There are two options:
(1) If you're wrong, man up and admit it.
(2) If you're right, then prove it. Hell, even a name or two of supportive posters would be a start.
If the opinions were as widespread as you suggest, all this dancing on your part has surely wasted far more time than the alternatives above, yes?
Since Bodhi seemed to be reluctant to do so, I decided to use the friendly search feature. There is a little bit of a problem. Ethanol as a viable alternative energy source in the U.S. was beginning to be debunked around 5 years ago. The seach feature only brings up a handful of posts from then and only 1 much older than 5 years ago.
However, I do remember when several posters on this board were lauding the possibilities of ethanol in the anti-foreign-oil fight.
[On a personal note, I do think ethanol has some possibilities. However, the only real way the US could benefit is by finding and utilizing a more efficient source. Since sugar is pretty much out of the question, the only source really left is hemp, which happens to be one of, if not the, most efficient sources of ethanol. I don't see that happening in the US any time soon, though.]
Here's one post with nothing concrete, but Bamaro's post seems to indicate that he was at least favorable to ethanol, as opposed to Bodhi who was vehemently opposed to it even then.
http://www.tidefans.com/forums/non-sports/41829-article-ethanol.html
I don't think the search feature is going back far enough to give us a record of the posts (or posters) who were lauding the pro-ethanol political iniatives as being a huge step in saving us from foreign oil. That doesn't mean they didn't exist. I remember it. I'm sure others do as well. Oh, well.
All is not lost, however. I did find this little gem during my perusal: