10) More diplomatic-leaning members of the administration, especially Colin Powell, would avoid any sort of engagement that would tend to anger citizens of the middle east any more than they already are.  Not everyone in the Bush administration is a unilateralist crackpot.

9) Bush has more of a vested interest in preserving relations with Saudi Arabia than he does in pandering to the Oil lobby.  Exploiting Iraqi oil resources would send relations with the Saudis into the toilet, which is just about the last thing Bush (or the Saudis) needs.

8) If "Big Oil" was in control of our policies in the Gulf War, why did gasoline prices go DOWN after the gulf war?  Common sense would have dictated they should go UP if "Big Oil" wanted to squeeze profits out of the situation.

7) The international coalition that currently gives a measure of credibility for Bush's campaign to invade Iraq is tenuous at best, and feels more than a little resentful and bullied.  In the face of any evidence of exploitation of the Iraq situation for domestic benefit, that alliance would crumble.

6) Any interruption in the flow of oil from the middle east (hypothetically increasing the profits of remaining providers, such as those headquartered in Houston) would send gas prices skyrocketing.  It would be 1973 all over again, with daily rationing and long lines, damaging an already-weak economy.  With the current state of the economy, why would Bush let that happen and hurt his chances for 2004?

5) Speaking of the 2004 election, exploitation of the Iraqi markets would in itself be a huge gift to the Democratic party in their bid to unseat Bush.  In polls, Americans already aren't too trusting of Bush's relationships with industry as it is; such an event would be Bush pouring fuel on his own fire.

4) Any attempt to co-opt Iraqi oil production for our own purposes would require a large and sustained presence of American military in Iraq, sort of nation-building in reverse, a la Chechnya.  Bush wasn't even willing to commit to such a huge and prolonged exertion of the US military in helping Afghanistan dig itself out of the rubble - why on earth would it do it in the face of a hostile Iraq?

3) ...along the same lines, such a military presence would inflame the rest of the world to outrage, not to mention would inspire frequent Iraqi riots that would start sending American GI's home in boxes.  That's public-relations death to any president, as LBJ and Carter would tell you.

2) If American media smelled some sort of plot regarding the involvement of big business in Iraqi oilfields, you can bet they'd milk it for all it was worth in the papers and TV shows.  The media have a supposed bias towards liberal reporting - why wouldn't they go after that?

And finally

1) In 1991, when we had Kuwait flowing with our troops, and Iraq next door for the asking, not only did we leave Kuwait alone, but we pushed for a UN resolution that included holding Iraq responsible for any damage to Kuwaiti oilfields.  We have a historical track record saying we wouldn't take advantage of such a situation!