GREELEY, Colo. – During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush and his aides sternly dismissed suggestions that the war was all about oil. “Nonsense,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared. “This is not about that,” said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.
Now, more than 3 1/2 years later, someone else is asserting the war is about oil – President Bush.
As he barnstorms across the country campaigning for Republican candidates in Tuesday’s elections, Bush has been citing oil as a reason to stay in Iraq. If the United States pulled its troops out prematurely and surrendered the country to insurgents, he warns audiences, it would effectively hand over Iraq’s considerable petroleum reserves to terrorists who would use it as a weapon against other countries.
“You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources,” he said at a rally here Saturday for Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo. “And then you can imagine them saying, ‘We’re going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following.’ And the following would be along the lines of, well, ‘Retreat and let us continue to expand our dark vision.’ “
Bush said extremists controlling Iraq “would use energy as economic blackmail” and try to pressure the United States to abandon its alliance with Israel. At a stop in Missouri on Friday, he suggested such radicals would be “able to pull millions of barrels of oil off the market, driving the price up to $300 or $400 a barrel.”
Oil is not the only reason Bush offers for staying in Iraq, but his comments on the stump represent another striking evolution of his argument on behalf of the war. The slogan of “no blood for oil” became a rallying cry for antiwar activists before the March 2003 invasion and angered administration officials. “There are certain things like that, myths, that are floating around,” Rumsfeld told Steve Kroft of CBS Radio in November 2002. “It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil.”
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Saturday that Bush’s latest argument does not reflect a real shift. “We’re still not saying we went into Iraq for oil. That’s not true,” he said. “But there is the realistic strategic concern that if a country with such enormous oil reserves and the corresponding revenues you can derive from that is controlled by essentially a terrorist organization, it could be destabilizing for the region.”
Some analysts said Bush is exaggerating the impact of Iraq’s oil production on world markets. Iraq has more than 112 billion barrels of oil, the second-largest proven reserves in the world. But it currently pumps just 2.3 million barrels per day and exports 1.6 million of that, according to the State Department’s tracking report on the country, still short of what it produced before the invasion.
That represents a fraction of the 85 million barrels produced around the world each day and less than the surplus capacity of Saudi Arabia and the other members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, meaning in a crisis they could ramp up their wells to make up for the shortfall, analysts said. The United States has 688 million barrels of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, enough to counter a disruption of Iraqi oil for 14 months.