Lying to Drill the Hole Deeper

By A Siegel
read more great energy content at getenergysmartnow

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 negagallons 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 does truthiness and disingenous 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?

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.


Comments

(346)

It's disgraceful that mainstream media

hasn't called out McCain on his fumbling through and lack of knowledge about the economy, Iraq, energy policies and a host of other issues!
All reporters do is giggle and/or laugh uncomfortably while the old geezer fumbles thru his answer.

(I'm 64 yrs old and I have a right to call McCain a clueless old geezer! I think it's an insult to say anyone over 60 is having a "Senior Moment" but I know we do!
But it's a bigger insult to shield McCain's really poor grasp of extremely important issues by calling them "Senior Moments". Mc Cain is running for president of the US! He's not living in an assisted living home for senile seniors!)

In the meantime, New Yorker magazine publishes a stupid cartoon portraying Obama & his wife as terrorists!

This is a disgrace!
This country is a punchline in every comics stand up routine across the face of the Earth!
And we deserve it for electing clueless idiots like Bush, McCain & the Republicans to any public office.
CoyoteMan

McSame doesn't need

to know anything about the economy. He's got Phil Graham at the ready to step in as SecTreas and complete the NeoCon agenda of gutting all regulation of the financial sector. As we have seen since Phil served in the Senate, rolling back regulations on Capitalists has resulted in the pending meltdown of the mortgage industry, which will be followed by massive failures of banks and other institutions that have engaged in greedy and predatory lending practices. Then, guess what? Republican Socialism will take effect. You and I will be called upon to bail out the robber barons, while we will see NOTHING ourselves to help us pay our mortages.

Privatize Profit, Socialize Loss. I can't wait for these clowns to get to the Pearly Gates, where St. Peter will quiz them on the Sermon on the Mount. When Graham quotes his mantra, he'll drop straight through the floor to Hell.

Okay, here is the problem I

Okay, here is the problem I have with mass electrification of vehicles:
How is the extra electricity going to be produced? As long as we use coal and oil and nuclear power to create electricity, going electric can create problems too.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dwight Eisenhower

By MichtouJuly 14, 2008 - 3:08pm

Okay, here is the problem I have with mass electrification of vehicles:
How is the extra electricity going to be produced? As long as we use coal and oil and nuclear power to create electricity, going electric can create problems too.

I think that makes sense but on the other hand there are some benefits to electric cars.

Cogeneration plants make better use of the fuel by supplying both electricity and steam (heat) to be used. Usually there is a factory next door to make use of the steam. In a car some of the potential energy in the bonds is wasted as heat.

Ignoring greenhouse gases for a moment, the power plant can be regulated better. By controlling emissions at the stack, photochemical smog is averted and less ozone means better health and less damage to infrastructure. The catalytic converters on cars can be bypassed, individual motors can be inefficient and spillage during fueling can also occur. All of these things can increase hydrocarbon emissions. Nitrogen oxides can still be produced in an electric motor if the motor is hot enough. But without the hydrocarbons, the NOx won't lead to smog.

I wouldn't say acid rain is benefitted by coal combustion over hydrocarbon fuels as there are sulfur standards on gasoline. It's more difficult to remove the sulfur from coal but with scrubbers this can be controlled.

Finally the reason I can accept a move towards more plants and electric cars is that it will be easier to implement future technology. Let's say a method for scrubbing CO2 is developed. It can be implemented at a coal plant on a large scale. Such technology would produce waste or product and it would be less hassle to collect it at the plant. Alternatively new forms of energy production might be easier to produce on a large scale like in a plant. Engineering it down to small scale wouldn't be an immediate concern. Finally if we all for the most part ran electric cars then new plants could be built and there would be no need to get everyone to buy new cars. From the drivers perspective they only see the electricity charging their cars. Where the electricity comes from can change with time,

There still are issues to deal with. Mining for coal is one.

Anyway that's my take on it. We could have phases. Start with electric cars and new power plants that can be easily retrofitted with new technology. In the meantime start developing the new technology.

Electric cars create their own special batch of problems too

The heavy metal mining needed to produce their batteries is extremely damaging to groundwater. Just ask the folks in Colorado about the lead mines and the tremendous damage they have done.

