Subscribe by RSS
In an effort to quell the foreign policy experience critics who’ve been hammering his campaign for months, Barack Obama has planned a 5-nation tour with visits to the Middle East and Europe. Of course, there will be a close eye on his visit to Iraq on which his position has seemed to waver in the past few weeks concerning the effectiveness of the surge and when troops should be withdrawn.
Story from USAToday:
WASHINGTON — For Barack Obama, the road to the White House is about to take a 12,000-mile detour.
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee will try to boost his résumé next week with a five-country European and Middle East tour that threatens to turn into Obamapalooza.
In contrast to the low-key coverage of Republican John McCain’s European and Middle East trip in March, Obama will be accompanied by a campaign plane of reporters and trailed by three network broadcast anchors. McCain got some headlines, but did not have a traveling press corps.
Obama is “going to be a rock star,” said James Thurber, an American University political scientist who recently taught a course in Brussels. “Expectations are high,” agreed Christian Hacke, a retired professor of foreign policy at the University of Bonn. “I think too high.”
Obama lived in Indonesia as a child but lacks the foreign policy experience of McCain, a Navy veteran and the top-ranking GOP member of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee.
Another report from USAToday on the major broadcast networks sending their anchors for exclusive interviews with Obama during the trip:
The three traditional TV networks will be sending their evening news anchors overseas to interview Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama when the senator takes his much-anticipated trip through the Middle East, central Asia and Europe later this month, The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz is reporting.
“That means the NBC, ABC and CBS newscasts will originate from stops on the trip and undoubtedly play it up,” Kurtz says. Obama’s stops are expected to include Afghanistan and Iraq, though his schedule has not been made public.
The senator has been to Iraq once, in 2006, and has not visited Afghanistan.
The networks’ decisions stand in contrast to the treatment they gave Republican hopeful John McCain’s trip last week to Colombia and Mexico, and his trip earlier this year to Israel and Europe. The anchors did not link up with him during those excursions.
There was little ado about McCain’s trip with Lieberman a few months back yet Obama will receive the “rock star” treatment from the press. However, McCain has visited Iraq several times so this will be bigger news as Obama has not been to the country since 2006.
(2 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
The MSM has become so transparent in their preference to Obama that I don’t even watch them anymore, and I used to really be a fan of Brian Williams. Oh well, whatever leg tingling news they deliver from abroad won’t reach me anymore. I have to get my news from online newspapers and youdecide2008.com.
Fox should send Bill O’Reilly along for the trip, but I doubt Obama’s people would want a no-spin interviewer there.
Obama’s going mid-campaign season after his rival suggested he make such a trip. It’s bound to attract more attention than McCain’s did, back when the press was still more focused on the resolution of the primaries. I’m pretty sure if he made a 5-country tour right now it would get a good deal of press - perhaps not as much as this though.
This is, after all, sort of Obama’s introduction to the international stage. McCain is almost certainly more familiar with some international major players who have never met, and only recently heard, of Obama.
However the press reacts to it, isn’t it obvious that in some ways this stands to be a more noteworthy trip than McCain’s? He’s severely lacking in international experience, and he’s cramming as much as he can into this trip. McCain’s trip, well he was in his element, and it was sort of business as usual.
Of course it will atract more press. ITS BARACK OBAMA! the press love him, and it will be all over the news, while John McCain made his last visit, it was as if no one cared he was even there.
What is wrong with business as usual, on such a big issue like foreign policy? I would rather have someone who has been there a lot and is the usual for them.
Obama goes wherever the polls and issues go. The main reason he turned down McCain’s offer of going together was in my opinion because McCain would look like commander in chief while Obama would look like a meaningless bystander.
I don’t get how people conclude that the media are biased for Barack, especially with the material Fox News comes up with.
And the idea of taking a trip for some kind of international street cred seems pointless to me. Is talking to a few dozen individuals around the world supposed to somehow make him a better candidate for the presidency? This trip is nothing but a weak attempt to convince us that he isn’t lacking in awareness when it comes to international relations.
It’s sad to note, however, that this is indicative more of a lack of discernment on the part of the American people than it is of Barack’s showmanship. In reality, there’s no tangible foundation for the belief that Barack is more inexperienced and weaker on an international scale- if anything, international opinions of Barack are leagues higher than they are of McCain. These weaknesses of Obama are all visceral in nature. However, it’s because that a majority of the nation believes him to be inexperienced that he has to showboat around like this.
