My analysis of what this war was about:

1. Force a vote on the war before the 2002 elections so that Democrats could be painted as weak on terror, thus giving control of the Congress to Republicans.  If this had not been the intent, the vote would have been after the elections.  What was the hurry??  Essentially our soliders have been dying to give the Republicans political power.  Way to support the troops!

2. As stated, reduce the supply of oil globally to force prices up

3. Send a clear signal to countries who were thinking of trading oil in Euros (as Saddam was) that we won't tolerate that (hence the current ginning up of war on Iran since they are talking of doing the same)

4. Find a way to funnel the U.S. Treasury into the hands of Republican contributors in the form of no-bid contracts and other shady deals

5. Incite the Middle East into all-out war with the U.S. so defense contractors can justify multi-billion dollar contracts to support this perpetual war.  None of this being nostalgic for the Cold War, get us a new war!

1. CIA operatives were shown clearly that disagreeing with the administration would get you outed, which could lead to deaths (and probably did) or at least a swift end to your career.

2. Our intel operations in Iran were either weakened or destroyed by the demise of Brewster Jennings as a front company, which will undoubtedly make it easier to lie about what Iran is doing in the leadup to the comming attack on Iran.

"What "would" a real "war for oil" look like? Well, US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had. Everything we had. Then, secure convoy routes "would" have been established to the nearest port - probably Basra - and the US Navy "would" essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region."

"There "would" have been no overland campaign - what for? - and no fight for Baghdad. Fallujah and Mosul and all those other trouble spots "would" never even see an American boot. Why? No oil there. The US Military would do what it is extraordinarily well-trained to do: take and hold a very limited area, and supply secure convoys to and from this limited area on an ongoing basis. Saddam could have stayed if he wanted: "probably would" have saved us a lot of trouble, and the whole thing would have become a sort of super no-fly zone over the oil fields, ports and convoy routes, and the devil take the rest of it. Sadr City IED deaths? Please. What the f**k does Sadr City have that we need?"

"That's what a war for oil "would" look like. It's entirely possible that such an operation could have been accomplished and maintained without a single American fatality." These WOULDAs are merely your opinion and as the adage goes like an a-hole, everyone has one.  BTW are you a FauxNews military analyst?

It's all been a crock of hearsay with no concrete proof presented to the American peoples.  Where's the proof, ppj?  

As in everything change is inevitable.  You cite an interview from 1997 w/OBL. I take it you place emphasis on Peter Arnett being a CNN correspondent because of righties' phobias of what they coin as LIBERAL media networks.  

It has been reported betimes that OBL's descent against the US was in direct correlation with US foreign policy as it relates to its presence in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East.  

Bottom line is the region don't want the US there dipping in their affairs and trying to make their region adopt and mirror Western culture and politics.