why mccain wants to stay in iraq

[stephen]

the iraq war is a pretty touchy subject, with no definitive conclusion on how it should end. mccain has proudly stated that he'd be willing to fight in iraq for 100yrs or as long as it takes. well my question is...as long as WHAT takes??? well...let's see...

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikt...ns-senior.html

^contains direct quotes from a 44 page brochure that was circulated to investors for taking over oil in iraq

http://www.salon.com/news/primary_so...ann/index.html

^where i originally found the article

seems like mccain sure does have a way with picking his senior foreign policy/national security advisor, financial advisor, and VP.

[stephen]

i'll cliff quote for those that hate reading (from the original article):

As recently as last year, John McCain's senior foreign-policy and national security advisor, a neoconservative who played a leading role in pushing for a U.S. invasion of Iraq, was trying to use his role in promoting the Iraq war to make money off Iraqi oil.

In a confidential memo, a company called World Strategic Energy, for which top McCain aide Randy Scheunemann was an executive consultant, told prospective investors that Scheunemann could help World Strategic Energy win oil contracts in Iraq because he was well-connected in the Iraqi exile community and had been a "key player" in getting the U.S.

"Randy Scheunemann was a key player in the U.S. involvement in the Iraq war," says the memo. "[H]e coordinated the White House's 'Outside the Government' public relations campaign on Iraq while administering relationships with key Iraqi leaders in exile." The brochure says that thanks to Scheunemann, "some of the team's strongest relationships are in Iraq."

The brochure lists the company's president as Stephen Payne, who also appears in the photo alongside Chalabi. Payne recently stepped down from a U.S. government advisory role after a report in the Sunday Times of London showed that Payne, also a lobbyist, had offered a foreign official meetings with top Bush administration officials in exchange for a $250,000 donation to Bush's presidential library. The paper reported that Payne had also boasted to a foreign official that Scheunemann had been "working for me on my payroll for five of the last eight years."

Scheunemann is McCain's point man in articulating and defending the senator's Iraq policy.

[stephen]

more quotes, some directly from the "business plan":

directly from the plan:

The document explains WSE's business model. The company is seeking oil and gas leases in "politically complicated" and "often misunderstood" countries.

"Geopolitical risks have often caused the hydrocarbon development opportunities in these regions to be overlooked or underdeveloped. Through our strong business and political ties, WSE has the unique ability to navigate the geopolitical spectrum and inherent risks associated with these politically complicated and sometimes misunderstood countries of the world outside of the traditional means of most firms, as well as with the “turbulent suppliers” of oil to the western world including the Persian Gulf and various Latin American nations."

In other words WSE proposes to make these "complicated" countries offers they can't refuse:

"By utilizing our strong business and political connections, WSE will be able to capitalize financially by continuing to offer geopolitical and business development assistance to a host government while acquiring leases and lease options. The lease-holding governments will issue the leases and lease options to WSE based on our significant knowledge of both the energy and political worlds. By doing so, the lease-holding government will receive the additional benefit of our strong business and political knowledge in the U.S. and around the world, while at the same time still receive the usual royalties associated with passing on a hydrocarbon field to a developer. This arrangement will be a win/win for the oil lease-holding country, the field developer, and WSE."

Judging by the document, strategic assistance comes in the form of lobbying for the interests of the host country in the USA through subsidiaries like the Caspian Alliance.

THE FINAL MOST IMPORTANT NOTES....

The document explains that WSE members have arranged for millions, sometimes billions, of dollars in military and development aid for countries in their sphere of influence.

And perhaps most disturbing of all, the brochure brags about Scheunemann's role in selling the Iraq war:

"Some of the team’s strongest relationships are in Iraq. Randy Scheunemann was a key player in the U.S. involvement in the Iraq war through his role as the President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq where he coordinated the White House’s “Outside the Government” public relations campaign on Iraq while administering relationships with key Iraqi leaders in exile. Randy’s work with the then-exiled Iraqis developed close relationships with many elements of the elected Iraqi leadership. The team has also worked very closely with leaders of the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish parties. Additionally, Stephen Payne has been to Iraq 3 times."

