But Psycho the source I posted was from Bush's own library so I don't get your point not one of the links I posted were from anti US sources. Maybe you need to read the history of oil in the region. You tell me who do YOU believe controls and who profits from the oil reserves in Iraq?
Remember my youngest is majoring in Middle Eastern Politics! I hear this stuff all year long.

All producer companies want to gain control of lucrative profits, by fair means or foul. Company rivalry typically leads beyond ordinary market-based competition.

As many studies show, companies and their sponsor governments do not shrink from backing dictatorial governments, using bribery and corruption, promoting civil violence and even resorting to war, to meet their commercial goals and best their competitors.

The modern history of the Middle East bears witness to this process. In one notorious example, US intelligence services recruited in 1959 a young Iraqi thug named Saddam Hussein to take part in the assassination of Iraqi Prime Minister Abd el-Karim Qasim. Washington feared that the nationalist Qasim might act independently and alter the favorable terms under which their oil companies operated. A few years earlier, in 1953, the CIA engineered a coup in Iran, overthrowing the democratic government of Mohammed Mossadegh and installing the autocratic Shah, in order to gain control over Iranian oil and redistribute British production shares to US companies.

A recent court case in France, involving high officials of the national oil company Elf Aquitaine, provides a glimpse of more recent operations in this world of oil intrigue and covert competition between the giant companies. The case revealed bribes, espionage, sexual favors, arms smuggling, civil strife and plots to overthrow governments, all with the complicity of French military and intelligence services as well as politicians at the highest levels. These actions had a terrible effect on a number of oil-producing countries, mostly in Africa. They spread malfeasance, corruption and anti-democratic practices in France as well.

Those who deny oil company complicity in the Iraq War always insist that the companies have little political influence, that they are ??out of the loop? in Washington, that they are just one industry group among many others. These arguments are utterly false. The oil companies have always enjoyed ??insider? privileges with the US and UK governments, resulting in many unique favors in the name of ??national security.?

The United States government offers the companies extremely favorable tax treatment, including the ??oil depletion allowance? and ??intangible drilling costs? ?? far more than the ordinary capital depreciation available to other companies. In 1960, at the behest of the National Security Council, the international companies obtained the lucrative ??foreign tax credit,? enabling deductions for taxes or royalties paid to foreign governments. In 1974, while the US corporate tax rate was 48%, the nineteen largest oil companies paid a tax rate of only 7.6%.16

The companies have also enjoyed unofficial immunity from anti-trust or anti-monopoly laws. Though the US government knew for decades about the international oil cartel, federal authorities took no enforcement action until 1952, when President Harry Truman ordered a criminal anti-trust suit. The companies mobilized all their legal and political muscle to quash the case. General Omar Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reportedly approached the President and successfully urged that the ??national security? required a softening of the government??s legal stance. Shortly afterwards, the National Security Council decided on various limitations to the suit that further weakened the government??s case. Though the judicial process lumbered on for fifteen years, the oil companies had nothing to fear and remained safely protected by the national security umbrella. Today, after a decade of mega-mergers, the companies still escape anti-trust scrutiny.

US military/security policy has served the oil companies as comprehensively as have the tax and legal rulings. Virtually every US presidential security doctrine since World War II has aimed at protecting company interests in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. The Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, and the Nixon, Carter, and Reagan Doctrines all asserted Washington??s special concerns in the Gulf and arrogated to the United States special rights to ??protect? or ??defend? the area. Recently-released secret papers show that during the oil crisis and Arab oil embargo of 1973, Washington seriously considered sending a military strike force to seize some of the region??s richest fields ?? in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi.

In testimony to Congress in 1999, General Anthony C. Zinni, commanding officer of the Central Command, affirmed the importance of the Persian Gulf region, with its huge oil reserves. It is a ??vital interest? of ??long standing,? he said, and the United States ??must have free access to the region??s resources.?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...niesiniraq.htm

Come on Psycho post some facts that back up what you are saying or at least state your point a little more clearly.

Ahhhhh yep its good to be back I'm gonna give you a run for your money!