Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

McCain's Oily Comments

May 02, 2008 10:22 PM

ABC News' Bret Hovell has been reporting about Sen. John McCain's remarks today on the goal of U.S. energy independence meaning never having to send U.S. troops to the Middle East again.

“I just want to promise you this, my friends," McCain said in Denver, "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 prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”

Some interpreted the remarks to mean McCain was implying our troops are currently in the Middle East because of oil.

McCain later said he didn't mean that. That he voted to go to war because he thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That he was referring to the first Gulf War, which was fought for several reasons, "but also we didn’t want them to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil."

McCain hadn't mentioned the first Gulf War at all, though, as Hovell points out. The back-and-forth on the topic continued throughout the day; McCain went on to say that oil is, of course, a factor when making national security decision. You should check out Bret's report.

In January 2003, before the war in Iraq started, The New York Times' Thomas Friedman wrote, "Any war we launch in Iraq will certainly be -- in part -- about oil. To deny that is laughable. ... There is nothing illegitimate or immoral about the U.S. being concerned that an evil, megalomaniacal dictator might acquire excessive influence over the natural resource that powers the world's industrial base."

There is remarkable sensitivity every time oil is raised as a reason for conflict. In the summer of 2003, a bad translation portrayed then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as implying the U.S. was in Iraq, and not in North Korea, because Iraq was "swimming in a sea of oil." The actual comments were more complex.

Wolfowitz had been asked why the U.S. would attack Iraq, which had no nuclear weapons, as opposed to North Korea, which likely does.

"Look, the primary difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil," Wolfowitz said. "In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that, I believe, is a major point of leverage, whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similaritiesm but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances, which are very different."

More recently, Alan Greenspan wrote in his memoir that "the Iraq War is largely about oil."

Then he did the backstroke away from that comment.

- jpt


May 2, 2008 in John McCain | Permalink | Share | User Comments (82)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Why don't you Americans wake up? Look at France that has 70% of their electricity produced by nuclear plants and still counting. They even export electricity to other countries. It seems that the American public does not investigate much around the world, just re-chew the same old political rhetorics every four years.

Posted by: gabred | May 7, 2008 12:09:18 AM

McCain really shows his insight and he is not an empty suit.

Posted by: John_Lai | May 6, 2008 9:10:57 AM

you know what i am soo tired of hearing about the same crab every single four years. get of oil. alternitive energy. health care for all. for the past 30yrs. we've been hearing that. it does'nt change from either side. every politition says what is needed to be said, just to get elected. quite frankley I am soo tired of hearing it. Only one person tried to make a difference. Hillary at least on Health care. You know i have a feeling that the next 20yrs i'll be hearing about foriegn oil. And alternitive energy. Or maybe we will destroy Alaska to get our own oil, which will take another 30yrs. to be productive,to payoff...It really depends on who is paying attention. And if they really want to make a difference. Not lie to the public. You know the king has a gold suit on.. greg

Posted by: greg | May 5, 2008 11:22:53 PM

What I am getting from these responses is that many don't read the article. Saddam was a tyrant. The UN in their infinite wisdom was about ready to remove all of Iraq's sanctions from the preceeding Gulf War. Saddam was friends with Syria where a North Korean Nuclear Reactor was discovered being built. Fact is many of the Democrats agreed to go to war. Fact is the information provided to all political parties was inaccurate because of previous Adminstrations (Clinton?) removed counter-intelligence gathering capabilities - real smart. Wars have always been fought for resources or security reasons, to think differently someone must be born yesterday. Is the US getting the Iraqi Oil, nope, Western Europe and Turkey are. Do we think a Democratic Nation will start in Iraq, no way, they are intolerant of all religions except Islam. We have provided a training ground for future terrorists, yet have kept them busy in Iraq murdering eachother instead of letting them in the US. But is that worse then the gang violence that goes on in every inner city. Complain about all the soldiers killed but there are more people killed every year on US highways by illegals than in the whole Iraq War - something the media fails to publish. People need to read before they understand the total picture.

We have the Three Stooges running for President. Take your pick but remember it is the Senate that runs the country, the President is only the Spokesperson.

