You mean the only news that the left-wing media regarded as newsworthy. In point of fact, many of the attendees lambasted Coulter for her antics (this, by the way, is the sort of thing that distingishes events like this from actual cattle calls - like, for example, the "memorial service" for Senator Wellstone). But you hit on a very pertinent truth: McCain displays the same ignorant prejudice toward conservatives that you do.

And so rather than be caught dead with "those people", he instead rides his high horse onto The Dave Letterman Show in a strained attempt to prove to everyone how hip and maverick he his (what was it you were saying about "gravitas", by the way?), promptly shoves his foot in his mouth, and gets rebuffed on it by Democrats. And this is supposed to prove something about Iraq? Seriously?


Correct. The fact that he hasn't addressed the issue has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with him. He simply hasn't addressed the issue. Speculating about Maliki's opinions of what we should do has nothing to do with examining the consequences of failure. And since you've already acknowledged that we can't afford to lose this war, I don't know what you're even still arguing about anyway that pertains to the debate questions.



If you're looking for absolute certainty in foreign policy, you're not likely to find it. But anyone with a fair degree of what you referred to as "horse sense" will tell you that an immediate withdrawal as you've advocated is far more likely to legitimize al-Qa'ida than to delegitimize them. They'll portray our withdrawal as a huge victory for them, and as proof that momentum is on the side of the jihadis, just as the Quran says. And they'll find a very receptive audience for their propaganda. Furthermore, they'll portray the current government of Iraq as a puppet of the U.S., so it will have all the same enemies with far less protection.


It's not just Bush who's saying this. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group has likewise stated in very stark terms that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq will almost certainly make things much worse for the region and for our security. That's why not even the Democrats are demanding it.

I don't buy a single word of your view. There is no evidence whatsoever what you say is true. Granted, mine doesn't either, but my view doesn't require us ponying up more American troops for target practice.

Given your logic, Al Qaida is our puppeteer that can have us do anything they want (which they've had a fair amount of success so far) lest we "embolden" them or whatever. In the old days, the Americans used to control the policy and the message. Now Al Qaida does.

This says so much about conservative ideology.

First we don't need oil. We need energy. We can get energy with a rational energy policy that isn't set by Cheney, Haliburton and the oil industry. But that requires vision, commitment and a belief that America is more important than the oil company executives and their profits. This tells us where conservative are coming from.

Second, we just spend $1 trillion in Iraq. If we had spent that on a Manhattan project to become energy independent in 5 years, we'd be there today. Now, conservatives dispute that because at heart they don't think America can solve any of its problems excempt by invading other countries and taking their resources. Progressive think we can solve problems with rational policies based on the national good, not private interest.

And that's the difference in a nutshell, and that's why conservatives got us bogged down in Iraq. Lack of vision.

We need energy – WOW – wish I had thought of that and so Landru thinks that all we need to do is spend “money” and the technology to replace oil (at oil prices or lower) magically appears. Want to back that up with something? Which technology, if we spend a trillion, right now is going to power our cars and heat our homes to replace oil (at the same price). Now. I can’t wait for your brilliant, backed up with data, reply.

No the reality is we are decades away and until those decades pass any interruption in the OIL market sinks out 12 TRILLION $$$ economy. Even a 20% drop in GDP could cost us 2.4 TRILLION a year. Get it?

Talk to quick about it. I was just paraphrase his mistaken notion that we need oil rather than energy. I can't help it if you conservatives have trouble expressing yourself.



We have liftoff --the conservative theme of "America can't do anything to solve any problem." We can't solve our problems. It's oil or nothing. Your lack of imagination is why the conservatives will soon go the way of the whigs.



I get that you are another pessimistic conservative who thinks America can't solve any problem but Exxon can.

We created the atomic bomb in a couple years with a Manhattan project. Spend a trillion dollars on an energy Manhattan project (instead of conservative pet projects in Iraq) and we can become energy independent. It's only rocket science to defenders of Exxon. Off the top of my head, the federal government should begin a project of complete solarization within 5 years. The program will create economies of scale for solar power units, meaning average citizens could then afford them, and get off the grid. About 40% of our energy needs could be solved that simply. Oh, but Exxon would get no profit out of it, so Ted's against it. I forgot .

Ted, you have to beleive, beleive in the greatness of America again. Together, we can get through this.

You apparently don’t know that the “government” doesn’t develop all the new technologies. Even the government labs use outside companies and universities and YES much of the “energy” research is actually done by people you hate – Exxon, BP, etc.




I am not interested in “Off the top of my head” – since I contend you are wrong. So if you want to post some data do so or lets drop it. Certainly the “government” or “company” that can do away with the need for oil will be worth 100s of Billions (PROFIT) so I am sure you can get me some data and time line for the 5 years?


Oh and what do we do in the meantime if the ME goes to hell and oil is $ 300 a barrel? Just curious.

On the contrary I'm painfully aware that under conservative voodoo ideology, the government isn't making us energy indepedent. And of course neither is Exxon. Surprise surprise. You've identified the problem, now back to the solution -- we need to have a rational funded program to make the US energy independent in light of the failure of large self-serving greedy corporations to do so. Another market failure needs to be corrected by democratic action.



Here's a concept: if we could make America energy independent in 5 years by a government program, would you be for it?

Like I don't already know where your loyalties lie.



You're right. We should have started this 5 years ago, but Bush and the conservatives were negligent. We better start now and not make the same policies errors conservative keep making in trusting large corporations. I agree it's bizarre.

Still no answer. Here is a hint – when you make claims – especially wild one be prepared to be challenged and be ready to back them up.

