Down the Tubes with Dubya

[RyanH]

ryan, why is it such a crime to consult the energy industry leaders while developing a new energy plan? they are the experts, so it would make sense for the bush administration to ask them. and the reason why the bush administration is refusing to release the minutes is because, they dont have to, and if they were to do so, it would only set a precedent for these people who wish they were/think they are president to continue to harass the executive branch until 2004. plus, if the administration couldnt have any confidential meetings, it would mean less people from the private sector would speak to them.

energy leaders are experts at polluting our environment and leaving taxpayers the bill. environmental groups could have pushed the idea of alternative energy sources, but Bush wouldn't allow that because both he and Cheney are OILMEN. Instead of being concerned about our nation's future, Bush was more concerned with his oil buddies. Bush doesn't want alternative energy sources to be explored because of the negative impact it will have on his cronies' wallets.

Interesting that you are now so concerned with executive privilege. I bet you were equally as concerned when Republicans demanded that President Clinton produce documents in relation to Senator Rodham-Clinton's health care task force, eh? You assertion that groups won't meet with the President of the United States if their conversations aren't confidential is just silly. No group is going to turn down the opportunity to have considerable input into a national policy debate, unless they have something to hide, and well, Enron did, right?

 

[VicTusDeuS]

I still think it's funny how all of a sudden this Monica Lewinsky scandel came about and everyone seemed to have forgotten about white water. Call it a conspiracy theory if you must, but I think the dems had their hands in starting it to cover up a much bigger problem..Notice how after admitting to cheating on his wife after publicly lieing about it she goes on without looking the slightest bit angry....Im sure it was all a set up to get our minds off of the corruption of the Clintons..
Too bad for Al Gore. I think he's a nice guy and it was unfortunate for him to get involved with the Clintons. I agree with him 100% on his energy and enviornmental policies and I want nothing more than the oil companies to go bankrupt when we do find an alternative energy source.
I am fully against any of these free social programs though. I dont think once they have ever helped me or anyone else in my family except for taking more money out of our paychecks.

 

[cockdezl]

energy leaders are experts at polluting our environment and leaving taxpayers the bill. environmental groups could have pushed the idea of alternative energy sources, but Bush wouldn't allow that because both he and Cheney are OILMEN. Instead of being concerned about our nation's future, Bush was more concerned with his oil buddies. Bush doesn't want alternative energy sources to be explored because of the negative impact it will have on his cronies' wallets.

Well those evil energy companies are the main reason for the world's ability to feed starving countries, defend other countries, and create thousands of tangential companies that give jobs and money to grow the world's economy.

But please enlighten us on why European countries have not solved our energy problems? Since they are much more ecologically minded, why have they not eliminated the need for fossil fuels? Why is it the duty of the US to perform this feat? The US WILL solve this problem, since it is the forerunner of creative technology, but it will most likely be by some evil capitalist pig, who actually wishes to make a profit from his/her creation.

 

[VicTusDeuS]

I like how they try to throw this kyoto treaty in our face. Obviously on analysis of pro's and con's, it would hurt us more than the good it would create. These damn liberals are funny. If we went on with the kyoto plan, it is possible our national economy would be in great danger...Less people would have jobs which would be less money for their frivalous social programs...

energy leaders are experts at polluting our environment and leaving taxpayers the bill. environmental groups could have pushed the idea of alternative energy sources, but Bush wouldn't allow that because both he and Cheney are OILMEN. Instead of being concerned about our nation's future, Bush was more concerned with his oil buddies. Bush doesn't want alternative energy sources to be explored because of the negative impact it will have on his cronies' wallets.

Well those evil energy companies are the main reason for the world's ability to feed starving countries, defend other countries, and create thousands of tangential companies that give jobs and money to grow the world's economy.

But please enlighten us on why European countries have not solved our energy problems? Since they are much more ecologically minded, why have they not eliminated the need for fossil fuels? Why is it the duty of the US to perform this feat? The US WILL solve this problem, since it is the forerunner of creative technology, but it will most likely be by some evil capitalist pig, who actually wishes to make a profit from his/her creation.

 

[mekannik]

RyanH
What's your premise? If you are trying to say that the Democrats also accepted money from Enron, well, of course they did---that's an obvious fact, old news. (Note however that the contributions are still far less than the contributions Republicans received from Enron.)

