• One: 'She is the presumptive front-runner.'

• Two: 'I don't much like her, but I don't want to cross her, for God’s sake!'

• And three: 'If she’s our nominee, we’re going to get killed.'

But for me, the most important fact is the following:

The Saddam Fedayeen also took part in the regime's domestic terrorism operations and planned for attacks throughout Europe and the Middle East. In a document dated May 1999, Saddam's older son, Uday, ordered preparations for 'special operations, assassinations, and bombings, for the centers and traitor symbols in London, Iran and the self-ruled areas [Kurdistan].' Preparations for 'Blessed July,' a regime-directed wave of 'martyrdom' operations against targets in the West, were well under way at the time of the coalition invasion.

It was only a matter of time before Iraq deployed Islamist terror against the West. Those who sincerely marched against war in London in 2002 and 2003 were unwittingly marching to keep in power a regime planning to bomb and terrrorize them.

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person. And I certainly think governments are capable of doing bad things. But I don’t understand the concept of attacking Iraq “because of oil.” What does that even mean?

Do you think the plan was to conquer Iraq and give the oil fields to Exxon?

Do you think the idea was to depose Sadam so the free Iraqis would boost oil production, thereby lowering costs at the pump?

Was the idea to bomb Iraq until they loved American oil companies and wanted to do business with them?

Seriously. Can anyone explain what the plan was?

...the AP focuses entirely on Iraq's production and export levels, and buries all the other contributing factors to the oil price. Why? Is it perhaps because then they can blame the oil prices directly on the Bush administration?

Let's just compare some of these factors. Iraq exported 1.4 million barrels of oil in 2002. In 2005, it was 1.4 million. No change. In 2002, Iraq produced 2.1 million barrels of oil. In 2005, it was 2 million. A negative change of 100,000. Shall we take a look at China? China consumed 5.2 million barrels of oil in 2002. In 2004, this was up to 6.5 million.

China's consumption has gone up over 1 million barrels since 2002. Iraq's production has dropped 100,000 barrels since 2002. Which one of those would have the most effect? Now let's throw Iran's saber-rattling and the problems in Nigeria into the mix. Is Iraq really the problem here?

Think Progress first recycles a false excerpt from the Washington Times to claim that the Bush administration predicted in September 2002 that the Iraq war would lower oil prices (which it will in the long-term, but whatever) when they did no such thing. Second, they point to an AP article that focuses heavily on Iraq, while burying much larger reasons for why the oil prices are currently high.

If everything in the world really is Bush's fault, why must Think Progress rearrange and falsify the record to claim that this is the case? They are trying to shuffle away from the inevitable: an Iraq without sanctions and without Saddam Hussein will modernize their oil infrastructure, and eventually their oil production will be higher than it was before.

One simple conclusion: conservative government really is dead, isn't it? A conservative government would simply say: we have no control over global oil prices; consumers reap what they sow; companies should be left alone; and if your wallet is empty because of all that gas in your SUV, you've learned a useful lesson in self-government. If only Margaret Thatcher were around to punctuate that lecture with a swipe of her handbag.

Here, Krauthammer explains how conspiracy theories about oil prices lead to investigations bound to yield results that reduce to elemntary principles of supply and demand.