Chaos Could Be Political

[resinman]

Just wanted to mention that i have noticed alot of lies commin from the right wing centrists socialist like Ann Coulter

She and her tin foil beanie buddys are blamming the Democrats for imposeing massive restrictions on building new refineries,,she claims that this is the major reason why the democrats have caused High oil prices...

Now my business partner and his wife with there little circle of blind faith republicans blurted this same dribble out at a party the other day. They get this misinformation from channels like fox,,,or ann coulters rantings ,,,,

Since 1993,,,The oil companys have systematically shut down refineries to create a slow and organized shortage,,

"more than half of America's refining capacity is controlled by five big oil companies: ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Shell, BP and Valero. During the 1990s, the oil industry closed approximately 50 refineries for financial reasons — not for environmental reasons, as claimed by Vice President Cheney and the oil industry"

You see its amazing How the right wing fanatics will lie,,,Then lie some more,,,Then lie again.

"The industry's effort to manipulate supply is not limited to closing refineries. In 2001, the Federal Trade Commission found that oil companies deliberately withheld gasoline supplies as a "profit-maximizing strategy" to drive up prices"

Here is a memo from the Texaco team and mobile and chevron

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/5104.pdf

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/pr/?postId=5110

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs/5103.pdf

Now in 1943 under the centrist socialist FDR the USA dollar lost 43% this was a massive tax to the USA citizen. All of his buddies cleaned up on TVA and the corruption

Since George Bush Took office The USA dollar has lost 32% This is a massive tax on the USA consumer,,due to poor policies and all his buddies and there no bid corruption deals lets steal the bank philosophy.

The oil companys gave bush 2.6 million in 2004 for the election,,,

Now you cant blame the democrats for that,,just shows how desperate she is,,

Now as i rant here myself lets expand this scenario,,,There is no right or left in washington,,,there is only left in right in the heartland of america,,united they stand divided they will fall

Now here is another George "FDR" Bush story

The amazing saga of the Al Fatah pipeline, now coming to light, is a case in point. This pipeline, 130 miles north of Baghdad, is (or was) the main pipeline that linked Iraq's northern pipelines to refineries and to Turkey in one of the most oil-rich parts of the world. It is (or was) critical not only to Iraq but the world supply of oil.

The pipeline was bombed by the US when it hit the Fatah crossing bridge. The bombers did not know about or understand the damage it would cause to the pipeline, or even that the pipeline was there. The general who ordered the bombing said that he was trying to stop the "enemy" from crossing the bridge but in the heat of battle, that just means people, so this action alone constitutes a violation of the old-world rules of war that forbid bombing civilian infrastructure.

When rebuilding time came, Congress allocated $680 million in 2003. Kellogg Brown, & Root got the contract – part of a total $2.4 billion no-bid contract given to the parent company Halliburton – and many more hundreds of millions followed.

They had decided to put new pipelines under the Tigris using "directional drilling" that require fantastic amounts of money and time. Despite every warning against it – including some coming from reports commissioned by KBR – the company went ahead.

The contracts the KBR awarded in turn specified only that drillers drill every day, not necessarily complete the job. Why? Well, apparently the subcontractor had looked into the deal and seen that directional drilling in this area was a disaster in the making. Plus the subcontractor was being asked to work in a war zone.

So the subcontractor managed to get the work order to do as much as they could do for six months, but with no requirement that the job be completed.

The drilling began with the goal of putting 15, 30-inch pipelines beneath the Tigris at shallow angles. But it immediately became clear the ground would not stay solid enough to create holes that would stay put. The area was a fault zone filled with rocks, boulders, and gravel, and so every time the drillers would make an imprint, the ground would roll back into place. Nothing larger than a 26-inch pipe would go through.

Four months later, after endless amounts of digging and waiting and delays, KBR notified a contracting officer in Baghdad that three-quarters of the money was gone. The camp was suffering relentless bombardment. The crew members were charging as much as $100,000 per day – money paid by you and me – to keep up the appearance of progress.

It was at this point that the Army Corps of Engineers sent out a US geologist named Robert Sanders to look at the work being done. What he found was ghastly: alongside the bombed out bridge and land, there was a 300-foot long trench created in the course of drilling and yanking and ripping and tugging. When Sanders talked to the workers and supervisors, they all agreed: the whole idea was nuts from the beginning. "No driller in his right mind would have gone ahead," he told the New York Times.

