Posted on 05/18/2008 5:29:27 AM PDT by A Navy Vet
I have come to the sad conclusion that President Bush is a Punk on the World stage. If ever a US President deserved that term, it is George W. Bush.
In case you haven't been keeping up with current events, the leader of the free world made a special trip over to Saudi Arabia recently to ask them to increase oil production. They said no, Bush left with hat in hand.
While some may see this as some sort of diplomatic effort to reduce the price at our pumps, I see it as surrender to the OPEC tyrants.
This is the United States of America President that was essentially beggin for sandrats to give the world more oil.
I don't know about you, but I'm done with this man and will forever call his time in the Oval Office the PUNK presidency. I acknowledge his WOT, but the DefSec and the Generals make that happen and they are doing better with the surge. The President, along with the StateSec make foreign policy and it has been a disaster. PUNKED!
Below is part of an article on this, and the Judge ruled the Interior had no more time to decide although they requested it, and the Judge demanded answer...Bush does not necessarily agree, and in time this may turn out differently. The judge wanted to get Bush criticized to help Dems in election, and the Interior Dept had to make a decision now.
“President Bush and members of his administration have criticized environmentalists’ moves under the endangered species law and other statutes to force federal action on climate change. As Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, put it earlier this month, in a briefing preceding Mr. Bush’s latest speech on climate, the result was a looming “regulatory train wreck.”
“This would have the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act all addressing climate change in a way that is not the way that they were intended to,” she said.
The polar bear issue has been a particular thorny one for the administration. It is pushing for new oil and gas drilling in polar bear habitat while biologists for Interior Department, prodded by legal action, recommended the bear be given threatened status under the species act because of the warming of the Arctic and summer retreat of sea ice.”
Dubya didn’t do this.
I’m of the conclusion, Just, BDS is at epidemic proportions.
Face it, other than the tax reduction, he has been week domestically. Also, not the best CIC according to his own Generals.
The guy has been dismal and we will be feeling the effects of his poor energy policies for years, if not decades to come. Of course, I hold no hope for Mclame to turn it around. Anyone who wants to work with Kennedy is a lost cause for conservatives. Bet he gets punked, also. Whatever, have the last word...I'm done.
Did you read what you posted. It’s about BS ethanol and more stringent gas mileage and clean air. No allowance for drilling, refineries, nukes, coals, shale. It’s a feel good bill that will do nothing for our energy needs.
You do not know who you are speaking to or what I do and how often I do it. I refuse to get into a pissing match with the likes of you.
The troops will tell you so.
No, that is not what they tell me!
Get off your high horse.
YOU have the unmitigated gall to say something like that to ME?!?!?!?!
Now you're showing how naive you are. Apparently, you missed my post above about the bully pulpit
LOL! Better naive than ignorant. Apparently, YOU missed my post above that contained this:
NO! You started this imbecilic thread...you first!
BTW, just as a reminder how serious this oil situation is...
LOL! Once again, you have no idea who you are preaching to. There are photos of me when I was 6 years old playing around the oil rigs as well as the property purchased to build the first plastics plant in the area.
I concur. It is truly pathetic that there is no longer any place to go for rational, reasonable discussion.
Where did you SEE/READ that?
“Dims, why did he not bring prominent Republicans before the American people and make the case about Dim obstructionism”
Bush had a lot say, but the elite democratic media isn’t going to cover it, where have you been?
Where has Bush been? Let’s see:
1.Clintoon people obstructed Bush people an extra two months before they could get in their offices after Jan 01 inauguration, and destroyed files, desks and created chaos.
2. 9/11/01 We are attacked...seems he is pretty busy dude.
And to top it off, Rice missed some important info that he did not get, and CIA (corrupt since Carter) gave bogus info at best....Establishing Homeland Security, a very much needed organiztion...about 20 yrs too late.
3. UN insisted on giving Sadaam Hussein 6 mo warning before attacking...so those trucks on the road to Syria seen by Satellite that only one media showed were probably carrying any WMD if there were any. All time leading up to that was getting allies for the war; a necessary war I believe.
4. Managing the war, Al Queda begins bloodshed daily on national TV, the dems are back to days of protesting war as in Vietnam, (their hippy offspring). The months and years of trying to fund the war, and keep allies with us.