To answer you – YES I would be very much “for it”. I live in a heavily insulated house and use i/3 the oil you probably do and it cost me to do it. The stupid government (going back to Carter) should have been doing it and requiring it and subsidizing it – but when the price of oil dropped in 1975 the Congress dropped it all FLAT.

Below is some of the latest on solar. We are 10 years at least from panels that will replace generated (by oil or coal) electric power – THEN decades to get enough people using them unless the “government” wants to cough up the billions required. The big “arrays” on western land are a ways out as well and amlord covered this – go back and read it.

Decades of research have driven down the cost of going solar. In 1990, solar panels would set you back as much as 65 cents a kilowatt-hour--nearly 4 times more than power from the grid. Today, the price is half that, and millions of new panels have appeared on roofs across the U.S. as a result. Yet the price is still prohibitively high for many homeowners and businesses.

As part of its new initiative--called Technology Pathway Partnerships--DOE has charged 13 consortia of companies with the goal of making solar technology affordable for everyone by 2015. The companies, which include big ones such as General Electric and Dow Chemical and smaller firms and startups, will investigate new technologies such as all-in-one organic cells, conduct adhesive studies to create roofing materials that include solar cells, and commission new engineering work to create cheaper cells that concentrate the sun's rays. DOE will spend up to $168 million over the next 3 years on the program, with consortia members chipping in an additional $189 million.
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/309/2

Bottom line is still this- If we fail in Iraq and oil prices jump the “cost” of that will far outweigh all we have spent there times 10.

In this encomium to failed market policies that have left us dependent on of all places Iraq, I see you didn't answer my question -- If a government program for energy independence would make us so, would you be for it, or would you come to Exxon's defense?

As to oil prices and Iraq -- Oil prices went UP after we invaded Iraq, not down. We caused instability. Cheney knew that would happen. He talked with his buds at Exxon and they said, OK with us, the higher the price of oil, the more profit we make on a product we already have.

And of course Exxon made the highest profits of any corporation in history last year.

See a pattern forming?

Please try reading what I say. Yes I would, as I said “go for it” but government programs don’t invent technology overnight – again read what I said and posted – if you read the economic press you see oil went up because of increased demand from the booming US economy and CHINA. You slander of Cheney is silly – at best.

And Exxon only made the “highest profits” (not as a % of course) because they bought Mobil – did you miss that little fact? They made 8% net – hardly earth shattering.

The pattern I see forming is you are not doing your homework and therefore have no clue to the facts.

No evidence that running away from a thug makes him more powerful? Wow. Let's go back to Chamberlain, Czechoslovakia, Hitler, and 1938, shall we? Then there's our hightailing it out of Somalia in 1993, an act that was widely considered to have inspired bin Laden further. And there's ample evidence that Israel's retreat from Lebanon last summer made Hizballah more popular there and throughout the Middle East, along with their chief sponsors, Syria and Iran. People flock to the ones who appear to be calling the shots, espicially if it's someone who can credibly portray himself as a David pushing around a Goliath. You're free to ignore that universal fact of human nature, but to claim that there's no evidence for it simply doesn't wash.


That absolutely does not follow at all. Pure strawman fallacy.

We invented the atomic bomb in a couple years. Yes, Ted, the American people through their democratically elected government can in fact solve problems and not leave it to Exxon.

Your statements go beyond naive. Are you saying the “government” alone can just, for example, come up with the new super solar cell that makes power for 3 cents a KW/Hr? If so you need to post something because I think that is not even dreaming it is delusion. This is not a “bomb” we are discussing – it is technology and the infrastructure to produce it and use it. None of which can be brought on line in the near term (under 10-20 years) to replace even a fraction of our oil dependence. And certainly not by "government"

For the last time – the consequences of running in Iraq could be regional conflict and a sever oil price rise that could cost this country 4 trillion a year. And Russia for one would love it as they have vast oil reserves that they could sell at a handy, huge PROFIT – same for your friends Venezuela, and Iran.


Let’s end our debate here. If you want to post some technology data to support anything you have said we can discuss – otherwise it is all your opinion and I disagree.

Ahhhh, there has been a severe oil price rise, which is the result of the invasion of Iraq and the instability that cause. All to Exxon's benefit.

See a pattern forming.

I don't blame you for wanting to end the technological debate. You can't win it. America could become energy independent in 5 years if it wanted to. It just has to pay for it. But of course if you spend $1 trillion in Iraq building firestations for radical islamic factions, then you don't have the money to do it.

Honestly, Ted, America can solve technological problems without Exxon.

Not your pattern at all, in fact that is not the cause of the price increase – increased demand is from out booming economy and the rapidly growing economy in China among other factors.


China’s oil consumption in 2003 makes it the world's second largest consumer of oil after the United States. According to last year's figures from British Petroleum, China increased its oil use by 11.5 percent, consuming 6 million barrels per day.
The growth figure continues to rise according to the International Energy Agency. During the first seven months of 2004, China's annual consumption rate increased by 40 percent, with a further nine percent rise in oil consumption expected in the third quarter

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-9-14/23084.html


The price of standard crude oil on NYMEX was under $25/barrel in September 2003, but by August 11, 2005, it had risen to over $60/barrel, and out at a record price of $78.40 per barrel on July 13, 2006. Experts attributed the spike in prices to a variety of factors, including North Korea's missile launches, the Crisis between Israel and Lebanon, Iranian nuclear brinkmanship, and reports from the U.S department of energy showing a decline in petroleum reserves.[1] While oil prices are considerably higher than a year ago, they are still roughly $14 from exceeding the inflation-adjusted peak of the 1980 shock, when prices exceeded what would today be equivalent to $90 a barrel


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_inc...es_of_2004-2006




Can you back this one liner up?