The US government in Iraq blasted KBR for having plowed through the money with nothing to show for it. The penalty? A cut in the bonus fees on the job, but that's all. For its part, KBR claims that the Army Corps had received constant updates about its work and that KBR had been instructed to continue.

Those millions gone, the US approved another contract for $66 million, this time going to Parsons Corporation and Worley of Australia. They had a totally different idea in mind. They would lay the pipes in the trench and put them in concrete. The Army Corps now says that the project is completed. But one problem: the state-owned North Oil Company says that oil is still not flowing through anything at Al Fatah.

Many people look at all this situation and see graft (Halliburton is closely connected to the Bush elite), lack of accountability (KBR should have heeded warnings), a poorly written contract (why pay for work instead of results?), cost overruns (no private company in a free market would spend money this recklessly and stay in business), terrible military strategy (the general who ordered the bombing in the first place should have known), and improper oversight (there are chains of command that should have stopped this fiasco before it went out of control).

But it is a mistake to look at government projects in hindsight and observe all the ways in which it might have been better managed. The more fundamental question is why does management never work as it should? Even if every problem identified by the various reports and the New York Times exposé had been solved, there would have been other problems that could be easily identified in retrospect.

Indeed, the same can be said of any government project gone wrong, from Stalin's campaign for wheat production, to FDR's farm program and TVA, to Bush's public school reforms. We are forever reading scandalous stories about huge government programs that turn out not to have amounted to anything, given millions away to friends of the powerful, and are rife with bungling, incompetence, cost overruns, and everything else bad.

"If there are no consumers with the power to judge the final project as a consumable good, the result will be chaos."

Even more fundamental questions are raised by the Fatah case. Many on the left say that the Iraq War has been about spilling blood for oil. But while lots of blood has been spilled, there is no evidence of increased oil – a fact which is reflected in the high price for gasoline at US pumps.

Thank you all for reading,,,ya see we have some screw-ups in the whitehouse


And we have a lot of liars from the right,,,Tin foil fanatics with massive conspiracy theorys claiming the democrats are behind this mess


ridiculous

Resinman

[Batman]

Just wanted to mention that i have noticed alot of lies commin from the right wing centrists socialist like Ann Coulter
I just needed to quote that part for Vi~ :D

Back on topic... I noticed this week that GWB has quashed the dem's idea of a windfall profits tax for the big oil companies.

Maybe I'm missing something, but with all of the bullshit that big oil was saying around the time of Katrina, how production and refining processes would be cut way back because of the damage, thus we had huge price increases at the pumps...

Then those fukers post record profits. They're still posting record profits as of last week for the previous quarter. what am i missing.? I really could use some help here.

How can they make these claims of all these problems and shortages to justify gas price increases, and then post record profits..??? WTF?

funny, the price of a barrel of oil goes up a bit and within minutes we can see the increase at the pumps. The price of a barrel of oil goes back down and it takes months for the gas prices to drop even a bit, if at all..

In my opinion..... if you cry about all of the problems your business is having and need to raise prices to cover your costs, et cetera... and then you post record profits, quarter after quarter... you should be prosecuted and your business placed into receivership.

http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/batman_2.gif

[Roscoe]

For Leading Exxon to Its Riches, $144,573 a Day

NY Times
By JAD MOUAWAD
Published: April 15, 2006

For 13 years as chairman and chief executive, Lee R. Raymond propelled Exxon, the successor to John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Trust, to the pinnacle of the oil world.

Under Lee R. Raymond, the market value of Exxon Mobil increased fourfold to $375 billion, overtaking BP as the largest oil company.

Under Mr. Raymond, the company's market value increased fourfold to $375 billion, overtaking BP as the largest oil company and General Electric as the largest American corporation. Net income soared from $4.8 billion in 1992 to last year's record-setting $36.13 billion.

Shareholders benefited handsomely on Mr. Raymond's watch. The price of Exxon's shares rose an average of 13 percent a year. The company, now known as Exxon Mobil, paid $67 billion in total dividends.

For his efforts, Mr. Raymond, who retired in December, was compensated more than $686 million from 1993 to 2005, according to an analysis done for The New York Times by Brian Foley, an independent compensation consultant. That is $144,573 for each day he spent leading Exxon's "God pod," as the executive suite at the company's headquarters in Irving, Tex., is known.

Despite the company's performance, some Exxon shareholders, academics, corporate governance experts and consumer groups were taken aback this week when they learned the details of Mr. Raymond's total compensation package, including the more than $400 million he received in his final year at the company.