Does this mean I don't want to see more electric cars? No, it just means that we need to be aware of the tradeoffs involved in every decision, especially when it comes to energy. Ethanol was good, but no one really looked at the implications of turning food into energy. Let's be smart as we look at our energy alternatives.

Mitchou -- solar power

Electricity produced by solar energy will be a source for the electric cars. Have a look at "New windows double as solar panels", an article by Steve Connor published July 11, 2008 in The Independent (U.K.). It describes an invention at MIT by Marc Baldo and Michael Currie. The inventors are starting a company, Covalent Solar.

No doubt that in the short term,

the entire planet needs big oil, gas, coal and nuclear to power the planet.

But just take the oil, gas & coal subsidies away from those polluting industries and tax them at 25% because they pollute.
If they go out of business to bad! But big oil, gas, coal, etc will finally begin to see their demise when they have to pay dearly for their destructive ways.

Put the taxes, subsidies and tax breaks into solar, wind, tidal & geothermal. In 5 yrs that will be up and running.

Here's an easy tax break! Why not give any individual homeowner who switches to solar panels or wind power a $25,000 up to $40,000 tax break depending on the costs of the solar or wind conversions?
Geez it's so simple if you don't play big oils shell game!

CoyoteMan

Yeah

More taxes. That's always the right answer from the left.....

Americans

will not be incentivized to conserve and change their wasteful ways until the cost of "stay the course" becomes too high to bear. I noticed with amusement the other day that Milwaukee's one and only Hummer dealership went out of business. That's a step in the right direction.

I agree,

the only thing more taxes will do is raise prices and produce almost zero alternative energy. In his 64 years I wonder if coyote man ever was involved in business. Ever hear of pro-forma statements? These are projections out in the future on what profits will be for a company. Companies answer to stock holders. Add taxes to their business, they will raise prices in order to meet what stock holders expect. If prices don't go up, then you can forget about any research and development into alternative energy.

I do not understand why liberals cannot embrace nuclear power. It produces almost zero CO2 emmisions and with the new technologies out there, waste can be reused. A typical nuclear power plant with new technologies will produce about one coffee cup (8 ounces) of nuclear waste per month. Storage of this would not be much of a problem. Nuclear power would practically eliminate coal production, drastically reduce natural gas and oil usage and be a big step in getting us of of foreign oil. Can we compromise on this?

Not just McCain not being called out

McCain isn't the only one to avoid getting called on this oil spill lie. Norm Coleman said exactly the same thing in a recent press conference, and it's annoying me to no end that it isn't getting picked up anywhere. I'm glad the Washington Post didn't let McConnell get by, but speaking as a Minnesotan, would somebody with a bigger platform than I have go after Coleman? It amazes me that Coleman said this in the same press conference where he said he would still support invading Iraq given what he knows, and that audio got used by the DSCC and the Franken campaign, but they're missing this.

The exact quote is, "We had the worst natural disaster in the history of this country Katrina, and there wasn't a drop of oil spilled." On my own blog, I link to the audio and the debunking: http://www.ravensblog.net/archives/june2-08.php/#coleman-full

The Raven's Blog: May the Better Bird Win
http://www.ravensblog.net

Franken gets Democratic challenger in Senate race

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-07-14-franken-se...

Looks like Coleman’s reelection is assured.

Al will now have time to pay his overdue taxes and read up on NY workers comp laws

By its_so_overJuly 16, 2008 - 10:42am

Franken's challenger is a good candidate too.

Yes, an excellent and appropriate name

for an elitist, super-rich, Democratic trial attorney: Lord-Faris.

I'd like to see this prefix for all Democratics:

Lord-Obama

Lord-Hillary

Lord-Kennedy

Lord-Pelosi

Lord-Schumer

Lord-Rangel (recently gave into pressure and released one of his FOUR rent-stabilized Harlem apartments. Very slimy, don't 'cha think ?)

Let's see, who is the candidate whose wife

owns a company that is estimated to be worth $100 million, and who, according to her tax returns, brought in over $6 million last year, 16 times that of her candidate husband? That would be Queen Cindy McCain. Now tell me again, who is the party of elitists?

