Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta

Overview
Gore Vidal delivers a blistering polemic that attacks the motives and methods behind the Bush–Cheney administration's push toward war with Iraq. Vidal frames the invasion as the culmination of long-standing imperial impulses, amplified by the growing power of corporate energy interests. The narrative is sharp, partisan and historically minded, blending biting satire with pointed political analysis to portray a Washington willing to manipulate facts and exploit fear to remake the Middle East.

Central Arguments
Vidal asserts that the drive to war was less about weapons of mass destruction or democratic liberation than about securing oil and projecting American dominance. He identifies close ties between senior administration figures and the energy sector, argues that policy was shaped by a mixture of economic self-interest and ideological hubris, and claims that intelligence was selectively used or distorted to justify military action. The piece casts the Bush–Cheney circle as a "junta" whose policies reflect entrenched elite priorities rather than the national interest.

Evidence and Line of Reasoning
The account marshals contemporary events, public statements and historical patterns to connect policy choices to powerful constituencies. Vidal highlights documented relationships between government officials and energy corporations, cites public advocacy from neoconservative circles for regime change, and points to inconsistencies in the administration's public rationale for war. Rather than offering detailed academic evidence, the argument relies on a mix of contemporary reportage, historical parallels and rhetorical force to persuade readers that the official narrative was deeply compromised.

Style and Rhetoric
The prose is combative and urbane, characteristic of Vidal's role as public intellectual and polemicist. Sarcasm, historical detachment and moral outrage combine to make the case vivid and urgent. The writing assumes a skeptical reader and seeks to stir indignation as much as to inform, frequently placing current events within a longer story of American expansionism and elite governance. The tone favors broad synthesis and indictment over cautious hedging or technical policy analysis.

Warnings and Predicted Consequences
Vidal warns that an Iraq invasion premised on false or exaggerated claims would produce long-term damage: regional destabilization, anti-American backlash, erosion of civil liberties at home and the normalization of preventive war as policy. He emphasizes the risk of protracted occupation, the empowerment of sectarian and extremist forces, and the way domestic propaganda and fear-mongering can corrode democratic norms. The cautionary thrust is that short-term strategic or economic gains would be dwarfed by political and moral losses.

Reception and Legacy
The polemic was praised by those who saw it as a courageous challenge to mainstream consensus and criticized by others for rhetorical excess and conspiratorial leanings. Supporters valued Vidal's willingness to name powerful interests and to situate current events in historical perspective. Critics argued the argument sometimes traded nuance for invective and relied on implication rather than full documentary proof. Regardless, the piece contributed to the broader public debate about motive, credibility and consequence as the Iraq conflict unfolded, and it remains a forceful literary expression of early opposition to the 2003 intervention.