'Bomb Bomb' McCain lets the cat out of the bag

Yesterday senile Sen. McCain admitted the Iraq invasion was all about oil. We all knew this but no Reichwinger was previously willing to say it. His campaign tried to backpedal without success.

"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." - John McCain

Remember how outraged the Repubs and Fox noise were at the start of the occupation when anyone suggested it was about oil?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...i_n_99866.html

"Think about how amazing this is. McCain is essentially saying that our quest to “spread democracy” throughout the Middle East is a sham. It has nothing to do with freeing oppressed people, or protecting Israel, or defending ourselves against future attacks. It’s about gaining control of foreign oil. Stunning. Will this get any significant media play?"

“You know, if somebody else were to say that, they would be accused of being a communist, or radical, or a leftist…for John McCain, a war hero, to say that we’re fighting in the Middle East to protect our oil sources is an astounding development.”

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/0...-was-over-oil/

That is something special that McCain has virtually admitted the fact that the war was about oil. But my question is why has the oil connection never got much media attention when it was obvious from the start? The worlds largerst oil consumer nation (until recently) is supposedly threatened by the much smaller country with the world second largest oil reserves. Why doesn’t Democratic leadership speak out? And what about religious leaders speaking out (besides Al Sharpton)?

Hello yodajazz. The mainstream media ( other than Keith Olbermann) has treated Bush with kid gloves since day one. The Reichwing spin machine, headed by Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh and the clowns at Fox Noise, is pretty damn good at the disinformation game. Media and Democratic politicians alike were scared to death of seeming unpatriotic at a time when public emotions were running high. Phil Donohue and Bill Maher lost their tv shows for questioning the Iraq invasion.

Bush and his surrogates continually threaten White House reporters with a lack of access if they ask hard questions. Big-money 'superstar' reporters are scared of killing their careers if Bush stops calling on them. Also the major networks are in bed with defense contractors. NBC is owned by GE - it's surprising that Olbermann even has a job. I'm sure you've heard the latest scandal about retired military 'analysts' employed by tv news. Many were regularly briefed by, and using talking points of, the DOD ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...e_n_99815.html ).

Hopefully, there's light at the end of the tunnel. Republicans have simply gone too far over the past seven years. Numerous scandals and a flood of retirements (rats fleeing a sinking ship) have hurt their image with middle-of-the-road voters. Most 'Joe Lunchbox' types I talk to think Rove is a joke. Fox is losing viewers. Limbaugh's singing about dreaming of riots at the Dem National Convention has turned off his 'average' listeners and a Democrat has just won a congressional seat in Louisiana that Repubs had held for 33 years - a good sign for next years elections. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...008-05-03.html

Thanks for the article link. That makes a lot of sense how things work out. In this article a news analyst defended the military consultants this way:

Quote:

---

“But beyond that, the story has had surprisingly few ripple affects within the political or journalism worlds. Brian Williams of NBC, for example, came to the defense of the analysts the network employed, writing, "At no time did our analysts, on my watch or to my knowledge, attempt to push a rosy Pentagon agenda before our viewers. I think they are better men than that, and I believe our news division is better than that."

---

I would say overlooking that build up to the the Iraq war among other things. The part about the direct access to military contractors is scary to think about, although I am not quite clear on what they are saying. I will re-read it later.

And speaking of that Louisana election, an interesting fact was the the former represetative quit in order to become a lobbyist. He must have gotten a big salary increase to do that. I remember a while ago reading how my congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones had gone on all these trips, somt of which were sponsored by lobbyists. There is a lot of big money being thrown around, it seems.

This brings to mind the second big Iraq justification, that we are “exporting democracy”. That kind of rings hollow when I look at how our own democracy works in reality.

How can the democrats speak out about a war they overwhelmingly supported?This makes Sen Obama,Ron Paul,and Ralph Nader legitimate versus the other candidates on this issue.Also,will any of the candidates speak out about the banana republic in the Middle East which makes up 98% of our foreign policy and less than 2% of our population?Guess who I am talking about?

Democrats did not 'overwhelmingly' support the invasion of Iraq. In the House, 126 Dems voted against the war while only 81 voted to support it. 21 Dem senators voted against it, 29 voted in favor.

The USA/Israel connection is a two way street. Israel has been our surrogate in the Middle East when we wanted to work behind the scenes. There are reports that Israel has been used for training and money funneling to some of the trash the US has backed in Latin America as well.

"This relationship can be best illustrated by recently declassified 1983 US government documents obtained by the Washington, DC-based National Security Archives through the Freedom of Information Act.
One such declassified document is a 1983 memo from the notorious Colonel Oliver North of the Reagan Administration's National Security Council and reads: "As discussed with you yesterday, I asked CIA, Defense, and State to suggest practical assistance which the Israelis might offer in Guatemala and El Salvador."
Another document, this time a 1983 cable from the US Ambassador in Guatemala to Washington Frederic Chapin shows the money trail.
He says that at a time when the US did not want to be seen directly assisting Guatemala, "we have reason to believe that our good friends the Israelis are prepared, or already have, offered substantial amounts of military equipment to the GOG (Government of Guatemala) on credit terms up to 20 years...(I pass over the importance of making huge concessionary loans to Israel so that it can make term loans in our own backyard)."
In other words, during civil wars in which the US does not want to be seen getting its hands dirty in Latin America, the superpower loans Israel money at a very good rate, and then Israel uses these funds to do the "dirty work". In this regard, in Latin America at least, Israel has become the hit-man for the US." http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Is...ailTerror.html