View Full Version : MCCAIN: THE LEXINGTON PROJECT
The Reaper
06-25-2008, 14:48
What the POTUS should have done already.
Devil may be in the details, though.
TR
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm
MCCAIN: THE LEXINGTON PROJECT
Wed June 25, 2008 12:50:11 ET
In recent days I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lexington Project Ð named for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before. And let it begin today with this commitment:Ê In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025.
This pledge is addressed to all concerned -- to those abroad whose power flows from an accident of geology, and to you, my fellow Americans, whose strength proceeds from unity of purpose. Together, we will break the power of OPEC over the United States. And never again will we leave our vital interests at the mercy of any foreign power.
Some will say this goal is unattainable within that relatively short span of years -- it's too hard and we need more time. Let me remind them that in the space of half that time -- about eight years -- this nation conceived and carried out a plan to take three Americans to the Moon and bring them safely home. In less than a third of that time, the gathered energies of my father's generation built the industrial might that overcame Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. That is the scale of our achievement when we set our minds to a task. That is what this country can do when we see a danger, and declare a purpose, and find the will to act.
As president, I will turn all the apparatus of government in the direction of energy independence for our country -- authorizing new production, building nuclear plants, perfecting clean coal, improving our electricity grid, and supporting all the new technologies that one day will put the age of fossil fuels behind us. Much will be asked of industry as well, as automakers and others adapt to this great turn toward new sources of power. And a great deal will depend on each one of us, as we learn to make smarter use of energy, and also to draw on the best ideas of both parties, and work together for the common good.
This Project is not a plan calibrated to please every interest group or to meet every objection. That is how we arrived to our present predicament. That is how energy policy in Washington became a long list of subjects avoided, options ruled out, and possibilities foreclosed. Nor can I promise you that the long-term success of this Project will bring instant relief.Ê In the mission of energy security, some tasks are the work of decades and some the work of years. And they will take all the will and resolve of which we are capable. But I can promise you this. Unless we begin this mission now, nothing will change at all, except for the worse. And when we succeed in the hard reform ahead, your children will live in a more prosperous country, in a more peaceful world.
# # #
Together, we will break the power of OPEC over the United States. .
OPEC? What about the top two countries, Canada and Mexico?
1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil
Those are the top ten countries that provide the US with oil. 6 belong to OPEC (3-8) but a large portion comes from 1-2.
There is a much better way of saying what he has to say without alienating OPEC, IMO.
OPEC? What about the top two countries, Canada and Mexico?
Your point is well taken, but leading with the invocation of a favorite boogeyman is sexier and will get more peoples' attention. I like the message, but at this point it is more of a mission statement than a plan.
The Reaper
06-25-2008, 19:41
Your point is well taken, but leading with the invocation of a favorite boogeyman is sexier and will get more peoples' attention. I like the message, but at this point it is more of a mission statement than a plan.
What is Obama's plan?
No new exploration. No new drilling. No new refineries.
Conserve, and pay more every month. Wait for renewable sources of energy. :rolleyes:
What is next, telling us to turn the thermostat down and wear our sweaters? Oh, wait, he already did that.
When he and the Dem leadership says that it would take ten years for new drilling to affect prices, it just makes me wish Bill Clinton had not vetoed the last time we tried this, about ten years ago.
Lets come up with a plan, and then flesh it out as we go. Everyone is going to have to give up something for it to be comprehensive, and to work.
TR
Ambush Master
06-25-2008, 20:15
Think about Obama's statement about the sudden rise in fuel prices!!! He said that he wished that it had not happend so abruptly, and had been slower!!!
He does'nt give a crap about how high it is!!!
Later
Martin
I guess my point is McCain is taking OIL and making it a national security issue. So OPEC is a threat to our National Security? We buy 18% of our oil from OPEC, 16% from other nations, and the rest - 66% - of our oil comes from Western Nations.
66% from Great Britian, Mexico and Canada, yet "we will break the power OPEC has over our 'vital' interests?"
Not only is he using scare tactics, he is wrong in calling out OPEC. I am not a futures or commodities trader, but I am an educated American. If McCain pulls that same crap the Bush Admin pulled in 2000-2007, he deserves to be kicked to the curb.
Do I want Obama? Probably not. But I will give this man a listen if this kind of hypocrisy on the McCain side is all I have to go on. I am not interested in anything other than debates. I don't want commercials or ads for Dems or Repubs.
Debates and debates only. Take the ads out of the POTUS campaign.
Scare tactics are BS.
And I find it intersting that in 2000 and 2004, the elections of Bush did not center around OIL. But all of a sudden, because of the Bush policies of a 2 front war, one being in OIL rich Iraq, that Democrats are being blamed for the OIL prices and not drilling in the US. Like Republicans made that a top prority when they held the White House and Congress.
