Originally posted by madmax8
"which will eliminate our dependence of oil in the middle east that will then prevent us from having ever send our men and women into conflict again
with the middle east"
hope you all find this interesting
Yes thanks for posting, I did find this interesting. Regardless of what he tried to explain he meant afterwards, I find these words very clear and
concise.
He says that eliminating our dependance of oil in the middle east WILL prevent us from being in a conflict in the middle east again - I don't see how
you can make it any plainer. Those words actually say that if we weren't dependant on oil in the Middle East we wouldn't be there - peroid. That is
what it says. Did he mean it that way? Who knows, but the way it was said, nothing but our oil dependance is putting us there.
Very interesting. I really wish he hadn't backtracked on it afterwards trying to explain what he was refering to. I really wish someone would just
admit it and stick to it. I just want the truth.
On the other hand, if that is not what he really meant, then his statement becomes entirely false because he is promising that we won't have to be
there because he will make us no longer dependant on Mid-East oil.
No matter how you slice it we got a problem here. He should have just stuck to his guns, because the backtracking (saying the statement is false)
makes the promise false.
So which is it? They can't both be true.