5. The illegal aliens problem is skyrocketing, and the appointment of Supreme Court Justice, and the conflict by dems at every turn for every decision sucking the life out of everything that needs to be done.
6. Iran, and IED’s, the casualties and the election of the dems to congress over the war. DEMS DECLARE WAR ON BUSH..so now the whole middle east is after him, and half of the US dems...I get so disgusted with all this lack of realistic rhetoric. It amazes me he gets as much done as he does.
7. Diplomacy meetings with various country leaders, and the time it takes to get to influence those hypocriticals.
The democrats have taken up the last two years with their bombardment of lawsuits, earmarks causing vetoes and redos, and constant intrusion of time consuming junk to sidetrack him from any useful opportunities.
If you remember a lot of Republicans were disgraced over money, words, or other things that kept them busy trying to hold things together, but that isn’t Bush’s fault. If someone in your company embezzles money, then the top takes the blame, however the top usually doesn’t even know the crime was committed until afterward.
2004 election also garnered almost whole year of campaigning, and fighting for money for war.
The dems said they would ruin any Repub legislation, and would filibuster and create chaos..I think they have been true to their word. don’t you? Is that patriotism? No, but noone blames them for oil and gas problem, although that is where problem is.
Nancy Pelosi went to see Chavez (without permission), and no charges were filed. She and dems stopped Columbian trade bill..postponed it, and she proposed tax on US citizens buying gas, which would eliminate Chavez from paying any tax to US...nice deceptive move, and I wonder what their deal was when she went to VZ.
There are a lot of people to blame for a lot of things, but the devil has everyone zeroed in on Bush.
Why isn’t Nancy Pelosi and dems taking the blame they deserve on not drilling in ANWR, dem environmentalist lawsuits regarding Polar Bears. Put the blame where it belongs for a change.
The blame? That's real simple. Every sitting POTUS taking office from 1989 - present, the GOP so called majorities elected in 1994 and sold us out in 1995, a majority of both DEM and GOP house and senate members for the past 40 nearly 50 years. The majorities changed but the agenda's did not. The GOP has been every bit as guilty on the oil issue as the DEMS. What is worse is Liberals in a few states have chosen McCain as the GOP choice. Either way we loose. The DEMs get another Bush like Stooge to do their work for them and blind Wepublicants cheering him on.
Polar Bear Bush.
Yes, he is the head honcho and it is his Dept.
I gave Polar Bear a break, but the Polar Bear decision is too close to home. I worked at Prudhoe and on the Alyeska Pipeline. That doesn’t make me an expert of course, but he is Polar Bear from here on out.
Well that’s the attitude that elects Obama. Good luck with that.
It's the truth of the matter. Until Republicans finally wake up and see the enemy within their own party the government is gonna be business as usual no matter who wins the White house. The only way to hold POTUS accountable after election is via congress. When congress no longer operates within the boundaries and conditions specified in the Constitution then anarchy and corruption prosper. Which do you want? Your party to win no matter how wrong they are too, or real positive change in our government?
If not for Congress giving Bush everything he didn't need in the way of Executive Powers and new Cabinet level Departments then this POTUS election would not be near as critical now would it? Which party gave Bush those powers?
Bush wasted the opportunity of several generations to bring about a reversal of liberalism in this nation. Had he jumped on the oil issue from day one we would be nearly free of foreign blackmail.. Had he jumped on military issues we would not have every third world stink hole testing us. By jumping on military issues I don't mean the W.O.T. I mean such things as addressing End Troop Strengths instead of running a few good service members ragged as well as their equipment. Instead he chose to jump on the liberal bandwagon. McCain is as bad if not worse because every time Bush had a bad idea McCain was there to shill for it.
I did not see the broadcast, but it was Larry King, in an interview with her mother.
I saw a Headline News about the Larry King interview. Mrs. GWB said she was voting for McCain, but Jenna said she liked Oprah’s-Obama.
Now I see the problem and the need for the President to go on TV...YOU CAN'T READ!
That link is to the White House Energy Archive documenting efforts by the President to get an energy policy passed. It is not a BILL!
Below are a few excerpts from various links at the Archive. I've tried to present a sampling from each of the last 7 years.
THE PRESIDENT: We're in an energy crisis now. We're going to have to recognize -- our country has got to recognize that we need more power plants...
