Many people, when asked this question, would jump to conclusions and say "Yes" without a doubt. Most of these people wouldn't have much information to back it though. They would merely say something degrading and harsh about Bush. Something like how he's "trying to live up to his daddy's expectations. He has to be better than his dad. They're all about war. Blah blah blah." They would totally smash on him.
Well, I've been studying petroleum in my Applied Biochemistry class, and I asked this very question just today. Here are what my teachers thoughts were on the subject.
My teacher thinks that the high rise in gas prices would have been inevitable, wether we went to Iraq or not. Countries like China and India are making efforts to improve their technology. They want to be able to have the same luxuries as we do; for example, transportation. Petroleum is a resource that is being utilized at a much faster rate than it can be replenished. It's a non-renewable resource. Because we are no longer the only country that has such a high demand for petroleum, the demand is so much higher than the supply.
Now, my teacher thinks that Bush might have definately sped up the process of the increasing gas prices by choosing to go to Iraq, but the rising gas prices would have inevitably gotten as bad as this wether we went to Iraq or not. It just wouldn't have gone this high in such a short time had we not gone to Iraq. It would have made a gradual incline rather than a steep spike into gas price hysteria.
I happen to agree with my science teacher. While Bush did make the incline of gas prices excel at a faster rate by going to Iraq, his decision to go to war with them was not the SOLE reason behind our ridiculously high gas prices.
Thanks for listening
Kaitlyn
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
