>
> "Dennis"
never.net> wrote in message
> news:Hf-dnXC9L7NETeDVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@comcast.com...>>>
>>> "Dennis"
never.net> wrote in message
>>> news:nqSdnWOor7ZXmODVnZ2dnUVZ_h3inZ2d@comcast.com...>>>> FROM INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY
>>>>
>>>> HEAD: Feckless To Reckless, Pelosi Should Resign
>>>>
>>>> Leadership: With oil hitting $147, Nancy Pelosi finally admits energy
> is
>>>> a
>>>> problem. But instead of drilling for it, she's cooked up a new
>>>> drain-the-reserves scheme. It's pure politics at a time of crisis. She
>>> ought
>>>> to resign.
>>>>
>>>> Any leader with an energy record as derelict as Speaker Pelosi's ought
> to
>>>> step down. Where she once was just incompetent and irresponsible, she
> has
>>>> now - with her latest scheme to fix oil prices - become dangerous.
>>>>
>>>> Despite polls showing Americans in favor of drilling more oil from
>>> America's
>>>> huge untapped supplies, Pelosi won't allow it. She just wants to empty
>>>> our
>>>> Strategic Petroleum Reserve for a short-term fix to get through
> Election
>>>> Day.
>>>>
>>>> It's an irresponsible suggestion, signaling not only an ignorance of
> how
>>> the
>>>> economy works but also a willingness to place the nation at risk in
>>>> the
>>> case
>>>> of emergency.
>>>>
>>>> Last Tuesday, Pelosi sent a letter to President Bush urging him to
>>>> release
>>> a
>>>> "small portion" of the nation's 706 million barrels of
> strategic-reserve
>>> oil
>>>> to bring down prices. Regardless of how one feels about whether
> reserves
>>>> should be held at all, two big problems stand out with Pelosi's tiny
>>> demand.
>>>>
>>>> One, she's proposing a misappropriation of the reserves. The U.S. oil
>>>> stockpile is a 58-day cushion for emergencies that today are all
>>>> possible.
>>>> If Israel attacks Iran, for example, and prices double again. Or if
> Hugo
>>>> Chavez cuts off his supplies, as he threatened to do as recently as
>>> Sunday.
>>>>
>>>> The reserve is there to cushion the blow of a market disruption; it's
> not
>>> an
>>>> open-market mechanism to manipulate prices for political ends.
>>>>
>>>> Two, Pelosi has finally admitted that supply matters, something that
>>>> contrasts with her entire legislative record. We count 14 energy
> actions
>>> to
>>>> suppress supply on her Web site just since 2005.
>>>>
>>>> She has blocked efforts to open Alaska to drilling, denounced fossil
>>> fuels,
>>>> blamed oil companies for high gasoline prices, voted for biotech
>>> boondoggles
>>>> and condemned speculators.
>>>>
>>>> "Our coasts need lasting protection from oil and gas drilling," she
>>> declared
>>>> Dec. 6, 2006, after Democrats won control of Congress. Missing are any
>>> moves
>>>> against petrotyrant regimes who drive prices skyward, or even lip
> service
>>> to
>>>> the idea of ensuring supply through drilling.
>>>>
>>>> Pelosi downplays her proposal as modest because it's a "small" portion
> of
>>>> the reserves to spend. And look what happened in 2000, she says, when
> an
>>> SPR
>>>> release authorized by President Clinton lowered gasoline prices nearly
>>> 20%%.
>>>>
>>>> But she's not fooling anyone. Then, like now, an election was coming
> up.
>>>>
>>>> With Congress' public approval at a subterranean 9%% and falling, the
>>> speaker
>>>> must be starting to realize that November may not be the Democratic
>>> cakewalk
>>>> that pundits predict.
>>>>
>>>> President Bush, however, isn't about to be suckered into releasing the
>>>> reserves just long enough for pump prices to fall by Election Day,
>>>> thereby
>>>> saving Democrats' skins so they can carry on their drill-nothingism
>>>> for
>>>> an
>>>> additional two years.
>>>>
>>>> The president needs to do two things with Pelosi's proposal: First,
> tell
>>> her
>>>> "no," unless she comes up with a plan to open up more drilling.
>>>> Second,
>>>> expose it for what it is - a bid to paint Bush as the problem to
> distract
>>>> from her own sorry record.
>>>>
>>>> In playing politics with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the speaker
> has
>>>> moved beyond the incompetence and irresponsibility that have
>>>> characterized
>>>> her leadership to date.
>>>>
>>>> It borders on reckless, something we cannot tolerate in such dangerous
>>>> times.
>>>> *********
>>>> Always incompetent and irresponsible, and now dangerous...that's
>>>> Crabs.
>>>> If
>>>> she doesn't quit, she should be impeached for treason.
>>>>
>>>> Dionysus
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yah, leave it the republitards, they'll drill it to the last drop.
>>> Even if they do, it won't affect the price of gasoline much.
>>> And it would take years before that gas ever get to market.
>>> What's needed is to get out of dependence in just oil.
>>> Diversify our energy. That will do it.
>>> What gets me is: why aren't the oil companies not drilling on
>>> the land they have now? Noooo, they're after that coast line.
>> *******
>> Ah, 9Titties, you obviously know nothing about geology, the oil industry,
>> logic or reason, but know everything about braying your ignorance to the
>> world.
>>
>> Dionysus
>>>
> Funny, Dennis, you're talking about ignorance, if you're an educated boy
> you'd know that the oil companies are seating on a large area that they
> leased
> but they're not doing a thing about it because they want that COASTLINE.
> This is what you get when you put oil people in control of government.
*******
Sweet Jay-sus (as my sainted Irish grandmother would say), 9Titties...you
are way beyond ignorant, and far into terminal stupidity. The lands where
oil companies now have leases are not producing enough oil to be profitable,
and will be returned to the Gov't. We know there are vast oil deposits on
the coastlines and deep continental shelf...why are you ostrich-headed
opposed to our becoming oil independent? And, if "oil people [are] in
control of government" why isn't there already development in the areas
where there's oil? Terminally stupid? Yep, you just keep tripping over your
floor level IQ.
Dionyusus
>
>
>
>
>
>
