SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend....
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sully- who wrote (366)12/29/2003 2:11:37 AM
From: Sully-   of 35834
 
No war for oil:
Is John Kerry serious?
New Hampshire Union Leader Editorial
<font size=4>
FOR THE SECOND time, John Kerry is running an ad in New Hampshire in which he says that no American should have to "go to war for oil." Is he saying what it sounds like he's saying?

The great canard about the first Gulf War was that it was a "war for oil." Only the lunatic fringe of the radical left believes that the latest war in Iraq was about oil. But there is John Kerry, plainly suggesting that America has gone to "war for oil" because it is too dependent on oil from the Middle East.

Is he irresponsibly playing to that lunatic fringe in the same way Howard Dean did when he repeated the slander that President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks and did nothing to prevent them? Is Kerry subtly — wink, wink; nudge, nudge — suggesting that President Bush went to war in Iraq — a war the senator voted to authorize — because of oil?

Is he saying that the United States should not have defended Kuwait against the aggression of Saddam Hussein? Is he saying that oil is not a vital component of our national security — a component valuable enough to defend? For that matter, are there other things America is dependent upon, but for which John Kerry would not fight?
<font size=3>
It is evident from his bullet-pointed proposal to make the United States energy-independent that John Kerry has devoted some time thinking about energy issues. Some of his ideas, such as providing tax incentives for Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, are rather pie-in-the-sky. But others, such as cutting the energy costs of the federal government, are potentially achievable.
<font size=4>
From someone who has thought seriously about these issues, such a vague and inflammatory statement can only be seen as calculated. So, out with it, senator: What wars has America fought "for oil," and why is a substance vital to our way of life and our security not worth defending?
<font size=3>
theunionleader.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News