THE PRESIDENT: I was responding to reality. And reality is the nation has got a real problem when it comes to energy. We need more sources of energy. We need more power plants. We need more exploration for natural gas. And we need clean coal technology.
It not only includes good conservation, but as well, exploration for oil and gas and coal, development of energy sources that exist within our 50 states.
The energy crunch we're in is a supply and demand issue. And we need to reduce demand and increase supply. The best public policy is to understand that, and that's what we're going to do.
But what people need to hear, loud and clear, is that we're running out of energy in America. And it is so important for this nation to improve its infrastructure so we can not only deliver supplies, but we need to go find new supply. And it's going to take a lot of political will for people to buck some of the trends that somehow believe -- who believe that without finding additional supplies of energy, this nation is going to be okay.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I agree that we've made great strides in energy efficiency; …..
But what the Vice President and I understand is that you cannot conserve your way to energy independence. We can do a better job in conservation, but we darn sure have to do a better job of finding more supply. It is naive for the American people and its -- and those who purport to speak for the American people, some of those, to say that we can be okay from an energy perspective by only focusing on conservation. We've got to find additional supplies of energy.
And we've got regulations that Christie Todd may talk about that talks about more fuel-efficient appliances. And secondly, no matter how well we conserve, we're still going to need more energy.
And one of the keys to energy security in America, and national security, is to have a diversified energy base. That means oil; that means gas; that means safe nuclear energy; that means clean coal technologies.
But it also means interesting new opportunities, such as biomass, and that's why we've come here. I can't think of anything better for national security than to replace barrels of oil that come into the country from nations that can't stand America -- some of them don't -- with products that we grow here in America. I can't think of -- (applause) -- I would much rather replace oil from Iraq with corn products from Iowa. And it's getting within our reach. (Applause.)
You know, much of the debate on energy seems to polarize the country. It doesn't have to be that way. You're either for exploration and, therefore, against the environment, or for the environment and therefore, against exploration. And that's not the way the discourse ought to go.
-- we can go to the Arctic, for example, and build ice roads and bring the equipment on an ice road, and build a pad made out of ice, and then for those few periods of time when the ice melts, withdraw the equipment. And then when the ice comes back, come back, so we don't damage the tundra. We can drill from one location to a reservoir miles away. The technology has changed.
But conservation is only one half of the equation. In order to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy, we've got to find and produce more energy at home, including coal.
I don't view the world as zero sum. I believe that we can have coal production and enhanced technologies in order to make sure the coal burns cleaner. I believe we can have both. Now, I know there are some in Washington who don't want to concede that. But they must not have much faith in the technology that's coming on line. I don't believe we can be independent as a nation unless we've got a constructive coal policy.
And so I asked Congress, once and for all, to pass a comprehensive energy plan, including exploring for natural gas in the state of Alaska so we can be less dependent.
Congress is coming back tomorrow to Washington. And my call to Congress is not let the year 2002 become a bitter, political year. Now, I know a lot of them are running for office, and that's fine. And I've got my favorites.
I am pleased that the House-Senate Conference Committee will have before it the elements of a comprehensive energy policy. The two bills reflect my Administration's call to provide tax incentives for alternative and renewable fuels and technology; modernize our electricity laws; open a small portion of ANWR to responsible exploration; increase automotive fuel efficiency while protecting American lives and jobs; and ensure continued safe operation of our nuclear facilities.
It is imperative that America increase its energy independence and I look forward to working with the conferees to ensure that we enact a balanced and comprehensive energy policy this year.
Q I know that the ANWR drilling provision is very important to you, but are you willing to sacrifice it to get a broader bill?
To keep this economy moving, to sustain growth far in the future so people can work, we need a sound national energy policy. Every person who owns a home, every person who works on an assembly line, every person who drives a truck or runs a small business depends on reliable, affordable energy. That's what we depend upon. Our economic security and our national security requires secure sources of energy. We must become less reliant on foreign sources of energy.
Congress should allow reasonable exploration and responsible exploration to bring more natural gas to the market, which will lower the costs of the product. Congress should promote research into the next generation of nuclear plants and encourage investment in existing nuclear plants to expand a clean and unlimited source of energy.
Congress should encourage clean coal technology -- Part of the energy bill I submitted -- and by the way, we submitted a package to Congress two years ago and are kind of grinding through all the details now -- but part of that package says America needs a better infrastructure, as well. We need better pipelines, gas terminals, and power lines so that the flow of energy is reliable.
