Bush proposes arctic drilling (1 Viewer)

[Edward woodwood]

Got this off Surfbirds......let George know how u feel

Bush to drill in arctic published - 2 February, 2004
President George Bush proposes drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Straight out of the movie Groundhog Day where Bill Murray is forced to
repeat the same day over and over again, for the fourth year in a row,
we find that once again President George Bush has inserted a proposal
to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into his annual budget
proposal.

The Bush administration said it will push Congress this year to open
Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, and hopes to
begin leasing tracts in the area to energy companies in 2006. Even
though the Senate has voted several times against giving oil companies
access to the refuge, the White House included the drilling plan in its
proposed 2005 government budget sent to Congress.

The administration said in its budget that opening the refuge would
raise an initial $2.4 billion in leasing fees and half that amount would
go toward increased funding for the Energy Department's renewable energy
technology research programs over seven years.

"This act only shows how deeply out of touch the President is with
current political and economic realities," said Cindy Shogan, Executive
Director of the Alaska Wilderness League.

In order to make sure that Congress is not eager to discuss this issue,
they need to hear outrage from people that "here we go again, these guys
just don't understand "NO".

WE NEED TO LET CONGRESS KNOW (LOUDLY) THAT THEY SHOULDN'T EVEN BE
DISCUSSING AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN REJECTED TIME AND TIME AGAIN AND TO WHICH THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE STILL OPPOSED!

CLICK HERE TO SEND EMAILS AND FAXES TO CONGRESS ABOUT THE BUSH PROPOSAL
TO DRILL IN THE ARCTIC REFUGE:

http://capwiz.com/awc/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=4963001

 

[Beverlybaynes]

Bush has only enough intelligence to be really really scary. While I hadn't heard about this, it's not at all surprising. I, for one, will be doing all I can to forestall his re-election.

 

[Edward woodwood]

Cheers Beverley

more power to you and your Mod Squad!

 

[Doug Greenberg]

These clowns just won't quit, will they?

The good news is that Bush's lies, misrepesentations, and blunders have damaged him politically so severely that he is going to have a hard time getting much of his legislative agenda through Congress. The Energy Bill is very unlikely to be passed this session. His poll numbers are plummeting, and even some erstwhile conservative stalwarts like Fox News' Bill O'Reilly are renouncing their support for Dubya.

Of course, it's under these kinds of circumstances that the Bush-Cheney-Rove-Rumsfeld-Perle axis of evil is probably most dangerous. Facing possible electoral defeat, what new stunts or "October surprises" will they pull?

I think it's important for non-U.S. birdforum members to understand that many, MANY of us in the United States, especially those us who value the environment, do not support this unelected pretender to the Presidency.

 

[very boring banned member]

Just a suggestion:
As president B is now campaigning for another term as a leader of the free world, wouldn't it be fair that all we earthlings could vote in this election?

 

[scampo]

These clowns just won't quit, will they?

The good news is that Bush's lies, misrepesentations, and blunders...

We share so much - even the kind of leaders we have... Now that is a special relationship, eh?

(-:

 

[David]

What when Bush goes?

The optimists among us are placing large amounts of money with the bookmakers on a Heinz (sorry Kerry - look it up if you don't follow) win at the end of the year.

Now John Kerry may be a Democrat, but that doesn't automatically mean that he's comitted to conservation and rolling-back Bush legislation and blunders. From his profile he's a New England Patriach (means lots of money and he married much more) and Gulf War II supporter (although he did the bearded rebel bit when he came back from commanding a Mekong river patrol boat in Nam - Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three awards of the Purple Heart). On the positive side he has the same initials as a US president in the 1960s and he should be well up on the effects of herbicide in tropical forests. His policy on the environment to date A Cleaner and Greener America is a bit thin - more on Energy than Environment and I bet he doesn't drive a fuel-saver - and I think we need to smoke him out.