Shareholder advocates point to what they describe as stealth compensation arranged for Mr. Raymond but not disclosed in proxy filings. Consumer groups complain that while last year's rise in global oil prices left many consumers feeling less prosperous, oil executives have become a lot richer from the higher prices. And some corporate governance experts argue that much of Mr. Raymond's pay came from easy profits generated by skyrocketing oil prices.

"It's entrepreneurial returns for managerial conduct," said Charles M. Elson, the director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. "Exxon was there long before Mr. Raymond was there and will be there long after he leaves. Yet he received Rockefeller returns without taking the Rockefeller risk."

Exxon says that Mr. Raymond's compensation and retirement package was tied to the company's stellar performance. According to the company proxy statement, filed Wednesday, the package recognized his "outstanding leadership of the business, continued strengthening of our worldwide competitive position, and continuing progress toward achieving long-range strategic goals."

Through an Exxon spokesman, Mr. Raymond declined to comment.

Mr. Raymond certainly distinguished himself as an oil executive. Exxon is known in the business as a disciplined and tightly focused company with an obsessive attention to the bottom line. In 1999, Mr. Raymond pulled his biggest coup by taking advantage of a slump in oil prices to acquire Mobil in an $81 billion merger, at the time the largest ever.

Thanks to his strategy, the company each day produces 2.5 million barrels of oil — more than Kuwait — and 9.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas. It is the world's top refiner and controls 22 billion barrels of oil reserves, the most among its publicly traded peers.

Other oil executives have also benefited from the doubling of oil prices over the last two years. For example, Ray R. Irani, the chief executive of Occidental Petroleum, received about $63 million in total compensation last year, an increase of more than 50 percent over 2004. Over the last three years, Mr. Irani has reaped more than $135 million, mostly in options and restricted stock.

David J. O'Reilly, the chief executive of Chevron, received nearly $37 million in salary, bonus, stock and stock options last year. The stock and options vest over multiple years. Mr. O'Reilly already owns stock options valued at $34 million.

Still, Mr. Raymond's package for 2005 stands out, even stripping the $98 million lump-sum value of his pension plan. He received $19.9 million in salary, bonus and other incentives for 2005. He made $21.2 million on options he exercised last year. And he was awarded 550,000 restricted shares, bringing the total he owns to 3.26 million, with a value of $199 million, at $61 a share, an average of Exxon's share price since March 1. Some of the restricted shares vest in 5 and 10 years. He owns more options that hold a value of $69.6 million.

Keeping all that money ain't very Christian of him.

[Roscoe]

In honor of the 3 year anniversary of Bushes photo-op on the aircraft carrier.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

[Roscoe]

Heres a sage prediction from the Heritage Foundation making their case for invading Iraq...

The Road to Economic Prosperity for a Post-Saddam Iraq
by Dr. Ariel Cohen, and Gerald P. O'Driscoll, Jr., Ph.D.
Backgrounder #1633
March 5, 2003 | Executive Summary | |
This paper is updated from Backgrounder No. 1594, published on September 24, 2002.

"...An unencumbered flow of Iraqi oil would be likely to provide a more constant supply of oil to the global market, which would dampen price fluctuations, ensuring stable oil prices in the world market in a price range lower than the current $25 to $30 a barrel. Eventually, this will be a win--win game: Iraq will emerge with a more viable oil industry, while the world will benefit from a more stable and abundant oil supply."

[OneLegUp]

resin...

you rant about tin foil caps for those who listen to Ann Coulter or better put... anyone who disagrees with you..

Yet...


what makes your rants using leftist propaganda any better?

because you can hotlink to websites with friendly to your beliefs websites...

give me a break...woooooooooooo

To me..anyone reliant on either ann or sites like consumerlies.org to prejudge someone else's ideaology is generally weak in their beliefs... so they need reaffirmation through others...

[OneLegUp]

oh and Roscoe...

thank Al Gore for the Occidental Petroleum profits... under Al Gore's direction the LARGEST ever transfer of land took place...

Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve...

to whit the man who just got the big bonus..described the acquisition...the jewel in our crown...

Oh and Al Sr use to work for Oxy...

Can you imagine if GWB had done the above... every news outlet in the world would have posted about it....... including you...

and I might add.... the greatest consolidation of oil companies was approved by President Bill Clinton, Al Gore and associates..

[OneLegUp]

and roscoe...since you like quotes so much..

