Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
At the conclusion of a town hall held this morning outside in Denver, McCain decided to toss in a plug for his upcoming energy policy rollout. But in the midst of decrying the dangers of Americans reliance on foreign oil, McCain seemed to suggest that this reliance caused the current struggle in Iraq.
"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, McCain said.
There were only two credible reasons for invading Iraq: control over oil and preservation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Yet the government has kept silent on these factors, instead treating us to the intriguing distractions of the Hutton and Butler reports.
Butler's overall finding of a "group think" failure was pure charity. Absurdities like the 45-minute claim were adopted by high-level officials and ministers because those concerned recognised the substantial reason for war - oil. WMD provided only the bureaucratic argument: the real reason was that Iraq was swimming in oil.
Some may still believe the eve-of-war contention by Donald Rumsfeld that "We won't take forces and go around the world and try to take other people's oil ... That's not how democracies operate." Maybe others will go along with Blair's post-war contention: "There is no way whatsoever, if oil were the issue, that it would not have been infinitely easier to cut a deal with Saddam."
PHOENIX - Republican John McCain was forced to clarify his comments Friday 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.
So I guess when all the bush apologists and neo-cons said it WASN'T about oil, they were lying?
Oh wait... we knew that... but the apologists would have called this "lefty"...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/28/iraq.usa
ooh... lookie... lookie...
if it wasn't a gaffe, then why is mccain backtracking?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080502/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iraq_5
Answer: Because it was a gaffe and he accidentally told the truth. Funny how he needs to "backtrack" from the truth.
ooh... lookie... lookie...
if it wasn't a gaffe, then why is mccain backtracking?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080502/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iraq_5
Answer: Because it was a gaffe and he accidentally told the truth. Funny how he needs to "backtrack" from the truth.
It's about oil. All those lives were sacrificed for the oil companies. Does that make you feel good?
Jeez it took you lot long enough to work it out.
Wrong again, but then who would have expected one of the village idiots to be right.
It hasn't always been known as Operation Iraqi Freedom:
"United States military operations were conducted under the codename Operation Iraqi Liberation. The codename was later changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom." 2003 invasion of Iraq - Military aspects
I wonder how long it took them to realize that the acronym of the original name was OIL?
They say a gaffe in politics is when someone accidentally tells the truth:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/02/974014.aspx
It's about oil. All those lives were sacrificed for the oil companies. Does that make you feel good?
Jeez it took you lot long enough to work it out.
So I guess when all the bush apologists and neo-cons said it WASN'T about oil, they were lying?
Oh wait... we knew that... but the apologists would have called this "lefty"...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/28/iraq.usa
Careful Jill. The retired gunnery dude will be calling you a liar soon. It seems that is his mantra as of late.
