Posted on 09/06/2008 11:11:49 AM PDT by Tublecane
Question: Some people might say: "Look, even though opening up ANWR has been a symbolic issue for Republicans, the oil there may only have a marginal effect on reducing overseas dependence. Why is ANWR so important and how do we know that there's actually enough oil there to really make a difference?
Palin's Answer: Because just that swath of land in that refuge alone is estimated to hold about 11 billion barrels of oil and 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. And those are just the areas that have been explored. That's about a year and a half worth of U.S. oil consumption and many months of natural gas. It's about a trillion dollars worth of energy. And that's—again—just that sliver of ANWR. So when we hear, "Well, maybe there isn't enough," or "Well, it's too late to drill now anyway, we should have done this five, 10 years ago," hey, I can't argue that. I say yeah, we should have done that years ago. But better to start that drilling today than wait and continue relying on foreign sources of energy. We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...
"We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go."
I surfed around to find the full text when it was brought to my attention, and, sure enough, Palin did NOT mean to say that we went to war for oil. She says that it is nonsensical for people to advocate going to war for energy when we have enough of it at home.
If I wasn't sure that this rumor began because lefties like to lie, I'd have to believe that no one knows how to read anymore.
maybe this should be in breaking news
But wasn’t it ... really ..... truthfully.
Just in case it helps, I posted this on another thread:
“I’m on to them. The author was clever, but not quick enough to get by me, I maintain. There is an error in meaning. Let’s proceed slowly.
“Palin has tied the war to the quest for new energy supplies”
What stands out about this fragment? “Palin,” “war,” and “energy.” “Tied” is not an incidiary verb, and that is the author’s intention. It will become all important later on.
“‘We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.’”
These are Palin’s words. If she was as deceitful as our author, she could not have chosen less commital words. Notice, she says, “...the reasons for war...” Not, “the reasons for this war,” or “...the reasons our war.” She could (and likely is) talking about war in general. As an argumentative tactic, she could be admitting a portion of the opposition’s argument in order to make her rebuttal of it more plausible. So far, Palin is wily.
After she admits that wars are fought over energy sources (she might have said scarce resources of any kind, from land to women to energy), she moves on to her thesis, “...which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.” What is nonsensical? Is it nonsensical for America to fight for energy sources when we have them at home if we dare to tap them? Or is it nonsensical that we WENT to war when we have energy at home.
The author wishes you to assume the latter. Palin, I think, meant the former. Remember, she said, “We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources...” She didn’t say, “...in many ways the reasonsfor this war,” or “the reasons for our war,” as she easily could have. There is no contextual evidence for the interpretation that Palin intended to say that our decision to go to war was faulty because we have energy at home. There is no evidence to conclude that she was saying the decision to go to war had anything to do with energy.
Returning to the author, what grounds has he for implying that Palin admitted that we traded blood for oil? Using the word “tied,” he will rest his case on the fact that Palin talked about the war and energy in the same sentence. She did, but there were mitigating words. The phrase “the reasons for war” is “tied” to “energy sources.” However, “We are a nation at war” is an independent clause severed from the clause “in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources” by the conjunction “and.”
“We are a nation at war” is not “tied” to “the reasons for war are fights over energy sources” grammatically, nor in meaning. Palin meant to say that some people think we went to war over oil, but that is nopnsensical because we have oil at home if we’d just drill for it. In conclusion, the sentence “Palin has tied the war to the quest for new energy supplies” is inacurate. If the author had said, “Palin has tied war to the quest for new energy supplies,” he’d be strictly accurate.”
Just another classic example of the radical, mindless Left trying to make crap stick to a wall. They are louts of huge proportion. Keep your shovel handy during the next two months — the BS is going get so thick and deep, as the Left struggles to make America believe they have any relevancy to the future of REAL America, at all....
If it was, would gas prices be as high as they are?
It is impossible to divorce oil from Mideast policy. But the crude conception of “blood for oil” is nonsense.
Question: Some people might say: “Look, even though opening up ANWR has been a symbolic issue for Republicans, the oil there may only have a marginal effect on reducing overseas dependence. Why is ANWR so important and how do we know that there’s actually enough oil there to really make a difference?
MY ANSWER:
Its our oil and gas and it simply makes no sense whatsoever not to find it and use it no matter how much or how little.
There is NO sensible, COMMON SENSE, INTELLIGENT reason not to.
The only reason we have not done so is politics and that sucks........
If there was no oil in the Arab middle east, it would sink into the obscurity it so richly deserves. What makes it important is the presence of oil. That’s not the same as saying that the was was “fought for oil” but that distinction may be lost on the mainstream media.
Jack
Of course it’s about oil
Iraq invaded Kuwait over oil. They didn’t turn back but turned towards Saudi Arabia.
Imagine if we did nothing and Iraq captured Saudi Arabia oil fields, or Osama bin Laden’s minions overturned the royal family and seized Saudi oil fields.
The world’s economy would come to a halt.
Your exactly right the media is trying to throw a lot crap on the wall and then they will say look at all the accusations even though each one is just a lie.
Excellent post.
Not only did she say it would be nonsense to fight a future war over energy when we have so much of it at home- she said it in the context of a mother whose own son was about to deploy to Iraq. She was implying she would be outraged to risk her son to a future war, because of intracable opposition to expanding domestic energy production.
The interview on CNBC is on youtube. Maria Bartiromo (sp?)
I would like someone to explain why it is wrong to prevent Iran from gaining control of the oil resources of Iraq, and, for that matter, the rest of the Middle East; and why it is wrong for Iraq to permit oil companies from other nations that have the knowledge and other capabilities to do so,including American companies, to explore and develop the petroleum resources of Iraq.
I don’t see evidence that American business interests, or the Bush family, stand to profit unduly or unfairly from this geo-political reality.
Keep digging MSM. Your investigative journalism is really good so far.
The following should help put the thought into perspective (from Sarah’s speech at the RNC): http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/conventions/videos/transcripts/20080903_PALIN_SPEECH.html
I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.
(APPLAUSE)
That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are open, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.
The stakes for our nation could not be higher. When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we’re forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And families cannot throw more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.
With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.
(APPLAUSE)
To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of the world’s energy supplies, or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia, or that Venezuela might shut off its oil discoveries and its deliveries of that source, Americans, we need to produce more of our own oil and gas. And...
(APPLAUSE)
And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: We’ve got lots of both.
Duh!
We wouldn’t have anything to do with the muzzies if we didn’t need their oil. Same for Venezuela.
The long term solution to Islamic war is energy independence.
Remember: Pelosi was going to sue the Arab Oil Countries.
And miraculously, it will assume Obama's visage.
Someone should ask the latte sippers what would happen if the trucks stopped delivering food to their grocery stores and restaurants.
I'd give it two weeks before they'd be at each others' throats.
The reason is that all the Gulf states....Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oaman, (for those of you in Rio linde) are our friends and allies. With the addition of Iraq, The region will be an even stronger trading pardner.
Oil and other trade aside, we can’t allow friends to be absorbed by religous bigots. Iran wants Mecca nad must not be allowed to have it.
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.