This morning, Hillary Clinton blamed OPEC for high oil prices and said that she was committed to "ending" their "monopoly."

Ignoring the sheer ignorance of her premise, it got me wondering where she stands on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  Because, as far as I know, the only way to end a "monopoly" is to bring competition to the market.  And America doesn't have many options in that regard.

My research showed that Hillary's voting record is clear: she is unequivocally opposed to drilling in ANWR.  How, then, would she end OPEC's monopoly over the oil supply?

In the coming weeks, I expect to see a renewed and energetic assault on ANWR.  Bush fired the opening volley in his speech yesterday, and unless I'm mistaken, we'll soon be watching a parade of "experts" trotted out to make the case that drilling in ANWR is our last hope and salvation.  John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil, appeared on CNN this morning to make precisely that case.  The argument he made, and one we will hear over and over, is that "we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil"--the keyword here being the term "foreign."  The argument is no longer valid, and never really was.  The projected reserves in ANWR would do little to address America's petroleum needs, and most experts agree it would likely be 10 years or more before the oil started to flow into the Lower 48.  Besides, in the face of threats from global warming and terrorism in the Gulf region, our dependence on foreign oil is no longer the problem.  It's our dependence on oil.  ALL oil.

The Republicans have a vested interest in allowing oil prices to continue to remain high.  High oil prices create anxiety among consumers and anxious consumers eventually accept formerly unacceptable solutions as a way to ease their pain.  As the attacks on 9/11 created a casus belli for the Iraq invasion, high gasoline prices will allow Big Oil to make the case that we must open ANWR to drilling.  And anxious consumers may just be inclined to go along this time.  But make no mistake: this isn't about the oil.  It's about the war against environmentalism.  In the eyes of American business, a "win" by environmentalists in ANWR sets a dangerous precedent.  They want to destroy America's last pristine wilderness in order to defeat and dishearten the tree huggers.  That's the cake.  The oil is merely the icing.

Hillary has already proposed a moratorium on the Federal gasoline tax.  Most experts agree this would increase demand over the summer, drive prices higher, and do little to ease short-term pain at the pump.  Now she's talking about ending OPEC's monopoly position in the supply of oil.

The question is: is Hillary truly committed to ending OPEC's monopoly?  And if so, how would she accomplish it?  Will she do it by committing America to an absolute path toward energy independence by ending our dependence on ALL oil?  Or will she give in to Big Oil pressure to tap our last remaining petroleum reserve?

Hillary Clinton is simultaneously vowing to end OPEC's monopoly, protect ANWR, and drive demand for oil up over the summer by lowering gasoline prices.  One or more of these proposals is a lie, and all three are in conflict.

You can't have it three ways, Hillary.  Pick a side.