McCain says Iraq War Winnable

[ryr8828]

And he stakes his Presidential hopes on it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040602202_pf.html

McCain to Stake Bid On Need to Win in Iraq
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 7, 2007; A01

Sen. John McCain (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/) (R-Ariz.) will launch a high-profile effort next week to convince Americans that the Iraq war is winnable, embracing the unpopular conflict with renewed vigor as he attempts to reignite his stalling bid for the presidency.
With the Virginia Military Institute as a backdrop, McCain plans to argue in a speech on Wednesday that victory in Iraq is essential to American security and that President Bush's war machine is finally getting on track after four years, aides and advisers said.
McCain's rosy assessment of safety on Iraq's streets after his recent visit to a Baghdad marketplace was mocked by many, prompting him to tell a television reporter that he "misspoke" and now regrets the comments. But, in the interview to be broadcast tomorrow, the senator sticks by his defense of the overall war effort, predicting that failure in Iraq would be "catastrophic."
It is a gamble at a critical time for the former front-runner for the Republican nomination, the political equivalent of a "double-down" in blackjack, as one person close to the campaign put it. A candidate once seen as the almost inevitable winner, McCain is struggling in the polls and this week placed dead last in fundraising among the three top Republican and three top Democratic contenders.
McCain's supporters say that though he is not declaring "mission accomplished," he has little choice but to enthusiastically renew his support for the war.
"You can't get around the elephant in the room, which is Iraq," said Rep. Rick Renzi (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/r000574/) (R-Ariz.), who discussed the speech with McCain as the pair flew back together from a congressional visit to Iraq this week.
In the interview on CBS News's "60 Minutes," McCain responds to criticism of the marketplace comments by saying, "Of course I am going to misspeak, and I've done it on numerous occasions, and I probably will do it in the future," according to excerpts released by the network.
But McCain also says, according to excerpts, "I believe we can succeed." And he urges viewers to "support this new strategy, let's support this new general and let's give it everything we can to have it succeed."
The Iraq speech will be the first of three major policy addresses McCain will give in the coming weeks as he prepares to officially announce his candidacy, with stops beginning in New Hampshire and ending in Arizona at the end of the month. He will give a speech about taxes, trade and government waste on April 16 and a lecture on domestic policy, perhaps emphasizing energy issues, a week later, according to advisers.
Together, aides hope, the speeches and remarks will serve as a reintroduction of McCain to voters, helping to ignite some of the same kind of passion his candidacy evoked in 2000. They are also hoping to recapture the limelight from his GOP rivals, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. Giuliani is leading in national polls, and Romney raised $10 million more than McCain in the first three months of the year.
"This is about moving forward and doing what's necessary to make John McCain president," said Terry Nelson, his campaign manager. "We want to talk broadly about the challenges this country faces. That has not been done in a systematic way by any candidate, so far."
The immediate focus, however, is the Iraq war, which McCain has said for weeks will be the issue that defines his campaign.
In early drafts, he criticizes the pace of political progress under Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki but argues that the price of defeatism is lower morale among U.S. troops, according to Renzi and advisers familiar with preparations for the speech. McCain plans to praise the "measurable progress" made by the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, particularly in Ramadi, and to urge the public to leave more time on the clock for achieving success.
"This gives him an opportunity to put a marker down on what his foreign policy vision will be and how important it is to win the war in Iraq, and do it in a very specific, cogent way," said one top adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because McCain is set to continue to work on the speech this weekend.
"Iraq is the most important issue facing the country," said Brian Jones, McCain's communications director. "John McCain is going to continue to talk about how we achieve victory in Iraq."
The conflict has at times given the senator opportunities to show his independence from Bush. He was one of the first to call for the firing of Donald H. Rumsfeld as defense secretary. On the stump, he repeatedly decries the "mismanagement" of the war effort under Bush's leadership.
But as the country has turned against the war -- 64 percent of respondents in the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll said it was not worth fighting -- McCain's repeated echoes of the president's rhetoric haunt his presidential campaign. His upbeat assessment of conditions in a Baghdad marketplace last week drew criticism from Iraqis there and from some journalists.
Wearing a bulletproof vest and surrounded by 100 soldiers in Baghdad's central market, McCain said: "Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today." Headlines soon after called his statements "propaganda" and a "magic-carpet ride." The Statesman Journal in Salem, Ore., declared: "Brainwashed McCain is a straight-talker no more."
One GOP consultant said of the incident: "That strikes right at the heart of who people thought he was -- a truth teller."
But McCain's advisers are pursuing a political strategy often advocated by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove: taking a perceived weakness and attempting to turn it into a strength.
Among the voters who will determine the Republican nominee, support for the war and the president's policies remains strong. In the Post-ABC News poll, 70 percent of Republicans said the Iraq war has been worth fighting. And in a recent Newsweek poll, two-thirds of Republicans said they oppose Democratic legislation calling for a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
And McCain's top finance officials say the senator's position on the war has, if anything, helped him with many of his wealthy donors.
"He believes that we should be there to win, and not to win is an absolute defeat," said lobbyist and former congressman Tom Loeffler (R-Tex.), who was tapped last week to revamp McCain's fundraising operation. "The people who support John McCain do so because of his straight talk."
Renzi, a McCain supporter, said the Arizona senator and former Vietnam prisoner of war appeared to become even more resolute after the recent visit to Iraq and a military hospital in Germany, where wounded soldiers from the war are being treated.
He said McCain and the delegation met with Iraqi sheiks in Ramadi and later had dinner with Iraq's vice president and other high-level officials at the home of the U.S. ambassador. Renzi said the senator was blunt with them about the need to win the war.
"He's giving it to 'em straight," Renzi said. "There was no lack of clarity in that room when John McCain was done talking."
Renzi said McCain was frustrated with the media coverage of their visit to the marketplace and what he described as an unwillingness to cover positive news from Iraq. But, in several hours of conversations with McCain while they were in Iraq and on the plane, Renzi said, the beginnings of the senator's speech were already coming together.
"He was more determined and dug in," Renzi recalled in an interview. "He said: 'Look, this is the issue. This is the premier issue of my time and the next generation.' He says, 'We're taking fire and we're taking heat, but this is the right thing to do.' "

[BoredWithNoSB]

He's lost my vote.