As a result of her arranged

and questionable relationship with the U of C Hospital, St. Michelle (Obama) was well on her way to replicating, in typical Chicago style, (pronounced 'arm-twisting') Cindy McCain's wealth.

Of course the difference is that Cindy sells beer while St. Michelle sells influence and access.

Selling influence and access?

Is that why John McCain's son lobbied congress 10 times in the past two years to change the laws on beer taxes? Keep pedalling, pal, you're facing an uphill ride against a headwind, and it looks like you're starting to go backwards.

what the F*&% are you talking about?

What is your POINT???????????

-Dave

If you can't follow a simple, basic argument and the flow

of facts, you should just go back to the Cartoon Network.

wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo hooooo hooooo

what does REGIME CHANGE mean? what does it mean? what does it mean???? answer.

-Dave

you were doing just fine....

until I challenged you. poor baby.

-Dave

how many people

do you think Cindy McCain employs? How many people do you employ?

(please don't answer; you have no credibility)

-Dave

Don't worry, I hadn't planned on responding to your

pointless posts.

That's the only true thing I've seen you post

you can't. You don't have the knowledge or the courage of your convictions. You have meaningless blather and regurgitated AA bullshit talking points. Bush is a dumbass. Cheney + Halliburton. No blood for oil. Bush lied; kids died. yada, yada, yada, yada....we've seen it all before.

Bye bye

-Dave

Leaving so soon Davey?

What's the matter? Your lies not finding any traction here?

I'd like to say that we'll miss you, but that would be a lie...just like the things that spew from Bush's mouth.

Don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you!

you wish ...I'm awaiting your responses to my straight questions

but I deal in facts... that rattles you.

-Dave

By darmbruster1July 16, 2008 - 1:40pm

Regime change is great. The republicans would have us at war for 100 years for oil profits. When the regime changes we will stop letting the republicans use our soldiers for $$$$$.

Hey fub, should we play the old

"Guess the Sockpuppet" game with Davey? Do you think he's actually new, or is he just a sockpuppet?

By UffdaguyJuly 16, 2008 - 1:46pm

He's not new. He's just a typical right-wing moron that pops in here from time to time.

George W. & George H.W. Bush - Living proof that the dumbshit doesn't fall far from the dumbass.

By UffdaguyJuly 16, 2008 - 1:46pm

I missed this post. The thread is covered in ignorance from these right wing idiots.

I don't think it's hatey.

I've answered all of your questions

It's not my fault that you don't like the answers. The only thing that is rattling is that tiny little brain inside that big empty skull of yours.

When you ask a straight question i will respond.

I went WAAAAY up the board and didn't see where you posed one.

Hey, don't hold your breath.

These LEFTWINGNUTS never respond with straight answers. Like little children, they find meaning in infantile insults, only.

They suffer from a mental health condition called Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Bush Derangement Syndrome - Yup, you're right, hatemoron

It's embarrassing how much you worship Monkey Boy.

“God has a sense of humor. If you don't believe me, tomorrow go to Wal-Mart and just look at people.” Carlos Mencia

oh...

specifically, name one lie that spewed from Bush's mouth. why, you must know of millions of them.

-Dave

By darmbruster1July 16, 2008 - 1:41pm

Here is a lie. bush said he would fire anyone involved with leaking Plames' name. And he sounded serious. We now know Cheney was involved in a coordinated effort.

Bush lied.

Plame's own husband outed

Plame's own husband outed her in D.C. circles first. So anything said about her after that is meaningless. And besides, she wasn't covert at that particular time.

That piece of BS aside

It doesn't change Bush's statement or make it true. He PARDONED the one person convicted in connection with the case.

The reason and authorization to invade Iraq.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

###

NONE OF THAT

has anything to do with Bush's lie.

here's a more recent example

“The Iraqis have, you know, have invited us to be there,” This is a lie on SOOOO many levels.

prove it

-Dave

sure

Here is a link to a site that prints the entire speech.

http://www.theseminal.com/2008/07/15/the-iraqis-have-invited-us-to-be-th...

Plame was/is a

soccer-mom.

Joe Wilson was/is a traitor and an ass.

She is quite the good

She is quite the good looking slut though, isn't she.