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity
to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters
a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser,
Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State,
Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has invigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless
using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant
and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven
impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as
long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We
are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because
I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands
is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,
including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real .."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

President Bill Clinton > February 4, 1998
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

National Security Advisor Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Bill Richardson (D-NM) > May 29, 1998
"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."

Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats > October 9th, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Al Gore > December 16, 1998
"[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."

Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection processes."

President Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) > September 30, 1999
"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Letter to President Bush signed by Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Congressman Harold Ford (D-TN), Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) and others > December 6, 2001
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > February 24, 2002
"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) > August 4, 2002
"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) > August 4, 2002
"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) > August 4, 2002
"We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) > August 4, 2002
"First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) > August 4, 2002
"I'm inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others."

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) > August 25, 2002
"[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop
a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously."

Jane Harman > August 27, 2002
"I certainly think (Hussein's) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good."

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) > September 14, 2002
"I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) > September 19, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002
"(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) > September 27, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) > September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > October 9, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002
"With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) > October 10, 2002
"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) > October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > October 10, 2002
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."

Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA) > October 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

French President Jacques Chirac > October 16 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > January 7, 2003
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) > January 22, 2003
"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > January 23, 2003
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > January 31, 2003
"If you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003
"One bottleneck for Tabun production is the availability of precursors. Iraq may have retained up to 191 tonnes of NaCN [potassium cyanide] and up to 140 tonnes of DMA.HCl [dimethylamine hydrochloride]."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003
"In total, at least 300 to 350 R-400 and R-400A bombs remained unaccounted for by UNSCOM."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003
"A document submitted by Iraq in February 2003 outlining the production of Clostridium perfringens [gas gangrene], did not add any detail to previous Iraqi declarations. No evidence to support the declared destruction of the agent was provided."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003
"Based on its estimate of the amounts of various types of media unaccounted for, UNSCOM estimated that the quantities of additional undeclared agent that potentially could have been produced were: 3,000 - 11,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 6,000 - 16,000 litres of anthrax, up to 5,600 litres of Clostridium perfringens, and a significant quantity of an unknown bacterial agent."

The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003
"There are 550 Mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for since 1998. The mustard filled shells account for a couple of tonnes of agent while the aerial bombs account for approximately 70 tonnes."

[Roscoe]

oh and Roscoe...
and I might add.... the greatest consolidation of oil companies was approved by President Bill Clinton, Al Gore and associates..

Oil companies, since Rockefeller, have never needed approval from anyone to do what they do. Don't fool yourself, any corporation that has its customers by the balls makes its own rules.

Thanks for the righty perspective, tho.

[Batman]

all oil company operations should be seized and run by a public interest. there, I've said it.

as far as the various wars taking place right now.....

-I've been to Afghanistan, we're doing the right thing there, we're not doing it right, but we should be there.

-I've been to Iraq, we have no business there, never did, don't now, and likely never will.

-I've never been to Iran, but bullrushing them as we did in Iraq, will in all probabliity, break this country, not only financially, but in every way.

[c-ray]

I figure the decision to invade Iran has already been made, just a matter of politically correct timing

[Roscoe]

oneleg...
You must be one of the few left in this country that doesn't yet know that Congress (including all those people you quoted) was duped with bad intelligence like the aluminum tubes ('curveball') and yellow-cake from Niger. The neocons did a good job of cherry-picking intelligence and scaring everyone with tales of anthrax and mushroom clouds. It also helped the neocons that the average American can't tell the difference between one brown-skinned middle-easterner from another. 2/3s of Americans in 2002 thought that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. The plan worked beautifully for the war planners. The real purpose was oil strategy and dominance of the Middle East.
Clinton kept Sadaam in his box and continued weapons inspection searches. It was a better strategy for dealing with him because it kept Iran guessing whether Iraq had weapons or not. Now that Iraq has been rendered impotent, Iran can continue on with their schemes to dominate the region and we will have to eventually have to deal with them.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can still think this war is a success given that it has cost 2405 American soldiers lives, $400 billion (and growing by 200 million every day) and helped push the price of gas to over $3 a gallon.

[ViRedd]

Hummm ... Oh, I had it all wrong. It was actually the Republicans who continually voted down building nuclear energy plants. And it was the Republicans who continually voted down off-shore drilling. And it was the Republicans who voted against drilling in Anwar ten years ago. And it was the Republicans who voted down wind generation stations in Ted Kennedy's back yard. Damn, I've got to get my history straight. :)

Vi

[ViRedd]

IT'S HARD OUT HERE FOR A PUMP
by Ann Coulter
April 26, 2006

I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.

