Sure. Yes, I do indeed think that (to the extent that it was "about" either) it was more "about" oil than "about" Israel.
It was mainly about removing Saddam, who was a threat to peace and stability in the Middle East, for a number of reasons. One of these reasons was his assistance to Palestinian terrorists. Are you saying he wasn't funding the Palestinian homicide bombers?
I don't dispute that he was funding them. I do dispute that this fact should rank all that highly on the list of ways in which Saddam represented a threat to peace and stability on the Middle East.
President Bush and Secretary of State Powell were at the time trying to come up with a solution to the terrorist war against Israel. For this reason, I think that this was among the numerous reasons they decided Saddam had to be removed.
Among the numerous reasons, sure, I guess.
It absolutely drives me nuts that you cannot discuss things on this forum without people attaching the worst possible interpretation or motive to what one says, and completely overreacting.
I didn't make that other comment. I do think it is profoundly silly, and borderline harmful, to characterize the U.S. invasion of Iraq as having been "about Israel" in any significant or meaningful way. And so I don't think I overreacted.
Why? Why should we be ashamed to say that we want to protect our only real ally in the Middle East? I'm tired of the European/U.N. relativist view which says that Israel is no different, or is worse, than the other countries in the Middle East.