It is not a war. Who are we at war against? Insurgents? Who is an insurgent? Do we have a list that we can check them off as we kill them? For every person they kill, they create more insurgents, it is the cycle of violence. foreign government kills my brother, I vow to fight the government, government kills me, my friends vow to kill the foreign government, on-and-on-and-on. I hate when people say we are at war. War, in my view, is a military excursion againsta known enemy with a known objective. Is our objective to kill every single person who wants to do harm to the US and our military? If so, this "war" will be being fought by my great-great-grandchildren.
Also, after this do we plan to go back to osmalia and other countries that hate us and have no centralized government in control?

Maybe if we defined the war, defined what our goals were in a quantifiable manner I'd support it. However, this "end terrorism" as a goal for war is pointless. Terrorism always has and always will exist.

Now, I'm really screwed. Can't vote for Hilary becuase she's the mirror image of Bush and I hate Bush. So, wouldn't advance the nation. Can't vote for Obama becuase outside of being charasmatic, in the rare cases he knows about a subject, his policy sucks. Won't vote for Newt or any of the crazy right repubs. I guess that leaves Edwards for now, but he's pretty polarizing still. I'm still hoping for a magic white centrist to ride in to Washington with a horse and a sword.

[ryr8828]

He's lost my vote.

It is not a war. Who are we at war against? Insurgents? Who is an insurgent? Do we have a list that we can check them off as we kill them? For every person they kill, they create more insurgents, it is the cycle of violence. foreign government kills my brother, I vow to fight the government, government kills me, my friends vow to kill the foreign government, on-and-on-and-on. I hate when people say we are at war. War, in my view, is a military excursion againsta known enemy with a known objective. Is our objective to kill every single person who wants to do harm to the US and our military? If so, this "war" will be being fought by my great-great-grandchildren.
Also, after this do we plan to go back to osmalia and other countries that hate us and have no centralized government in control?

Maybe if we defined the war, defined what our goals were in a quantifiable manner I'd support it. However, this "end terrorism" as a goal for war is pointless. Terrorism always has and always will exist.

Now, I'm really screwed. Can't vote for Hilary becuase she's the mirror image of Bush and I hate Bush. So, wouldn't advance the nation. Can't vote for Obama becuase outside of being charasmatic, in the rare cases he knows about a subject, his policy sucks. Won't vote for Newt or any of the crazy right repubs. I guess that leaves Edwards for now, but he's pretty polarizing still. I'm still hoping for a magic white centrist to ride in to Washington with a horse and a sword.

I guess Thompson's your man.

According to your post, you agree with Bush and I that we've already won the Iraq war. He took a lot of heat for saying that.
What they're doing now is help the new Iraq government fight insurgents who are trying to start a civil war.

The War on Terrorism continues globally though.

[Vegas]

I guess Thompson's your man.

According to your post, you agree with Bush and I that we've already won the Iraq war. He took a lot of heat for saying that.
What they're doing now is help the new Iraq government fight insurgents who are trying to start a civil war.

The War on Terrorism continues globally though.

Weakness and backing away has been a horrible failure in the past. That's when the terrorists get busier. The terrorists hate us because we don't think like them. People forget how they felt on 9-11 pretty quickly.

[ryr8828]

Weakness and backing away has been a horrible failure in the past. That's when the terrorists get busier. The terrorists hate us because we don't think like them. People forget how they felt on 9-11 pretty quickly.

I haven't, and I find it amazing how many people have.

[BoredWithNoSB]

I know this is an unpopualr view, but I was one of those who felt 9/11 was horrible, but an isolated incident, and we should have look introspectively to see how we could change our behaviors to prevent people from hating us in addition to taking military efforts to make sure an identified enemy could not strike again. This is where Bush & I differ. I feel we've won the war we were fighting, now lets come home and focus spending on specific operations to make us safer (if you think that is a more important budgetary need than education, which i do not) rather than broad warfare.

I don't believe the phrase "the terrorists hate freedom." I think this is where I differ the most from more conservative individuals.

I think that each terrorist has their own reasons for what they do. Some want a homeland. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Palestinians are suffering from taxation without representation currently. Sounds vaguely familiar. Others in Iran simply want us to stop trying to influence their behavior and allow them to act as a sovereign nation. Again, if somebody tried telling us that we couldn't follow our own energy policies or run our courts as we saw just, I don't think we'd take too kindly to it. Others like McVeigh are simply crazy

There's a huge difference between appeasement of the German's and appeasement of terorrists. Germany was a specific nation sponsoring their agenda and it was the stated national agenda. It wasn't a covert sposoring of an agenda through supposed funneling of cash, it was blatant use of the nations military. I can see a parallel between 2001 Afghanastan and that and 2007 Northern Pakistan and that, but not 2007 Iraq.

I honestly think that once we had removed the Taliban from power, we had accomplished all we could against terrorism from a military standpoint, unless we wanted to go into Pakistan (but the India/Pakistan thing would have gone nuclear). We should have focused on making sure they didn't consolidate power elsewhere. They fit my idea of an identifiable enemy with a stated organizational objective counter to our national security interest.