[Alan®]

I haven't read all of it but basically what I did read makes it look like this is basically just another aide scandal.

There are plenty of logistical reasons to stay in Iraq but its 2 am and I'm going to bed I'll explain in the am.

[stephen]

I haven't read all of it but basically what I did read makes it look like this is basically just another aide scandal.

There are plenty of logistical reasons to stay in Iraq but its 2 am and I'm going to bed I'll explain in the am.

being an "aide scandal" is still relevant. these are people who are supposed to be ADVISORS to this man. it's awfully funny how statements made by obama's RELIGIOUS ADVISOR were a reflection of him, but the same doesn't go for mccain? lol, ok. i'd love to hear the logistical reasons to stay in iraq...

[n00bsrus]

is it still being deemed relevant that Obama is a secret terrorist? LOL

[Alan®]

being an "aide scandal" is still relevant. these are people who are supposed to be ADVISORS to this man. it's awfully funny how statements made by obama's RELIGIOUS ADVISOR were a reflection of him, but the same doesn't go for mccain? lol, ok. i'd love to hear the logistical reasons to stay in iraq...

Ok well if you really want to start on the aide scandla thing Obama is just as guilty as he has some of the former ceo's of fannie may and freddie mac working for him as does McCain. It's just pointless political bandering.

The REAL reason we stay in Iraq is so that we don't repeat history.

I have quoted this paper I wrote so many times it's not even funny. Either way it's still relevant

Case in point, Osama Bin Laden and the Attacks on 9/11. Osama Bin Laden’s hatred for the U.S. did not come overnight however; it did begin over 20 years ago during the Invasion of Afghanistan by Russia during the Cold War. On July 3rd, 1979 President Carter signed an order to secretly aid the Afghanistan Rebel’s to push out the Russian’s(Intervention). In an interview ten years ago the then head of the CIA was asked if he regretted supporting Islamic Radicalists to which he responded “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?” (Intervention). It is during this time that he founded Al Qaeda and began setting up training camps in Afghanistan which resulted in the recruitment and training of 5,000 members creating cells in 50 countries across the globe(Who Is). At the end of the Soviet invasion he moved back to Saudi Arabia to join his family and their construction company. His stay there however did not last long due largely in part of the fact that the 1993 bombings of the World Trade Center buildings were linked to Al Qaeda. The link resulted in the loss of his citizenship in that country and being disowned by his own family. Al Qaeda over this time grew in numbers and strength and the attacks became worse. His new strength came from new relationships with a Lebanese terrorist who was wanted for kidnappings named Imad Mugniyah, and an Egyptian named Ayman Zawahiri(Who Is). By 1998 he had been linked to several embassy bombings in Africa and finally the precursor to 9/11 the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole(Who Is).

Beginning to see the picture?

[stephen]

Ok well if you really want to start on the aide scandla thing Obama is just as guilty as he has some of the former ceo's of fannie may and freddie mac working for him as does McCain. It's just pointless political bandering.

The REAL reason we stay in Iraq is so that we don't repeat history.

I have quoted this paper I wrote so many times it's not even funny. Either way it's still relevant



Beginning to see the picture?

you're right...they both had hands in fannie and freddie. that has nothing to do with iraq. mccain has been quoted for saying that he wants to fight in iraq for 100 yrs. even when i look at the paper you wrote....it says NOTHING ABOUT IRAQ. in point of actual fact, your stance on the topic falls more in line with obama than mccain. obama says iraq shouldn't be our focus...it should be where the terrorist hide...afghanistan & pakistan.

i asked jimmy this question earlier, and i don't think he responded yet...so maybe you can (since you seem to have the same view). a lot of iraq war supporters have faulted clinton for not taking out saddam years ago and use that as an excuse to be fighting in iraq NOW, right? we captured saddam, and he was killed in 06'. his sons were also killed (don't remember the year). ok...so....now what're we doing? they've got their own running government...billions of dollars in supplies/support from us....$80B surplus in their economy....so, why not start pulling out and focusing on afghanistan and al qaeda...the people we made the mistake of giving guns to, and who bombed & finally destroyed our WTC? this article shows why we're still in iraq...it's for oil profits, not for terrorist.

