Drilling and Lying
Well, we could talk about the [gulp] banking crisis — the bail out of the Mac twins [Fannie and Freddie] — or the sincerely inappropriate cover of the New Yorker, that can only leave you wondering what the HELL they were thinking, given the percentage of boneheads who think Obama’s Muslim [added to the percentage that think he's the antichrist.] But … open the links for the skinny, if you wish; tomorrow will shake out a bit more info on all, I expect.
Today we’ll do a little two-fer: what’s up with Obama v. McRib on Iraq … and Dubby’s finally dropped the mask of national interest to turn back the prohibitions on drilling our coasts; it will take Congressional permission to proceed, but … well … this is the congress with a 9% approval rating we’re talking about. Nothing is safe.
Obama wrote an op/ed to the Times about his intention in Iraq, that’s first; he’s planning his trip to Iraq and Afghanistan in the company of retiring Pub, Chuck Hagel and Dem Jack Reed. That undoubtedly annoyed McRib, who is playing defensive over the Iraqi’s request for withdrawal [with Dubby pondering bringing a few home over the furor.] Watch — if he does a big drawdown, Mac will tell us that it was never his intention to stay and he never said he would. I’m thinking senility, with a political twist; how ’bout you?
Matters of drilling and lying toward the bottom.
Jude
My Plan for Iraq
BARACK OBAMA, NYT
July 14, 2008
CHICAGO — The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.
The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched.
Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.
In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.
But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.
The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.
Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.
But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.
As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces.
That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.
In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.
Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.
As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.
As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.
It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war. ++
Barack Obama, a United States senator from Illinois, is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
Obama in fierce new war spat with McCain
Raw Story
Monday July 14, 2008
Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama Monday ignited a fierce new political duel with his Republican foe John McCain over Iraq, ahead of his visit to the war zone expected within weeks.
In an opinion article in the New York Times, Obama pledged to send up to 10,000 more US troops to the Afghan war and stood firm on a mid-2010 deadline to get most soldiers out of Iraq.
Backers of Obama’s rival branded his article a “brazen” rewriting of history and said his past anti-war positions had made it harder for US troops to win the war in Iraq.
“As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in,” said Obama, who is expected go to Iraq and Afghanistan soon, though details have been withheld for security reasons.
“We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began.”
Republicans have accused Obama of ditching previous positions for political gain after he said he may “refine” his policies after meeting US commanders in Iraq.
In the New York Times article, Obama again spelled out that he was open to making “tactical adjustments,” leaving himself some room for maneuver should he be inaugurated president next January.
“As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected.
“We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later.”
Obama, who is due to make a major address on the war on Tuesday in Washington, also drew sharp distinctions with McCain on the long-term status of US forces in Iraq.
“Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face,” he wrote.
McCain has said he could foresee a decades-long US deployment in Iraq, if it is along the lines of other US peacekeeping operations throughout the world.
The Democratic presumptive nominee also said he would redeploy two combat brigades, with support forces about 10,000 men, to Afghanistan, a conflict he says was allowed to fester by the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq.
“I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks,” Obama wrote.
The McCain campaign forcibly rejected Obama’s article, with Republican senator Lindsey Graham branding it an “unbelievable, brazen effort by a politician to rewrite history.”
“It is clear to any objective observer that what happened in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad became a central struggle in the war on terror,” Graham said on a conference call.
McCain foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann added: “Senator Obama is not trying to have it both ways, he’s trying to have it every way.”
McCain allies also argued that McCain’s early advocacy of a troop surge strategy, which Obama opposed, proved he had superior judgement on the war.
“Not only did Senator Obama and his Democratic colleagues argue the wrong solution, and that was to withdraw, they made it harder for the correct solution to be implemented,” Graham said.
The McCain campaign also said on Monday that the Arizona senator would make a speech on Afghan war policy, in the face of rising violence and suicide attacks, later this week.
Obama also promised to pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability and commit two billion dollars to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.
He welcomed a call by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of US troops from Iraq, arguing that efforts by Iraqi leaders to take responsibility for their own country should be encouraged. ++
Bush to lift executive ban on offshore drilling
HuffPo
July 14, 2008
WASHINGTON — Putting pressure on congressional Democrats to back more exploration for oil, President Bush on Monday will lift an executive ban on offshore drilling that his stood since his father was president.
But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well.
The president plans to officially lift the ban and then explain his actions in a Rose Garden statement, White House press secretary Dana Perino said.
There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by former President Bush in 1990. The current president, trying to ease market tensions and boost supply, called last month for Congress to lift its prohibition before he did so himself.
