GOP will tie ANWR to Iraq

Washington Times ^ | 8/01/02 | Timothy Burn

[kattracks]

Top Republican lawmakers this month will wage a last-ditch effort to link opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration to the increasing threat of war with Iraq.

Citing new reports that Iraq could be developing biological weapons, Republican lawmakers said yesterday they will press for passage of an energy bill that includes drilling in Alaska's ANWR as a matter of national security.

[terilyn]

"We shouldn't use our reserves as long as we can get somone elses relatively cheaply."

Cheap is relative. Look at the big picture. How much do you think it costs on an annual basis to keep troops in the middle east to protect our oil interests?

[Looking for Diogenes]

So sorry. I posted the info for the two-wheel drive Suburban in error.

That is the mileage for the 2002 2WD model (older models got even lower mileage). The 2002 4WD gets 13 mpg City, 17 mpg Highway.

[terilyn]

Did a google search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=chevy+suburban+highway+mpg

and didn't click on the link. Twenty lashes.

So pick another SUV such as the Trailblazer here.

Like I said, it was supposed to be funny. Using your mileage makes it about a tie.

I don't know where you live, but there are a lot of areas of the country such as Colorado where a vehicle with a small engine just doesn't make it in the mountains. Believe me, I've tried and been stranded at midnight. No power.

The smaller engines also don't start worth crud here in MN in January. Everybody doesn't have a garage much less a heated one.

Maybe if Al the Bore Gore ever walks the talk I'll pay attention. The green VP that thinks we should all drive specks had his choice of the most gas efficient vehicle money could buy as VP. He chose a Cadillac Escalade.

[terilyn]

Great post! Thanks for the facts.

[terilyn]

So I thought all this enviro stuff was about "Saving the Planet".

Last time I checked Alaska was on the same planet as Iraq or Saudi Arabia.

Why is it the enviro's are only worried about our little corner of the planet.

Reminds me of the people that walk their dogs three times a day so the crap isn't in their own back yard.

[Looking for Diogenes]

I don't know where you live, but there are a lot of areas of the country such as Colorado where a vehicle with a small engine just doesn't make it in the mountains. Believe me, I've tried and been stranded at midnight. No power.

I routinely drive my small car in the mountains, elevations ranging from 5,000' to 10,000'. No problems. Maybe the choice of small car matters.

Using your mileage makes it about a tie.

Yes, if both cars are fully loaded. I don't see a lot of Suburbans on the road with 8 people in them. I don't even see a lot of Suburbans with three people in them.

There certainly are reasons for having a larger vehicle. Purchasers make the choice and pay higher costs because of that. I just don't like it when those same purchasers complain about the high cost of gas and believe we need to open our refuges just so they can save a few bucks when they refill the tank.

[okie01]

"Saying that SUVs are passenger vehicles instead of trucks would save much more than ANWAR could ever produce and it would start to do it right away."

You chose your screen name carefully, didn't you?

[Looking for Diogenes]

Last time I checked Alaska was on the same planet as Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Why is it the enviro's are only worried about our little corner of the planet.

Yes, and the environmental damage has already been done in Iraq and Arabia. There is a big difference between splling oil on an already oil-drenched wasteland, and spilling it on an untouched wildlife refuge (not that all that much gets spilled anymore).

Personally, I think that the environmental objections can be dealt with. But I still don't see any reason for tapping our last known large petroleum resevoir now. Every argument for doing so will be even more true in forty years. Better to use a wide variety of foreign sources now, and save our own for later.

[terilyn]

"There certainly are reasons for having a larger vehicle. Purchasers make the choice and pay higher costs because of that. I just don't like it when those same purchasers complain about the high cost of gas and believe we need to open our refuges just so they can save a few bucks when they refill the tank."

On this we can agree. Though it's pretty rare I hear an owner of a large vehicle complain about gas prices. It's usually the other way around.

Most people, in my experience, that choose to drive a large vehicle know what they're choosing and the cost that goes with it.

Although there is a trade off. One daughter has a Chevy Blazer and the other has an Acura Integra. Both are the same model year. The insurance on the Blazer is half what the Integra is. And the one driving the Blazer has had two accidents and is listed as the primary driver. (I am very glad she had a lot of vehicle around her when she hit the ice and then the fire hydrant).

[Looking for Diogenes]

Maybe if Al the Bore Gore ever walks the talk I'll pay attention. The green VP that thinks we should all drive specks had his choice of the most gas efficient vehicle money could buy as VP. He chose a Cadillac Escalade.

I'll grant you that Gore is a hypocrit (few politicians aren't).

But I think his purchase of a Cadillac may be an urban legend. I have found a legitimate newsclipping that Terry McAuliffe drives an Escalade, but only a couple of Letters to the Editor saying that Gore drives one. Anyone seen a photo of him behind the wheel? That would be priceless.

[terilyn]

No, I haven't seen a pic of gore in an Escalade, but I will admit, looking for pics of Gore isn't something I make a habit of doing.

Fox & Friends reported this one morning. Gore didn't buy the Escalade. It was his most recent official vehicle as VP according to their report. The report said that he was approached by many automobile manufacturers offering him the most fuel efficient car they made, (I'm sure it would have been great PR for the auto mfr), but Gore chose the Escalade.

[Looking for Diogenes]

I tried to pin this down, but no luck. Fox & Friends has nothing on their website.

Given that it was his official vehicle as Vice President, I doubt Gore was really given the choice. The Secret Service would have picked. And they like big vehicles.

