Posted on 04/14/2002 9:20:18 AM PDT by Trailer Trash
Washington Post and New York Times were previously in favor of drilling
On the Senate floor today, Senator Ted Stevens used enlarged reprints of editorials published by The Washington Post and The New York Times to demonstrate the papers' inconsistencies in editorial position with regard to exploratory oil drilling in ANWR.
In 1987 and 1989 The Washington Post argued in favor of proceeding with exploration on the Arctic Coast and 1987 wrote, "...that part of the arctic coast is one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent, and there is hardly any other place where drilling would have less impact on surrounding life... That oil could help ease the country's transition to lower oil supplies... Congress would be right to go ahead and, with all the conditions and environmental precautions that apply to Prudhoe Bay, see what's under the refuge's tundra..."
In 2000 a Washington Post editorial stated, referring to President Bush, "He'll also have to make the case that in the long run, the oil to be gained is worth the potential damage to this unique, wild and biologically vital ecosystem."
With regard to The Washington Post's editorial change of position, Stevens said, "They made the case in 1987. President Bush can make it now. Where is the consistency of The Washington Post? What has changed? The management of the Post? They haven't produced any new science on which to base their new claims." The Senator also noted that drilling technology has improved since 1987, thereby reducing environmental impact.
In 1989 The New York Times wrote, "... The single most promising source of oil in America lies on the north coast of Alaska, a few hundred miles east of the big fields at Prudhoe Bay." In 2001 they wrote, "The country needs a rational energy strategy... but the first step in that strategy should not be to start punching holes in the Arctic Refuge."
"What happened to The New York Times? Yes, another change in management. Maybe they hired one of the radical environmentalists, but that is not a national newspaper that deserves any credibility. How can you believe them one year and have them turn around and tell us what they said before in 1987, 1988, and 1989 is wrong. They didn't even recognize in their more recent editorials that they had taken those earlier positions. The young people of today, reading The New York Times' editorial pages, won't know about their inconsistency unless some of us call them to task."
Stevens concluded his floor statement by saying, "I'm sad that the Senate Majority Leadership now tells us the we must have sixty votes. I want to close by saying that Alaska's Senators are going to try to persevere too. We're going to stay here and the Senate is going to stay here until we do get sixty votes next week."
Gale Norton hand delivered the real footage to the networks herself last week, and the story of the day was Rep. Markey the magpie spouting off about her spending under 200.00 USD on the project. Does anyone remember how easy it was to get national attention when Bruce (where's my GPS) Babbitt wanted to focus upon a sick bird or endangered slug? Pathetic.....
If you want to see a video without the permission of CNN, please click here for a flash version >> http://www.anwr.org/flash.htm
I had a discussion on another thread recently with someone who was following the enviros script to the letter. When called on all the errors in his posts, he ignored most of them. When I commented on his silence, he sent me a Freepmail:
Obviously, the only thing he "covered" was to cut and paste info from the anti-drilling websites. He was completely unable to defend his points.
Developing ANWR is such a slam dunk, with images (like grizzlies sleeping on the pipeline) that are clear to everyone, the Republicans would be crazy not to push this at election time, especially with union support.
I think Daschle better bring his cot next week.........
When would the left wing maggots at the NY Slimes, DC Compost, and the Clintoon Noodle Net lie to America about oil to protect Opec and the OPECKER Princes at the expense of Americans?
When would the enviral/OPPECKER hand puppets in the Sentate like Da$$hole, Kerry, Boxer, Chifi _________fill in the blank with your rat enviral senator lie to make America more dependent on Opecker oil? Like not even allowing a vote on ANWR so the enviral nazis can lie to Americans about the dangers of big oil and to the caribou slug or some other critter.
The minute we become zero dependent on OPECKER Oil, that is when our Petro $'s stop going to the OPECKER Princes. Then, they will not be able pay the way of mass murderers like Arafatty and OBL and other Arab divisions of murder called terrorists.
Whye does the WP/NY Slimes take the side of the murdering Arabs and Opec for the past 30-40 years? Is it as simple as follow the money from the Opecker Princes to these two fish wraps or even more vile than just follow the money?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.