Barack Obama’s press contingent has shrunk now that the primary campaign is over, but will we learn of everything he’s saying on the stump? On Monday in Flint, Michigan, Obama repeatedly declared that we’re funding terrorists when we buy foreign oil. In Tuesday’s Washington Post, Obama’s Flint speech drew one sentence at the very end of a story on page A-7. Doesn’t this passage stand out? (Courtesy of reporter Lynn Sweet's blog):
Oil money pays for the bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut, and the bombast of dictators from Caracas to Tehran. Our nation will not be secure unless we take that leverage away, and our planet will not be safe unless we move decisively toward a clean energy future.
This is an odd passage for several reasons. First and foremost, far from taking "leverage" away from dictators in Caracas and Tehran, candidate Obama has explicitly promised to meet them without any troublesome diplomatic preconditions.
Second, Obama’s declaration that our oil purchases buy bombs on the Arab street doesn’t specify whether he means Iran, Saudi Arabia, or somehow al-Qaeda.
(Obama has hardly been clear on his policy toward Venezuela. Brent Bozell had something on his bumbling over Hugo Chavez and Colombian Marxist guerrillas. He’s also completely reversed himself in recent days on Iran, such as when he went to speak before the pro-Israel AIPAC lobby in Washington and tried to sound hawkish. But most of the media were too busy celebrating his "historic" primary battle to review those remarks for the public.)
Here are two other (earlier) passages in the Flint speech explicitly tying foreign oil and terrorism together:
We could have done something to end our addiction to oil, but instead we continued down a path that funds both sides of the war on terror, endangers our planet, and has left Americans struggling with four dollar a gallon gasoline....
In this century, we won’t be secure if we bankroll terrorists and dictators through our dependence on oil.
The third oddity in these passages is how once again, liberals and Democrats are always looking to stretch elastically the definition of "security" far beyond traditional matters of arms to the environment, or health care, or other issues they’re more comfortable discussing. So providing subsidies for solar energy or wind power isn’t just an energy plan – it’s a "national security" plan. Fighting global warming is a "security" plan. Fighting the spread of disease is a "security" plan.
The fourth oddity is simply the perversity of liberals charging that Bush and the Republicans are soft on terror because they haven’t tried to end "our addiction to oil." If buying foreign oil is funding terrorism, then aren’t the Democrats who oppose every effort to drill for domestic oil to blame for not stopping the funding of terror?
None of these questions or oddities is being analyzed by the media. The Post was more obsessed with the horse race, putting a poll of independents on Page One, and submerging the Flint speech at the very end of an Anne Kornblut story marking Al Gore’s endorsement of Obama in Detroit.
In the New York Times, reporter Jeff Zeleny was assigned the Gore endorsement for Tuesday morning, and he made no mention of the Flint speech. Instead, he giddily recounted how Gore compared Obama to George Washington and Christopher Columbus:
Mr. Obama, 46, smiled as Mr. Gore read a quote that President John F. Kennedy once read to a rival: "To exclude from positions of trust and command all those below the age of 44 would have kept Jefferson from writing the Declaration of Independence, Washington from commanding the Continental Army, Madison from fathering the Constitution and Christopher Columbus from even discovering America."
On energy, the Zeleny story added a nod to John McCain’s call to allow offshore oil drilling, and ended with a liberal attack on McCain:
Daniel J. Weiss, a global warming expert at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research group, said Mr. McCain’s call to lift the moratorium was a "partial capitulation" to the oil industry in that states that did not want to drill offshore would not have to.
"McCain is handing America’s coasts on a platter to the big oil companies the day before he goes to talk to them in Houston," Mr. Weiss said.
Zeleny quoted McCain on his oil proposal, but he quoted no pundit or think-tank expert critical of Obama in his story. It was helpfully headlined "Gore Endorses Obama as a Solver of Problems."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Barack's Folly
June 17, 2008 - 09:41 ET by allanfOkay Barack let's say you are correct. So why not drill here in the United States, right now?
Why do you continue to talk about the fantasy of "alternative energy"? A set of roof top solar panels will generate at most 100Kwh per month in most areas of the country. That power is not on demand and worthless at night.
A commerical wind turbine with a 10,000 sq ft sweep will produce about 100Kw in a 10mph wind. A coal plant can produce 30 Mega Watts. So you would need 3000 of these babies to replace a coal fired power plant if wind speeds averaged 10mph.
Mouthing nonsense about innovation won't allow you to defy the laws of physics.
Lastly Barack, if you think we cannot "drill our way" out of an higher oil prices, you are correct: you can't do it. Get out of the way and let the oil companies do it.
Time to drill Barack.
