Today's Progress Report had this:

....Besides failing to join diplomatic talks, the U.S. may be fueling Iran's nuclear ambitions in one other way: According to the New York Times's Thomas Friedman, high oil prices resulting from the Bush administration's energy policy have bolstered the financial outlook of the mullahs in Tehran, allowing them to be self-sufficient without any help from foreign investment. According to the Wall Street Journal, conservatives in Iran's regime have begun shunning outside investment, "a jolt to a European plan aimed at using diplomacy and the prospect of increased foreign investment to coax Iran to give up a suspected nuclear-arms program." As Friedman points out, "by adamantly refusing to do anything to improve energy conservation in America," President Bush is "financing both sides of the war on terrorism…the U.S. armed forces with our tax dollars, and, through our profligate use of energy," economic insulation for terrorist-supporting regimes in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan....

As much as I admire Progress Report for bring to light the multitude of the Bush-war Administration's illegal actions, this is a bit of a stretch. It implies that the high oil prices are a result of Bush-war's energy policies. If anything, the B-w policy is keeping energy prices artificially low so that Americans don't buy more energy-efficient products/autos (the normal response to rising prices). As long as we keep purchasing energy-wasting appliances and vehicles, the oil companies can keep raking in the hundreds of billions in short-term profits each time there is an artificial spike in oil prices (remember last year?). So I think the authors of Progress Report should go back and do their homework more thoroughly before tossing around such accusations.