But Perino said Bush no longer wants to wait. She pinned blame on the leaders of the Democratic Congress, noting that no action has been taken on this issue.
Congressional Democrats, joined by some GOP lawmakers from coastal states, have opposed lifting the prohibition that has barred energy companies from waters along both the East and West coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. A succession of presidents, from Bush’s father - George H.W. Bush - to Bill Clinton, have sided against drilling in these waters, as has Congress each year for 27 years. Their goal has to been to protect beaches and coastal states’ tourism economies.
“This proposal is something you’d expect from an oil company CEO, not the president of the United States,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment Committee. “The president is taking special-interest government to a new level and threatening our thriving coastal economy.”
Environmental groups, too, blasted Bush’s move.
“President Bush has once again ignored the wise precedent set by his father and taken reckless action that has neither hope of reducing gas prices nor concern for long-term consequences,” said Gene Karpinski, president of The League of Conservation Voters.
Asked if Bush’s action alone will lead to more oil drilling, Perino said, “In terms of allowing more exploration to go forward? No, it does not.”
The president, in his final months of office, has turned to increased oil exploration among other options amid record gas-prices. None would have immediate impact on prices at the pump, according to White House officials, who say there is no quick fix. But starting action now would help, they say.
Bush’s proposal echoes a call by Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, to open the Outer Continental Shelf for exploration. Democrat Barack Obama has opposed the idea and instead argued for helping consumers with a second economic stimulus package including energy rebates, as well as stepped up efforts to develop alternative fuels and more fuel-efficient automobiles.
“If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks,” spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. “But most experts, even within the Bush administration, concede it would do neither. It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for thirty years.”
Congressional Democrats have rejected the push to lift the drilling moratorium, accusing the president of hoping the U.S. can drill its way out a problem.
Bush says offshore drilling could yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil over time, although it would take years for production to start. Bush also says offshore drilling would take pressure off prices over time. In addition, the president has proposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, lifting restrictions on oil shale leasing in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and easing the regulatory process to expand oil refining capacity.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and other lawmakers have backed legislation to allow off-shore exploration. Their measure would pursue other ways to expand energy sources, too.
“Now the only thing standing between consumers at the pump and the increased American energy they are demanding is the Democrat leadership in Congress,” McConnell said. “We should act and act now.” ++
Enviro: Bush/McCain drilling plan a ‘gimmick’ for big oil
RAW STORY
Monday July 14, 2008
In another push to deal with soaring gas prices, President Bush on Monday will lift an executive ban on offshore drilling that his stood since his father was president. But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well.
The president plans to officially lift the ban and explain his actions in a Rose Garden statement, White House press secretary Dana Perino said.
Environmentalists slammed the move. Friends of the Earth Action President Brent Blackwelder responded with the following statement:
“President Bush and John McCain should be trying to end America’s addiction to oil, but instead they’re pushing this gimmick that won’t do anything to lower the cost of gas. It’s time to stop playing politics and start finding solutions. If John McCain and George W. Bush were serious about addressing this crisis, they would work to create alternatives to driving and make cars and trucks more efficient—not push a land grab for the oil companies.”
There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by former President Bush in 1990. The current president, trying to ease market tensions and boost supply, called last month for Congress to lift its prohibition before he did so himself.
But Perino said Bush no longer wants to wait. She pinned blame on the leaders of the Democratic Congress for inaction.
“They haven’t even held a single hearing,” Perino said. “So we are going to move forward, and hopefully that will spur action by the Congress.”
Asked if Bush’s action alone will lead to more oil drilling, Perino said, “In terms of allowing more exploration to go forward? No, it does not.”
The president, in his final months of office, has responded to record gas-prices with a series of proposals, including more oil exploration. None would have immediate impact on prices at the pump, according to White House officials, who say there is no quick fix. But starting action now would help, they say. ++
Lying to Drill the Hole Deeper
A. Siegel, HuffPo
July 14, 2008
The push is on, big time. The solution to all of America’s problems, evidently, is to drill, drill, drill. This is now the Republican mantra as they seem to believe that they have found a winning political issue, no matter what the implications of this “win” might be for America’s future.
Let us be clear. Efforts to increase (actually, struggle to maintain) America’s oil production can be part of a holistic energy package. But, to be clear, only part: far more critical is to use efficiency to produce nega-gallons to help provide some breathing space to move as much of America’s transportation off oil. (To me, the most fruitful path for results by 2020 is mass electrification: rail and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles along with GEM-full flex-fuel for the liquid portion of the ground transportation system.) Even if transportation is 100% non-oil, we will still want oil for many industrial processes and to support manufacture of many products. But, efforts and discussion to explore additional oil production should be part of a larger discussion. And, they should be grounded in truth.
