by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 4, 2008
All Rights Reserved.

n what's become all-too familiar, GOP presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain made another gaffe while campaigning in Denver. McCain was forced to clarify remarks suggesting that the Iraq War was fought for oil. “My friends, 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 young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,” McCain told a dumbfounded crowd at a town-hall meeting. When Vice President Dick Cheney met in March 2001 behind closed doors with oil executives, suspicions were raised that oil motivated the Iraq War. White House officials refused to release public records, forcing the press in April 2001 to file under the Freedom of Information Act. President George W. Bush and Cheney declared executive privilege soon thereafter.

      In the months after Sept. 11, the White House shifted its focus onto Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Former National Security Agency counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke confessed in his 2004 book “Against All Enemies” that Bush was consumed with Saddam Hussein before the Sept. 11. After Sept. 11, Clark's said Bush urged him to investigate Saddam's relationship to Sept. 11. Even after the 9-11 Commission released its report Aug. 21, 2004 report absolving Saddam Hussein, the White House continued to point to a fictitious meeting between Sept. 11 mastermind hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent in Aug. 2001. No credible intelligence agency found any proof of the meeting. McCain's Freudian slip raised disturbing questions about the rationale for the Iraq War. War critics have long believed that the war was fought over Iraqi oil.

      When McCain mistakenly accused Iran of training al-Qaida on a stop in Aman, Jordan, it took his traveling buddy Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) to correct him. Lieberman wasn't there today when McCain said under his presidency Americ sons and daughters wouldn't die fighting for Mideast oil. “No, no I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons,” McCain told reporters, back-peddling on trying to undo another faux pas. War critics have long accused the White House of going to war to advance the interest of U.S. oil companies. History clearly shows that the first Gulf War began after Saddam invaded Kuwait for slant drilling into Iraqi wells across the border. When then Iraq complained to then U.S. Ambassador April Glasby about Kuwait's slant drilling, she told Saddam the U.S. doesn't get involved with border disputes.

      When Saddam began torching Kuwaiti oil wells operated by British Petroleum, British Prime Minister Maggie Thatched called President George H.W. Bush to make Iraq stop, launching operation Dessert Shield and then Dessert Storm, formally beginning the Gulf War. No one knows what transpired in Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force with Exxon Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum. Bush's critics suspect they were promised cheap Iraqi oil if and when the U.S. toppled Saddam's government. McCain's Freudian slip carries added significance because of White House secrecy, declaring executive privilege. “The Congressional Record is very clear: I said we went to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction,” said McCain raising Bush's first excuse for going to war. When WMD wasn't found, it was to enforce U.N. resolutions and sanctions.

      McCain has a real credibility problem promoting the Iraq War, while, simultaneously saying that his administration won't permit U.S. forces to die for Mideast oil. McCain frequently complains about getting misquoted and misrepresented by Democrats insisting that he wants to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years. Whether or not his remarks were misquoted or misinterpreted, McCain believes Bush's fairytale that the U.S. military battles in Iraq the perpetrators of Sept. 11. All terrorism experts have said otherwise. McCain must sell voters on the idea that leaving Iraq would have catastrophic consequences to U.S. national security. When WMD were not found in Iraq, the White House lost its excuse for war. If McCain has any chance in November, he must distance himself from Bush and show he's willing to reevaluate the situation and potentially change directions.

      McCain's Freudian slip opens up a can of worms about the real motives for U.S. involvement in Iraq. Until and unless Cheney's Energy Task Force records are unsealed, critics will suggest that big oil continues to call the shots. No one knows what promises, if any, were made by Cheney to publicly traded companies regarding the price of Iraqi oil. McCain's faux pas, if nothing else, reflects the problems with U.S. Iraq policy: Nothing seems to justify continued occupation other than controlling Iraq's oil industry. With no WMD found and with al-Qaida in Iraq unrelated to the terrorists responsible for Sept. 11, it's a tough sell justifying the war. When McCain said in January that, as far as he's concerned, we might be in Iraq for 100 years, Democrats had a field day. Regardless of his explanations, McCain can't keep making mistakes without paying a draconic price.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.