War, oil and administration spin

The Cunning Realist notes that Andrew Sullivan is spinning the administration's pre-war arguments:

Andrew Sullivan writes:

One thing that today's high gas prices strongly suggest is that, whatever else it was, the Iraq war was surely not about oil. If you care about cheap oil above everything else, you'd have found some deal with Saddam, kept the oil fields pumping, and maintained the same realist policy toward Arab and Muslim autocracies we had for decades.

This is like a lawyer arguing that because his client used the wrong combination on a safe, surely he didn't mean to steal anything. It is backasswards---interpreting intent based on an undesired result.

In addition, it is ascribing competence and intellectual rigor to the Bush administration---the assumption that it thought the war though carefully beforehand, weighing the risks and possible consequences, instead of using its patented faith-based, "kids rolling around on the lawn" approach. Based on what we know now about the prewar planning, and in light of Katrina, Miers, Kerik, Plamegate and everything else, exactly how is that assumption justified?

This has got to be an effort by the administration not to look even more incompetent. But, they were on the record in 2002. From Monday's Hardball:

MATTHEWS: Speaking of countries like that. Let’s talk about gas, oil.

WALLACE: Sure.

MATTHEWS: Before the war—well, let’s take a look at something that Dan Bartlett, the senior adviser to the president, had to say on HARDBALL a couple of weeks ago.

WALLACE: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN BARTLETT, COUNSELOR TO PRESIDENT BUSH: The president or no one never said that this war was going to result to cheaper gas prices.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Well, we did check in to that. And Lawrence Lindsey, the chief economic adviser to the president, did in fact say—and let’s look at the quote now. At the time he said that—just the opposite. He said the key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in wol[d] oil, which would tend to [lower] oil prices.” That is Lawrence Lindsey. [quote via Think Progress as end]

And then of course later on, as we went to war, Paul Wolfowitz said, not only would it bring cheaper oil, but that oil of Iran would largely pay for the reconstruction of Iran. He was quite clear on this—of Iraq. And now the president’s top guy practically, Dan Bartlett, is denying all that. What is true?

WALLACE: Well, I don’t know the context of Larry Lindsey’s comment. Certainly the reasons for going to war in Iraq are reasons that you have examined in great detail here and I am happy to go into them. I mean, having a democracy...

MATTHEWS: No, no. I’m sorry. I will interrupt you for the first time. I have not done it so far.

WALLACE: That’s OK.

MATTHEWS: The context is September 2002, as the argument was made to Congress why we should go to war. And Lawrence Lindsey, the chief economic adviser to the president, said it’s hard to say whether the economic effects would be positive or negative of war. There are enormous uncertainties about what might happen. It depends on the prosecution of the war. But under every plausible scenario the negative effect is quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war.

Here is the chief economic adviser of the president advising on the benefits which will come from—no one will say we went to war because of oil by itself. He says the key issue was oil, to repeat him, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil and that means cheaper oil for us.

Isn’t that in fact the word of the president, his chief economic adviser, that Wolfowitz coming out in making the case for war. We know that Paul was quite a hawk, making the case for war by saying don’t worry about all of the costs after this war because their own oil over there in Iraq is going to pay for it. These don’t add up today, do they? Are they still true or are they inoperative?

WALLACE: We all certainly enjoy the benefits of 20/20 hindsight.

MATTHEWS: But this was pre-sight. This was predictions made to get us to go to war. And I am just asking you, were they wrong?

WALLACE: Well, Chris, even what you read was caveated in a great deal of uncertainty.

MATTHEWS: Where? Where?

WALLACE: He says there are a great number of uncertainties. And I think that...

MATTHEWS: But under every plausible scenario the negative effect is quite small relative to the economic benefits. Under every plausible scenario, the president’s chief economic adviser is saying we are going to benefit from cheaper oil if we go to war.

The interviewee is Nicole Wallace of Bush's communications team.

Think Progress' better transcript of the Lindsey quote:

As Matthews noted later in the broadcast, Laurence Lindsey – President Bush’s senior economic advisor at the time — argued in 2002 that the Iraq war would increase oil supplies and lower prices. From the Washington Times, 9/19/02:

As for the impact of a war with Iraq, “It depends how the war goes.” But he quickly adds that that “Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war.”

“The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” which would drive down oil prices, giving the U.S. economy an added boost.