Posted by: Underdog | May 5, 2008 5:22:23 PM

To marian - what exactly is "qualified" to be president. Let's see, Bush had no federal experience, Clinton was an unknown governor, Bush 41 is the ONLY president in recent history with executive office experience as the VP, Carter was an unknown governor, even Reagan was a governor, no federal experience. There is NO Candidate that has had to make that 3:00 AM decision or declare war elect judges, etc.

And let's not start on the guilt by association thing. All 3 have someone they would rather have not know in their background, with Clinton having the most.

Posted by: DJ in TX | May 5, 2008 5:06:12 PM

Question: what's Barrack Hussein's energy policy? Answer: He doesn't have one, he's an empty suit without the required experience to handle the job!

Posted by: Todd | May 5, 2008 2:32:09 PM

Finally the truth, its all about oil, but look what happened we have $120 per bbl ($3 a gallon) oil! A "war" premimum of about $70 a bbl. A real energy policy is easy:
1. Import low cost Brazilian ethanol.
2. Purchase exisitng oil fields for future uses.
3. Develop oil shale/coal on Mexican border (their side) for emergency production.
4. Bill Saudi Arabia for our security services -- payable in cheap oil.
5. Sell Iraqi oil to USA for cheap prices as payback of missing revenues and cost of "freedom".
6. Provide $15,000 tax credit over three years for hybrid and alt. cars.

Posted by: philosopherkingtomas | May 5, 2008 1:19:11 PM

Is the truth of our (lack of an) energy policy become that obvious, even to McCain ? Sorry to say, but Nixon wanted to end our imported oil habit 35 years ago. Too bad no one listened to his one good idea.

Posted by: kneedermyer | May 5, 2008 3:01:29 AM

What in Obama's resume makes him qualified to be President? Obama has a very scant background as a junior senator and has not reached across the aisle to work with any GOP Senator on any major legislation. So his mantra of "hope" and "change" are just a bunch of empty words. If Obama was anyone else, his long time and deep associations with the corrupt Tony Rezko, the racist Jeremiah Wright, the terrorist group Hamas, or the unrepentant bomber, William Ayers, would have meant the end of his run for President by now. So again, what makes you think Obama has any qualifications to be President? Please name just one that has any substance.

Posted by: marian | May 4, 2008 5:47:32 PM

Here's a brief analysis (with statistical data) of global oil production vs. global oil comsumption which shows why McCain's claims regarding independence from Middle East oil are an impossibility:

Is McCain deliberately telling falsehoods, or is it that he truly doesn't understand? Of course the answer is: it doesn't matter! He's obviously wrong and just like Bush will never allow the facts to divert his attention from his fixed ideas and hare-brained schemes. His plan is to march steadfastly into disaster and oblivion, taking all of America with him.

Sorry; he's clearly not the man for the job.

Posted by: MGLoraine | May 4, 2008 2:33:46 PM

It's unfortunate McCain states he "will have an energy policy", indicates to me he doesn't have one. Clinton says she has one but hasn't defined it. Not only has Senator Obama had one since announcing for the Presidency, he has also introduced more legislation regarding energy policy than any other Senator. Just to name a fes:S-2984, May 23rd, 2006 The Fill Up Act, S-115, Jan. 4, 2006, The Oil Sense Act: S-2045, Nov. 17, 2005, Healthcare for Hybrid Act: S-3694, June 21, 2006, The Alternative Diesel Standard Act: S-23, Jan 24, 2007, The Biofuels Security Act. There are more, need I go on. You'll find no such legislation by either of the other two candidates and you'll note many of these bills were introduced prior to Senator Obama announcing for the Presidency. Use your head folks!!

Posted by: 1masterstroke | May 4, 2008 1:50:51 PM

It's rather unfortunate I think that McCain states that he "will have an energy policy", indicating he doesn't have one as of yet, and Clinton speaks of having one, , while Senator Obama has not only had one for over a year, but also has legislation on the Senate floor or in committee on energy policies since his entry into the Senate. Just to name a few: S-2984,Fill Up Act introduced May 23, 2006: S-115, The Oil Sense Act, introduced Jan 4, 2007: S-2045, The Healthcare for Hybrids Act, introduced Nov. 17, 2005: S-3694, The Fuel Economy Reform Act, introduced July 19, 2006: S-3554, The Alternative Diesel Standard Act of 2006, introduced, July 19, 2006: S-23, The Biofuels Security Act, introduced Jan. 24, 2007: S-133, The American Fuels Act, introduced Jan 4, 2007: There are more. Need I go on. A number of these bills you will note were introduced before Senator Obama announced for the Presidency. There hasn't been anyone as prolific about the energy crisis in the Senate as Senator Obama. Try to find similar legislation introduced by McCain or Clinton. You won't. Use your head folks!

