McCain Moment... it's not that important

[Loyal Rogue]

Democrats have argued that the war was over oil...

Actually, the only one I can find or remember that used those words is Alan Greenspan, and he is a Republican.
I can find a lot of quotes from Democrats saying that Bush mislead or lied us into the war, but not saying the war was over oil.
Of course, that's just from memory and a quick Google search. You may have other knowledge that proves me wrong.

[FlashLackey]

In this case, I was referring to Democrats at large. Of course, many elected Democrats are not in a position to make that argument because they authorized the war.

Greenspan said that "the Iraq war is largely about oil." When asked about that again, he said: 'while securing global oil supplies "was not the administration's motive," it should have been.'

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3267685.shtml

[gerbick]

Then point to who has said "it's all about oil"...

[FlashLackey]

Democrats have.

[FlashLackey]

I'm not sure how anyone can deny that many have argued that the war is over oil and that the majority of those making the argument are Democrats or some other variation of liberal. I was not referring to elected Democrats. But, if you guys really need specific examples of that, here you go:

The legislative debate between the Congressional Democrats and the Republicans misses the point of the key issue regarding the invasion, occupation and long term US presence in Iraq - - oil.

- Dennis Kucinich (D)

Overthrowing Iran in 1953 was all about oil. Invading Iraq was all about oil. And the new secret plot against Iran is all about oil.

- Jim McDermott (D)

[gerbick]

I think that you're reaching a bit. Nobody has stated it as simply as you've stated.

Without straight proof, I'd have to mark your remarks as inconclusive. You've "heard" it, but can't quite prove it. Greenspan was (so far) the only person that's said it outright. Perhaps a few smaller officials, but no smoking gun as you continued to point out. The snippets aren't... I dunno dude. In full context - I'm assuming you're mentioning one of these speeches - I'd ask one question... do you disagree?

Hope you understand why I kept asking. I can't say that anybody has been as definite as you continue to try to be about that. Thanks for trying.

[FlashLackey]

You asked who said it's "all about oil." Jim McDermott literally said "Invading Iraq was all about oil."

If the other Kucinich statement wasn't "clear" enough, how about this:

As I have said for five years, this war is about oil.

I'm not stating that from memory. That is verbatum what those two Democrats have said.

[gerbick]

Reluctantly, I'll pull this out...

My friends, I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

Read more here. Mind you, it's not as direct as...

I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil

But it has the same connotation. I'm surprised you've overlooked Biden's remarks though. He's been quite a bit vocal about the price of oil going up and blames the current administration.

And surprised that Cheney stated something like this...

Oil is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida," the vice president said. "We're not doing it, the Chinese are, in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply

And it's not even remotely true. Read more here...

In context, I'm still at a bit of disagreement with your statements about how it's only Democrats stating it as such... so far it's been two or three people. Greenspan wasn't a democrat. One is a historical reprise of what happened in 1953 and how it parallels now. One is pretty straight on... but it doesn't equate to "DEMOCRATS" as you've kept saying.

A FEW Democrats... and I'd agree. But you keep saying it in an absolute manner. And it's not.

[FlashLackey]

I'm not saying it in an absolute manner. I have said that "Democrats have argued..." That is a fact.

In order to make it absolute, I would have to have said something like "All Democrats have argued..."

I also didn't say that nobody else made the argument. In order to do that, I would have to have said something like "only Democrats have argued..."

Originally, I was referring to Democrats at large rather than elected Democrats. I am confident that the "it was all about oil" argument is, in fact, argued by Democrats more than any other [party in the US]. I'll take that a step further and say that I believe it is probably the most commonly believed reason for why we went to war by Democrats. I can't say that I have empirical evidence like a poll or anything to prove that. I've just followed the story and talked with enough people about it to have heard or read that claim made well over 100 times since the invasion. Do you not believe that many Democrats believe that the war was all about oil? If not, what do you think [they think] it was about?

[gerbick]

Democrats have.

that's not absolute?

[hanratty21]

No. It's not. You took it out of context.

Democrats have argued...

...this does not mean 'ALL democrats have argued' or 'Democrats have ONLY argued.'

Damnit - where is that Democrat Liquefaction process already...

