"The White House said on Friday that President Bush's decision on whether to use military force to remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would not be influenced by the effect such an attack would have on the price of crude oil or on the American economy. (White House spokesman Ari Fleischer) urged Congress to pass a pending energy bill that the White House hopes would allowing drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. The Bush administration wants to tap the refuge's potential 16 billion barrels of oil to help reduce U.S. reliance on foreign crude from unfriendly countries like Iraq. " In a world-wide oil market, which is what we have, 16 billion barrels of oil would last less than a year (world demand is about 76.4 million barrels per day, out of 16 billion, equals about 209 days). Is it really worth it to risk ruining the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska? Why not look to the future and try to reduce U.S. reliance on ANY crude oil? I seriously doubt the proposed war against Iraq, like the last Gulf war, has "nothing to do with oil". [ Originally from seanonymous. --Rek ] White House: No Link Between Iraq Policy, Oil Price | 