It’s sad that Barack is once again pandering to popular opinion and even more sad that popular opinion is so misguided.
Wouldn’t it been nice to see Obama pick up a gun and defend his country well the rock star makes the rounds. To bad Michelle’s not going to tag along, especially since the New Yorker portrays her as a gun totin’ mama. On the other hand he may grow a pair if he has the privilege of being shot at by terrorist. However, that said they(the terrorist) may think he’s one of them.
Grey, Fox is the only network that will report the negative about Obama as well as the positive, and that is changing as well. Shep Smith is definitely an Obama fan, along with most of the young reporters in the afternoon - obviously so, 50% by poll Maybe even worse than Colmes, and I think he has a serious crush on Obama - really. The other three major networks have lost their minds over him, and that’s not just my opinion. It’s being well touted that never before has the MSM been so biased in their news reporting as they have been in favor of Obama.
Indi, come on now. You can whitewash the difference in the two candidates overseas trips, but that won’t change the facts. Sending reporters with Obama would be a natural assumption, sending the big anchors is way over the top. And McCain’s trip really wasn’t business as usual, because THIS time he made those rounds as a candidate for the Presidency. You do make the point well, though, that Obama’s trip is different in that he’s never been and for McCain it’s an easy fit from years of interacting with these countries leaders already. In fact, you could almost sound like a McCain supporter in your argument.
I’m glad Obama is taking this trip - I just hope he doesn’t tell anyone over there we have 57 states, or quote any of his wife’s gaffes. It could be the Dixie Chicks revived.
McCain has been criticizing Obama’s “war sense” if you will or lack of to be more precise. Now there is talk about sending troops to the forgotten war, which has a higher death toll than Iraq. Obama has been singing that song for a while now, longer and louder than anyone else at that. I haven’t seen anyone give him credit for that call though.
Erwin, I would imagine that Obama dosen’t get credit for his
Afghanistan policy because it was based on sending “available” troops which came out of Iraq. In other words he made the increase in one war contingent on a decrease in the other. He also spoke against the Iraq war as a war that was costing to many American lives, now he wants to increase our presence in Afghanistan, recently the more dangerous place for our troops out of the two. Seems to me he now has minimized the weight he once gave to the danger factor for our troops.
I will say this, I hope he is given the in depth tour instead of the “VIP” tour. He needs to see the viciousness of our enemy as compared to the attempt at war we employ. Maybe then it would be clear to him which side is the good side and which side is causing the deaths.
As for you guys who try to ignore the obvious bias in the media. NBC, ABC, CBS blatantly liberal FOX blatantly conservative—FOX easily has higher viewership, where’s your argument ?
I agree, Todd, about the media bias. That’s why I’ve stopped watching the major networks.
As to Obama’s foreign policies on Iraq, here’s a new video that contains nothing but Obama’s shifts to and fro on the subject in his own words via video. I usually try not to list biased links, but the RNC did this video (almost 8 minutes long) and included the written transcript of all of Obama’s words. I have felt like he’s flip flipped a bit, but in all honesty after seeing the whole collection of his “stances” at one time, I was left even more confused by the man himself as to where his head is concerning Iraq.
http://www.gop.com/news/N.....d798112196
In truth, I have no respect for fox news at all. Equating a fist bump to a terrorist fist jab? From any perspective, that’s just bad news. I remember this one time last year when there were wildfires throughout the San Diego area, and fox news had the audacity to suggest that Al Qaeda might have been involved. I don’t care how pro-Obama the other news networks are- fox news in and of itself is pathetic.
That’s assuming that networks do have such bias- I remember vividly that all networks held an Obama roast during the Pennsylvania gaffe and the Jeremiah Wright controversy.
Grey,
I have absolutley no problem with what you said. If you feel that one network is worse or better than the other or if you get your news somewhere else that’s fine. The problem I have starts when folks try to say Fox is somehow alone in the “news” world when it comes to being bias. For every Fox story we can give 3 liberal slants to the same issue simply because the other networks are liberal (ABC, NBC & CBS) To only point out Fox is to ignore the trash feed to us everyday by the other media outlets who are by far center left or left. Fact is fact if CBS, NBC & ABC are slanted liberal and Fox is conservative then there is a 75% chance your news will be from a liberal viewpoint if you get it on TV. We didn’t even go into the papers.