I just think that things will be better if we cease military operations, focus only on training the Iraqi military/Police and then get out. I wouldn't even mind a long mission if the mission was ONLY to sit in some central area and only do training as a humanitarian deal. Active military operations are insane in my mind, though.

[i_hate_righties]

McCain is probalby one of the only Republicans that I have a lot of respect for...but my respect for him just went down quite a bit!

[Vegas]

McCain is probalby one of the only Republicans that I have a lot of respect for...but my respect for him just went down quite a bit!

How much respect do you have for Joe Lieberman?

[i_hate_righties]

How much respect do you have for Joe Lieberman?


I dont agree with Lieberman either...No one is forgetting 9-11...After the 9-11 tragedy we had a mission to carry out, which was a joke from the beginning IMO...We dont need to go over Bin Laden or WMD's again...We just took our war on the road and are stuck now...Its time to pull out, its been time to pull out for quite some time, are we there to create stability in the middle east? To revenge what happened on 9-11?...Are we there to prevent a civil war againt the sunni's and shiites? They were both thrilled when those planes blew up the towers! Any politician who is not actively pursuing a safe withdrawl for our troops at this time, is someone who just doesnt want to wind up with egg on their faces IMO...and what the hell is a little egg, when we are weighing it against the lives of soldiers?

[Reagan Smash]

How much respect do you have for Joe Lieberman?

Democrats have very little. That's why he couldn't get in to a public debate in the 2004 primaries, but Al Sharpton was allowed in.

[LSU]

I liked McCain between about 2002 and 2005 or so. Since then...not so much. I can't say for sure what turned him off for me, but I just don't see him as the straight shooter he was back then...or maybe I just misread him then.

As for Lieberman, I can't think of anything I don't like about him, even if he supports the war. I haven't heard much from him lately, though...

[i_hate_righties]

I liked McCain between about 2002 and 2005 or so. Since then...not so much. I can't say for sure what turned him off for me, but I just don't see him as the straight shooter he was back then...or maybe I just misread him then.

As for Lieberman, I can't think of anything I don't like about him, even if he supports the war. I haven't heard much from him lately, though...


When you start running for another (bigger) office, you start spewing off what you think people want to hear, and stop being the the so called black sheep of the family (or party) I actually think he did a good job bringing up certain issues during the Clinton Administration!

[Potomac Yank]

Must be turning over in his grave.
He left behind the saddest group ever assembled by any party.

McCain: "The Iraq war is winnable."
What John Wayne movie is he watching?

With all due respect to his service record, anyone that's ever served will tell you, that there is a world of difference between the war experience of a fly fly boy, and an on the ground Grunt.[B] .. It's worlds apart.

McCain knows about a ground war, as much as the cowboy from Crawford, and his 5 deferrment side kick does.

Three amigos that want to keep our men and women, young and older, in harms way of Bush Corporate War.

Your best man isn't running for President.
He goes by the name of Hagel.
He has the pelotas of a real man.
He's a former [B]Grunt, he knows about what makes sense, and what's winnable.
Above all, he has depth of character, and does not speak with a fork tongue.

His name is Hagel, and after the last 6 years, there's a great need for a breath of fresh air.

We also have a grunt made of fine timber.
His name is Jim Webb, and would love to match him up with Obama.
What a combo, what a ticket.

Yup ..... Barry must be rolling in his grave.

[IBC]

Weakness and backing away has been a horrible failure in the past. That's when the terrorists get busier. The terrorists hate us because we don't think like them. People forget how they felt on 9-11 pretty quickly.
Vegas, that is just factually wrong. There are tons more terrorists in the world today than there were before the beginning of the Iraq War. That is according to the US State Department.

[IBC]

I liked McCain between about 2002 and 2005 or so. Since then...not so much. I can't say for sure what turned him off for me, but I just don't see him as the straight shooter he was back then...or maybe I just misread him then.

As for Lieberman, I can't think of anything I don't like about him, even if he supports the war. I haven't heard much from him lately, though...
There is alot to dislike about Lieberman IMO.

[IBC]

Look, Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and 9/11. It also was no threat to the US. And if Saddam was the problem than we wouldn't still be there. There is another reason in my opinion, and a reason we are setting up permanent bases. We id defeat Iraq, but we want a beachhead to influence to whole Middle East. It isn't working.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Weakness and backing away has been a horrible failure in the past. That's when the terrorists get busier. The terrorists hate us because we don't think like them. People forget how they felt on 9-11 pretty quickly.

i'm still trying to figure out what iraq had to do with 9/11.

[i_hate_righties]

Look, Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and 9/11. It also was no threat to the US. And if Saddam was the problem than we wouldn't still be there. There is another reason in my opinion, and a reason we are setting up permanent bases. We id defeat Iraq, but we want a beachhead to influence to whole Middle East. It isn't working.


People accuse others of forgetting about 9-11 and that we need to stay in this war until all guilty parties are found and held accountable for...but how much guilt do we have in all of this?..I know this is kind of a "How dare you" question...but we have a very contradictory history in the middle east...I think we forget that fact more so than anyone forgetting 9-11...We were pals with saddam at one time, we encouraged him and aided him in his war with iran...We tried to influence governments in the middle east covertly, by selling them certain WMD's which we some how couldnt find when we went looking for them...It is never a good idea to get into bed with extremist dictatorship governments which is what we have done on numerous occasions...and then when we do a total flip-flop on our support of them, we wonder why they hate us!....
http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=498_0_1_0_C

[Potomac Yank]

This is an urgent message.

