You might be right, but I look at it from a different perspective. We have a dependency on oil, so I don't mind wars being fought to protect our oil interests. Yes, you could claim a lot of our military action in the Middle East has been a reaction to our oil needs, but I don't see the problem with that. Unfortunately, our national security depends on oil.
And if this war was fought for oil, where's the oil? Last I checked, the price of oil was skyrocketing. But let me put on my conspiracy theory cap and take a guess--the war was fought for private businesses with ties to Bush/Cheney so they could line their own pockets by passing on the costs to American consumers?
I just don't buy it from all the facts I've seen so far. Sure, I believe our two biggest concerns in the Middle East are terrorism and oil, and not necessarily in that order. But I don't have a problem with fighting a war to defend either of these interests.
Now, if you want to talk about our dependency on oil and this administration's refusal to pursue alternative energy sources, I'm all ears. As a conservative, this is my biggest gripe against Bush. He seems to think the war on terror supercedes everything else, yet he's okay with our economic depedency on other countries through lossed jobs overseas (lots of manufacturing in Asia), opening the borders to free trade (it's a shame when an 80 year old WW2 veteran gets frisked by airport security, yet a Mexican truck driver can drive across the border without even being stopped), and insufficient support of alternative energy R&D to name a few.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
