finally someone admits the ridiculously obvious, however briefly before getting back on message...
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2005-05-05/news.asp?Print=1
But it’s what comes next that caught Eaton’s attention. While discussing the nation’s dependency on foreign oil, Lungren writes, “I feel quite strongly that as long as we have our military in the Middle East fighting so that we can continue to purchase oil from that region, we have an obligation to find alternatives to foreign oil. It is difficult to justify the death of even one soldier when we are not doing everything in our power to explore options for oil within our country.”
<snip>
Asked if Lungren really feels that U.S. forces are over in Iraq fighting for oil, Wiseman denied that the letter actually says that. While admitting that the paragraph could be taken that way, Wiseman said Lungren’s position is that soldiers weren’t sent to the Middle East to secure oil for the United States, but to oust Saddam Hussein. Having done that, they now need to protect the oil supplies.
<snip>
Still, even if there is truth behind Lungren’s apparent rhetorical slip, not everyone is pleased to hear it. After hearing Lungren’s remarks, California Democratic Party spokesman Bob Mulholland characterized the letter as a “tragic” example of Republican hypocrisy.
“Lungren was a 220-pound football player that avoided serving in Vietnam by using a knee injury as an excuse not to go,” countered Mulholland. “He consistently avoided the military. Now that he gets to use it, it won’t be him or his kids that go overseas to die.”
more...edit: this is via cursor.org