John McCain's radio address earlier this evening (noted in advance in this post earlier today) covered a lot of ground. Some was well taken, some I think confused. For example, the following contradiction.
First he said that oil was never the reason for the US to go into Iraq. "We could have bought the oil a lot cheaper from Saddam than the cost of overthrowing his government".
On the face of it, that sounds rational. But later he said America was "shaken to its boots" by the Chinese bid for Unocal.
An inconsistency here: either oil is a fungible commodity on the world market as the Economist says (in their eyes the scare over CNOOC is just as much humbug as UK populist outrage over Zimbabwean asylum seekers being sent back) ; orr it's a crucial strategic resouce. You can't have it both ways.