 |
|
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Old Pro |
PHOENIX, Arizona (AP) -- Republican Sen. John McCain has been forced to clarify his comments suggesting the Iraq war involved U.S. reliance on foreign oil. He said he was talking about the first Gulf War and not the current conflict.
At issue was a comment he made at a town hall-style meeting Friday morning in Denver, Colorado. "My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East," McCain said. The presumptive GOP nominee sought to clarify his remarks later Friday after his campaign plane landed in Phoenix. He said he didn't mean the U.S. went to war in Iraq five years ago over oil. "No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons," McCain told reporters. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/03/mccain.iraq.ap/index.html He made the comments right before saying that Senator Clinton and Obama want to set a date for withdraw...clearly not a reference to desert storm. See the context here... Video: Run time: 00:42 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9hwdB5P-o0 |
||
|
Educated |
Apparently, it was only the MSM and Democrats who were unaware that wars in the middle east had to do with two factors prior to 9/11: 1. Oil supply security 2. Protecting Israel Now there is a third matter. 3. GWOT McCain was NOT "forced" to do anything. He took the time for the one-hundredth time to explain to those who had purposefully distorted his original comments for their own purposes, what he meant in the first place which they knew all along. End of discussion. |
|||
|
Old Pro |
I assume GWOT stands for "GOP War On Truth" because that's what they have been waging for 8 years, using a variety of tactics including stories published in prominent newspapers that were ghost-written by White House staffers. The only distortion here is the GOP's lie that the troop deployment to Iraq has anything to do with
ANYTHING other than keeping the beast fed. Military contractors need money to survive, and the Pentagon needs a war to justify the toys they buy. |
|||
|
|
Educated |
I once had thoughts that ran along those lines too... 40 years ago. |
|||
|
|
Old Pro |
I agree, I don't think he meant to talk about military actions in the middle concurrent with a discussion on energy policy. What I do find somewhat concerning is his explanation Friday. Clearly, he wasn't talking about Desert Storm because he said Obama and Clinton want to withdraw troops (aka allow Iraqi security to take over their own country). We have an interest in the area and it does have to do with energy policy. Now, I do not agree with others who suggest that the war was for oil. I think the Cheney hardliners really believed a sort of capitalist/democracy reverse domino theory, that a vibrant free market economy and democracy in the middle east would set about a movement that would spread to the rest of the area. Now, first, what a naive theory and second, McCain had a moment that was consistent with his campaign theme of a strait talk express, this time though, it was unintentional. The truth is, that if Sadam had been a dictator-thug in Sudan, and killing 10 times as many as he did in Iraq, the United States would have done close to nothing. Oil was a factor, not in the war in Iraq but in American middle eastern policy for decades. We kissed Sadam and sold him WMD material when it suited us and invaded him after we helped supervise its destruction when it also suited us. Sudan and Rwanda? Well, we have massive genocides and what did we do? We referred it to the African Union. It is time for America, because its people demand it, to do what is right not what is in our own selfish interests. It is also time to demand evidence, to have a President that is able and willing to review that evidence thoroughly before decisions that result in the deaths of hundreds and thousands of people are made. That person is not McCain and it certainly isn't Clinton. This message has been edited. Last edited by: Seth Jackson, |
|||
|
|
Old Pro |
So what's changed? |
|||
|
Old Pro |
I hope you are not suggesting the Democrats are truthful? If so we can start to their own peoples statements in the 90s about Sadam, their own party's faithful receiving money now and in the past from Big Oil (while pointing fingers the other way), and the the current joke about ethics reform (so mannnnnnnny loopholes) and then their is the earmark reform joke. Neither party understands the truth, but both partys and some local supporters ARE EXPERTS ON TWISTING THE TRUTH; SOMETHING OBAMA HAS CLEARLY SHOWN NHE KNOWS HOW TO DO. |
|||
|
|
Educated |
Two major wars, four kids, four wives, and a lot of battle scars... |
|||
|
|
Educated |
McCain or Obama would probably work out as perfectly fine presidents... but, they like all presidents will have to cope with a cranky Congress and the unbelievable power of major industrialists in worldwide financial markets. I don't envy either of them... but I do reserve the right to be optimistic on their behalf. |
|||
|
|
Old Pro |
And don't forget Bosnia. But tell me, whose administration did Darfur happen under? |
|||
|
|
Old Pro |
Did you not listen to what he said? He said: "Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to set a date for withdraw, that's what they want to do, is to get ever body out. I believe that would lead to ____. [Is that not a statement about the war in Iraq?] I just want to promise you this, I will have an energy policy [I think it is fair to say that is pertaining to energy policy], which will eliminate our dependency on oil in the middle east, that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the middle east." [He wasn't talking about a verbal confrontation at the local bazaar] |
|||
|
|
Old Pro |
I have criticized Clinton's inaction in Rwanda a number of times and he has done so himself but I am also fairly critical of Bush's lack of action relative to Darfur, which began in what 2003? |
|||
|
|
Educated |
Okay, YOU tell us all under which administration Darfur "happened." I assume you are prepared to defend the position that Darfur's tragedy can be traced to a specific beginning under the Bush administration for which they, and they alone, are totally responsible? The newly formed, and being set up as we speak, African Command is promising, and long overdue. And what is more, under this administration a great deal of assistance has gone to Darfur in a variety of ways. The people in that region have asked that the African Union take the lead role, and so they have taken it. We wouldn't want to be in a position of "imposing our hegemonic designs" over there, would we?  Why would it be legitimate, by the way, to "invade" Sudan (and surrounding areas) for humanitarian reasons in order to liberate Darfur, and not to do something like that to liberate Shi'ite and other victims of religious genocide or brutal dictatorship? Good luck to Obama, for that matter, in dealing with Darfur. THAT is gonna be a big challenge for him, as for McCain... not that race will play any role in the decisions, of course. |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Hey Martha... | ||
| Servlet | eve1da054 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Joplin, MO" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
