asked repeatedly why the second Bush administration clamored for the war. Was it for oil? - or to protect Israel? - or to finish the first President Bush's vendetta against Iraq's dictator? - or to install permanent U.S. military bases there as part of a "neoconservative" strategy to use America's superpower status for worldwide sway?

Historians far into the future probably will debate this unanswered question.