Suburban is the support vehicle of choice used by the Secret Service in presidential transportation and motorcades.
The New Presidential Limousine

[ClancyJ]

I just don't like it when those same purchasers complain about the high cost of gas and believe we need to open our refuges just so they can save a few bucks when they refill the tank.

These same purchasers are paying plenty for that SUV, Van or car. Doubt that they will be worried about the cost of gasoline. I will not drive one of the small cars because of the safety factor. Too many large trucks on the road. A small car puts your life at risk in a wreck. Just not worth it.

They drill oil wells in Texas in the backyards, in the cities. Cows thrive right next to them. All the nonsense about protecting the caribou - is just that - nonsense. The caribou at Prudeau Bay have increased in number and like the warmth from the pipeline.

Again, the "protect the natural preserve" mantra is just a cover for controlling America, preventing her using her natural resources to be independent and is supported by the environmentalists that are using the environment as a cover for their socialistic goals.

How ridiculous - nobody will ever go there on vacation to see the protected preserve - it is barren. If they want a preserve - how about a beautiful scenic site. I have yet to hear of anyone wanting to take their children up there to see the caribou.

[Looking for Diogenes]

These same purchasers are paying plenty for that SUV, Van or car. Doubt that they will be worried about the cost of gasoline. I will not drive one of the small cars because of the safety factor.

If it's not the price of gas, then why the urgency?

Iraq recently had a 30-day cutback in oil production, which cut production by 1.33-mil b/d. World oil prices hardly changed.

The ANWR could only produce about 1-mil b/d. It would not be enough to either significantly impact oil prices or give the US oil independence.

The bottom line is we do not need to produce this oil today or tomorrow. We will undoubtedly need it in 30 or 40 years. Let's save it for the future, when the Persian Gulf oil has run dry.

Or would you prefer to use up all of the domestic oil first and then truly be at the mercy of the remaining suppliers?

[ClancyJ]

Or would you prefer to use up all of the domestic oil first and then truly be at the mercy of the remaining suppliers?

I prefer the ANWAR wells be drilled now and under the control of the U.S. government - not the environmentalists that are trying to take over the U.S.

Lands that come under control of the environmentalists then fall under control of the U.N. not the U.S because of agreements/treaties made by these environmental groups to allow the U.N. or other non-U.S. groups to have say over how the land is used.

I am against any outside group having control over any of our lands, our production, our oil, our manufacturing, our refining, our forests, our national parks.

The environmentalists are not that concerned about the environment. Look at the damage they have done with their handling of the forests. Look at the damage to homes, forests, animal habitats and the loss of life as these fires are fought.

[Looking for Diogenes]

I prefer the ANWAR wells be drilled now and under the control of the U.S. government - not the environmentalists that are trying to take over the U.S.

Why drill now? Since this area has often been touted as our last major oil repository, why not keep it until we really need it?

It is under control of the U.S. government, as it has been since it was bought from the Tsar.

Lands that come under control of the environmentalists then fall under control of the U.N. not the U.S because of agreements/ treaties made by these environmental groups to allow the U.N. or other non-U.S. groups to have say over how the land is used.

The environmentalists are not a sovereign country. They can not sign treaties binding the U.S. Only the President can, with concurrence of the Senate.

I am against any outside group having control over any of our lands, our production, our oil, our manufacturing, our refining, our forests, our national parks.

Me too.

[max61]

God's cathedral it ain't.

The whole planet is G-d's cathedral, speak for yourself, not G-d.

---max

[ClancyJ]

The environmentalists are not a sovereign country. They can not sign treaties binding the U.S. Only the President can, with concurrence of the Senate.

I would have thought so too - however this is already being done with the Endangered Species Act.

• Lawmakers committed to care for this country and environmentalists have put into place an act - The Endangerd Species Act - that is destructive to American constitutional rights. This act has the following harmful effects:
  • Allows, through a back door flap, foreign entities power over American lands and their usage. Once lands are under the control of the ESA, the control has gone from America and the constitution to the foreign treaty participants. These groups then tell Americans what can be done with the land, water, air etc.
    
    
  • Puts the welfare of a species above all other American rights,
    
    
  • Does not allow plaintiffs redress of their actions unless they too are part of what the act protects (in other words an endangered species). Again, putting the preservation of a endangered species above all other interests of humans.
    
    
  • This lure of power over American land and resources fuels further location of "endangered species" needing protection.
  
  
  

• The ESA is expired and the congress continues funding it yearly and the courts treat it as actual law. How can an expired law have any ruling power?
• The ESA appears unconstitutional for all the above reasons and needs to be overturned.
  
  
• We have seen the underbelly of the environmentalists efforts - creeping socialism of this country, creeping takeover of American lands by foreigners or interests intent on pushing people off the land and claiming those lands for their own uses.
  
  

----------------- By redefining Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, all globlists now have to do is ratify international treaties that, in total, subvert the Constitution and put all power into their hands. As a consequence, Americans are systematically coming under the control of international law and the United Nations, and flies and suckerfish have more legal rights than people. -----------------------

[Looking for Diogenes]

That is surprising. I'd like to find out more about how they manage to do that. Thanks for your post.

[ClancyJ]

Shoot!!! I've been trying to locate the information on the treaties on prior threads but have not yet found. However, I did run across this link that you might have an interest in. From the Congressional Record - May 8, 2001.

Environmentalists Organizations Exposed