Todd
But there is a difference from having a “slant” and all out LYING.
I don’t see anything wrong with any of the networks having a slant. But if they are fabricating Lies or creating rumors themselves this is what separates having a slant and actually creating propaganda.
There is a difference between Fox style and the other networks style. I mean even some of Fox own news anchors have complained about Fox.
I mean as far as media if you are liberal good luck trying to get talk radio across the country. If we all provided evidence of lies or propaganda i bet you a mountain of info from fox can probably be presented in comparison to what can be provided from several of the other networks.
Let me also add maybe i need to watch some of the other networks to have a more balanced view because I watch fox almost all the time! So if there is an equal amount of Lying and propaganda being spread on the other networks let me know. But listening to Rush Limbaugh and Savage and reading Rush’s website as aggressive as they are to point out inaccuracies if there was a lot of all out laying or propaganda they would point it out each and every single time in full details.
Msnbc, abc, cbs =liberal
fox=conservative
Fox is the more balanced of all the major stations.
Why do you think they are the most watched out of the major stations.
OBAMA_SUCKS:
If Obama goes wherever the polls and issues go is true, then why hasn’t Baracks positions for offshore drilling, drilling in ANWAR and nuclear energy shifted?
Grey:
The TV media are mostly biased towards Obama but the radio talkshows aren’t, so it’s swings and roundabouts really on the whole ‘media’ spectrum. OS could quite easily add CNN and NBC to the list of being liberal and biased towards Obama.
Maybe if Obama got captured whilst on his little trip and was held a POW for a period of time, perhaps that would qualify him enough to run for President…LOL
I have a question for everyone—if Fox News is so fair and balanced why did they not show (and delete it from the transcript) John McCain in a recent interview saying..well heres the video…
http://youtube.com/watch?.....re=related
Give it time guys,
Saw on several networks thursday I believe, that Harry Reid and I believe it was Dick Durben are reconsidering the positins they have on offshore drilling, may be considering allowing “some” in certain here to for protected areas. If the leading congressional Dems accept it Obama will not be far behind
offshore drilling would be stupid. why don’t the oil co. buy the land with those record breaking profits instead of them giving them it.we will not see benefit of the drill ,the oil co. will. there by only benefiting the oil co. not us the people.
and fox is a load of crap that broadcast gossip,but I don’t expect you to see that. balanced bullcrap gossip , over stimulation,& over reaction. All aimed at giving you the wrong impression.
load of crap.
omg
“Why do you think they are the most watched out of the major stations.”
Using that Logic since Obama pulls a bigger audience than Mccain……….
All because Fox Claims they are the most balanced doesn’t mean that they are.
They are far from being balanced.
Have any of the other Networks as a WHOLE completely lied about
anything? I’m not talking about one commentator I mean several of them in a joint venture attempt to spread a lie?
Look at this remember the Move on dot org ad against Gen. Petreaus? Obama voted in favor of a bill which would condemn attacks on any active Military personnel? But TWO different programs on Fox claim that he did not.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_6BbYzKGpUc
Or you know how bad you have to be when one of your own ACTIVE journalist Chris Wallace blasts you on your own network about excessive Obama bashing and taking things out of context for almost 2 hours! This is a morning show with THREE people who are very unbalanced. Not like Hannity and Colmes but now Hannity has his OWN SHOW on Fox to help unbalance what every balance Colmes tries to ad.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MiIK8jh3ZCE
Now CNN wasn’t so Liberal when the war was a big deal were they? They were so pro war and being that war was the Republican agenda that doesn’t meant that they were a Republican network. Msnbc was pro war too. That is how Bill Press and Pat Buchanan lost their show. You had a Liberal and a Conservative both anti war. So they got canned.
Hey and I like how “Liberal” Msnbc is right here in this video. Where they put Rachael Maddow on a pannel with 4 Republicans lol! Then Joe wants to make a vote and thinks it is legit because it is a 4 to 1 vote lol!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9UiF6xvKYBo
Glen Beck is aggressive he is a Conservative on CNN
Joe Scarborough is aggressive he is a Conservative on MSNBC
Does Fox have an equivalent of this on their channel? The closest they have is Alan Colmes but he doesn’t have his own show.
To say offshore drilling would be stupid Rayven just makes me think you are stupid.