But it's too much having to watch Democrats wail about the awful calamity to poor working families of having to pay high gas prices.

Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline to force people to ride bicycles has been one of the left's main policy goals for years.

For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets.

The last time the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency was in 1993. Immediately after trying to put gays in the military and socialize all health care, Clinton's next order of business was to propose an energy tax on all fuels, including a 26-cent tax on gas. I think the bill was called "putting people first in line at the bus station."

Al Gore defended the gas tax, vowing that it was "absolutely not coming out" of the energy bill regardless of "how much trouble it causes the entire package." The important thing was to force Americans to stop their infernal car-driving, no matter how much it cost.

And mind you, this was before we knew Gore was clinically insane. Back then we thought he was just a double-talking stuffed shirt who seemed kind of gay.

Democrats in Congress promptly introduced an "energy bill" that would put an additional 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline to stop "global warming," an atmospheric phenomenon supposedly aggravated by frivolous human activities such as commerce, travel and food production. This is the Democratic Party. That's their program.

Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley endorsed the proposal on "Charlie Rose," saying: "I'd have a five-cent increase every year for five years. ... But that's not going to happen ... because we've got people who fret and worry that one- or two-tenths of a cent of a gasoline tax is going to cause some revolution at home." So in Tom Foley's universe, two-tenths of a cent is the same as a quarter — another testimonial to the American public educational system.

The Democrats' proposed gas tax did cause a revolution at home, and consequently the Democrats were able to sneak through only an additional 4.3-cent federal tax on gasoline. After tut-tutting the idea that voters would object if the Democrats attempted a huge gas tax increase, Speaker Tom Foley soon became former speaker, and indeed former Congressman Tom Foley.

Gary Hart, another whimsical demonstration of what Democrats think a president should be like, said at the time, "I certainly favor consumption taxes, particularly on energy." Then there's John Kerry, who favored a 50-cent increase in the gas tax in 1994. If he were a rap artist, Kerry's stage name would be "Fifty Cent a Gallon."

Last year, a couple of green "climatologists" at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were back at it in the journal Science, wheeling out their proposal for a 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline as an "insurance policy" against global warming.

Just two months ago, we were being confidently told — on the basis of a New York Times/CBS News poll, so it must be true — that "Americans might OK a gasoline tax hike if it reduced global warming or lessened U.S. dependence on foreign oil." (This poll was wedged in among the 29 polls claiming Americans think we're losing the war in Iraq.) Other results from the Times' "meaningless polls" section: Americans might "OK" a Dennis Kucinich presidency if it meant free ice cream every Tuesday.

How many times do Democrats have to tell us they want to raise the price of gas for the average American before the average American believes them? Is it more or less than the number of times Democrats tell us they want to surrender in the war on terrorism?

It's as if a switch goes off in people's brains telling them: The Democrats can't be saying they want to destroy the lives of people who drive cars because my father was a Democrat, and the Democrats can't be this stupid!

The Democrats' only objection to current gas prices is that the federal government's cut is a mere 18.4 cents a gallon. States like New York get another 44 cents per gallon in taxes. The Democratic brain processes the fact that "big oil companies" get nearly 9 cents a gallon and thinks: WE SHOULD HAVE ALL THAT MONEY!

When the free market does the exact thing liberals have been itching to do through taxation, they pretend to be appalled by high gas prices, hoping the public will forget that high gas prices are part of their agenda.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

[Roscoe]

At least gas taxes go into our government(s) coffers instead of our corporate overlord's pockets.
Besides, why should Annie care about gasoline. She gets from place to place on a broom.

[Batman]

why should Annie care about gasoline. She gets from place to place on a broom.
OMFG!! that's so fukin funny, I almost fell outta my chair. :laugh2:

http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/batman_2.gif

[resinman]

One Leg up says****"""

""what makes your rants using leftist propaganda any better?""


