Back in “the old days” (i.e. 2003-2008) it was always fun to walk around the Bay Area and point out hypocritical bumper stickers decrying the use of oil — stickers that were affixed to cars which require petroleum products to operate.
A popular sticker back then was “No Blood for Oil,” referring to the belief — still almost unanimous in liberal enclaves — that the 2003-08 Iraq War was a “war for oil,” rather than for any of the stated rationales given at the time by the U.N., the coalition and the Bush administration.
But now that the Obama administration — after its facile attempt to end violence in Iraq by withdrawing all American forces spectacularly backfired — is planning to once again invade Iraq, what will the “No Blood for Oil” brigade do?
For example, this typical car spotted yesterday in Berkeley, with 2008-era bumper stickers:
On one side: “No Blood for Oil“; on the other: “Obama ’08.”
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
One of those stickers simply has to be scraped off. Otherwise the cognitive dissonance would be too intense to tolerate.
But which sticker to remove?
The answer to that question may determine America’s political future in the near term.
Will anti-war liberals hold true to their unwavering belief that whenever America wages war in the Middle East, it is “for oil”? Or will they defend Obama politically as he once again sends American troops to Iraq?
Because when Obama invades Iraq, as he is about to do, you can’t have it both ways.