How is drilling off shore gonna fix anything? they have played this game before, and we did not win. drilling will not be a benefit to us,we will still be hooked on oil.And pandering to the oil co. isn’t gonna help either.It would only make more problems.
Dreadsen, on the bill concerning moveon.org’s ad, Obama did a “not voting”, he refused to vote. It’s a big talking point for the RNC and I’ve seen the voting record. He really did refuse to vote.
Hey Babs,
it’s a boone to McCain that his trip could be perceived as business as usual - it’s unnerving that a presidential candidate should be coming in so new to the political landscape, and nowhere is that more apparent than on the international front. That’s part of what makes Obama’s trip big news. If he were well experienced, he would never be making this trip.
It’s why I’ve always hoped that Obama will grab Biden up for something big in his administration, because I think Biden knows his stuff better than anyone. At any rate, you know I’ve got nothing against John McCain. Although admittedly it’s been getting more difficult to like either one of them these days…
But look, my understanding is that McCain didn’t even invite the press corps when he went over, so it’s kind of silly to be upset that they didn’t show up at his jet, ready to go. Obviously the networks are going over the top with Obama’s trip though. I get the impression that they’re getting desperate for some big election news as of late. Inflammatory political parody just doesn’t hold audiences.
On a side note, if you think CNN is all liberal, Obama-supporting bias, you should watch Glenn Beck some time. But of course Chris is right, the news networks don’t really offer journalism anymore, but commentary on current events. That’s probably why people keep accusing Jon Stewart of being a real newscaster (and why he has to keep denying it), because his job is sort of what ‘real newscasters’ are doing these days.
Babs
But they omit the fact that he voted on Boxers resolution which covers ANYONE only a half an hour before the specific Petreaus one.
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2947 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)
Statement of Purpose: To reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.
http://senate.gov/legisla.....vote=00343
go to the link you will see Obama voted for this and McCain did not. This amendment doesn’t just cover specifically General Petreaus but it condemns ALL ATTACKS ON ALL MILITARY FIGURES. In the video it is talking about Boxers amendment which is the same thing. Boxers amendment was at 11:58 am the other Amendment was at 12:36. Now he also canceled a town hall meeting in S.C. at noon to be there for those votes but he had another Town Hall event in Atlanta later on that afternoon. It is possible that there as a scheduling conflict. But the talking point should be why did he vote for one amendment which condemns all attacks but did not stay to vote for the one which specifically focuses on Petreaus. Could be a waste of time. But all of this Information is suppressed when talking about this. They only talk about the 12:36pm amendment but they don’t talk about the one he voted for at 11:58am the one McCain voted against. Hillary voted for the first one but against the 2nd one. Should he cancel a 2nd town hall event to vote for something in the 2nd amendment which is also covered in 1st amendment?
Here is the 2nd one look at the time and the description.
http://senate.gov/legisla.....vote=00344
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2934 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)
Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.
Looking at his schedule he could have played it safe by not voting on anything that day. Hell the senators running for president miss lots of votes. But they do try to get in on the important ones. There were some Iraq votes earlier that day. But again deception by omission.
Anyone who voted for either one of those amendments should be attacked for supporting an amendment which violates Freedom of Speech.
I agree with you, IndiMinded. Funny thing happened today, NBC picked up on the news bias claim along with CBS and presented defenses for themselves. NBC was bold enough to hold an open poll on the subject. I don’t they’ll like the results:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25785762/
Even the options are skewed, take a look at them.
Out of over 13,000 voters so far:
1)Yes, the media has a liberal bias…is now 79%
2)No, media coverage is based on newsworthines…is now 14%
3)Sometimes, but it’s a long campaign…is 6.6%
Think they’ll put the results on the evening news? Sometimes you shouldn’t ask questions when you really don’t want to know the answer.
Rayven and O.S.
They are already drilling Off shore and Inland.
In the Alaskan North Slope they have been drilling Oil there and all of it from B.P. Amoco is being exported to China, Japan and Korea. It’s only a half million barrels a day.
I know one of the talking points is Congress is blocking drilling. When there are 23 million acres of the 91 million acres of land they lease currently being drilled and producing about 1.6 million barrels a day. The remaining 68 million acres DOES CONTAIN OIL.
The block was for the ADDITIONAL leases of land to oil companies for drilling.