Give me a break. The Republicans and Democrats are both to blame, and they have equal share in the idiotic policies that got us to where we're at. I think Republicans have done just as much damage as Democrats. So when Conservatives try to say that Obama is going to destroy America's way of life, I counter with Bush's 2 front war. Hasn't exactly been the best decsion we made as a country.
And for all the Obama Domestic Policies that are socialistic, most Americans disagree with him. Will he get some of these passed through Congress? Who knows. But I do know that Bush bypassed Congress on things that hurt us as well. No matter how much I agree with Bush and what he has done, he did cause major problems internationally and domestically becuase he could not articulate his thoughts or policies.
Kind of like me. ;)
Ambush Master
06-25-2008, 22:54
And for all the Obama Domestic Policies that are socialistic, most Americans disagree with him. Will he get some of these passed through Congress? ;)
Not with the way he's voted!!!................................. PRESENT!!!
The Reaper
06-26-2008, 07:40
So when Conservatives try to say that Obama is going to destroy America's way of life, I counter with Bush's 2 front war. Hasn't exactly been the best decsion we made as a country.
I think you are mistaken, and have been drinking the MSM's Kool-Aid.
We are not fighting on two fronts, we are fighting a Global War on Terrorism. The two primary countries we are engaged in are in the same theater, and have the same enemy players.
If you think Obama is worth a look, you might do some reading on Jimmy Carter, and imagine it ten times worse. Incompetence, partisanship, and lack of experience, combined with raging socialism.
The Republican Congress passed drilling legislation under Clinton, but did not have the votes to override his veto.
Like it or not, domestic drilling is one of the necessary steps toward a responsible national energy policy. Or we can wait for oil to become prohibitively expensive, and go through an economic meltdown that makes the Great Depression look like a picnic. We cannot conserve our way out of this, or develop alternate, zero emission sources adequately before the train wreck occurs.
TR
What is Obama's plan?
I'm no Obama fan - but I also hope that McCain has enough command of substance to go beyond the platitudes above, otherwise we'll still be in the same place four years from now.
The Republican Congress passed drilling legislation under Clinton, but did not have the votes to override his veto.
Sir, I agree with Domestic Drilling. I disagree blaming Dems for the lack of policy. Bush had the House and Senate in 2000 and it was not a priority for his Administration. In 2008, 20/20 being hindsight, that would have been a good time to push it through, no?
Dems and Repubs are completely to blame for everything. To take a corner in support of one against the other is what drives me crazy. What was great about our Forefathers who wrote our Constitution was that they would have denounced both parties (Federalists Papers.)
I am sick at heart as an American watching one party try to chew the other apart like hypocrits. Pick a side? Pick a candidate? No thanks.
We need to find an avenue for those with real talent to run for office. We need to make running for POTUS open to the most talented America has to offer. That is not happening now.
Why do Governers and Senators have favored status? What about CEO's and CFO's and Lt Col's of SF?
Like it or not, domestic drilling is one of the necessary steps toward a responsible national energy policy. Or we can wait for oil to become prohibitively expensive, and go through an economic meltdown that makes the Great Depression look like a picnic. We cannot conserve our way out of this, or develop alternate, zero emission sources adequately before the train wreck occurs.
TR
Sir, neither the Dems or Repubs are stearing us off this course. If so, we would have a plan in place already. And I disagree with the meltdown and "Depression" analogy. Paying $7 a gallon means Americans adapt, not succomb. We have always found ways to overcome adversity, and if you think "an economic meltdown that makes the Great Depression look like a picnic" is on the way, then you have little faith in Americans and our future.
I am sorry you feel that way, Sir.
Remington Raidr
06-26-2008, 20:45
I don't think it's just a "feeling". Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The causes of the Great Depression are debated, but the hubris of our leadership at the time didn't help the situation. We take our economy and well-being for granted. It's nice to have "confidence" in America and it's people (although that confidence seems to be challenged daily) but if we continue to fiddle while Rome burns, economic and political forces could cause a breakdown in the social fabric. By that time, "I told you so" just won't matter. If we are not doing everything to advance, we are falling behind, squandering our position in the world. But some people sleep safe in their beds (for now) and Baby Alex doesn't ever have to worry about anything bad happening because we are such a great country. I sincerely hope you are right.
We take our economy and well-being for granted. It's nice to have "confidence" in America and it's people (although that confidence seems to be challenged daily) but if we continue to fiddle while Rome burns, economic and political forces could cause a breakdown in the social fabric. .
