McCain's Flip-Flops Can Only Lead To More Flip-Flops

John McCain came out with avengance against the DNC's ad showing McCain claim we could be in Iraq for a hundred years. The problem with him attacking the ad is that the DNC used his own words, so it is kinda hard to refute something that you actually said on camera. McCain knows that it looks bad to a nation sick and tired of war that he wants more war. The big problem for McCain is that the truth of what he wants to do is unexplainable to someone with common sense, so he tries to manipulate what he means. That translates into more lies, and more of a demand to clarify everything that comes out of his mouth.

From MSNBC:

First, if McCain doesn't envision a 100-year American front-line combat presence in Iraq, how long is he willing to keep U.S. forces in that role? So far, all he has said is that the United States should withdraw only if it concludes that the Iraq mission is unachievable or when it has achieved success, which he defines as the establishment of "a peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state."

McCain hasn't said how long he would keep fighting to reach that demanding goal. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of McCain's closest Senate allies, recently said he thinks that McCain would maintain current U.S. troop levels in Iraq through his entire four-year presidential term if military commanders recommended that course to maintain stability there.

McCain has not said when, but he has pledged that Iraqi units will eventually assume the major combat responsibility. That prompts the next question McCain should address: What would then become the mission for the U.S. forces he wants to maintain in Iraq? McCain hasn't specified. But he has suggested that their job would be to deter external aggression, much as in South Korea where our troops "served as a buffer against invasion from North Korea."

Of course South Korea is nothing like Iraq. That would be like comparing grapes to watermelons. McCain's assertions are based on false premises, so every explanation he gives is shaky from the start. The "maverick" is trying to hold together arguments from the Bush Administration that have no credibility in real world. What Bush has going for him is that he is not running for re-election, what McCain has going against him is that he is trying to run as Bush to be elected. In 2008, that is not going to work for the great majority of Americans that feel George Bush was the worst President ever.

At Least One Republican Is Honest About Iraq

Not that Chris Shays wants to leave, he was just being candid on why we are over there. It is obvious to most of us in the reality-based community, but in case you didn't know, we are not in Iraq for a black or white religious brawl. It really is all about the money and power.....oh and did I mention oil?

From Crooks and Liars:

On C-Span’s Washington Journal yesterday, Rep. Christopher Shays has a rare Republican moment of non-talking point candor. When asked by a caller why we are still in Iraq, Shays admits it’s because we just can’t let any other country control that oil.

Download (198) | Play (205) Download (65) | Play (103)

Now that was easy wasn't it? Now for the rest of his clan to fess up to why we are over there, wasting blood and treasure.....well, I'm waiting, very very patiently.

Winning Hearts And Minds Or Just Pocket Books?

Exporting democracy to the Middle East is hard work, as George Bush knows so well. It is important to win the hearts and minds of the locals so that they embrace our western way of life. In turn, they'll happily sell their oil and other natural resources at ridiculously low prices while throwing flowers at the feet of the oil executives at Shell, BP, Exxon-Mobil, etc.

Ok, now it is time to wake up from this delusion.

President Bush went to Anbar last week because he was in a safe remote location, far from the hellish streets of Baghdad, Basra, Fallujah, Mosul....I could go on and on. The reality of the situation with the Sunnis and Al-Qaeda is that for now, the U.S. is paying the former to fight the latter. The insurgents need money to finance their operations and if the United States is willing to bankroll them, then they are more than happy to go along.

Both sides win in the short term. The United States (i.e. George Bush's Administration) gets to look good for the commoners back home with reduced casualties in the region and the Sunnis aren't attacked from the skies and by U.S. backed operations. Meanwhile they get additional funding to fight the Shias (and the U.S.?) at a later date.

Sheer fucking brilliance.

Our Energy Crisis

The Center for American Progress put this little clip together, highlighting the problems of high gasoline prices, the oil industry's soaring profit margin and what Americans think of our energy policies:

Going To Work Green To Pollute The Environment

Every little bit counts when it comes to saving the environment, but this story is a little ironic. Oil companies in Houston are encouraging their employees to commute by bicycle while keeping the gears of the refineries going. The program helps save gas, reduces the budgets of the workers and gives a nice little PR piece for the oil industry.

From The Houston Chronicle:

Some of the world's biggest gas peddlers are encouraging their workers to pump the pedal.

Exxon Mobil, BP and ConocoPhillips are among the Houston-area employers trying to make it easier for employees to bike to work.

Workers already have enough excuses: potholes, impatient drivers and the Houston heat.

But some businesses are easing the commute for those who decide the exercise and reduced emissions make biking worthwhile. They're giving them locker rooms, shower areas and safe places to park their bikes.

The program itself is great and I believe more companies should offer programs like this. However these companies like BP and Exxon are among the world's biggest polluters, helping to contribute billions of tons of carbon monoxide in the air every year. They should also focus on helping society wean itself of their oil...but profits tend to get in the way of such things. So while biking to work is great, the price gouging and continuation of the oil addicted society far outweigh any good that comes from this little stunt.

Bush Threatens Veto To Protect Oil Companies From Gouging Consumers

It isn't just about the war that the President opposes Democrats, he tries to stop the majority party from protecting consumers as well. The one thing many Americans need to get around is gasoline. Price fluctuations in the last few years have been devastating to average people that can barely afford $3 or more gas. So when the Democratic Congress wants to impose criminal penalties on oil executives that take advantage of regular people, Bush sides with the criminals.

From Dow Jones:

The vote comes as lawmakers weigh a number of measures in the face of soaring gasoline prices. The House ignored a veto threat Tuesday to overwhelmingly pass legislation that would allow the Justice Department to sue members of the 11-nation Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, under U.S. antitrust laws.

Democrats defended the anti-gouging package, saying it provides safeguards aimed at protecting small businesses and taking account of supply disruptions created by natural disasters and other problems.

Republicans are "asking this congress to wait until a more perfect time ... to help the American consumer out," said Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill. "The American people are suffering right now and they are demanding this Congress take action right now. There can never be a more perfect time for this Congress to take action."

Of course I didn't expect anything different from the President. The only silver lining here is that at least we get the Republicans on record for supporting rich oil executives instead of their constituents who take the hit in the pocketbook. Now if Republicans were smart, they would support the Democratic bill so that we can override the President's veto....I won't be holding my breath.