Okay, I’ve never been one of those to jump on the “No War For Oil” bandwagon. I’ve always thought that the charge that everything the Bush Administration does has some oil interest is a bit simplistic. With that in mind, I try to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, but he makes it so damn hard sometimes :

President Bush is expected to come under more pressure to send troops to help restore peace in Liberia when he holds talks on Saturday in Nigeria, a strategically important U.S. oil supplier.

Nigeria’s position as fifth largest crude exporter to the United States will give President Olusegun Obasanjo clout when he takes up growing calls across Africa for Bush to contribute troops to a mainly African peacekeeping force for Liberia.

It does seem a little odd that Bush is making a big trip to Africa but he’s not going to Liberia or Congo and he’s not meeting with Mandela. Honestly, I think this whole Africa trip is a big “pat yourself on the back” photo-op, but this oil thing does seem a little fishy.

When this is combined with all the news about Iraqi oil and the Afghan oil pipeline, I can see why people just to the conclusion that the primary motivation behind Bush’s foreign policy is procuring oil. What’s worse, is that if it is all about oil, I’m not entirely sure that it’s a bad idea (although there would be much better way to get the oil than by “stealing” it through a policy of aggressive imperialism). I would probably back a lot of this if Bush would at least be honest about it. I’d give him a lot of credit if he came forward and said this in a speech.

“The United States has a terminal addiction to foreign oil. After the attacks of 9/11, it’s clear that oil money, specifically that which goes to Saudi Arabia, is funding global terrorism. For that reason, it is imperative that we end our dependence on Saudi Arabia for our energy resources.”

Of course that would be a good start. He’d also have to back up this position with sincere attempts to cut consumption of oil as well.