I am not sure I follow you. We have the largest economy in the world by a large margin. There is nothing really to take for granted - the US economy is the very reason Brazil, China and India are going to be GIANT economies. We do not thwart growth in the global economy, we spend our time promoting it.
While Rome burns?? LOL. How is it burning? We live in the most peaceful time in the history of the world. People living on a $1 a day was 40% of the worlds population in 1990. In 2008 that figure is 18%. We live in a world right now that is safer than anytime in history - EVER.
Rome burns, huh? Breakdown in what 'social fabric?'
As I said we live in the most peaceful time in the history of the World. Period.
3SoldierDad
06-27-2008, 07:18
Sir, neither the Dems or Repubs are stearing us off this course. If so, we would have a plan in place already. And I disagree with the meltdown and "Depression" analogy. Paying $7 a gallon means Americans adapt, not succomb. We have always found ways to overcome adversity, and if you think "an economic meltdown that makes the Great Depression look like a picnic" is on the way, then you have little faith in Americans and our future.
I am sorry you feel that way, Sir.
Americans are best with their backs to the wall. We are a culture of extreme problem solvers. However, it should be noted we do NOTHING unless the challenge is pressing, urgent, and imminent - the danger must be right on top of us - extreme. With $7 per gallon gas - You'd have 300 million people making a mad dash to fix the problem. Americans loathe unnecessary pain.
Our imaginations must be engaged to respond. With Energy - We're getting there.
Pain is good.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
dr. mabuse
06-27-2008, 12:00
Definitely the MSM Kool Aid at work here. I love sweeping generalizations. The search button is your friend. :rolleyes:
60_Driver
06-28-2008, 20:48
Another aversion we'll need to overcome is that against nuclear energy...
Barack Obama needs to give a speech about Iraq. Otherwise he will find himself in the unusual position of having being prescient about the war in 2002 and yet being overtaken by events in 2008. The most important reason to do this is not political. Iraq is fading in importance for the public and, to the extent that it matters as an electoral issue, most people agree with Obama's judgment that the war was not worth fighting.
The reason to lay out his approach to Iraq is that, were he elected, the war would be his biggest and most immediate problem. He will need to implement a serious policy on Iraq, one that is consistent with his long-held views but is also informed by the conditions on the ground today. This is what he should say:
"In six months, on Jan. 20, 2009, we will have a new president. But it is not clear that we will chart a new course in the ongoing war in Iraq. Senator McCain has promised a continuation of the Bush strategy—to stay in Iraq with no horizon in sight, with no benchmarks or metrics that would tell us when American troops can come home. In 2006, when levels of violence were horrifyingly high, President Bush and Senator McCain said that things were going so badly that if we left, the consequences would be tragic. Today they say that things are going so well that if we leave, the consequences would be tragic. Whatever the conditions, the answer is the same—keep doing what we're doing. How does one say 'Catch-22' in Arabic?
"I start from a different premise. I believe that the Iraq War was a major strategic blunder. It diverted us from the battle against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan—the people who launched the attacks of 9/11 and who remain powerful and active today. We face threats in Iraq, but the two greatest ones, as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have testified, are Al Qaeda (which is wounded but not dead) and Iran. Both are a direct consequence of the invasion. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before 2003, and Iran's influence has expanded massively since then.
"And then there are the more tangible costs. The war has resulted in over 4,000 U.S. combat deaths, four times as many grievously wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths. Over 2 million Iraqis have fled the country and 2 million more have been displaced within the country. The price tag in dollars has also been staggering. In the last five years, the United States has spent close to $1 trillion on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. That is enough money to rebuild every school, bridge and road in America, create universal health care and fund several Manhattan Projects in alternative energy. Whatever benefits the invasion of Iraq might produce, it cannot justify these expenditures in lives and treasure.
"But these costs have already been paid. Nothing we can do today, in June 2008, can reduce those expenditures or bring back to life those brave people. We have to look at the situation we're in now and ask, what can we do to create the best possible outcome at an acceptable cost? Economists warn us not to dwell on 'sunk costs' and, while painful, we must move beyond the mistakes of the past and focus on the possibilities of the future.
"The surge has produced a considerable decline in violence in Iraq. General Petraeus has accomplished this by using more troops and fighting differently. Perhaps more crucially, he reached out and made a strategic accommodation with many Sunni groups that had once fought U.S. troops. To put it bluntly, he talked to our enemies. These reversals of strategy have had the effect of creating what General Petraeus calls 'breathing space' for political reconciliation. And he has always said that without political progress in Iraq, military efforts will not produce any lasting success.