You must understand that during his formative years of 18 -19 -20 -21, he was going through his mind developing period.
We all went through similar situations, but the fork in the road here is:

Vegas quote:
"I was very interested in politics at that age, especially when I was going to college."

Think of it, reach out, ... and be a friend.

Poli Sci.

No peer fun.

No Wars to avoid.

No knowledge of GWB in the horizon.

Dealing with the Nobel Prize winner, Carter years.

To all you good folk's out there.
The Dems .. the Liberals .. the Mods, and yes, the Born again - open eyed Repubs and Cons.

Reach out to Vegas, and just say: .. "Everything is going to be all right.":)

[Nixon's Head]

Weakness and backing away has been a horrible failure in the past. That's when the terrorists get busier. The terrorists hate us because we don't think like them. People forget how they felt on 9-11 pretty quickly.Impressed someone had the balls to take on the big, bad US of A? I still feel that way.

[LSU]

Weakness and backing away has been a horrible failure in the past. That's when the terrorists get busier. The terrorists hate us because we don't think like them. People forget how they felt on 9-11 pretty quickly.



Don't we hate the terrorists because they don't think like us?

In fact, that whole comment could be said of the terrorists. Not to be weak and don't back down (that's when America gets busier)...the Americans hate us because we don't think like them...people forget how they felt on (insert US involvement in the Mid East here) pretty quickly.

[pnkpanther]

A lot of people forget, WE PUT THE TALIBAN IN POWER, WE SUPPORTED SADAAM

dont give me that iraqi freedom bullshit either, there are far worse countries/leaders then sadaam and we dont dispose of them.

threat to us, the biggest threat to US is N korea, but we dont fuck with them, cause they could actually fuck with us.

we wanted to establish a presence in the Mid East due to massive oil reserves there that we want to continue to use

[i_hate_righties]

A lot of people forget, WE PUT THE TALIBAN IN POWER, WE SUPPORTED SADAAM

dont give me that iraqi freedom bullshit either, there are far worse countries/leaders then sadaam and we dont dispose of them.

threat to us, the biggest threat to US is N korea, but we dont fuck with them, cause they could actually fuck with us.

we wanted to establish a presence in the Mid East due to massive oil reserves there that we want to continue to use


And the biggest way to fuck with someone is not IMO, by sending a bunch of kids over there to be blown up in the name of patriotism...It is to hit them where it hurts the most...In their pockets...If we became more self reliant on our own resources concerning oil and alternative fuels we wouldnt need them!
I think its argentina, I was too lazy to look it up, but I am pretty sure it is...that does not import any oil from other countries, their cars are flex fuel..If other countries followed this example, we would hurt them more than our troops are now!

[ryr8828]

And the biggest way to fuck with someone is not IMO, by sending a bunch of kids over there to be blown up in the name of patriotism...It is to hit them where it hurts the most...In their pockets...If we became more self reliant on our own resources concerning oil and alternative fuels we wouldnt need them!
I think its argentina, I was too lazy to look it up, but I am pretty sure it is...that does not import any oil from other countries, their cars are flex fuel..If other countries followed this example, we would hurt them more than our troops are now!

Being able to drill for all our own oil would help, but I don't buy into the liberal war for oil theory.

[i_hate_righties]

Being able to drill for all our own oil would help, but I don't buy into the liberal war for oil theory.


Its more plausible that the "wanting to bring stability to an unstable area" theory...We have certainly been adding to that instability for a very long time now!

[ryr8828]

Its more plausible that the "wanting to bring stability to an unstable area" theory...We have certainly been adding to that instability for a very long time now!

A dictator who had already tried to invade Kuwait, was in reach of our friends in Israel, and refused to honor UN weapons inspections.

[Vegas]

And the biggest way to fuck with someone is not IMO, by sending a bunch of kids over there to be blown up in the name of patriotism...It is to hit them where it hurts the most...In their pockets...If we became more self reliant on our own resources concerning oil and alternative fuels we wouldnt need them!
I think its argentina, I was too lazy to look it up, but I am pretty sure it is...that does not import any oil from other countries, their cars are flex fuel..If other countries followed this example, we would hurt them more than our troops are now!

You're thinking about Brazil and the whole ethanol program they have is highly overrated. Notice that I didn't say it was bad. I said it's overrated.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1629

Brazil, poster child of the E85 movement, has farmed its way to energy independence. But the same solution won’t work so easily for the US. For one thing, Brazil produces ethanol from sugar cane, a much cheaper foodstuff than corn or anything else we can grow in the decidedly non-tropical Midwest. Perhaps global warming will lend a hand? In the meantime, every ethanol booster not wedded to corn interests cannot stop talking about switchgrass. Research indicates that an acre of panicum virgatum might yield three times as much ethanol as an acre of zea mays. But even if switchgrass proves a fruitful source of ethanol, its potential impact on US energy policy is minimal.

Americans are gas hogs. While 186 million Brazilians burn the equivalent of about 10 billion gallons of gasoline each year (40 percent of it ethanol), 296 million Americans burn 150 billion gallons of gasoline each year (3 percent of it ethanol). In other words, if America really wants to be like Brazil, we should cut gas consumption use by 90 percent. (Hint: not many Brazilians drive full-size SUVs.) Otherwise, we’ll need ten times as much ethanol as Brazil to match the Brazilian fuel mix.

Converting the entire U.S. vehicle fleet to E85 would require about twenty times as much ethanol as Brazil currently produces for domestic consumption. Guess what? America is already producing as much ethanol as Brazil, and will soon pass them to become the world’s largest ethanol producer.

