McCain's Good Oil, Bad Oil

Six years ago on this date, the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq unilaterally, remove Saddam Hussein from power, and abolish that country's nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry. I was interviewed by a reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle to explain what the Arab world thought about Bush's motives to invade Iraq, and I explained that they thought the president was driven by oil. The invasion of Iraq proceeded, the WMDs claim was debunked, and the rest is history.

Now, during this U.S. presidential campaign, the subject of Arab oil keeps popping up.
"We have to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much," Republican candidate John McCain keeps on repeating. Democratic candidate Barack Obama has also jumped on the bandwagon, declaring at a Wisconsin rally that a push for alternative energy "will stop us from sending $700 billion a year to tyrants and dictators for their oil."

First of all, this number is exaggerated! According to the Federal Energy Information Administration, in 2007 the U.S. imported nearly 4.9 billion barrels of oil and refined products, 16 percent of it from the Persian Gulf and 10 percent from Venezuela -- countries that "don't like us very much," according to McCain.

By comparison, the U.S. imported 30 percent of its oil products from Canada and Mexico. According to the Foreign Trade Division of the Census Bureau, the United States' entire oil imports in the first seven months of this year totaled $283.6 billion from January through July. This figure was calculated when oil prices were above $100 a barrel! Therefore, there is no way we will be sending $700 billion dollars to "tyrants and dictators" unless we are talking about the banking industry.

Here is the fun part: McCain has been arguing that he has great plans to make America energy independent "within seven, eight, ten years, if we put our minds to it." But on Wednesday night, during his last debate with Senator Obama, he said, "I think we can, for all intents and purposes, eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and Venezuelan oil," he added, "Canadian oil is fine."

Let me get that straight. How will importing oil from Canada reduce the United States' addiction to oil? I'm not much of an energy expert and can't project how fast we can wean ourselves from fossil fuel by following the McCain plan of drilling in Alaska and building nuclear plants which would take ten years to become operational, but what I'm gathering from McCain is that there is good oil and there is bad oil. Arab oil is bad!

One last thing, remember when McCain chastised Obama about Pakistan and accused him of talking loudly? McCain then boasted, "In fact, he said he (Obama) wants to announce that he's going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable." McCain went on: "I'm not going to telegraph my punches, which is what Sen. Obama did. And I'm going to act responsibly, as I have acted responsibly throughout my military career and throughout my career in the United States Senate."

Talking about telegraphing punches! If oil is not a strategic thing Senator McCain, I'm curious: what is?

OPEC will be holding an emergency meeting next month. I wonder what its members will be talking about.

Jamal Dajani produces the Mosaic Intelligence Report on Link TV.

Follow Jamal Dajani on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jamaldajani

Comments

[SamEllison]

"$700 billion dollars to "tyrants and dictators" unless we are talking about the banking industry."
Great line Jamal.

[JonRaymond]

$700 billion here. $700 billion there. $700 billion everywhere.

[newsjunkie5]

McCain is ridiculous...as a matter of fact him and Palin are both ridiculous. They spew out incorrect facts all the time and claim to be experts on everything. The scary thing is that they do this because they know that a large majority of the public will not take the time to research the "real" facts and acquire accurate information to aid them in making the right choice for the country at election time.

[leonardox1]

You're being unfair to John McCain by comparing him to Sarah Palin. At least he's had a passport for the past 40+ years and travelled around the world. He does not think that Afghanistan is our neighbor. But your right about their facts, something they both learned from W.

[newsjunkie5]

You're right leonardox1...McCain is definitely not Palin...I think Palin is far worse, but they both use rhetoric as their campaign strategy and both seem to feel that they are experts on everything. This is what concerns me. They know that many Americans watching the debates and/or listening to their speeches will not take the time to research the facts looking for truth. I think it is irresponsible for ANY candidtae or public official to knowingly mislead the public.

[justice2008]

The US is addicted to oil and this is all campaign rhetoric. If we reduce our imports from the Middle East who will be punishing? EXXON Mobil, Chevron and so on ...American companies!

[LeftRight]

Not really. They will surely survive, because not only have they been making RECORD profits the last several years, the removal of foreign oil from our palette will take place over time, and you can be SURE that they will place themselves at the forefront of whatever form our new energy takes! Not to mention the BILLIONS in tax breaks that they will no doubt get to "research" alternatives......

[justice2008]

You have a point, but how long will it take to develop alternative energy? I'm not so sure that the oil cartel in this country will make it easy.

[jad114]

America cannot drill its way out of its dependence on oil. Nuclear energy is the best answer. France has 56 nuclear reactors, satisfying its power needs and even exporting electricity to other European countries. The problem is as Mr. Dajani states it will take at least 10 years and that's because Bush and company are in bed with the oil industry and did not bother to encourge the development of other energy resources.

[LeftRight]

Of course nuclear has the downside of potential meltdowns which will harm the environment (including people in the area at the time....) for a LONG time down the road. Not only that, even if EVERYTHING goes right (which is certainly possible, I don't deny it) and there's no meltdown there's still the tricky problem of storing all that nuclear waste for the hundred million years or so until it's finally safe to release into the environment......

Not to mention the fact that there's only enough Uranium that we've found throughout the world to power to 13 years if all the world switched to it, and about 100 years if we stayed with oil and coal to come extent.......

[TxAggie]

Nuclear energy produces electricity. It displaces coal and natural gas as a generator fuel source but it doesn't do a thing to replace oil. We import the majority of the uranium used for nuclear plants- that is all fine and good but how does nuclear replace oil? Bush and Cheney are in the pockets of the oil companies and thats why we don't have other energy sources? WHat about Congress, do they not have no role in this mess? Who are you going to blame when those guys are gone?