Can we use the "T" word yet?
The depths to which the Democrat party will sell out the American people in exchange for political power are unknown. They approach ever-greater depravities, yet there is no relief in sight. The Iraq War was expendable to the Democrats in 2006 and continues to be until this day, because losing there won elections here. The oil crisis is hurting the economy, which hurts President Bush, so it should lead to more election victories. Some day, Americans will say we’ve had enough.
The Democrats are wrong on the oil issue yet refuse to allow a vote. The leadership is beholden to environmental-cause money and stands by its sponsors, not its constituents. There is not one good cost/benefit analysis that justifies obstructing exploration.
The argument that it won’t help today is childish. Lots of things won’t help today but are good to do anyway. No one makes the argument that it won’t help eventually. If Congressional restrictions were lifted 10 years ago, this discussion wouldn’t be happening. Congressional restrictions have been in place for over 20 years.
Prices of oil dropped $16 per barrel in 3 days after President Bush rescinded the Executive Orders against oil exploration. This didn’t produce one acre of land for exploration, let alone one drop of oil. This was purely symbolic. However, the symbolism told the speculators that higher prices 5 years from now might not be a good bet. The drop in the futures price lowered the current price. How much would the futures price drop if Congress dropped its restrictions on exploration, thereby actually allowing actual oil companies to actually drill for real oil?
What is the downside to exploration? It might hurt the caribou, which will have to hop over a pipeline. Or it might hurt the polar bears, who snack on thrown-away Big Macs or fries instead of food they had to hunt. It might cause an Exxon-Valdez, which cost hundreds of millions. However, how much does additional exploration increase the chance of a major catastrophe? Maybe triple? If so, what are the odds of a catastrophe? Every off-shore oil rig survived Hurricane Katrina without a spill. There has only been one Exxon-Valdez. If the cost is a billion dollars, what is the benefit of $3 gas? The price of everything drops. Consumers save hundreds per household, which translates into a bit more than a billion dollars, looking at the nation as a whole.
Obstructing exploration is obstructing America.
The Iraq War has become a history lesson in slander. Politicians who supported certain positions radically reversed them and said it was lies that caused them to form their first opinion. However, in many cases these same politicians voiced similar beliefs in previous administrations and used the same source of “lies” that were used in this administration. The repetition of the real lies became a belief, and that belief eroded the cohesion of a nation.
The Iraq war went the way nobody predicted and nobody wanted. The beginning was beautiful. The Iraqi army was defeated in 3 weeks. However, the difficulty of the following mission was too much for some and the politicians jumped on it. When it became an obvious political winner, everybody jumped on it. Almost everybody that is. It was mainly Democrats that jumped on the bandwagon for defeat in Iraq. Some like Senator Lieberman held a firm line with his country, but most revolted to claim their political prize. Lieberman was voted out of the Democrat party.
The successes that occurred before the Surge were completely ignored. The successes afterward were suppressed as much as possible. Iraq is a safer place today for our soldiers than Afghanistan, which is supposed to be the war we all agree on fighting. Declaring a chance for victory is apparently not an option to some. Why? I understand that a Congressman wants to keep his job. We all do. However, even McCain risked his political future on supporting the US in Iraq. He would have rather lost an election (or unfortunately, a primary) than lose the war. Where do the Dems stand on that issue?
The Dems stand on gaining power. Whether it means losing a war or causing a recession, the Dems are in favor of misery if it gets them votes. Am I wrong? Why don’t the Dems allow a vote on drilling and why don’t the Dems recognize the success in Iraq?
Who isn’t expendable to a politician with ambition?
The Democrats are wrong on the oil issue yet refuse to allow a vote. The leadership is beholden to environmental-cause money and stands by its sponsors, not its constituents. There is not one good cost/benefit analysis that justifies obstructing exploration.
The argument that it won’t help today is childish. Lots of things won’t help today but are good to do anyway. No one makes the argument that it won’t help eventually. If Congressional restrictions were lifted 10 years ago, this discussion wouldn’t be happening. Congressional restrictions have been in place for over 20 years.
Prices of oil dropped $16 per barrel in 3 days after President Bush rescinded the Executive Orders against oil exploration. This didn’t produce one acre of land for exploration, let alone one drop of oil. This was purely symbolic. However, the symbolism told the speculators that higher prices 5 years from now might not be a good bet. The drop in the futures price lowered the current price. How much would the futures price drop if Congress dropped its restrictions on exploration, thereby actually allowing actual oil companies to actually drill for real oil?
What is the downside to exploration? It might hurt the caribou, which will have to hop over a pipeline. Or it might hurt the polar bears, who snack on thrown-away Big Macs or fries instead of food they had to hunt. It might cause an Exxon-Valdez, which cost hundreds of millions. However, how much does additional exploration increase the chance of a major catastrophe? Maybe triple? If so, what are the odds of a catastrophe? Every off-shore oil rig survived Hurricane Katrina without a spill. There has only been one Exxon-Valdez. If the cost is a billion dollars, what is the benefit of $3 gas? The price of everything drops. Consumers save hundreds per household, which translates into a bit more than a billion dollars, looking at the nation as a whole.
Obstructing exploration is obstructing America.
The Iraq War has become a history lesson in slander. Politicians who supported certain positions radically reversed them and said it was lies that caused them to form their first opinion. However, in many cases these same politicians voiced similar beliefs in previous administrations and used the same source of “lies” that were used in this administration. The repetition of the real lies became a belief, and that belief eroded the cohesion of a nation.
The Iraq war went the way nobody predicted and nobody wanted. The beginning was beautiful. The Iraqi army was defeated in 3 weeks. However, the difficulty of the following mission was too much for some and the politicians jumped on it. When it became an obvious political winner, everybody jumped on it. Almost everybody that is. It was mainly Democrats that jumped on the bandwagon for defeat in Iraq. Some like Senator Lieberman held a firm line with his country, but most revolted to claim their political prize. Lieberman was voted out of the Democrat party.
The successes that occurred before the Surge were completely ignored. The successes afterward were suppressed as much as possible. Iraq is a safer place today for our soldiers than Afghanistan, which is supposed to be the war we all agree on fighting. Declaring a chance for victory is apparently not an option to some. Why? I understand that a Congressman wants to keep his job. We all do. However, even McCain risked his political future on supporting the US in Iraq. He would have rather lost an election (or unfortunately, a primary) than lose the war. Where do the Dems stand on that issue?
The Dems stand on gaining power. Whether it means losing a war or causing a recession, the Dems are in favor of misery if it gets them votes. Am I wrong? Why don’t the Dems allow a vote on drilling and why don’t the Dems recognize the success in Iraq?
Who isn’t expendable to a politician with ambition?
posted by BoiseJag at 2:40 PM
0 comments