To achieve full gasoline self-sufficiency, we could convert 140 million acres of farmland to switchgrass. That’s about twice the acreage currently devoted to corn and a landmass nearly the size of Texas. Once we use American coal to produce the electricity needed to convert the result to ethanol, we’re there! Or not. Devoting so much American soil to ethanol would send farmland and food prices soaring. This will make American farmers very happy, and anyone who has to buy food unhappy. We might have to starve millions to do it, but we’ll be able to feed our SUVs without foreign oil!

[Potomac Yank]

Being able to drill for all our own oil would help, but I don't buy into the liberal war for oil theory.

*
*
Unless the religious cowboy from Crawford changed parties, It wasn't a Liberal that dragged us into this mess.

It was two of the greatest war avoiders that sent others to do, what they wouldn't do themselves.

Other former believers have caught on, isn't it time to take the blinders off?

[ryr8828]

Once we use American coal to produce the electricity needed to convert the result to ethanol, we’re there!
Or not.

<shivers>

[ryr8828]

*
*
Unless the religious cowboy from Crawford changed parties, It wasn't a Liberal that dragged us into this mess.

It was two of the greatest war avoiders that sent others to do, what they wouldn't do themselves.

Other former believers have caught on, isn't it time to take the blinders off?

There aren't many conservatives saying that this war is for oil, that was my point.
It's mainly a liberal theory.

[i_hate_righties]

You're thinking about Brazil and the whole ethanol program they have is highly overrated. Notice that I didn't say it was bad. I said it's overrated.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1629

Brazil, poster child of the E85 movement, has farmed its way to energy independence. But the same solution won’t work so easily for the US. For one thing, Brazil produces ethanol from sugar cane, a much cheaper foodstuff than corn or anything else we can grow in the decidedly non-tropical Midwest. Perhaps global warming will lend a hand? In the meantime, every ethanol booster not wedded to corn interests cannot stop talking about switchgrass. Research indicates that an acre of panicum virgatum might yield three times as much ethanol as an acre of zea mays. But even if switchgrass proves a fruitful source of ethanol, its potential impact on US energy policy is minimal.

Americans are gas hogs. While 186 million Brazilians burn the equivalent of about 10 billion gallons of gasoline each year (40 percent of it ethanol), 296 million Americans burn 150 billion gallons of gasoline each year (3 percent of it ethanol). In other words, if America really wants to be like Brazil, we should cut gas consumption use by 90 percent. (Hint: not many Brazilians drive full-size SUVs.) Otherwise, we’ll need ten times as much ethanol as Brazil to match the Brazilian fuel mix.

Converting the entire U.S. vehicle fleet to E85 would require about twenty times as much ethanol as Brazil currently produces for domestic consumption. Guess what? America is already producing as much ethanol as Brazil, and will soon pass them to become the world’s largest ethanol producer.

To achieve full gasoline self-sufficiency, we could convert 140 million acres of farmland to switchgrass. That’s about twice the acreage currently devoted to corn and a landmass nearly the size of Texas. Once we use American coal to produce the electricity needed to convert the result to ethanol, we’re there! Or not. Devoting so much American soil to ethanol would send farmland and food prices soaring. This will make American farmers very happy, and anyone who has to buy food unhappy. We might have to starve millions to do it, but we’ll be able to feed our SUVs without foreign oil!

I own two SUV's...A jeep cherokee and a toyota highlander hybrid.....which one do you think eats more gas?...There are alot of alternative solutions, and it is an obtainable feat, but people are making billions off of the oil industry, and hhmm I wonder if its in their best interests to really change the way things are currently.

[Vegas]

I own two SUV's...A jeep cherokee and a toyota highlander hybrid.....which one do you think eats more gas?...There are alot of alternative solutions, and it is an obtainable feat, but people are making billions off of the oil industry, and hhmm I wonder if its in their best interests to really change the way things are currently.

Oil use in SUVs is a tiny, tiny part of our energy consumption. This is the most productive country in the world, which isn't possible without energy.

Did you catch the articles recently that showed that a Hummer is more environmentally friendly than a Prius when you look at the total picture?

[swordfish]

*
*
Unless the religious cowboy from Crawford changed parties, It wasn't a Liberal that dragged us into this mess.

It was two of the greatest war avoiders that sent others to do, what they wouldn't do themselves.

Other former believers have caught on, isn't it time to take the blinders off?

This mess as you call it has been going on for much longer than GW was even around. In fact you could say that it goes all the way back to Abraham. But you probably already knew that.

[Potomac Yank]

There aren't many conservatives saying that this war is for oil, that was my point.
It's mainly a liberal theory.

*
*

It's becoming clearer, and clearer, like day follows night.

The two Bush Wars were and are Corporate Oil Wars.
The Bush's of Texas are surrounded by Texas Oil asshole buddies.
How do you think GWB got into baseball?
Do you think that the escalating price of gas is putting a :( or :) on their faces?

Comon RYR, join the former others that have picked up on the corporate snow job.

Here's a start ... The duped ENRON people vs the Kenny Boy Lay snow job.

Hey .... Don't be left out ... you'll feel better for it. :)

[Vegas]

*
*

It's becoming clearer, and clearer, like day follows night.

The two Bush Wars were and are Corporate Oil Wars.
The Bush's of Texas are surrounded by Texas Oil asshole buddies.
How do you think GWB got into baseball?
Do you think that the escalating price of gas is putting a :( or :) on their faces?

Comon RYR, join the former others that have picked up on the corporate snow job.

Here's a start ... The duped ENRON people vs the Kenny Boy Lay snow job.

Hey .... Don't be left out ... you'll feel better for it. :)

In the case of Bush the elder, if he had not fought against Sadam the Iraqis would have controlled the oil in Kuwait and moved into Saudi Arabia. What would you be paying for gas in that case? And if you remember, the Saudis joined us in fighting against Sadam.