Old news and old arguments.

It doesn't make a difference how much money was accepted from Enron (or any other "corrupt" contributor) - the point is money was taken. To utilize a defense of "since he took more, he's wrong/more wrong" is ridiculous. Everyone took the money - and unless they gave it back - everyone is wrong and no one has a soapbox to stand on to preach from.

Neither the Democrats or Republicans have the right to point the finger more than the other since they both committed the same misdeed. And unfortunately cockdezl is right - the Democrats were bought off for a lower price. Had they accepted equal dollar amounts - would the stance on Democrats change/disappear?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Krugman would certainly agree that the Calif. energy crisis and the Alaska drilling are unrelated. You had better tell that to the Administration which used anxiety over the energy crisis to campaign for opening Alaska. The proposed inflations in the defense budget have no logical relationship to the disastrously successful handiwork of a handful of terrorists, but, guess what, the administration has made it appear so. Krugman's assertion is shitty journalism if you ignore politics at your convenience.

The administration has tried to hold numerous people without charges -- not Padilla alone -- and many have been released thanks to the actions of some courageous federal judges. The Padilla affair is also an incredibly inflated political diversion. Mr. Padilla had $10,000 and no plan and no sources. There is NO evidence against him other than hearsay. He was arrested well over a month before the public announcement of his alleged dirty bomb plan. I guess you think it's coincidence that, after weeks, the feds announced this just as the FBI was under attack for its shoddy work.

You confuse editorializing with journalism. Just as your own response to the editorial column it is colored with irrelevancies -- "all politicians lie" -- an editorial is (unlike you own claim to factuality) calculated as provocation. Indeed, you didn't dispute any of the facts, only their interpretation.

It is not irrelvelant that politics is played a certian way: through lies, emotionalizing, and making today's problems into tomorrow's. The corollary to that is "make your friends (read: large contributors) wealthier".

Drilling in Alaska fits that mold, and other solutions to the looming energy crisis involve taking action right now, which politicians in general are unwilling to do. This energy problem has been on the horizon for quite some time and will become more pronounced.

Good point about the Padilla case - I am ever wary of a department of "Justice" with a crackpot like Ashcroft in charge. Getting him out of there might be enough reason to oust Bush in 2004. Calling it a diversion is a little bit conspiratorial, but perhaps in this case, vigilance is needed.

 

[RyanH]

All the above shows is that the Democrats will prostitute themselves for a lower price. Just low self-esteem, I guess.

huh....never heard of motive, I guess. Republicans had a lot more to lose by not remaining loyal to those in the industry: their own money and their own campaign coffers.

 

[RyanH]

energy leaders are experts at polluting our environment and leaving taxpayers the bill. environmental groups could have pushed the idea of alternative energy sources, but Bush wouldn't allow that because both he and Cheney are OILMEN. Instead of being concerned about our nation's future, Bush was more concerned with his oil buddies. Bush doesn't want alternative energy sources to be explored because of the negative impact it will have on his cronies' wallets.

Well those evil energy companies are the main reason for the world's ability to feed starving countries, defend other countries, and create thousands of tangential companies that give jobs and money to grow the world's economy.

But please enlighten us on why European countries have not solved our energy problems? Since they are much more ecologically minded, why have they not eliminated the need for fossil fuels? Why is it the duty of the US to perform this feat? The US WILL solve this problem, since it is the forerunner of creative technology, but it will most likely be by some evil capitalist pig, who actually wishes to make a profit from his/her creation.

Those energy companies allow corrupt people such as Saddam Hussein, the corrupt Saudi royal family, and Ken Lay to thrive. Moreover, those companies encourage Americans to risk their lives for oil. Recall, American involvement in fighting for kuwait's oil. Why don't you ask California consumers or Enron investors how they feel about big energy? Ask Enron investors what they think about Enron's board of directors hiding profits (from price gouging) in a reserve fund during the California energy crisis? Ask California consumers how they feel about being price gouged to the hilt?