It's control
June 17, 2008 - 09:51 ET by ArcherBYou know the answer to that question. It is a single principle that drives all that Democrats do. CONTROL!
The goal of Democrats is to change your behavior to what THEY think it should be. They want to nationalize health care so they can tell you what and how much to eat, not to smoke or drink and to excersise. They want to keep gas prices high, by taxation if necessary, to keep you from driving as much, driving an SUV or from loading up the car and taking that family vacation. They like high gas prices so you will take public transportion, thus giving them MORE control over where you go and when. It can also give them control over where you work and live.
This isn't about the environment or terrorism. It's about giving your control of your life to a Democrat led government.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Barack and energy crisis
June 17, 2008 - 12:16 ET by merlin61Obama, how are you getting from state to state to
stump for your election. Is alternative fuel getting
you from place to place? Is nuclear power going
to fill your airplane or car? Until we have the
alternative fuel, we need to have oil to get us from
place to place. This is reality and we need to drill
to get this oil in our own country. Taxing the
oil companies is not going to solve anything.
You are so naive, and all you can spew is
change, change, change. Get realistic and
down to earth. Come out of your cloud of
egoism that the MSM has put you on.
Sooo.....
June 17, 2008 - 09:40 ET by expatriotWe need to end our dependence on foreign oil and at the same time not drill the domestic locations so we save the environment. When was the last time we heard of any catastrophe due to an oil spill? Not too recently and that includes the past couple of hurricane seasons which wiped out a bunch of drill platforms in the gulf.
I think McCain needs to push the moratorium through and we need to drill more offshore as well as utilizing the deposits under ANWR etc. Then we would not be funding the terrorists and securing the good old US of A.
Both of these morons have
June 17, 2008 - 10:15 ET by kgBoth of these morons have no concept of balance between improvement and the cost to society. Both of them would break the backs of the citizens of the US to play their game. Clean efficient energy will come along soon enough. Pouring tax dollars and breaking the economics of the US will not make those solutions come any faster.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
Drill
June 17, 2008 - 09:45 ET by NorthCoasterLet's see now. I vote to put all of those new wind turbines off Martha's Vineyard. What do you think Barack?
So I assume
June 17, 2008 - 09:47 ET by 10ksnooker-- Comrade Obama is in favor of telling the Democrat Marxists in Congress to stuff it and we start drilling, start refinery construction and build nuclear power stations? That's all it would take to be "free at last".
That is what he wants, right?
Price too high, supply too low -- Drill more pay less. Economics that even a Demcrat Marxist in Congress can understand.
A fine start to negotiations
June 17, 2008 - 09:54 ET by KC MulvilleJust to amplify your point, Tim. Obama has been saying, throughout the campaign, that we need to engage our adversaries. We have to talk with them. But on the other hand, he boldly proclaims that we won't give these damned jerks another cent in oil money?
Does the phrase "non-starter" mean anything to this guy?
This is the same stupid,
June 17, 2008 - 09:57 ET by mattmThis is the same stupid, blame-America-first message Jimmy Carter gave us in 1976: If you think America is the problem, get the hell out!
"We could have done something to end our addiction to oil."
Like what Barry? Ethanol, solar, hydrogen? Where the !#*# have you been for the last decade? We've been doing that and guess what: It doesn't do much good - other than cause prices to rise and actually benefit "Big Oil" and the terrorists.
Oil is abundant in the earth and its use is not harmful to the planet - the friggin planet makes the stuff for crying out loud!
Drill here, drill now.
It is the attitude of BHO and the Lefty who have made this situation the way it is, and now they blame everyone else...typical.
The alternative energy
June 17, 2008 - 10:32 ET by dscottThe alternative energy panacea is another example of liberals making big promises while in the meantime jacking up costs and justifying doing nothing. Remember how Fusion energy was going to provide infinite cheap electric power? Did it happen? Is it happening? Maybe someday it will happen? The promise of the hydrogen economy is the same spiel.
Solar power and wind power are on a lessor order of far off distant promises excusing doing nothing currently. The problem with solar and wind power is that they do exist but are being sold as if they can solve the problem if but we spend 10 times what we are spending now on oil. The libs are selling a half truth which makes the alternative energy ploy extremely deceptive. Sure it is possible to run the entire country on wind and solar IF you are willing to PAY for it at ridiculously high prices. The justification of course is the environment. Why is it that liberals always seem to gold plate their boondoggles, can't they just settle for a cost effective process or product?
The bottom line here is liberals knew the public would never buy into their gold plated solution unless they deliberately caused the current technology to be as expensive as what they are proposing. Seems like their plan is working by restricting drilling, refining and nuclear power... The question is has the public gotten enough information to realize what they are up to and do they have the will to say NO!