In the current war on terror, we've gotten rid of a great menace to the world. Even Bill Clinton has admitted that the world is better off with Sadam gone. Sadam was exporting terrorism and had no plans to stop. If GWB hadn't taken the steps he had and there were more terrorist acts in our own country, you'd probably be blaming him for that as well.

[Potomac Yank]

This mess as you call it has been going on for much longer than GW was even around. In fact you could say that it goes all the way back to Abraham. But you probably already knew that.

*
*

You are absolutely right.

I knew it, but my point is that the religious cowboy from Crawford, didn't.

[BoredWithNoSB]

Well IBC, I can't side with you completely here. I don't think this is a war of oil. GW1 was a fully necessary war. I don't beleive in spreading democracy, but I do beleive in coming to the aid of allies, or startgic partners (Kuwait) also him waltzing into Kuwait would have upset the regional balance of power WAY too much. So, I'll give old Bush props for that. Old Bush's issues were only the domestic economy i nmy mind.

New Bush, whole different ball of wax. He's f-ed up everything possible in my mind. I don't hink he satrted GW2 for oil, though. I beleive it was his personal crusade for democracy and imperialism.

[i_hate_righties]

In the case of Bush the elder, if he had not fought against Sadam the Iraqis would have controlled the oil in Kuwait and moved into Saudi Arabia. What would you be paying for gas in that case? And if you remember, the Saudis joined us in fighting against Sadam.

In the current war on terror, we've gotten rid of a great menace to the world. Even Bill Clinton has admitted that the world is better off with Sadam gone. Sadam was exporting terrorism and had no plans to stop. If GWB hadn't taken the steps he had and there were more terrorist acts in our own country, you'd probably be blaming him for that as well.


Obviously no one read the link I posted earlier in this thread...

This missing history also is not just about minor details. It goes to the heart of the case against Saddam Hussein, including whether he is an especially “aggressive” and “unpredictable” dictator who must be removed from power even at the risk of America’s standing in the world and the chance that a war will lead to more terrorism against U.S. targets.

For instance, George W. Bush has frequently cited Saddam Hussein’s invasions of neighbors, Iran and Kuwait, as justification for the looming U.S. invasion of Iraq. “By defeating this threat, we will show other dictators that the path of aggression will lead to their own ruin,” Bush declared during a speech in Atlanta on Feb. 20.

Leaving aside whether Bush’s formulation is Orwellian double-speak—aggression to discourage aggression—there is the historical question of whether Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush actually encouraged Saddam’s aggressions for geopolitical reasons or out of diplomatic incompetence.

[Nixon's Head]

In the case of Bush the elder, if he had not fought against Sadam the Iraqis would have controlled the oil in Kuwait and moved into Saudi Arabia. What would you be paying for gas in that case? And if you remember, the Saudis joined us in fighting against Sadam.

In the current war on terror, we've gotten rid of a great menace to the world. Even Bill Clinton has admitted that the world is better off with Sadam gone. Sadam was exporting terrorism and had no plans to stop. If GWB hadn't taken the steps he had and there were more terrorist acts in our own country, you'd probably be blaming him for that as well.Where?

[Potomac Yank]

In the case of Bush the elder, if he had not fought against Sadam the Iraqis would have controlled the oil in Kuwait and moved into Saudi Arabia. What would you be paying for gas in that case? And if you remember, the Saudis joined us in fighting against Sadam.

In the current war on terror, we've gotten rid of a great menace to the world. Even Bill Clinton has admitted that the world is better off with Sadam gone. Sadam was exporting terrorism and had no plans to stop. If GWB hadn't taken the steps he had and there were more terrorist acts in our own country, you'd probably be blaming him for that as well.

*
*

It is with a heavy heart that I must say this, but someone has to tell you.
Your robotic mind is not your own.
Incoming information is systematically filtered.
Outgoing thought patterns, give the appearence of a programmed script in a play.
Those are the signs of a Party Parrot.
Sorry to be the one to break this, but that's the humanitarian side of me.

I'm also very sorry to say, that your case may be too far gone, with no hope, or medication.

However, not to worry.
Cardinal Bush will personally come by, and give you his personal "God bless you". ... who knows, you might be able to speak your own mind? :)

[Vegas]

Where?


Sadam was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

[BoredWithNoSB]

Sadam was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

That doesn't sound like exporting to me. He paid them after the fact. He certainly didn't denounce it, but it wasn't like he actively provided the training or materials. The bombers would have done it anyway. It was his little way of saying FU to a country he doesn't like. We pay many insurgents in various nations directly.

[Nixon's Head]

That doesn't sound like exporting to me. He paid them after the fact. He certainly didn't denounce it, but it wasn't like he actively provided the training or materials. The bombers would have done it anyway. It was his little way of saying FU to a country he doesn't like. We pay many insurgents in various nations directly.Solid point there.

As for Saddam paying suicide bombers in Israel, why didn't Israel take care of him? I don't see paying someone to do something in Israel affecting me in any direct way.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Its more plausible that the "wanting to bring stability to an unstable area" theory...We have certainly been adding to that instability for a very long time now!

is that theory 4 or theory 5?

[hannitykillspuppies]

A dictator who had already tried to invade Kuwait, was in reach of our friends in Israel, and refused to honor UN weapons inspections.

and who scared iran shitless. they were no threat. containment was working just fine. the bush administration said so before 9/11.

[IBC]

Weakness and backing away has been a horrible failure in the past. That's when the terrorists get busier. The terrorists hate us because we don't think like them. People forget how they felt on 9-11 pretty quickly.
I will never forget how I felt when I found out we were going to war with Iraq. A country that has never attacked us, had no means to attack us, had zero connection to Al Qaeda, had nothing to do with 9/11, and was certainly going to be a disaster to occupy.

