McGaffe: McCain admits that we are in the Middle East for the Oil

[rust1d]

Run time: 00:22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzwboGFXrVg   Posted on YouTube: May 02, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: May 02, 2008 By DU Member: rust1d Views on DU: 1358

 
McCain says we are in the Middle East just for Oil.

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.

So, in other words: Once we are energy independent, those crazy bastards over there in the Middle East can just kill each other and we can ignore it and go on not giving two shits just like Darfur and Rowanda.

I can't wait to see Howard Dean beat McCain over the head with this one.

[Muttocracy]

1. I bet he doesn't even realize the depth of what he said... nt

[Acadia Blue]

7. He did not mean to say it, but he said it and now he is trying to change

what he said. Everyone in the world knows this and Americans know it, only the Bush adm. and republicans continue to lie.

[Boz]

8. He knows exactally what he said,its not oil were there for and his hundred year comment was more.

telling.

We are in Iraq for a land war in china. It was a plan originally drafted in the 50s to attack Russia, and why we placed the shah of Iran in power.

In the 70s it shifted to both China and Russia.

With the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of China the plan continued through the 90s and here we stand today following the more than 60 years, over half way through John McCains 100 year war. He even mentioned that was what he was referring to when he said it.

I can explain more if your interested. But we are not in Iraq over oil, it is a byproduct of a war America doesn't even know its fighting.

[uberllama42]

10. Why would we want to fight a land war with China?

We need them to finance our debt and provide us with cheap products. If we invaded them, it would dry up a big source of credit and drive up global interest rates, not to mention disrupting the world supply of all the goods manufactured there. If our goal was to create a global recession, invading China is right behind nuking all the oil fields as an option.

Also, the have somewhere in the neighborhood of ten times as many infantry troops as we do. There's a very good chance we would lose that war. We can't even keep a lid on the last two countries we invaded. What's our motivation for picking a fight with the largest country in the world?

Another thing: After we took over Afghanistan, why would we go to Iraq next? Iraq is in the wrong direction. If China was our target, we would want bases in one of other 'Stans, probably Pakistan or maybe Tajikistan. If the administration thought they were making an advance on China by taking over Iraq, they know even less geography than the average American.

We are in Iraq for many reasons, but setting up a base to invade China is not one of them. Primarily, we wanted to demonstrate that the United States is the world's dominant military power. Many of the war's chief architects, including Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, suggested we do as much as part of the Project for a New American Century in 1998. They sent an open letter to Bill Clinton urging him to do just what they did when they were in power five years later.

"NO blood for oil" relies on an oversimplification of the geopolitics behind the invasion. We only care about the Middle East because of its oil, but we didn't invade Iraq specifically because we wanted to rob its people of their oil. If we didn't need oil, we wouldn't be in the Middle East, but you're right in saying that oil was not the proximal cause of the war in Iraq. The real situation is a little bit closer to what McCain said.

[Boz]

11. Iraq is jump base zero,

You are correct that the attack would come from one of the stans, Iraq is just the inland supply chain hub for the stans.

The green zone is a centralized PX with supply lines including newly built oil pipelines to two uncutable ocean front landlines and and a third ocean to hub air supply out of turkey. Iraq is not the attack launch it is the uninterpretable supply chain.

Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, suggested we do as much as part of the Project for a New American Century in 1998

Every one of them and every point in it goes back to 1974-1976 which included the placement of Bush senior as head of the CIA in 76 and the Iran fiasco of 79-80 with the Ayatola.

[Journeyman]

2. Why can't he speak about his energy policy NOW? . . .

Why must we wait for a grand unveiling of his glorious energy policy? He's 72 years old, been in government service for decades -- hasn't he thought through his energy policy by now? What more does he need to know to formulate it?

Reminds me of a doddering old fool, standing with one slipper inside the bathroom door, the other out, unable to recall if he's going to the can or if he's just finished. . .

[Old and In the Way]

3. You mean 'Operation Iraqi Liberation' { OIL}

wasn't about bringing down Saddam or bringing democracy to Iraq? I'm shocked.

[SaveOurSovereignty]

4. hahaha, Ron will see you at the convention Mr.McAlzheimer's

Im sure the msm will say he misspoke

[fascisthunter]

5. But He Doesn't Care if It's for 100 Years...

How can anyone take this guy serious?


oh and, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. He'll be in an assisted-living unit by Obama's inauguration day

Go, Johnny, go.
Go, Johnny, go,
Go Johnny B nuts..................

:boring: :boring:

[Hulk]

9. The man is a senile idiot.

It would mean four more years of turning our government over to the likes of rove, cheney, halliburton, and all the other corporate heads.

God help us and the world should that ever happen.