[CVO Chris]

This thread wasn't even about the Dem's to begin with. The first time they are mentioned is in your first post Flashlackey (post #5). In that you immediately jump to the conclusion that what Fret's posted was critical of the republicans when he made an observation only.

Just saying that as an outsider reading these threads; it seems you are constantly trying to shift the focus on to the Dem's whenever the topic is obviously about McCain. No one even compared the Dem position to that of McCain but you keep bringing that in to the equation.

I can tell you're a republican but all I read in your posts are critics of the democrats rather than glorification of the republican position in whatever said topic. I don't know much about american politics but am loving these threads where you and LR are picking each other apart. Having said that I get the feeling that your only defense is to pick on the other party to deflect the bad policy/speech/decision made by your own.

*stands back*

[gerbick]

No. It's not. You took it out of context.

There's no more content than "Democrats have." What you're quoting is an assumption, not something I'd rather do with FL. To bring up Democrats in a thread where there was no mention of it - I was wondering if I were the only person that saw that too - sounds like "other" or "over there"... meaning an absolute it's not "us" or "here". Therefore... absolute.

As far as it goes though; I'd rather get back to what's really the problem... this whole "stay the course" mentality that McCain embodies without giving one iota of what's next other than "it's not important that the troops come home" (paraphrase) mentality.

I guess it's ok if they come home either dead, maimed, crippled, or shell-shocked though. Or worse... if they share the same fate as Mr. McCain... become a prisoner of war.

It's not a good look nor policy. And not having an idea of what's really going to happen in any set time has gotten us into a situation where we'd be way better off annexing Afghanistan and Iraq as some form of territory - **** it, let's be imperialist, worked for the Dutch and Brits - or do something that makes more sense than what we're doing... "staying the course".

What course? And not some cookie-cutter response that

I'm back on track. Let's see how long that happens.

[japangreg]

What is dubious about those claims? They are facts.

psst, FL - someone would like to have a word with you...

[japangreg]

* rubs eyes *

Is Obama not an elected Democrat?...

...In this case, I was referring to Democrats at large. Of course, many elected Democrats are not in a position to make that argument because they authorized the war...

...Democrats have.

<face+palm>

Okay - Obama is an elected Democrat, and he did not vote for the use of force authorization: has he ever said the Iraq war was all about oil? If not, how is this not just some partisan hackery equal to or worse than what you are alledging Frets committed, using Obama's name in conjunction with an assertion that is, on its face, absurd?

[japangreg]

...and since I'm doing the multi-post thing anyway, let me just interject a bit on the last point of contention: staw men. It's been the bane of political discourse for at least as long as Bush has been allowed to make public speeches.

Phrase like "some people," "some democrats," "Democrats/Republicans," etc. are lazy and, in reality, dishonest methods of making points when slung out without proof: although I won't contest FL's claim that most of the people who have suggested Iraq was about oil are liberal and/or Democrats, I make that judgement based on the same thing he did - an assumption.

And, as such, I would hope that I am honest enough in my arguments to temper any claim based on that assumption with the qualifiers necessary to show that I am not using my own assumption as the basis for an entire group, which is what seems to have been done here. "Democrats at large" does not mean two specific individuals, and unless you have actually seen or heard the party affiliations of unelected, private citizens making such claims, you really do not know, do you?

I can't claim to be innocent of the same problem during these discussions, but it does not add anything to the discussion to try to defend what you must have known was an overly-broad generalization as some type of attack.

[FlashLackey]

This thread wasn't even about the Dem's to begin with. The first time they are mentioned is in your first post Flashlackey (post #5). In that you immediately jump to the conclusion that what Fret's posted was critical of the republicans when he made an observation only.

I didn't do anything but respond directly to what Fret's posted to start the thread. Within the context of Fret's body of posts on this subject, it was relevant to mention the Democrats (if I'm not mistaken, Dennis Kucinich was Fret's favorite candidate for the Democrats). So, I was questioning why he would mock McCain for making the same statements people he agrees with do. I thought there might be some reason I was missing.

The rest of the Dem talk was simply me defending my initial, on-topic statement.

Just saying that as an outsider reading these threads; it seems you are constantly trying to shift the focus on to the Dem's whenever the topic is obviously about McCain. No one even compared the Dem position to that of McCain but you keep bringing that in to the equation.