[IBC]

A dictator who had already tried to invade Kuwait, was in reach of our friends in Israel, and refused to honor UN weapons inspections.
That is bullshit. We pulled the inspectors out after he had let them back in. That is a fact.

[IBC]

There aren't many conservatives saying that this war is for oil, that was my point.
It's mainly a liberal theory.
There aren't many conservatives behind this war anymore either.

[pnkpanther]

so why arent we in Sudan? North Korea?

[hannitykillspuppies]

so why arent we in Sudan? North Korea?


because they don't have an ass load of oil for us to jack.

i used to like mccain. thought he was honest and straightforward. not anymore. he says he can walk down the streets in iraq without any worry about violence. well so could i if i was wearing a kevlar vest and being escorted by 20 armed troops.

[IBC]

because they don't have an ass load of oil for us to jack.

i used to like mccain. thought he was honest and straightforward. not anymore. he says he can walk down the streets in iraq without any worry about violence. well so could i if i was wearing a kevlar vest and being escorted by 20 armed troops.
and helicopters, humvees, and other armored vehicles. You know that they airbrushed that out of those photos. he is just a liar now. Plain and simple.

[pnkpanther]

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." --March 16, 2003

-dick cheney

[LSU]

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." --March 16, 2003

-dick cheney


Clever way of putting it. He's got both bases covered. First off, he states it's a belief, so if it doesn't work, he can say it was simply his belief. But then, he states "in fact"..."fact"? Is he setting it up to say "see, back in 2003, I told you we'd be greeted as liberators!"

Of course, that's my slanted interpretation.

[Vegas]

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." --March 16, 2003

-dick cheney

You don't remember seeing this:

http://www.freedomagenda.com/images/2003-04-09_People_of_Iraq_pull_down_and_smash_a_statue_of_ former_dictator_Saddam_Hussein_as_Baghdad_is_liber ated.jpg

[LSU]

You don't remember seeing this:

http://www.freedomagenda.com/images/2003-04-09_People_of_Iraq_pull_down_and_smash_a_statue_of_ former_dictator_Saddam_Hussein_as_Baghdad_is_liber ated.jpg


Or this?

http://photos.signonsandiego.com/gallery1.5/albums/war_dead/flag3a.jpg

[hannitykillspuppies]

http://www.kwhitaker.com/mission_accomplished.jpg

[pnkpanther]

so we were greeted with sweets and flowers

[LSU]

http://www.kwhitaker.com/mission_accomplished.jpg

Is that Eric Bana on the right?

[hannitykillspuppies]

Is that Eric Bana on the right?

might as well have been.

[IBC]

You don't remember seeing this:

http://www.freedomagenda.com/images/2003-04-09_People_of_Iraq_pull_down_and_smash_a_statue_of_ former_dictator_Saddam_Hussein_as_Baghdad_is_liber ated.jpg
Do you remember everything that has happened since and even before then? The thousands of Americans who were dead? The disgrace of an execution? The torture scandals? The American workers charred bodies strung up by a rope? The beheadings? The hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties? The tens of thousands of soldiers wounded? The looting of important historical and cultural artifacts? The power and oil production still stuck at below prewar levels? Haditha? Rapings and killings? Jessica Lynch and the fake story? Our president not going to one funeral of a US servicemen? The riots in the streets? The journalists taken hostage? The accidental US killing of foreign journalists? The bodies dragged through the streets? The warnings of the generals that said 100k+ would never be enough (they were fired or demoted). Do you remember that? Liberators my ass.

[pnkpanther]

at least the war was cheap like they promised us.....

[pnkpanther]

google rumsfelds war and frontline episode should come up, very interesting....

[hannitykillspuppies]

google rumsfelds war and frontline episode should come up, very interesting....

Former Secretary of the Army Thomas White says that when Rumsfeld tried to push for a reduction in the number of troops in the army, the secretary found himself clashing with General Eric Shinseki, the army's respected Chief of Staff.

"There were very strongly held views, myself and General Shinseki and others in the room, that this was not the right answer," White says of one meeting with Rumsfeld. "The secretary, he just got up and walked out, which was a signal to all of us that he wasn't terribly happy with the results of the meeting."

[hannitykillspuppies]

Former CENTCOM Commander-in-Chief General Joseph Hoar (Ret.) tells FRONTLINE, "Today we find over fifty percent of the United States Army, the regular army, ten divisions, committed overseas. It's not sustainable."

Rumsfeld, however, has stood firm in his assessment that U.S. fighting forces are more than capable of handling these or future conflicts, recently telling the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that with over 2.5 million Americans already enlisted, the military's problem is management of resources, not recruitment.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/etc/synopsis.html

[hannitykillspuppies]

Wolfowitz is not the only one trying to make a strong case against Iraq -- Feith has set up a secret group to analyze or find any connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The group reviews over 19,000 documents but turns up no evidence. However, Wolfowitz's friends at the INC are supplying plenty of information on Hussein's hopes for a WMD program.

Rumsfeld begins to fight a turf battle with Rice, whose counter-terrorism chief, Wayne Downing, is floating war plans and hoping for more influence in the administration's decisions. Rumsfeld fears the National Security Council will start interfering with his authority. He sends a memo to Rice asking her to make sure there is only one "principal military adviser" -- himself.

At Rumsfeld's suggestion, the president's advisers take a vote on whether Iraq should be attacked straightaway. The vote is 4-0 against -- but there is one abstention, from Rumsfeld. He is now thinking about how to leverage the past eight months the Pentagon has spent on transformation and apply its new thinking on warfare to the new war.

