[EQAndyBuzz]

"Some of the post State of the Union democrat spinners were asking why, then, are we not at war with Saudi Arabia. Though clearly an attempt to undermine the president, I believe that they have a good point."

I believe the answer to your question can be found in a small town in the Alaskan wilderness called Anwar.

The President said last night that there should be less dependence on foreign energy sources. Remove the dependency on Saudi oil will force the Saudis to take a more serious stance on terrorism.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

ANWAR is not a small town in Alaska, but is an acronym for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I agree with your concept, however. The dems are nothing if not two-faced. Their "logic" goes something like this:

1. Agree that we are too dependent upon foreign oil, particularly from Saudi Arabia.
2. Vote down a proposal to drill in Alaska, where huge oil deposits have been confirmed.
3. Base your refusal on some obscure environmental reasons. This serves the dual purpose of pandering to your environmental-whacko constituency, while allowing you to thwart a republican energy proposal.
4. Complain that we are still dependent upon foreign oil, particularly from Saudi Arabia?
5. Question the President's truthfulness. Why is he willing to go into Iraq, which harbors and supports terrorists, but not Saudi Arabia. The President, therefore, is inconsistent.

Of course, if we can't drill in ANWAR and don't get to import Saudi Oil, our economy will be devastated, people will freeze their butts off, and general calamity will reign. Then the dems would ask how the President could have allowed such a situation to evolve.