Over the long haul energy cannot sustain a population, and Saudi Arabia is a prime example of this. For years, the Saudi population enjoyed a higher standard of living in comparison to most other mid-east countries, but in recent years that has begun to plummet. The world can only remain dependent for so long before the environment is ruined because of increases in the world's temperature. (the affects of which are already being seen in places such as Alaska where homes are being destroyed because of increases in the temperature).

Much of Europe wants change as shown by their willingness to enter into the Kyoto treaty, but America (the wealthiest nation) wouldn't go along with it because there are too many politicians with ties to energy in both the administration and in Congress. New energy sources will only be implemented when the federal government finally decides to protect the people's interest as opposed to that of a few.

 

[p0ink]

The Truth about Bush & Enron
No policy pals.

By Bill Lickert & Christopher Morris, research associates at the Capital Research Center

February 8, 2002 9:55 a.m.

The media are looking avidly for any signs that collapsed-energy-giant Enron may have had undue influence over the Bush administration's energy policy. They're also completely ignoring Enron's involvement with environmental-activist groups during the Clinton years. Enron has endorsed policy initiatives opposed by the Bush administration, including the high-profile Kyoto Treaty on climate change. And it provided almost $1.5 million in grants to green groups that pushed for Clinton administration global-warming policies the Bush White House now rejects.

Clearly, the whole story hasn't been told. Capital Research Center studies indicate that far from being the Bush administration's closest collaborator, Enron has been a major backer of green groups — groups which have been a thorn in the administration's side since day one. Enron is far from being the champion of Bush environmental policies some want to believe.

During the Clinton administration, Enron was a corporate supporter for those who demanded international energy controls to reduce so-called global warming. From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation contributed $990,000 to the Nature Conservancy. The Conservancy's "Climate Change" project promotes global-warming theories, a key component of the Kyoto Protocol. Indeed, one internal Enron memo — circulated immediately after the 1997 Kyoto meeting — shows the company believed that the treaty could provide it with a financial windfall. According to the memo, which was first reported by the Washington Post, the Kyoto treaty "would do more to promote Enron's business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural-gas industries in Europe and the United States."

Last June, President Bush refused to sign the treaty, saying it "is, in many ways, unrealistic" and that "it's not sound public policy." Despite pressure from green groups, the administration pulled out of last fall's meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco, on the treaty's implementation.

Enron, however, has been at the forefront of the global-warming debate, and was an early and strong supporter of Kyoto and Kyoto's proponents:

In January 1997, the company announced formation of the Enron Renewable Energy Corporation to offer alternatives to the "$250 billion U.S. electricity market." Renewable Energy CEO Tom White supported President Clinton's $6.3 million plan to fight global warming.

Later that year, Enron CEO Kenneth Lay was named a member of President Clinton's "Council on Sustainable Development," joining Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, EPA Administrator Carol Browner, and Fred Krupp, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund. The task force also included representatives from the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The National Environmental Trust, a public-relations organization heavily funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts to promote environmental policies, worked with Kenneth Lay to place pro-Kyoto editorials (under Lay's signature) in the Houston Chronicle, the Austin-American Statesman, and the Salt Lake City Tribune.

When President Clinton called for a gradual reduction in greenhouse gases, to lay the groundwork for U.S. backing of Kyoto, Enron executives expressed their support. In an Atlanta Constitution article, Enron Senior Vice President Terry Thorn called the announcement "a measured, appropriate action plan given what we know today about global warming. This will unleash the ingenuity of American business to find creative solutions."

Enron also urged the Nature Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and a coalition of Oregon environmental groups to sign a memorandum of agreement endorsing its 1997 purchase of Portland General Electric, despite objections by the state Public Utility Commission. Portland's Willamette Week newspaper has reported that these groups subsequently received grants from Enron totaling nearly $500,000. Among the beneficiaries is Northwest Environmental Advocates ($30,000), which is a member of the Oregon Climate Action Network — a coalition that has lobbied Congress to support Kyoto.

The company itself has said that Kyoto would help its bottom line. Enron and the Bush administration can hardly be said to see eye to eye on energy policy.

 

[p0ink]

and ryan, the reason why bush wouldnt go along with kyoto is because it is an anti-american, anti-capitalist, leftist protocol to simply set limits on economic growth, remove money and in turn power from the USA, and redistribute it elsewhere....something you must be all for.