Four days after Sept. 11, Wolfowitz is already arguing that the U.S. should attack Iraq -- even before Afghanistan. Accounts differ on the war cabinet's response, but Wolfowitz later says he is shut down, and planning for Iraq does not begin until November.

Rumsfeld rejects the standard guidance from the Pentagon, insisting that an unorthodox mix of fewer troops (as was used in Afghanistan) can get the job done in Iraq. At first, Tommy Franks disagrees, but eventually the two see eye to eye. White and Shinseki, however, are both worried that not nearly enough troops will be deployed. Rumsfeld is also deeply involved in the post-war planning -- he tell the NSC he wants 100 percent responsibility for the reconstruction.

Shinseki testifies before Congress that several hundred thousand troops will be required to stabilize post-war Iraq -- at precisely the time Rumsfeld and the administration are trying to downplay the cost, size, and length of the operation. Rumsfeld is furious; when Shinseki retires a few months later, Rumsfeld does not attend the ceremony, angering other military leaders. Later, Army Secretary White will testify to much the same effect on troop levels. His actions will get him fired.

Elated by the military's success, Cheney holds a small celebratory dinner at his house. Wolfowitz, among the guests, remarks that Powell has become a team player. Cheney shakes his head no. Another guest says he is stunned that no one has turned up WMD yet. But Cheney is confident the weapons are there.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/paths/bush2.html

this stuff is rich.

[IBC]

Wolfowitz is not the only one trying to make a strong case against Iraq -- Feith has set up a secret group to analyze or find any connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The group reviews over 19,000 documents but turns up no evidence. However, Wolfowitz's friends at the INC are supplying plenty of information on Hussein's hopes for a WMD program.

Rumsfeld begins to fight a turf battle with Rice, whose counter-terrorism chief, Wayne Downing, is floating war plans and hoping for more influence in the administration's decisions. Rumsfeld fears the National Security Council will start interfering with his authority. He sends a memo to Rice asking her to make sure there is only one "principal military adviser" -- himself.

At Rumsfeld's suggestion, the president's advisers take a vote on whether Iraq should be attacked straightaway. The vote is 4-0 against -- but there is one abstention, from Rumsfeld. He is now thinking about how to leverage the past eight months the Pentagon has spent on transformation and apply its new thinking on warfare to the new war.

Four days after Sept. 11, Wolfowitz is already arguing that the U.S. should attack Iraq -- even before Afghanistan. Accounts differ on the war cabinet's response, but Wolfowitz later says he is shut down, and planning for Iraq does not begin until November.

Rumsfeld rejects the standard guidance from the Pentagon, insisting that an unorthodox mix of fewer troops (as was used in Afghanistan) can get the job done in Iraq. At first, Tommy Franks disagrees, but eventually the two see eye to eye. White and Shinseki, however, are both worried that not nearly enough troops will be deployed. Rumsfeld is also deeply involved in the post-war planning -- he tell the NSC he wants 100 percent responsibility for the reconstruction.

Shinseki testifies before Congress that several hundred thousand troops will be required to stabilize post-war Iraq -- at precisely the time Rumsfeld and the administration are trying to downplay the cost, size, and length of the operation. Rumsfeld is furious; when Shinseki retires a few months later, Rumsfeld does not attend the ceremony, angering other military leaders. Later, Army Secretary White will testify to much the same effect on troop levels. His actions will get him fired.

Elated by the military's success, Cheney holds a small celebratory dinner at his house. Wolfowitz, among the guests, remarks that Powell has become a team player. Cheney shakes his head no. Another guest says he is stunned that no one has turned up WMD yet. But Cheney is confident the weapons are there.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/paths/bush2.html

this stuff is rich.
Why would you guys listen to blatant liberals like PBS? they obviously have an agenda.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Why would you guys listen to blatant liberals like PBS? they obviously have an agenda.


"the bush doctrine" was my favorite frontline. priceless stuff in that one as well.

[pnkpanther]

"the bush doctrine" was my favorite frontline. priceless stuff in that one as well.

i'm a big frontline fan, i realize it has a bit of slant to it, i liked their piece on meth too

[Nixon's Head]

google rumsfelds war and frontline episode should come up, very interesting....
I like this one...

http://www.olywip.org/wip/files/images/saddam_rumsfeld.small.jpg

[IBC]

I like this one...

http://www.olywip.org/wip/files/images/saddam_rumsfeld.small.jpg

Wait, how did he get the weapons used to attack the Iranians with Chem weapons? Was he on our payroll? Noreiga? Bin Laden? Oh, all of them?

[*NZ*]

As a non U.S citizen, I'm pleased that the vast majority of you realize that this war is a complete crock of shit.

[Potomac Yank]

so why arent we in Sudan? North Korea?

*
*

I've already been there.

Done that.

USMC ... Korean War

[Nixon's Head]

As a non U.S citizen, I'm pleased that the vast majority of you realize that this war is a complete crock of shit.Always interesting to get an outsiders point of view.

[IBC]

As a non U.S citizen, I'm pleased that the vast majority of you realize that this war is a complete crock of shit.
Some of us, yes.

[Iron Jaw]

I like McCain and he will get my vote in the Republican primaries.

[Vegas]

I like McCain and he will get my vote in the Republican primaries.

He's not my first choice among the Republicans, but I would happily vote for him over any of the Democrats in the race.

[Iron Jaw]

He's not my first choice among the Republicans, but I would happily vote for him over any of the Democrats in the race.

Likewise, I'd vote for Rudy over any of the dems - though Rudy would definitely not be my first choice of the Reps (too liberal minded).;)