The memos i provided was not propaganda,,,They Are Facts<<<

Hard core facts,,,,


But there are many reasons come into play about the oil prices,,,

I can and will give you many,,,,But i first must mention,,,THERE is no right or left,,,,

There is only ONE party in america,,,,the right and left are for the little people,,to make them feel they have a choice


The energy bill by george bush,,,,The DOD has to blend ethanol with all there diesel as of may 1st 2006,,,The usa military uses 400.000 barrels a day,,,believe it or not

The ethanol that he is also pushing since the state of the union address,,,well,,, the ethanol bill passed by congress ,,,they just found out that it cannot be put into pipelines it will eat away at the pipes,,,all gasoline in the USA now needs ethanol added,,No more MTBE allowed,,,it cost 2.25a gallon to produce ethanol,,,,,,,in calofornia it cost 3.00a gallon


The other high reason for oil is supply and demand,,,And the rest of the world looking at it as a precious commodity and they will kick out all american companys to nationalize,,,its happinin as I write this


One leg up,,,your emotional loyalitys are based upon hard feelings you have developed,,,I am not leftists and never provided it as such,,,This has been a joint effort by the socialist centrists,,who control washington,,,and that is how ANN Coulter survives

We are in the middle of a major technological change when it comes to energy,,,

The ignorance of Ann Coulter is just that,,,Misinformation from a political whore,,,who wants to sell a book,,or two


There is more oil IN THE USA,,,right now,,,as i speak,,,MORE oil than there ever was in IRAN ,,,IRAQ,,and Saudia Arabia,,put together,,,,

Its in utah,,,and it goes into production this year,,,So your post against me was misleading at the least,,,And the documents from there internal MEMOs was the truth,,,They have closed down 200 refineries since 1973,,,OIL prices should be high but not this high AND its not the democrats fault as ANN COULTER claims

So i say BULLSHIT to you,,,,

http://www.wentworthenergy.com/projects_usa/utahoilsands.asp

i would say to buy this companys stock,,because it goes to 50 bucks in 5 years..they have 4.7 billion gallons in reserve,,

Resinman

[resinman]

"Pawn shops across the U.S. have recently seen a dramatic increase in business, with people pawning jewelry, TVs, brand purses, etc. to get by.

"They come in on Monday and Tuesday, saying, 'I need the money to put gas in my tank so I can get to work and get my check by Friday," a pawn shop owner from New Jersey told CBS."

Thank you george bush and company,,,,Resinman

**********************************
Don't Let the Planners Take Charge of Energy


Well, the Republicans have some ideas for reducing the price of gasoline.

Don't laugh before you hear the details, among which: Congress will send a $100 check to American families to compensate for fuel costs, they will force more money into ethanol, and they will step up prosecutions of any gas distributor who sells for a price above that which the government approves.

Okay, now you can laugh.

If it is widespread energy that you want, government is the last place you should turn for a solution. Iraq is a good test case. A report from the US Comptroller General shows that energy production in Iraq is still lower than the bad old days when Saddam was in charge.

You know, energy: as in the stuff that keeps the lights on, the cars running, the internet roiling, the medical equipment humming, the televisions squawking, and the ovens baking. Without it, we are reduced to where all of society was between the beginning of recorded history and the early twentieth century.

The US has been managing Iraq for years. Before the war, Iraq produced 2.6 million barrels of oil per day. Iraq now produces about 2 million barrels per day. Before the war, Iraq's generation capacity was about 4,300 megawatts. Current capacity is 4,092 megawatts, which is actually a decline from this time last year.

This isn't because people are using solar power. Living standards are declining. And guess what? Iraq has price controls on gasoline, and prosecutes violators. Nor is there a shortage of money: the supposed reconstruction effort is plowing through tens of billions of dollars, most of it going to private companies on the dole.

The amazing saga of the Al Fatah pipeline, now coming to light, is a case in point. This pipeline, 130 miles north of Baghdad, is (or was) the main pipeline that linked Iraq's northern pipelines to refineries and to Turkey in one of the most oil-rich parts of the world. It is (or was) critical not only to Iraq but the world supply of oil.

The pipeline was bombed by the US when it hit the Fatah crossing bridge. The bombers did not know about or understand the damage it would cause to the pipeline, or even that the pipeline was there. The general who ordered the bombing said that he was trying to stop the "enemy" from crossing the bridge but in the heat of battle, that just means people, so this action alone constitutes a violation of the old-world rules of war that forbid bombing civilian infrastructure.

When rebuilding time came, Congress allocated $680 million in 2003. Kellogg Brown, & Root got the contract – part of a total $2.4 billion no-bid contract given to the parent company Halliburton – and many more hundreds of millions followed.

They had decided to put new pipelines under the Tigris using "directional drilling" that require fantastic amounts of money and time. Despite every warning against it – including some coming from reports commissioned by KBR – the company went ahead.