We need to encourage production, and we need to encourage conservation. We need to use the energy resources we've got at hand in an environmentally friendly way. And we need to advance new kinds of energy. But we've got to get after it. And that's my message to the United States Congress -- resolve your differences.
we streamlined the permit process to encourage exploration for oil and gas; we filled the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to improve our security during a time of war; we promoted new forms of energy conservation at government facilities; we increased weatherization assistance by nearly 50 percent to help more low-income families insulate their homes and save on their heating bills. We've done some practical commonsense things.
But I readily concede, these are first steps. This country must do more, and it requires legislative approval by the United States Congress. To meet America's energy needs in the 21st century, we need a comprehensive national energy policy. It's time for Congress to act, as I said earlier.
A sound energy bill must meet four objectives: it must promote conservation and efficiency, increase domestic production, diversify our energy supply, and modernize our energy infrastructure. And as we pursue all these goals, we will also uphold our responsibility to be good stewards of the environment.
Secondly, we need to encourage more energy production at home. If you want to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy, you need to find more energy here. The need is clear. Over the past three years, America's energy consumption has increased by more than 3 percent, yet our domestic energy production has decreased by 2 percent. That means relying more on energy from foreign countries. That's what that means.
We now import more than half our oil from abroad. Think about that: more than half of the oil that we consume in order to maintain our lifestyles comes from overseas, or abroad. And our dependence is growing. We're becoming more reliant upon natural gas, and a lot of it is coming from outside our borders. I believe that creates a national security issue and an economic security issue for the United States. And that's why it's important for us to utilize the resources we have here at home in environmentally friendly ways.
To produce more energy at home, we need to open up new areas to environmentally responsible exploration for oil and natural gas, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- that's called ANWR. (Applause.)
we can now reach all of ANWR's oil by drilling on just 2,000 acres. Two thousand acres is the size of the Columbus airport. By applying the most innovative environmental practices, we can carry out the project with almost no impact on land or local wildlife. And that's important for you all to know.
You see, developing a small section of ANWR would not only create thousands of new jobs, but it would eventually reduce our dependence on foreign oil by up to a million barrels of oil a day. And that's important. (Applause.) Congress needs to look at the science and look at the facts and send me a bill that includes exploration in ANWR for the sake of our country.
Nuclear power is another of America's most important sources of electricity.
Yet America has not ordered a nuclear plant since the 1970s. To coordinate the ordering of new plants, the bill I sign today continues the Nuclear Power 2010 Partnership between government and industry.
...also means expanding our domestic production of oil and natural gas,
The energy bill makes practical reforms to the oil and gas permitting process to encourage new exploration...
I urge the Senate to join the House in passing ANWR legislation.
In other words, these new technologies enable us to go to new places, and they enable us to be wise stewards of the environment. I understand there's a big debate about whether or not you can explore for oil and gas and protect the environment. I believe you can. And I understand that as we transition to the ethanol era we must also -- or the hydrogen area, we must also find oil and gas in our own hemisphere if the objective is to become less dependent on foreign oil. (Applause.)
They estimate that the new discovery in the deep Gulf of Mexico could increase our reserves from 10 to 50 percent. In other words, this is a big deal. And Congress is debating an energy bill. They passed a good energy bill, by the way, in the past, that encourages conservation and encourages a lot of the research that I was talking about, understands we've got to diversify away from our current structure. But there's another bill out there, and they need to get the work done. They need to come together between the House and the Senate version to encourage exploration in the Gulf of Mexico in new areas to make sure that we transition to a new day when it comes to energy.
And I believe that states ought to share in the royalties... And I believe Congress needs to get the bill to my desk as quick as possible. So when you finish the elections, get back and let me sign this bill so the American people know that we're serious about getting off foreign oil.
Secondly, on coal, we got a lot of coal. We got 250 years of coal. That's a lot, and yet coal presents us with an environmental challenge.
A controversial subject is nuclear power. You might remember, we've had a time in our country where people liked nuclear power, thought it was a strong solution to energy independence, and then we just shut her down because of engineering concerns. I strongly believe that if we want to keep this country competitive, if we want to make sure we can compete globally, we must promote civilian nuclear power. We must have more energy coming from nuclear power.