I guess that's your way

of saying "I can't refute your statements so I'll try to joke my way out of it."

And I'm willing to bet ...

That the "good looking slut", as you so eloquently put it, would kick your Pappy-ass right up around your weak-ass shoulders, too.

Pappy, go back to molesting your great-great-great-great grandchildren and leave the important stuff to us young 'uns.

“God has a sense of humor. If you don't believe me, tomorrow go to Wal-Mart and just look at people.” Carlos Mencia

Here's my personal favorite

By Condi Rice, on behalf of the Bush administration

“We do know that [Saddam Hussein] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.” The first reason she gave for this assertion was “aluminum tubes that really are only suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.”

seen the news lately gt6?

so...you don't believe he was trying to develop nukes?

-Dave

Oh, bullshit. Saddam was

Oh, bullshit. Saddam was going to use that 500 tons of uranium for a baby food factory! Just like the other wmd's that were already found, this 500 tons of uranium will somehow not count.

He had it for more than 10 years

and had done nothing with it. He had No ACTIVE program for weaponization.

Well before it was found,

Well before it was found, you guys were positive that it didn't exist, now you are positive there was no program for weaponization. Let me guess, when the program for weaponization is found you will be positive that there was no intent to use the weapons!!!

By bannedfroggJuly 16, 2008 - 3:30pm

Bullshit

It wasn't weaponized uranium and the international community knew about it.

NO

we were positive there was no weapon program and this backs our claim.

and had done nothing with it.

he didn't have the opportunity to do anything with it, dumbass. He had the UN inspectors climbing all over his ass, and he got his ass kicked in a WAR by a coalition, yes, a coalition. Thank God for Republicans.

-Dave

By darmbruster1July 16, 2008 - 5:29pm

Too funny. "a coalition".

What a joke.

Exactly the point

He had NO ABILITY to convert the uranium to weapons grade fuel. 10 years and he hadn't begun. But the Administration tried to make their case for war partly on the fraudulent claim that he tried to buy MORE yellowcake in Niger when he couldn't even begin to use what he had.

The so called coalition was a joke. Us and the Brits.

The aluminum tubes

were not best used in Nukes. The nuke experts had already briefed Condi that they were probably for rockets. She knew this, so she was not merely incompetent in deciding on one theory over another. She said they were really ONLY suited for nukes. IT WAS A LIE!

See above.

The authorization speaks for itself. I see nothing in it regarding tubes of any kind.

Who said it did?

YOU are the one talking about the resolution. Not me.

arsTN Exactly when did

arsTN
Exactly when did Plame's husband out her in D.C. circles? Were you there?
AND SHE WAS COVERT it has been confirmed by many sources including the CIA!

We now know Cheney was involved in a coordinated effort.

proof?

-Dave

poor people do not hire people; rich people do

so get over it you little socialist dim-wit

-Dave

By its_so_overJuly 16, 2008 - 11:42am

Whose wife charged $750,000 to her credit cards in one recent month? Why, that would be Cindy "Trollop, You Cunt" McCain.

"Why doesn't John McCunt wear a flag pin?" Hounddaddy 7/1/08

rich people are all EVIL

you dependant liberal n'aer-do-wells need a socialist state to survive.

-Dave

that's nice.

a little angry that you'll never do anything on your own? Yep, I know the type; they're called liberals. Oops! Excuse me! they're called Progressives now because liberals don't like being called liberals anymore. too negative.

-Dave

What concern is it of yours

What concern is it of yours whether or not Cindy McCain charged $750,000 on a credit card? It was her money. You see achievers are allowed to do that because through earning and spending that amount of money, hundreds were employed. Worry more about paying on that rent to own furniture you have in your single wide instead of being envious of what someone else spends.

But, but, but....I thought the dems were supposed to be

the elitists! That's the repub talking point. I guess spending $750,000 on a credit card isn't elitist though, is it? Lots of people do that every day, right? All those hard-working middle class Americans that McCain claims he supports are well known for blowing three-quarters of a mil on their credit cards each year.

I could care less how much she spends, or how much she makes. She has a profitable business, and that's good. What annoys me is the hypocrisy of calling dems "elitist" when it is the repubs who actually behave as eli