The contracts the KBR awarded in turn specified only that drillers drill every day, not necessarily complete the job. Why? Well, apparently the subcontractor had looked into the deal and seen that directional drilling in this area was a disaster in the making. Plus the subcontractor was being asked to work in a war zone.

So the subcontractor managed to get the work order to do as much as they could do for six months, but with no requirement that the job be completed.

The drilling began with the goal of putting 15, 30-inch pipelines beneath the Tigris at shallow angles. But it immediately became clear the ground would not stay solid enough to create holes that would stay put. The area was a fault zone filled with rocks, boulders, and gravel, and so every time the drillers would make an imprint, the ground would roll back into place. Nothing larger than a 26-inch pipe would go through.

Four months later, after endless amounts of digging and waiting and delays, KBR notified a contracting officer in Baghdad that three-quarters of the money was gone. The camp was suffering relentless bombardment. The crew members were charging as much as $100,000 per day – money paid by you and me – to keep up the appearance of progress.

It was at this point that the Army Corps of Engineers sent out a US geologist named Robert Sanders to look at the work being done. What he found was ghastly: alongside the bombed out bridge and land, there was a 300-foot long trench created in the course of drilling and yanking and ripping and tugging. When Sanders talked to the workers and supervisors, they all agreed: the whole idea was nuts from the beginning. "No driller in his right mind would have gone ahead," he told the New York Times.

The US government in Iraq blasted KBR for having plowed through the money with nothing to show for it. The penalty? A cut in the bonus fees on the job, but that's all. For its part, KBR claims that the Army Corps had received constant updates about its work and that KBR had been instructed to continue.

Those millions gone, the US approved another contract for $66 million, this time going to Parsons Corporation and Worley of Australia. They had a totally different idea in mind. They would lay the pipes in the trench and put them in concrete. The Army Corps now says that the project is completed. But one problem: the state-owned North Oil Company says that oil is still not flowing through anything at Al Fatah.

Many people look at all this situation and see graft (Halliburton is closely connected to the Bush elite), lack of accountability (KBR should have heeded warnings), a poorly written contract (why pay for work instead of results?), cost overruns (no private company in a free market would spend money this recklessly and stay in business), terrible military strategy (the general who ordered the bombing in the first place should have known), and improper oversight (there are chains of command that should have stopped this fiasco before it went out of control).

But it is a mistake to look at government projects in hindsight and observe all the ways in which it might have been better managed. The more fundamental question is why does management never work as it should? Even if every problem identified by the various reports and the New York Times exposé had been solved, there would have been other problems that could be easily identified in retrospect.

Indeed, the same can be said of any government project gone wrong, from Stalin's campaign for wheat production, to FDR's farm program and TVA, to Bush's public school reforms. We are forever reading scandalous stories about huge government programs that turn out not to have amounted to anything, given millions away to friends of the powerful, and are rife with bungling, incompetence, cost overruns, and everything else bad.

The answer to this seeming mystery rests with Mises's analysis of bureaucratic management. There is no profit and loss system – a lack of rational economic accounting – when property is not privately held and where markets do not permit consumer input and a transfer of title to capital.

And note that this critique applies whether the project is being administered directly by the state or contracted out by the state. No matter how perfectly crafted the contracts are, the main incentive of the private firm is to obtain and spend the grant money. If there are no consumers with the power to judge the final project as a consumable good, the result will be chaos.

Even more fundamental questions are raised by the Fatah case. Many on the left say that the Iraq War has been about spilling blood for oil. But while lots of blood has been spilled, there is no evidence of increased oil – a fact which is reflected in the high price for gasoline at US pumps.

All Iraqi oil is still owned by the Iraqi state. All questions of how the system will work to pump, transport, and refine the oil in the ground are left to the state, which itself is incapable of rational economic decision making.

If the US had invaded Iraq and engaged in outright theft of all oil wells, and then handed the ownership of those wells to private firms, it would have been unjust, egregious, and probably would have inspired even more hatred of the US within Iraq (which is probably why the US didn't do it), but this much we can know: the oil would probably be flowing by now.

The Bush administration energy policy in the US, just as in Iraq, relies on command and control and nothing more. It is a form of low-level socialism and can be expected to produce results along the same lines as the much-heralded effort to get oil flowing in Iraq, a country where the stuff is as common as fog in Northern California.

If the Bush administration, or the Democrats, are given total charge of getting us energy, it will be about as accessible here as it is in Iraq, a country where cars are abandoned for lack of fuel, black markets abound, and the lights flicker on only rarely.