Nuclear power is renewable, and there are no greenhouse gases associated with nuclear power. One of the problems we've had is that nobody wants to build any plants. They're afraid of the costs of regulation and the litigious nature that surrounds the construction of nuclear power plants -- litigious problems surrounding the construction of the nuclear power plants.
And so, in the energy bill that I signed, the Congress wisely provided incentives and risk insurance for nuclear power plant construction. Last year only three companies were seeking to build power plants -- nuclear power plants. Today 14 have expressed new interest in construction.
What I'm talking about is a comprehensive approach to solving a national issue, which is dependence on oil, and how best to protect this environment. You know, it's time to get rid of the old, stale debates on the environment and recognize new technologies are going to enable us to achieve a lot of objectives at the same time. (Applause.)
Technology will enable us to be able to say we can grow our economy and protect our environment at the same time. It's not a zero-sum game anymore.
I'm also here to nudge Congress along. They're working on a bill -- (laughter) -- that I hope that they can get to my desk, that is a good bill, a balanced bill, a reasonable approach to making sure we continue to be wise about how we use energy in the United States.
Nuclear power is the only large-scale emissions-free power source that is currently able to meet the growing need for electricity. As our economy grows, with additional demands for power and electricity, nuclear power can handle those needs.
In order to keep pace with our nuclear energy needs, experts believe it will be necessary to build an average of three new plants per year starting in 2015.
So we are going to need three plants starting in 2015. Our country has not ordered a new nuclear power plant since the 1970s, partially as a result of constant litigation and overly complex regulations. So we're working to overcome those obstacles.
One thing to restart one, and I congratulate you. It's another thing to build the new ones. And that's what we ought to have happen if we're interested in a comprehensive, sound, wise energy policy that is environmentally friendly.
We launched the nuclear power initiative... to reduce regulatory and other barriers to the development of new nuclear power plants.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is working to improve and streamline the regulatory process to help accelerate the construction of nuclear plants. Under the old system, the permitting process was slow.
You could only do one thing, and then there would be regulatory deals, and another thing -- and it just took a long time. And when something takes a long time to build, that discourages capital and discourages people from moving forward. Plus you could get sued all the time. That would discourage people, as well.
There's also another idea that I want you to -- I know you know about it, but I want Americans and Congress to consider. We ought to do something about reprocessing.
Recycle it, reburn it and reduce the amount of the problem. And that's what the United States needs to be doing.
However, as bills get written, it's being frustrated by special interests and, of course, all the politics that takes place in Washington, D.C.
And so I urge the Congress to be realistic about the bills they're talking about and get it done. Get it to my desk so we can all say we've done a good job of representing the people.
By the way, as we talk about these new technologies, we're still going to need oil and gas. And we can explore for oil and gas in environmentally friendly ways. I strongly believe that we ought to open up more outer continental shelf area, as well as ANWR in Alaska. You know, there's a big debate about whether or not you can drill and find oil and gas that's good for you without ruining the environment. I'm telling you we can. Technologies have changed. (Applause.)
By the way, when they're debating the bill up there, they've also got to fill up -- add to the strategic petroleum reserve. If you're worried about a terrorist attack which could affect the price of oil, we ought to have oil in the ground that we can use to protect the American consumer. And they need to expand the petroleum reserve against natural disasters, protection against natural disasters, as well as a potential attack.
By the way, the Supreme Court -- I don't know if you follow the Supreme Court at all, but they've ruled that the EPA must take action under the Clean Air Act regarding greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. That's what the Court said. And when the Court says something, then the executive branch of government says, okay, you said it, now we'll listen. We'll do what you asked us to do.
So Congress can pass the law, which I hope they do, but if they don't, we're moving forward because the Supreme Court told us to move forward. And either way, in either case, we're going to become less dependent on oil, and that's good for the United States of America.
Secondly, on oil, we -- the more oil we find at home, the better off we're going to be in terms of the short-run. And yet our policy is, you know, let us not explore robustly in places like ANWR. And there are environmental concerns, and I understand that. I also know there's technologies that should mitigate these environmental concerns. They got a bill up there in Congress now. Their attitude is, let's tax oil companies. Well, all that's going to do is make the price even higher. We ought to be encouraging investment in oil and gas close to home if we're trying to mitigate the problems we face right now.