[tony]

i asked jimmy this question earlier, and i don't think he responded yet...so maybe you can (since you seem to have the same view).

You know the routine, when you make a valid point it doesn't get a response.. just overlooked then another thread gets started on the same subject where the vicious cycle continues.

[Alan®]

you're right...they both had hands in fannie and freddie. that has nothing to do with iraq. mccain has been quoted for saying that he wants to fight in iraq for 100 yrs. even when i look at the paper you wrote....it says NOTHING ABOUT IRAQ. in point of actual fact, your stance on the topic falls more in line with obama than mccain. obama says iraq shouldn't be our focus...it should be where the terrorist hide...afghanistan & pakistan.

i asked jimmy this question earlier, and i don't think he responded yet...so maybe you can (since you seem to have the same view). a lot of iraq war supporters have faulted clinton for not taking out saddam years ago and use that as an excuse to be fighting in iraq NOW, right? we captured saddam, and he was killed in 06'. his sons were also killed (don't remember the year). ok...so....now what're we doing? they've got their own running government...billions of dollars in supplies/support from us....$80B surplus in their economy....so, why not start pulling out and focusing on afghanistan and al qaeda...the people we made the mistake of giving guns to, and who bombed & finally destroyed our WTC? this article shows why we're still in iraq...it's for oil profits, not for terrorist.

My post is gonna be a little all over the place so bear with me.

1. Yea there isn't anything about Iraq in my paper but it is essentially the same premiss(SP?). If we don't finish the job that we have already starte as many have said "for the wrong reasons", then we are doomed to repeat history.

2. McCain's comment has been taken out of context so many times it's not even funny. Just another great example of reporting and distorting on the part of the mainstream media.

3.My opinion on Afghanistan is in agreeance with Obama we took our eye off the ball. But like McCain has said we have to finish what we have started in Iraq to succeed in Iraq. Hell we don't even know for sure if Bin Laden is still alive.

4. Why are we still there. There are a set of objectives in Iraq and as of a few months ago we had completed 12 of the 15 or 17(I'm not entirely sure). I would assume that once we have completed those that we will pull out.

5. The last part of your comment I honestly can't answer since I was pretty young the first time we went in.

[Alan®]

You know the routine, when you make a valid point it doesn't get a response.. just overlooked then another thread gets started on the same subject where the vicious cycle continues.

[jcbbagley]

I just wanted a little say in this to inform you that republicans (including george bush and mccain) voted to reform fannie and freddie but not the democrats (including obama) because they are the ones getting all the money from fannie and freddie.

Christopher Dodd recieves the most money from fannie and freddie and second in line is good ole Obama!



thanks!

[Alan®]

I just wanted a little say in this to inform you that republicans (including george bush and mccain) voted to reform fannie and freddie but not the democrats (including obama) because they are the ones getting all the money from fannie and freddie.

Christopher Dodd recieves the most money from fannie and freddie and second in line is good ole Obama!



thanks!

Commmon knowledge

[stephen]

I just wanted a little say in this to inform you that republicans (including george bush and mccain) voted to reform fannie and freddie but not the democrats (including obama) because they are the ones getting all the money from fannie and freddie.

Christopher Dodd recieves the most money from fannie and freddie and second in line is good ole Obama!



thanks!

ok...since you REALLY want to go there, let's do it.
-AQUILEZ SUAREZ (listed as mccain economic advisor in 07/07): oversaw the lending companies' $47,510,000 lobbying campaign from 2003 to 2006.

-according to the senate lobbying database, the lobbying firm of charlie black, one of mccain's top aides, made ATLEAST $820,000 working for freddie mac from 1999 to 2004.

-the mccain campaign's vice-chair wayne berman and its congressional liaison john green made $1.14 million working on behalf of fannie mae for lobbying firm ogilvy government relations. green made an additional $180,000 from freddie mac.

-arther b. culvahouse jr., the VP vetter who helped mccain select sarah palin, earned $80,000 from fannie mae in 2003 and 2004, while working for lobbying and law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

-20 mccain fundraisers have lobbied for fannie mae and freddie mac, pocketing at least $12.3 million over the last nine years. (reported by POLITICO)

-for years mccain campaign manager rick davis was head of the homeownership alliance, a lobbying association that included FANNIE MAE, FREDDIE MAC, real estate agents, homebuilders, and non-profits.