Posted by: 1masterstroke | May 4, 2008 1:41:08 PM

We must get serious about our dependence on oil and gas. We need to put the focus on countries that supply us with oil aside and start focusing on alternative forms of energy and conserving energy. Also, I am baffled as to the mindset in drilling for oil at the north pole because we can now get there because of global warming. What is wrong with our thinking? Let's focus on conserving and alternative forms of energy. Let's start walking, running, riding bikes, carpooling and taking public transportation. Let's hang our clothes on a clothesline or racks and air dry them instead of drying them in a dryer. Let's remember to turn lights off when we're not in a room. Let's recycle, recycle, recycle. And remember by doing all this you're putting extra money in your pockets. Can you get along without an air conditioner? There are other ways to keep cool. Let's turn that heat back, just add an extra blanket or two at night. Dress in layers during the day. Which candidate is the environmental candidate?

Posted by: Sue | May 4, 2008 7:56:38 AM

Did you guys know the united states is the saudia arabia of coal ?

I have no idea why we refuse to build more dams. We could damn the entire mississippi river and have enough electricity to run the united states -and run electric cars to boot.

Posted by: tomdavie | May 4, 2008 4:46:21 AM

Ok, anybody correct me if I'm wrong. George Bush said the war in Iraq was to introduce democracy into Iraq and free them from dictorship of Sadam. We knew Sadam never had WMD(Bush knew about that),the 9/11 terrorist were not from Iraq(as a matter of fact, Iraq hated terrorists and were killing them). Now McCain is saying we went there because of Oil, but since we invaded Iraq gas prices have been rising. We've been spending billions on Iraq since. So what's the real benefit here? We defintely need someone who never voted for the war in the White House as Gov. Ventura and Rep. Ron Paul suggested. $875 BILLION for the Iraq war and I can't even pay my college tuition without working my butt off?
PLEASE LISTEN TO REP. RON PAUL(Republican) AND GOV. VENTURA(Independent) and vote OBAMA or someone who never voted for this Iraq war.

Posted by: patriotic | May 4, 2008 2:39:12 AM

McCain teleprompter probably had been sabotaged! Actually Ron Paul mentioned in one of the debates that it was all about oil. Since he speaks truth, I believed him then and I believe Ron now.

Posted by: antenian | May 4, 2008 1:04:28 AM

Had the same people that are now running for office did what the President wanted, we wouldnt be in the fix we are now. He warned about using to much corn for bifuels, an not enough for the food supply. He also asked for drilling in ANWAR, but was turned down. If they would only do what he suggested the other day, oil prices would come down, an then the cost of goods will follow. I wonder why all of this down turn started after the 2006 Elections. The Congress has the power, the President is very limited. Why don't these 3 Senators go back to Washington an do something right now, instead of making false promises they cannot keep. If .18 cents a gallon will not save us much, as Obama has said, then why is the high cost of Gas hurting the little man so much?? We need to fill our Reserves from our own oil, not purchasing it fromt he Saudi's. Also, why is it that only those folks that can afford these high prices, are not doing anything to help the little man??

Posted by: homjett | May 3, 2008 11:36:42 PM

PLEASE SNAP OUT OF YOUR BRAINWASHED MODES...BOTH REPUBS AND DEMOS ARE CORRUPT!!! WHAT'S MORE, ALL 3 OF THESE "FRONTRUNNERS" HAVE VOTED TO INVADE IRAN (BEFORE ANY TALKS), AND ONCE THAT'S DONE, THERE WILL BE A DRAFT (WHICH THEY ALL HAVE VOTED FOR ALSO)!!!

Posted by: Keith | May 3, 2008 8:14:44 PM

Anyone hear of peak oil? The rate at which oil is extracted from the ground is now being outstipped by the rate at which is being consumed.

Posted by: freddy_mae | May 3, 2008 8:08:36 PM

What's up with McCain?

Posted by: ChayaFradle | May 3, 2008 7:14:31 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS