This is why politicians should think before they straight-talk. You might expect this sort of belief from someone who was against the war, but from a supporter, it's a little disconcerting to say the least. ---------------------- MCCAIN TRIES TO CLARIFY AND DEFEND MIDEAST OIL COMMENTS Posted: Friday, May 02, 2008 7:53 PM by Chuck Todd From NBC/NJ's Adam Aigner-Treworgy While traveling on his campaign plane from Denver to Phoenix for a weekend off, John McCain tried to clarify a somewhat controversial statement he had made at a town hall this afternoon about the relationship between America’s dependence on foreign oil and its military involvement in the Middle East. First, the statement in question: “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 – that will then prevent us – that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.” With no senior advisors traveling with the senator today, the campaign’s traveling press secretary Brooke Buchanan came to the back of the plane before landing to defend her boss’ remarks. The initial defense asserted that he was not referring to the current war in Iraq, but America's involvement in the first Gulf War, which was at least partially due to the country’s reliance on foreign oil. After the plane had landed, McCain himself tried to clarify his remarks, at first agreeing with his press secretary: “I was talking about that we had fought the first Gulf War for several reasons. One of them was Saddam Hussein’s invasion and that’s just not something that’s acceptable…but also we didn’t want them to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil. And it’s more important than in any other part of the world.” McCain then summarized his point by basically restating his remarks from earlier in the day: “We will have independency of foreign oil and we will not have to have that as a factor in any conflict that we have to engage in. …I want us to remove our dependency on foreign oil for national security reasons. That’s what I was saying. And that’s all I mean.” But then when specifically asked by an Associated Press reporter if, when he made the statement, he was “thinking about the first Gulf War,” he said no. “No, I was thinking about- it’s not hard to- we will not,” McCain stumbled. “By eliminating our dependency on foreign oil, we will not have to have our national security threatened by a cut off of that oil. Because we will be dependent, because we won’t be dependent, we will no longer be dependent on foreign oil. That’s what my remarks were.” He was sure to emphasize over and over again that the reason he supported the War in Iraq was because he “believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and he was going to use them.” McCain said “the congressional record is replete with that and for me to change my view, how many years later, I mean would, just wouldn’t be logical.”
well it was over oil as well as horrible/questionable/manipulated intelligence used by a foolhardy president that had all the political capital in the world after 9/11. we aren't directly mining that oil and using it for our benefit but we were trying to impose stability in a region we need to be somewhat stable due to our excessive dependence on oil. i can't disagree with anything mccain said there. it will be too bad if he gets ripped for something he didn't express perfectly because he is trying to get the correct idea across. oil is a major national security achilles heel and we have to eliminate our dependence on other nations for it. i will be curious to see what mccain's grand plan will be.
I think Saddam was doing a good job of keeping IRAQ stable. It is just the way he went about doing it was brutal. We have been pretty much using the same engine technology for the last 100 years which is kind of sad.
Anything we do in the Middle East is at least partly motivated by oil. If we did not need oil, or if they did not have oil, most people in this country would have heard if Iraq, but wouldn't know anything about it. We wouldn't have any dealings with that region at all.
This has raised my respect for McCain's Iraq policy by a tiny amount and if he's serious and consistent with Carbon Emissions Regulation, then I'd be seriously interested in his energy proposals. I think McCain has an uphill battle to fight over justifying overthrowing Saddam because of his immense influence in the oil supply. If only because he'll be reframing the arguments the MSM has been feeding to the people for the past 6 years. Though I respect his remarks as a signal that he realizes the problem, a solution would take several years and would need the energy and effort a younger politician would offer...
Of course McCain could set the wheels in motion. He can appoint good people to start the process, and let future administrations build off of it.
I guess he has to prove that he's serious and consistent about energy independence and alternative energy policy. One would be to select a Vice President who has shared that view in the past. Another would be hiring/getting prominent energy advisers who don't bull**** about their views because of outside funding.
Don't you think that if he actually believes we're in Iraq (and need to stay there) for the oil, it represents a major shift from what he's said all along? It's really something that hasn't been argued by many proponents of the war, and it's a case that even McCain hasn't ever made intentionally.
It was one of Bush's shotgun pellets of reasons behind the war, that the sanctions were weakening and that a Saddam controlled Iraq will have the resources and financial capacity to fund and enact a weapons program. It was discarded by the Bush Admin and the war supporting members of the media in reaction to the anti-war's "war for oil" accusation, but there is a clear difference in what McCain has recently said compared to the "war for oil" frame from the anti-war front. By bringing up foreign energy independence, he can still claim that he believes the war was for defensive purposes, like forced oil price and price shocks by Saddam or future weapons capacity after the heat of sanctions goes away. The anti-war accusation of war for oil was that we wanted it for ourselves and our gas guzzling SUVs. I don't know if McCain thinks we need to stay there because of the fear of another Saddam-like despot, but this is a better case than the hokum of "democracy building" that the Bush Admin has shifted course to. Rummy never believed in clear, hold, and build. Donald Rumsfeld wanted to shape up and ship out similar to what current Democrats are proposing now. With recent exploration (first since the 70s), Iraq now has the 2nd largest proven conventional oil reserves in the world and there's optimism that it can surpass Saudi Arabia. The wealth Iraqis possess is of high geostrategic importance. Even if it can be minimized with energy independence, none of Democrats have gone into the possible consequences from a deterioration in Iraq and their response to each of these consequences. So while there is some inconsistencies in past McCain Iraq stances, it is a kind of admission from him that is highly risky (again, political inertia from media conditioning and well entrenched Republican talking points), but very candid in the direction he wants America to go.
This really makes me start to like McCain. IMO, all politicions are bastards. I prefer the "Yes, I am an b*stard, so what?" kind of bastards, not the "I am nice and I am working for you" kind of hypocritical bastards. McCain is at least honest.
Yeah, that's why the guy who decries the lobby industry has lobbyists running his campaign. He's so straight talkin'
McCain may have also inferred that water is wet -- but we'll need to sit back and analyze his comments for hidden meanings/ etc.
Oh yeah, and Obama is such a straight talker. You know, theguy who claims that the average American family will save $2,500 per year by enacting his health care plan with no regard to how much that average family will have to pay additionally in taxes to pay for it. Oh, and that Clinton...what a straight talker. She wouldn't know the truth if it landed on her nose and called her Mama. They are politicians. They are not straight talkers. The two are mutually exclusive.
Obama himself, on Meet the Press this morning, stated that we have an obvious national security interest in the Middle East as it pertains to oil. Everyone knows that. If we follow Obama's ridiculous and totally unproductive pull-out strategy, the stability in that region goes to schit. That impacts us here at home. Imagine what the price of oil would do if Iran rolls into Iraq the day we follow the politicians' timeframe instead of the military commanders timeframe. It's just totally unproductive to say we are going to 'pull-out' of ANY conflict that we are engaged in. Just a naive strategy, embraced by newcomers to politics...