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Obama is trying to pull the
June 17, 2008 - 10:34 ET by dscottObama is trying to pull the same double meaning speech he pulled with his so called Father's Day message. He is literally talking to two different groups with two different messages using the same set of words. Everyone is interpreting based on their world view and Obama knows it.
A skillful liar says just enough to allow the listener to read into what is said because they know certain people make certain assumptions and when confronted later on for engaging in misleading statements, the liar simply says "it's not my fault you misunderstood what I said." or "I'm sorry, you misunderstood what I said." This is the inherent problem with speeches versus townhall meetings, in a speech the listener can not ask clarifying questions, in a townhall meeting those with whit can expose the huckster, now you know why Obama doesn't want to go to townhall meetings.
Obama and Gore are nothing more than a conartist tag team.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
The Facts on Gas Prices that Democrats don't want you to know.
June 17, 2008 - 10:17 ET by MSD6The average national U.S. price for gasoline has increased by $1.95 per gallon* since the Democrats took control of both houses of congress (week of 1/21/07). That's an 91.5% increase in less than 17 months ($2.13 to $4.08). Almost Double!!!! So much for the Democrats campaign promise to lower the price of oil and gas once elected. Just another Democratic lie to the American Public to get elected. Source - www.GasBuddy.com Please copy an paste and send this fact to everyone in your address book. Please.
Candidate Barry
June 17, 2008 - 11:27 ET by iveseenitallWe are finally getting some "specifics" from the candidate of "hope' and "change". Let's see --1. He will raise taxes on the "rich". For example your capital gains, money you've worked for one way or another, will be taken from you at a rate of about 55% and be given to some lazy bum who needs "job trainning" as a reward for not abandoning his wife and children. 2. He will stop all defensive missle testing and "talk" with the Russians about our plans. No "hair trigger" misslies for us, by golly. 3. He'll have us run like Hell from Iraq, leaving a few troops to get slaughtered with the rest of that nation. 4. He'll ban all domestic oil drilling and work ever so hard on "alternative" energy which is light years away.
These are but a few of the "specifics". As the drum beat of communism continues, its distant sound gets louder and louder. America is in danger and many don't know it or care about it. Sad.
Check this:http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/02/27/obama-plans-to-disarm-america/
Who is Barry Sotero?
NEVER, NEVER trust a "liberal"
"If buying foreign oil is
June 17, 2008 - 10:31 ET by misterbee241"If buying foreign oil is funding terrorism, then aren’t the Democrats
who oppose every effort to drill for domestic oil to blame for not
stopping the funding of terror?"
Yes.
There is none so blind as they that won’t see. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745
Well, if taken at face value...
June 17, 2008 - 11:01 ET by c5thenDependance on foreign oil is then a National Security matter. Therefore anyone who stands in the way of oil independance is a danger to national security and should be treated as such. Right Obama?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Oil money pays for the bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut,
June 17, 2008 - 12:04 ET by CarlosSDid Barry Oh'Bama just accuse Saudia Arabia of funding terrorism?
ANOTHER BHO FANTASY
June 17, 2008 - 13:56 ET by reelman46BH OBAMA: ANOTHER TERRIFYING FANTASY
He
is at it again, nonsense…you cannot handle world terrorism with the
courts because that is always AFTER the killing, repeat…that is AFTER
the killing. We need to listen in and do what we have been doing to
PREVENT an attack. This dufus wants to talk to terrorists then
prosecute them with all constitutional rights AFTER the killing. Okay,
the next terrorist comes thru Mexico with a suitcase nuke… president
BHO believes in open borders and no preemptive active program against
terrorists soooooo he has nothing in place…hence we lose 300,000 people
and he comes on the TV to tell us the (now dead) moslem(s) would have
been brought to justice. No way that approach can make any voter feel
safe.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Calling our use of oil an
June 17, 2008 - 19:20 ET by zfCalling our use of oil an "addiction" is retarded in the extreme, sort of like decrying mans "addiction" to food and water. It's not "addiction" it's necessity.
And there's nothing innovative or new about any of the "alternative" fuels touted these days.
Men have been using the sun for energy since the caveman days, and trying to bank our energy needs on the sun will lead us back to those days.
Wind power? Since when are windmills new technology?
Ethanol? I thought the days of using bootlegged alcohol to fuel Model T's was over.
I could go on and on.
Ironically, the newest of the energy sources than can be used to lessen our use of fossil fuels is nuclear (nearing a hundred years old by now) and guess what, liberals say we can't use that as as well as not drill for domestic oil.
So who is making it hard to end our "addiction" to foreign oil, again?