I've repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems. Yet time after time, Congress chose to block them. One of the main reasons for high gas prices is that global oil production is not keeping up with growing demand. Members of Congress have been vocal about foreign governments increasing their oil production; yet Congress has been just as vocal in opposition to efforts to expand our production here at home.
They repeatedly blocked environmentally safe exploration in ANWR. The Department of Energy estimates that ANWR could allow America to produce about a million additional barrels of oil every day, which translates to about 27 millions of gallons of gasoline and diesel every day. That would be about a 20-percent increase of oil -- crude oil production over U.S. levels, and it would likely mean lower gas prices. And yet such efforts to explore in ANWR have been consistently blocked.
Another reason for high gas prices is the lack of refining capacity. It's been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery. Yet in this area, too, Congress has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand capacity and build more refineries.
As electricity prices rise, Congress continues to block provisions needed to increase domestic electricity production by expanding the use of clean, safe nuclear power. Instead, many of the same people in Congress who complain about high energy costs support legislation that would make energy even more expensive for our consumers and small businesses.
Congress is considering bills to raise taxes on domestic energy production, impose new and costly mandates on producers, and demand dramatic emissions cuts that would shut down coal plants, and increase reliance on expensive natural gas. That would drive up prices even further. The cost of these actions would be passed on to consumers in the form of even higher prices at the pump and even bigger electric bills.
Instead of increasing costs and increasing new roadblocks to domestic energy production, Congress needs to clear away obstacles to more affordable, more reliable energy here at home.
And we'll look at any idea in terms of energy, except I will tell you this, that if Congress is truly interested in solving the problem, they can send the right signal by saying we're going to explore for oil and gas in the U.S. territories, starting with ANWR. We can do so in an environmentally friendly way. They ought to say, why don't we -- I proposed, you might remember, taking some abandoned military bases and providing regulatory relief so we can build new refineries. I mean, if we're generally interested in moving forward with an energy policy that sends a signal to the world that we're not -- we're going to try to become less reliant upon foreign oil, we can explore at home, as well as continue on with an alternative fuels program.
And so -- and then, to your question on the Saudis, look, I have made the case that the high price of oil injures economies. But I think we better understand that there's not a lot of excess capacity in this world right now. Hopefully high prices will spur more exploration to bring excess capacity on, but demand is rising faster than supply. And that's why you're seeing global energy prices rise. And that's why it's important for us to try to take the pressure off by saying we're going to start exploring here at home. And so you ask -- you say that people think we can't -- there's not any more reserves to be found. Well, there are reserves to be found in ANWR; that's a given. I just told you that there's about 27 million gallons of diesel and gasoline that could be -- from domestically produced crude oil that's not being utilized. And not only that, we can explore in environmentally friendly ways. New technologies enables for -- to be able to drill like we've never been able to do so before -- slant hole technologies and the capacity to use a drill site, a single drill site, to be able to explore a field in a way that doesn't damage the environment. And yet this is a litmus test issue for many in Congress. Somehow if you mention ANWR it means you don't care about the environment. Well, I'm hoping now people, when they say "ANWR," means you don't care about the gasoline prices that people are paying.
Q Mr. President, you have spoken today about opening ANWR for drilling and also refineries. But these are clearly long-term solutions to the problem of rising gas prices. What can you tell Americans about what your administration is doing in the short term?
…opening up ANWR is not long term, it's intermediate term. But it sends a clear signal, is what it does. It sends a clear signal to the markets that the United States is not going to restrict exploration; the United States is going to encourage exploration.
No, I think that if there was a magic wand, and say, okay, drop price, I'd do that. And so part of this is to make -- set the psychology right that says to the world, we're not going to become more beholden on your oil, we're going to open up and be aggressive and have an aggressive energy policy. Secondly, we're going to send the signal we're going to be building new refineries.
But there is no magic wand to wave right now. It took us a while to get to this fix. That's why I told you that if Congress had responded -- matter of fact, Congress did pass ANWR in the late 1900s -- 1990s -- and the 1900s -- (laughter) -- 1990s. But it didn't go forward. And it's my considered judgment, given the technological advances, to say this is -- we'll destroy the environment is just -- I don't think it's an accurate statement.
The un-named, un-elected Environazi's and the un-elected, non-legislative SCOTUS are running the country, and have been for DECADES, and all you can do is blame President Bush! DISGUSTING!!!
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.