There was a modest turnout for an anti-war demonstration in New York today. Check out this shot of some of the rally's leaders: Jesse Jackson, Cindy Sheehan, Al Sharpton and Susan Sarandon:

And the National Organization for Women; what's their theory? That a Baathist/al Qaeda takeover would be good for the women of Iraq? Then there's this:

Can anyone explain what that sign is supposed to mean? It's an article of faith among these ignoramus lefties that the Iraq war must have something to do with oil. But what, exactly? Have these people failed to notice that we haven't exactly seized the Iraqi oilfields? And that, whatever the war's rationale was, it pretty obviously wasn't bringing down the price of gasoline?

Reuters, by the way, misreports the war as it reports on the demonstration:

The marchers demanded an immediate withdrawal of troops, the same day news organizations noted April as being the most deadly month for US troops in Iraq, with at least 69 killed.

That should be, "the most deadly month since November." The madness continues on all fronts.

UPDATE: Joe Malchow points out that Dilbert's creator, Scott Adams, has expressed puzzlement over the "no war for oil" theory:

I don’t understand the theory that we attacked Iraq for oil. Can one of you geniuses explain that to the rest of us?

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?

There isn't any answer to that question. Which, of course, won't stop the lefties from muttering obsessively about "oooiiiillll."