Replies

I don't understand how these people who are against ANWR drilling are able to support their positions in light of the fact that, for decades, there has been drilling all over Alaska, including on the North Slope and along the Beaufort Sea. I haven't heard that there have been any catastrophes, have you? Any species being endangered or displaced? Any major spills? The caribou, which greenies direly predicted would be endangered, have multiplied and prospered with the pipeline in their midst. They wander wherever they want up there, whether or not there is a drilling camp around. How are these naysayers getting away with the position they maintain when they have no evidence to support the fact that any land will be despoiled or species endangered? There's something peculiar about this situation.

"I don't understand how these people who are against ANWR drilling are able to support their positions in light of the fact that, for decades, there has been drilling all over Alaska..."

Simple. They cannot support it so they make sure that such information as you've posted never sees the light of day. This they do by pandering all the more shamelessly to The Media, which hates the idea of drilling. Drilling, of course, would be a FABULOUS idea if a DemoCRATE proposed it, but since it's Dubya, it's bad. Velly velly bad.

Michael

How do they get away with this? Have you seen the press coverage of the ANWR issue? They lie. The photos used in ANWR stories are not of the ANWR, but of the Brooks Range, a spectacularly beautiful park hundreds of miles away. I even saw one recent article that featured a picture of Mt. McKinley with the ANWR story. Heck, I wouldn't vote to drill the Brooks Range or Mt. McKinley either. The media also suppresses that most of the herds and flocks are inland and not on the ANWR coastal plain, where the drilling would be. They don't tell people about the fact that wildlife around the Alyeska pipeline has flourished.

It's the Big Lie and this article is a good example. There is no "complicated" Senate rule requiring 60 votes for "controversial" legislation. That's a lie. This bill can be passed with 51 Senators voting in favor. 60 votes would be needed to halt a filibuster, but the presstitutes don't want to tell the public Lieberman and Daschle are threatening filibuster or that a majority of Senators favor the bill. So, they mangle the truth.