I understand that you're having this impression. But, I don't think there is evidence to support it. A lot of the political commenting lately has been in threads started about Obama, a Democrat. It's also that there are relatively few (if any) members on this forum that make similar threads from the opposing perspective (ie. pro-McCain, anti-Obama). If there were, and comments were over-board in my view, I would say so.

As I've pointed out before, I don't have any motivation to prop up McCain. I think he's a horrible candidate and stands for a myriad of things that I don't support.

I can tell you're a republican but all I read in your posts are critics of the democrats rather than glorification of the republican position in whatever said topic. I don't know much about american politics but am loving these threads where you and LR are picking each other apart. Having said that I get the feeling that your only defense is to pick on the other party to deflect the bad policy/speech/decision made by your own.

I am only Republican as much as they are conservative. And that isn't much these days. Again, I am not defending McCain as being a good candidate. There is plenty about him that I would be happy to join in being critical about. But, fair is fair and if I read something that seems over-board to me, I'm going to offer my perspective on it. As much hostility as I feel that there is from some people here toward me, I like to think that my input helps make some of these threads more lively than they would be without. Like you said, you're loving the threads where LR and I go at it. I think highly of LR and enjoy the threads too. It wouldn't be difficult for me to find some forum where everyone agrees with me. But, I don't think it would do anything to further my thought and understanding of these subjects. It's much more interesting to put yourself out there amongst diverse thoughts, imo.

psst, FL - someone would like to have a word with you...

Right. He agrees with Bush on some things and disagrees on others. Relative to all other elected Republicans, he has probably disagreed with Bush more than any other. That is probably the reason why the interviewer was compelled to question him about that specifically. I didn't say that he hates Bush and would never say anything good about him or never admit that he agrees with him on some things.

<face+palm>

Okay - Obama is an elected Democrat, and he did not vote for the use of force authorization: has he ever said the Iraq war was all about oil? If not, how is this not just some partisan hackery equal to or worse than what you are alledging Frets committed, using Obama's name in conjunction with an assertion that is, on its face, absurd?

Why is it partisan and not just a discussion? Is anything that makes Obama look bad necessarily partisan?

I don't know that Obama has made the "all about oil" statement. I wasn't clear enough there. Obama is an elected Democrat who argues for lessening our dependence on foreign oil. I can assure you that I was not intentionally trying to tie Obama to the "all about oil" statement that other Democrats have made. Anyway, other elected Democrats have made both arguments. So, I should have used a different example.

I was speaking about Democrats at large rather than elected only. I don't have empirical evidence to prove it. But, I believe that if you conducted a poll asking Democrats: "Do you believe that the invasion of Iraq was a war over oil?" and "Do you believe the US should try to reduce their dependence on foreign oil?" a LOT of people would check both boxes. I would honestly be surprised to find that anyone who has followed the subject would deny that.

...and since I'm doing the multi-post thing anyway, let me just interject a bit on the last point of contention: staw men.

Let me interject about this point of contention: ad hominem.

I have been completely forthright about what I do and do not have evidence for. I don't really need to be personally chastised for doing something that is perfectly ordinary in an adult conversation.

It is neither lazy or dishonest to make a point with no further proof than your own observations. Life would be pretty unbearable if formal proof were the standard requirement for all communication. The only thing that lack of proof means is that it's not as persuasive to someone who might disagree. If my intention was to persuade anyone on this board, I would have given up years ago. The observation in question is one that I didn't expect anyone would contest. If people do, that's ok by me and I have to cede that I can't make a formal case for it.

[gerbick]

ooh, ooh... me next, me next

[Frets]

-Yes I am a fan of Dennis Kucinich
-Yes I believe that the iraq war was about oil and U.S. expansionism reborn.
So does republican Ron Paul set time to 3:20

-So does the CBC http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/08/iraq-oil.html
-Turkey wants a piece of iraq's oil
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2635043.stm

-No I am not an average Democrat.

Wish I could find Obama's response right now.

[FlashLackey]

Ok. So, what was your beef with McCain suggesting that it was about oil and that we should lessen our dependence on foreign oil?