-six members of the Republican lobbying firm Fierce Isakowitz & Blalock, all FANNIE MAE lobbyists, have given mccain $13,250.

- (pulled this from the NY TIMES)
The New York investor Geoffrey T. Boisi, a member of Freddie Mac’s board, contributed more than $70,000 to Mr. McCain and Republican Party committees working for his election. Both he and Richard F. Hohlt, a Fannie Mae lobbyist, are among the McCain “bundlers” who have raised $100,000 to $250,000 from others, according to the campaign Web site.

yeah...so....i just wanted to INFORM YOU of that....thanks

EDIT: this doesn't even include the money his other "financial advisor" phil gramm made during the entire crisis.

obama's camp made dirty money also...his hands don't run NEARLY as deep as mccain's. i can also provide you a CHART with lobbyist who contributed to both, and at what amounts...if you care to educate yourself a little more.

[stephen]

My post is gonna be a little all over the place so bear with me.

1. Yea there isn't anything about Iraq in my paper but it is essentially the same premiss(SP?). If we don't finish the job that we have already starte as many have said "for the wrong reasons", then we are doomed to repeat history.

2. McCain's comment has been taken out of context so many times it's not even funny. Just another great example of reporting and distorting on the part of the mainstream media.

3.My opinion on Afghanistan is in agreeance with Obama we took our eye off the ball. But like McCain has said we have to finish what we have started in Iraq to succeed in Iraq. Hell we don't even know for sure if Bin Laden is still alive.

4. Why are we still there. There are a set of objectives in Iraq and as of a few months ago we had completed 12 of the 15 or 17(I'm not entirely sure). I would assume that once we have completed those that we will pull out.

5. The last part of your comment I honestly can't answer since I was pretty young the first time we went in.

we can still finish the job (whatever that may be), but part of finishing the job is pulling out. mccain's comment has been taken "literally" because of ppl like his "foreign policy advisor/head of national security." the bottom line is, the people don't want a war without a cause. there doesn't seem to be much of a cause left in iraq. if the top military commander (who is physically on the ground there), and current commander in chief can agree that it's time to begin a troop withdrawl, then why do we need to listen to someone like mccain on the matter? i'm sorry but, one can only ASSUME that someone like him has something further to gain in the matter than just america's security. obama's words are getting far more twisted than mccain's...iraq is closing to an end...time to begin moving out and focusing on the initial target....bin laden and afghanistan.

[Alan®]

we can still finish the job (whatever that may be), but part of finishing the job is pulling out. mccain's comment has been taken "literally" because of ppl like his "foreign policy advisor/head of national security." the bottom line is, the people don't want a war without a cause. there doesn't seem to be much of a cause left in iraq. if the top military commander (who is physically on the ground there), and current commander in chief can agree that it's time to begin a troop withdrawl, then why do we need to listen to someone like mccain on the matter? i'm sorry but, one can only ASSUME that someone like him has something further to gain in the matter than just america's security. obama's words are getting far more twisted than mccain's...iraq is closing to an end...time to begin moving out and focusing on the initial target....bin laden and afghanistan.

The fundamental difference between McCain and Obama is this statement right here

we can still finish the job

Obama was calling for troop withdrawls immediately if he took office. Regardless of whether or not the job was finished or not. No one not even McCain is saying that we shouldn't withdraw at some point.

Hell even Bush is negotiating/saying we should be out in 16 months? Why because we are almost finished, surge worked, and we can leave without worrying that Iraq will become some kind national security risk to us if we had just pulled out without finishing the job.

I'm sorry but I'll listen to McCain when it comes to foreign policy before I ever listen to Obama. A guy that still can't get his definitions of Preconditions and Pre-emptive meetings uncrossed.

[stephen]

The fundamental difference between McCain and Obama is this statement right here


Obama was calling for troop withdrawls immediately if he took office. Regardless of whether or not the job was finished or not. No one not even McCain is saying that we shouldn't withdraw at some point.