"He is right. All today's gains could disappear when American troops leave—and they will have to leave one day. The disagreement I have with the Bush administration is that it seems to believe that time will magically make these gains endure. It won't. Without political progress, once the United States reduces its forces, the old mistrust and the old militias will rise up again. Only genuine political power-sharing will create a government and an Army that are seen as national and not sectarian. And that, in turn, is the only path to make Iraq viable without a large American military presence.
CONT'D.....
In recent months there has been some movement on the reconciliation long promised by the Bush administration. It remains piecemeal and limited—nothing like the new national compact that the Maliki government promised two years ago—but I welcome the gains. It is encouraging to see the Iraqi government act against Shiite militias in Basra and Sadr City, which sends a signal that they will be equal-opportunity enforcers of the law.
"More needs to happen. Militias remain powerful in many parts of Iraq. The Sunni tribes that have switched sides must have their members enrolled in the armed forces and police (a process that has moved very slowly so far). Constitutional discussions that have been postponed again and again need to take place soon.
"I have often said that we cannot give a blank check to the Iraq government. And I believe that congressional pressure—the growing frustration of Democrats and Republicans—was an important factor in getting the Iraqi leadership to start moving on outstanding political issues. I believe that we must continue to keep that pressure on the government in Baghdad. The best pressure remains the threat of troop withdrawals. But the obvious corollary is that were the Iraqi government to take decisive action, we should support it by altering the pace of our drawdown. I have set as a target the reduction of U.S. forces at one to two brigades a month, starting in early 2009. Were the Iraqi government to make significant political progress and request a pause in this timetable, and were General Petraeus to support this request, I would give it serious consideration.
"My objective remains to end American combat involvement in Iraq and to do so expeditiously. At some point we are going to have to take off the training wheels in Iraq. I believe that we must have a serious plan that defines when that point is reached. If we define success as an Iraq that looks like France or Holland, we will have to stay indefinitely, continue spending $10 billion a month and keep 140,000 troops in combat. And that is neither acceptable nor sustainable. We will have to accept as success a muddy middle ground—an Iraq that is a functioning, federal democracy with a central government and an army able to tackle the bulk of challenges they face. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have themselves said that no matter what success we achieve, there will remain some Al Qaeda presence in Iraq and some Iranian influence, since Iran is a neighbor.
"I have been a longstanding opponent of the Iraq War. But I am a passionate supporter of the Iraqi people. They deserve a decent future after decades of tyranny and five years of chaos. The United States must continue its assistance and engagement with Iraq on a whole range of issues—economic, administrative and security-related. We owe the Iraqi people this, and we hope to maintain a friendship with them for decades. I have always said that I would not withdraw troops precipitously, nor do I insist that we will draw down to zero. If circumstances require, we will have a small presence in the country to fight Al Qaeda, train the Iraqi Army, protect American interests and provide humanitarian assistance. But it will be small and it will be temporary—which is also as the Iraqi people seem to wish.
Another significant difference between Senator McCain and me is that I would couple the reduction in our military forces in Iraq with a diplomatic surge, not just to push the Iraqis to make deals, but also to get its neighbors more productively involved in Iraq. It is a sign of our neglect of diplomacy that today, five years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, only two Arab governments have pledged to name an ambassador to Baghdad. Iraq is not an island. It is a founding member of the Arab League and a crucial country in the Persian Gulf. We need to engage with all Iraq's neighbors—including Syria and Iran—to create a lasting political stability that is supported in the region.
"But finally, I would return to my original concerns. General Petraeus has successfully executed the task he was given, to shore up a collapsing situation in Iraq. But his responsibility was Iraq. His new area of operation stretches from the Arab world into Pakistan and Afghanistan. There lie the most dangerous and immediate threats to American security. The Taliban is enjoying its greatest resurgence since 9/11. Former U.S. commander Gen. Dan McNeill has said we need at least two more combat brigades to fight it. But there are literally no brigades to spare because of our massive commitment in Iraq.
"The president of the United States is responsible not just for Iraq, not just for the Middle East and West Asia, but for America's interests across the globe. We must make our commitment in Iraq one that is limited, temporary and thus sustainable. And we must also be aware that there is a much larger world out there, with the Taliban in Afghanistan, with Iran's growing ambitions, a rising China, a resurgent Russia, an obstructionist Venezuela. All these require attention. The test of a commander in chief is not to focus obsessively on one battlefield but to keep all of them in view and to use resources and tactics in a way that creates an overall grand strategy, one that keeps the American people safe and the world at peace."
I discussed the author HERE (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18240&highlight=The+Post+American)
IMHO, this author has the best "Civilian" grip on what we are dealing with than anyone I have read. He has an outstanding perspective and is capable of presenting his thoughts better than any writer today.