McCain Admits Iraq War Was for OIL?

Hat tip - DailyKos.

From First Read:

McCain: Iraq war was for oil? Posted: Friday, May 02, 2008 2:07 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, McCain
From NBC/NJ's Adam Aigner-Treworgy

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.

Um....folks.....is this an admission from the Republican Nominee that this debacle, which has cost us 4,000 Precious Lives, Permanently maimed tens of thousands more, is fast approaching 1 TRILLION DOLLARS IN COSTS...

Was all about OIL?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........................................

Well, I agree, but it's something else to hear it from a Republican.

John McCain And 100 Years In Iraq

More on the man whose belief in his own mythology is exceeded only by the media's unwillingness to question it.

John McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years. Period.

And if you're one of those people who things he's been taken out of context, please read this.

Today, the Annenberg Center’s Factcheck.org weighed in on John McCain’s “100 Years” in Iraq comments, claiming that the use of the argument has been distorted. This is just the latest in a series of actions calling into question the use of McCain's remarks, but as the facts show, not only did John McCain say it, he was given repeated opportunities to clarify his position and instead repeated the refrain. If one digs deeper into the comments as the Annenberg Center attempts to do, the facts show that John McCain meant exactly what he said. Further, it demonstrated a distorted view of the war in Iraq demonstrating his lack of understanding of the situation and a “policy” that is as reckless as George W. Bush’s.

More here.

McCain likes to say, "but what I meant was we'd be in Iraq like we were in Korea." Bump that, because he's also said there's no way Iraq ends up like Korea.

Boom.




Let's just make this plain. John McCain is not uniquely qualified to be president. He is not more qualified to be president. He's a man who eeked by at the Naval Academy, served his country as a pilot and POW and bought his way into political office with his wife's money.

He doesn't know diddly squat about the Middle East, and his so-called foreign policy expertise is a myth. I'm not saying he's a bad man. I'm saying he's wrong. He was wrong about getting us into Iraq. He was wrong about us staying there.

What do you think the best recruitment poster for Al Qaeda could possibly be?

AMERICA TO STAY IN IRAQ FOR 100 YEARS.

Give me a break. This dude doesn't know anything. He's huffing and puffing like he's full of gravitas and he still can't tell the difference between Sunni and Shia.

Next.

The Honorable War Hero McCain Doesn't Support A New GI Bill

Support the troops.
Support the troops.
Support the troops.

How many times has legitimate debate about our foreign policy been obscured by calls to "support the troops?" Too many to count.

And yet, when you examine the records of those pro-war people who hide behind the troops, you find that they don't know the first thing about what that support means. It means equipment, training, adequate troop levels, health care, safety from sexual assault, reasonable enlistment standards and financial compensation.

It also means not deploying the troops off to illegally invade and occupy a foreign land, but I'm not even gonna get into that.

John McCain is one of these people who says we should support the troops.

John McCain (as if he could ever let us forget) was a prisoner of war.

Based on his experience in Vietnam, he's considered an expert on military matters. He thinks "honor" is the highest calling, and he thinks a lot of his own sense of that virtue.

But this honorable, troop-supporting, military expert and P.O.W. veteran has been reluctant to support a new GI Bill. And more people need to be calling him on it.

Watch this video put together by Brave New Films, WesPac (Wesley Clark) and VoteVets, then sign the petition. Also read this Op Ed in the LA Times.

CNN Post-Show, Ari Fleischer In The Green Room and More

cross-posted to goodCRIMETHINK

So it's always kind of a big deal to get on primetime TV, and thanks to the entire JJP fam for providing your suggested topics, talking points and coverage throughout the day. Yall are like a community-powered media prep team. Sadly, Governor Ventura's segment went way over, and the blogger segment on CNN's Election Center got cut short.

Here's the video for those who missed it.

That's right. I got one sentence in! Dang! I accomplished my first goal: don't look like an idiot. If you watch my eyes in the closing minutes (after she says the segment's over), you can see them saying "Wha'choo talkin bout Campbell??"

Such is national television, but Jack & Jill Politics is likely to return in the near future to try to represent real thought on the airwaves. Had I known I would only get one sentence, I might have kept my message to Iraq as economic failure, but I think it's worth putting pressure on those who keep saying "No we can't" leave Iraq to ask them just when they think it will be possible.

So that's the on-air part, but what yall missed was the green room where I spent mad time talking with none other than Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. We arrived at about the same time, and I wasn't sure whether to shake his hand or choke him!

The man is disturbingly personable. He's like a genuinely nice and funny person. Here's the killer photo I got of him reading JJP!






We actually didn't talk about politics much and focused on the irony of the CNN green room TV having no sound. I pointed out to him that he was wearing one of those American flag pins. Without missing a beat, he said Barack Obama gave it to him. I said, "yeah, he didn't need to wear his patriotism on his sleeve." Ah, laughing with the enemy.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for your contributions, not just today but in general. It's good to be home.

More Hillary Deception On Her Iraq Record. Enough!

I'm blogging this as much for the information as for the direct style of journalism from Jake Tapper over at ABC who calls a spade a spade. No "misstatements" here.

First the video:

Now the headline/story: In Oregon, Clinton Makes False Claim About Her Iraq Record Vs. Obama's

In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.

But Clinton's claim was false.

Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, "when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did."

It's an odd way to measure opposition to the war -- comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama's opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton's vote for it.)

But even if one were to employ this "Start Counting in January 2005" measurement, Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.

There's a ridiculous pattern out of the Clinton campaign of moving the goal post and changing the rules and measurement in just the right way to make her look good.

In the nominating contest, after Obama won Iowa, they said, "it's about pledged delegates." As his number of state victories increased, they said, "it's not about number of states, it's about the size of the state." Then they said it was about popular vote. Then democratic voters only. Then hypothetical electoral college votes.

This week, they'll say: if you look only at the votes of white women 60 and older who voted for the war, Hillary Clinton hol