Hell even Bush is negotiating/saying we should be out in 16 months? Why because we are almost finished, surge worked, and we can leave without worrying that Iraq will become some kind national security risk to us if we had just pulled out without finishing the job.

I'm sorry but I'll listen to McCain when it comes to foreign policy before I ever listen to Obama. A guy that still can't get his definitions of Preconditions and Pre-emptive meetings uncrossed.

sorry bro...you've got your info mixed up...

http://my.barackobama.com/page/conte...FQq4sgodQns0Ew

barrack specifically states that we need to END the war in iraq CAREFULLY...the same thing that you just said. mccain disagrees with withdrawing from iraq...PERIOD. he basically says it on his site:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/...7EA83F11D8.htm

John McCain advocates continuing the successful counterinsurgency strategy that began in 2007.

well...that "strategy" was a troop surge...not a withdrawl plan. this is why people take his "100 years in iraq" statement so literal. i'm assuming you quoted bush's agreement with the 16 month plan, because you agree with it...right? well, mccain disagrees with it...he said it himself on an interview with larry king. like i said...general petraeus agrees, bush agrees, obama agrees....but not mccain.

we're basically fighting a civil war in iraq...not terrorism. shiite & sunni malitia's aren't al qaeda...their government has improved....their economy has an $80B surplus (something WE don't even have)...everything else will come when we allow THEIR GOVERNMENT to do what they need to do and only provide SUPPORT...not an all out war.

obama seems to understands the difference between pre-conditions and pre-emptive meetings...it's mccain who doesn't.

precondition: to put in a proper or desired condition or frame of mind especially in preparation

preemptive: marked by the seizing of the initiative : initiated by oneself

you can't force EVERYONE to be in what you consider a "desired condition." it's just not always feasible. obama is willing to take PREEMPTIVE measures by initiating talks, REGARDLESS of what the current condition is. that's something that WE DON'T DO...so why not try it??? imagine if we had to pay traffic violations BEFORE being allowed to go to court...that'd be a pre-condition (pay us first, then we'll let you plead your case).

[tony]

Obama never called for immediate withdrawls. Also the whole "Surge" thing annoys me, there was much more that led to a decrease in violence in Iraq. The Anbar Awakening Council surely had an effect, maybe moreso than the surge itself.

Just because two events happen simultaneously does not mean the two are related.

[Total_Blender]

Obama never called for immediate withdrawls. Also the whole "Surge" thing annoys me, there was much more that led to a decrease in violence in Iraq. The Anbar Awakening Council surely had an effect, maybe moreso than the surge itself.

Reps if I can

Obama opposed the surge because he was in favor of handing the Iraqi government the responsibility for its own security. Whether or not the surge worked after it was implemented has nothing to do with why he initially opposed it before it was implemented.

[tony]

Reps if I can

Obama opposed the surge because he was in favor of handing the Iraqi government the responsibility for its own security. Whether or not the surge worked after it was implemented has nothing to do with why he initially opposed it before it was implemented.

On his 4th Voyage Christopher Columbus was able to intimidate an unsophisticated society into supporting him by predicting a lunar eclipse, obviously Columbus already had a calendar telling him when the eclipse would be but the people absolutely believed Columbus created this great feat.

The Anbar Awakening Counsel started in 2005, their salary was paid by us, the U.S Government. The principle behind the Anbar Awakening is the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Sunni Tribes that were hostile toward American forces were paid to cease fire and work along side our troops against Al Qaeda.

The surge began in January 2007, and almost immediately violence drops? Violence doesn't just automatically stop, its a process. The surge certainly helped but I am hesitant to say it is THE reason why violence dropped in Iraq. But if someone knew this backdoor deal was being made in 05 and they knew the result.. why not take an action that would be interpreted as great based on the ignorance of the people?

[jcbbagley]

whatever you do, do not go to a presidential canditates website to get the facts.

aclockworkobama.com

check it out

[stephen]

whatever you do, do not go to a presidential canditates website to get the facts.

aclockworkobama.com

check it out

HAHAHAHA!

http://www.nojohn.com/

http://www.nojohn.com/facts/

http://www.mahalo.com/John_mccain_scandals

http://www.keatingeconomics.com/?sou...FQ4hnAodsWYTEw