[ViRedd]

Reisenman ...

Here's your quote: "OIL prices should be high but not this high AND its not the democrats fault as ANN COULTER claims. So i say BULLSHIT to you."

And yet, you offer nothing to refute the information in Coulter's essay. Are you saying that the Democrats have NOT blocked alternative energy bills in order to satisfy their huge money donors from the environmental leftists they are in bed with? Why do we not have Nuclear energy plants as France does? Why haven't we built many new refineries over the past 40 years? Why are we not drilling in Anwar? Why are we not drilling off the coast of Florida and leaving it for Cuba? What party has consistantly held up all of this and for what reason?

Vi

[resinman]

Vi Redd


I think i spelled it out very clearly,,,it was a lot to read but you may have missed it.

The oil Companys have closed 50 refineries since 1993,,,There has been no refineries built you ask,,,Why build one when they are closing them,,,

They did not want to reinvest in the maintenance and repairs,,,its just that simple,,,As the memos state,,,it wil create a supply tightening to keep priceing power available,,,

Its just that simple,,,,

The 200 closings of refineries since 1972 is not the democrats doing or fault,, the Oil companys have done this on there own free will,,,monetary reasons not because of enviromental concerns,,,i hope this is clear to you now


Why are we not drilling off the coast of Florida and leaving it for Cuba? What party has consistantly held up all of this and for what reason?

Actually its the republicans and Jeb Bush have lobied to stop this,,Voters along the coast do not want it,,,repubs and democrats ,,,actually Jeb bush said he would never allow florida coast drilling as long as he is in office,,,


Vi Redd there has not been a large major oil field find in nearly 25 years,,,We have already reached peak oil,,,The anwar oil fields on the more liberal estimates would have enough oil in there for 24 months of oil for the USA at its current consumption rate,,,its a finite field,,you may have not been awhere of that,,

The new alternative energy bill passed and approved by the current politicians spells it all out,,,we are leaving the fossil fuel markets and headed to new waters....It will be costly,,,very costly,,,It was bush who wanted MBTE out of the fuel supply and ethanol to replace,,not the democrats,,Ethanol is costing big bucks and keeping prices higher also

This is not the democrats fault,,,

If oil exploration is permitted in ANWR, it could take between seven to 12 years for the necessary lease sales, permitting and environmental reviews to occur before production could begin,,

In 12 years and with current increase in consumption it would last the USA less than 24 months,,,


Now when it comes to reactors,,,You need to read this ,,,iam posting the link its a couple of pages,,,two links i will provide,,,this will blow you away,,,

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61088,00.html

Vi Redd The new energy bill created by the congrss and signed by george bush,,,have made solar power the next big thing,,,Fuel Cells commercial and residential are part of the bills,,,

In 50 years are next generations will laugh there asses off wondering why the hell would any one have a nuclear power plant like the ones that in current use,,,the pepple bed is clean way and has been around before world war 2,,

http://www.pbmr.com/


Why do we not have Nuclear energy plants as France does>?

Because 20 years ago the industry said we had so much coal and natural gas that it was cheaper to use those instead of nuclear,,,they used to burn the natural gas from oil wells and not capture it,,because it was so cheap for years,,Soon there will be legislation to stop the gas guzzlers and the wake up call to america is commin,,land of glutons

Oil and natural gas companys lobby washington to prevent nuclear plants,,but that is old news,,,

There are 17 nuke plants on the board,,and more commin,,,,the new energy bill gives eminent domain,,,aint no group gonna stop it now,,actuall they wanted to put a plant several years ago near vero beach florida,,the republican community got together,,And said ,,Not in my backyard,,,


Oil is on the downside,,,Global consumption is skyrocketing,,,Peak oil is here and supply and demand along with fear and loathing is comming

Ann Coulter is a liar,,,

and the high gas prices are not the democrats fault,,no more theres than anyone elses,,,

She is such a skeeming little socialist spin bitch

Resinman


And one last thing,,,What party has controlled the whitehouse for the last 11 Years?????

Think about it,,, who might to blame,,if anyone ,,,it does not begin with a D

[c-ray]

why is there a distinct lack of diesel powered vehicles in the USA and Canada?
they are common everywhere else, especially in the 3rd world...

[Elohim is plural]

...when looking at american politics one must not fall into the trap of left against right, democrat vs republican...they are the same...

...it has always been rich against poor...
EIP