I'm quite happy to run a campaign to set him a list of questions on conservation and the environment (starting with the Kyoto protocol); but I feel that our US subscribers should comment first. It is however a good time to put pressure on. The campaign is running well, he and his people are euphoric and they will probably be keen to show that they are totally different to Shrub.
What he does when he is President (Michael Moore says some revealing things about Bill Clinton's real policies and legislation in Stupid White Men et al.) is another matter. But we may have something in B & W to hammer him with then.

Think about it.

David

 

[Doug Greenberg]

I totally agree with David that Kerry is very unlikely to be an environmentalists' dream candidate or anything close to it. Michael Moore (and others) were correct that Bill Clinton wasn't exactly Mr. Progressive on many issues, and we environmentalists were frequently disappointed in his policies, which all too often reflected corporate priorities.

But the bottom line here is that the last three years have proven that "it does make a difference" whether we get a wimpy Democrat or a George W. Bush. I'm not going to dwell here on the issue of whether it was "Nader's fault" that Gore lost the election (I actually think it was not; it was Gore's own fault), but the legacy of what happened in 2000 is that this time, we have to be SURE that we get Bush and his cronies out of office. If we end up with the "lesser of two evils" than so be it. Certainly it's important to get Kerry to commit to an environmental platform during this campaign, but the key will be to get him elected and get the current reactionary extremists out of the White House.

 

[David]

@ Doug Greenberg

.... But the bottom line here is that the last three years have proven that "it does make a difference" whether we get a wimpy Democrat or a George W. Bush. ... this time, we have to be SURE that we get Bush and his cronies out of office. If we end up with the "lesser of two evils" than so be it. Certainly it's important to get Kerry to commit to an environmental platform during this campaign, but the key will be to get him elected and get the current reactionary extremists out of the White House.

Thanks for the straight talking Doug. I have to agree with you on the "lesser of two evils" sad though it is. The same problem exists in Germany (where I have lived for 23 years - but only get to vote in European and local elections) and UK (land of my birth where I can't vote direct at all even though I served my country in the Army and Foreign Service for 22 + 9 years.).

Both are led by the nearest thing to Democrats we have on this side of the pond. We used to have Socialists or Social Democrats but the social side costs industry and the rich too much (a coat of paint on their yacht every year) so the dirty word has been dropped ("so that there is no danger of being confused with c*mm***sts") along with the poor, elderly, poorly educated, chronically ill, disabled, homeless, real efforts at cleaning up national and planetary environment .... and the rest. Blair and Schroeder will get kicked out within the next two years for not increasing the GNP and productivity, not dramatically reducing the unemployment figures, lowering the standard of living for the majority at the cost of the minority, increasing taxes for employees while reducing costs for employers (usually of foreign, poorly-paid labour somewhere else). Both have the wrong policy towards the USA; Tony co-habited with Dubya and Gerhard upset him. Heads I win, tails you lose. They will be replaced by politicians form the Grey Party who will not increase the GNP and productivity, not dramatically reduce the unemployment figures, will lower the standard of living for the majority at the cost of the minority, increase taxes for employees while reducing costs for employers ... but will find it easier to make eyes at JK and not blush when taking backhanders from multinationals.

We - and I speak confidently for the REST OF THE WORLD here - are very interested who the next incumbent of the White House is. I personally say let's not put any hurdles in Theresa's way (or John's); but let them know that they have supporters out there who will call in some bills when they are elected. Start an online KKK discussion group (no not that KKK - something like Kritical Konservationists for Kerry, Americans love aKronyms) and link in some real environmental themes to his website.

And please tell Michael to stop wasting his and our time supporting Wesley Clark. He's a cute little guy and probably means and believes most of what he says; but he is not presidential material . You can do better than that America. And after Dwight D. we don't need any more generals at the top over there. Just imagine what it would have been like had Alexander Haig campaigned and got in. Or better still don't risk having nightmares!

David

PS. Just heard at 17:15 CET that Wesley has thrown in the towel - please let MM know.