George W Bush, in Saturday’s radio address, provided a clear example of how truthiness, rather than truth, reigns in the efforts to promote oil exploration and drilling in the outer continental shelf (OCS).
From that radio chat:
First, we should expand American oil production by increasing access to offshore exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS. Experts believe that the OCS that is currently off-limits could produce enough oil to match America’s current production for almost ten years.
Wow. The OCS would match today’s US oil production for almost ten years? Want lower oil prices? Want Energy Independence? The answer is clear, Drill the OCS, NOW! That is, clear until you examine what the experts actually are saying.
A report last year by the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration said that “access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017.” WashPost
George W Bush stated, quite bluntly, that opening up the OCS could match today’s total US oil production for a decade. He failed to mention that this would have minimal, if any impact, on America’s energy posture for literally decades. The Administration’s own experts, who are far from enemies of the oil industry and oil production, state that this move would not begin to produce oil until one year short of that ten years and that would “not have a significant impact on domestic production … before 2030.” And, in 2030, that production level would be just a three percent increase on the case without additional OCS drilling. That three percent is only the slightest fraction of today’s American oil production.
The United States is producing about 5.1 million barrels of oil per day. The EIA estimate is that the additional offshore drilling would add 200,000 barrels to the 2030 production. To place this into context, US consumption is about 21 million barrels per day. Thus, the entire Republican effort to open up offshore drilling is talking about providing one percent of today’s consumption levels 23 years from now.
George says that additional OCS drilling “could produce enough oil to match America’s current production for almost ten years”. He forgets to mention that that “could” is a “maybe, perhaps, best case” as to that amount of production (that all those birds in the bush will become birds in Bush’s hands) and that this production would be over decades of time, even into the 22d century. At what point do truthiness and disingenuous arguments simply become lying?
Okay, who are you going to believe and place faith in? George’s radio address or the detailed reporting from the Energy Information Administration?
Bush, in that radio address, also pushed hard for other failed or reckless policies. For example, he provided a strong push for Oil Shale development. Of course, no mention of the very serious water and Global Warming implications of pursuing this path forward.
Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell has been similarly disingenuous, stating with authority truthiness ungrounded in fact. From today’s Washington Post:
“I think people are reassured that not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina or Rita,” McConnell said. “Those rigs in the Gulf, there was not a single incident of spillage that anyone reported.”
From that same article,
the Minerals Management Service of the Interior Department reported that there were five spills, each between 1,000 and 2,000 barrels. Altogether, 125 small spills totaled 16,302 barrels [...]
Right Mitch, “not a single incident of spillage that anyone reported” as long as we don’t pay attention to reporting from oil companies, drilling rigs, environmental organizations, journalists, state governments, and the US government’s Minerals Management Service.
John McCain has been similarly disingenous. For example, he has stated, after flip-flopping his long-held principled opposition to coastal drilling to politically convenient support of drilling (of course having nothing to do with the over $1 million he and the $4+ million the RNC have received from the oil industry), “we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States.”
Actually, according to the US Geological Survey, we have “undiscovered conventionally recoverable resources” of 17.8 million barrels. A simple way to explain it: reserves are birds in the hand, resources are birds in the bush — quite possible and interesting possibilities, but still uncertain. Okay, that is just detail. How about this element of McCain’s claims?
I’ll call for lifting the federal moratorium for states that choose to permit exploration. I think that this and perhaps providing additional incentives for states to permit exploration off their coasts would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis.
Okay, apologies, I can’t resist: Maybe after passing his 70th birthday, “short term” has a different meaning for John McCan than it does for 99.9% of Americans.
Again, apologies for that cheap shot but is this truthiness lying or simply a total lack of understanding of energy issues?
As legendary oilman (and massive Republican Party contributor) T Boone Pickens has said:
I’ve been an oilman all my life. But this is one emergency that we can’t drill our way out of.
Again, this post is not an argument that, at some point, new drilling and exploration are not part of a holistic energy package. (Even thought, in fact, there are huge tracts of land and ocean already leased to oil companies which they have yet to explore and begin to drill.) This is, however, a call for honesty in the discussion and debate. A standard that George W Bush failed to meet in Saturday’s radio address and that John McCain is failing to meet in his campaign outings. ++
“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Add comment July 14th, 2008