Any conscious person can see the threat posed by Iraq. (One might argue that there are more immediate threats, but the only reason liberals mention such threats, such as North Korea, is to stifle war plans in Iraq, not because they advocate a specific plan to deal with the other threats.) Given that the Iraq threat exists, the possibility is there that the United States might use force to counter that threat.
However, without evidence, liberals come to the conclusion that the use of force must be "all about the oil". Since hard evidence is absent, what, if anything, do liberals substitute for evidence?
Indeed, liberals believe that the very desire to go to war with Iraq is the evidence for the "oil" motivation.
Because they choose to be spineless given the same responsibilities and reject the use of force against a threat, liberals cannot fathom the possibility that someone else would use force. They project their anti-self-defense mentality onto others.
Memo to liberals: Try to get it through your thick skulls that some of us actually do believe in the moral responsibility of self-defense.
But speaking of oil, damn straight we should seize the Iraqi oil - to help finance the war. But the idea that the U.S. will be better off financially after this war due to oil is insane.