They want additional land plus the 68 million acres of land they already have which they are more then welcome to legally drill.
But their argument is that the other 68 million acres of land is not as cost effective to extract oil out of as the current 23 million of acres they are currently using.
They want the ban of more leases to be lifted so they can get Millions of more “cost effective” land. I forgot how much of it is offshore land as well. I think it’s 30 million acres or something like that. But that land allegedly would cost to much as well. So they need goo gobs of more land.
So the oil companies with all the money and profits they are making actually want us to give them very easy and cheap land to extract oil from that is more cost productive.
Which could be true being that China is drilling off the shore of Florida when they have all the land off shore of China they could be drilling from. The offshore land of Florida is probably more cost effective than their own land in China. So I can buy into this argument.
But can we trust Big oil to drill on this land just like up in Alaskan northern slope and sell it to everyone but us?
Can we trust them to do this and keep the prices down to a cost as low as what they pay in Brazil and Argentina?
The big question do we trust our Oil companies?
Here is info on the Alaskan Oil exports
http://www.ncseonline.org.....gen-25.cfm
And here is Giulani and Sean Hannity claiming that Obama and other democrats have BANNED drilling and Alan Colmes calls him out and presents the evidence.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8HQMOL7Jwqc
So both the republicans and democrats are omitting info on this argument.
Dresden,
where do I start ?
I will take your last post first; China may or may not be drilling off the Florida coast, you got me there–The point is-AMERICAN companies are prevented by law from drilling in the protected areas along our coast. I do agree with you that obtaining more oil will cause the problem to be repeated. I appreciate your agreeing with me on the drilling issue. The problem would be repeated because more drilling would mean more oil in the system which means THE PRICE WOULD FALL (not yelling just pointing out). After the price fell the American people would get complacent once again and in 5 years we would have $5 gas. Liberals would try and convince everyone that the law of supply and demand has been repealed and that it’s just the big bad oil companies screwing us.
Now don’t get me wrong, I am not for big oil and actually I am more liberal on the issue of oil because I believe we are messing up the very planet that common since would tell us we need to take care of. But we have to have oil in the near term. If we would get together and demand congress and the president give subsidies to alternative energy projects while we did what we could to lower the price of oil-now, we could kill two birds with one stone. I bet you drove to work or rode in a gas powered vehicle today, so why does it make since to rail against more oil so you can pay for your dinner tonight ?
Secondly, Can you not see that Obama has done exactly what you are saying he doesn’t do ? He votes for the money to fund war, votes to condemn attacks on troops and yells for about the need for MORE troops in Afghanistan all while convincing dems that he is not responsible for war. I am sure the troops would love the fact that Obama and McCain condemn those who hurt them but Obama has been allowed to play both sides all while telling you he isn’t. How can he be against war but steadfastly vote for the war machine and yell for more troops in Afghanistan ? I truly do not understand this
As to your last point Todd, I’d just like to say that I think your condemnation of Obama on the issue of funding the war is that of a conservative who believes the war should be continued and above all that the troops should be supported - but expects certain things from the opposite side of the isle.
Obama, like many democrats, has voted to continue funding this war because if he votes against funding the war while our soldiers are remaining in the field, he is leaving our soldiers there without the support they need and deserve from our government. To a certain degree, continuing this war is an all-or-nothing deal. When we bring them home, then we can support our troops here. But so long as bringing them home is not an option, it would be downright immoral and absolutely unamerican to cut off the funding of the supplies they need to do their job.
Since you agree with funding the war, Todd, I assume I’m sort of preaching to the choir here so far as supporting the troops goes. Just realize that everyone’s pretty much on the same page so far as that goes. Anti-war does not mean anti-troop. Don’t beat up on Obama on this issue, he did the right thing.
Sorry Indi we disagree (who would have tought it right)
If you believe that Obama has the right to base his entire election effort on the fact the WAR IS WRONG and should not be fought, while slamming Republicans about the whole thing, and at the same time talking tough (said he supported the war on terror and intends to win it), voting for war funding bills and then HIGHLY ENCOURAGING MORE TROOPS BE SENT TO AFGHANISTAN then you are ignoring the double standard he has adopted on the very issue that made him stand out as a candidate
.
You cannot be against something while you vote to support the mechanism to do it. Dennis Kesenich (I know I destroyed the spelling) is the only democrat who can stand with ANY honor on this issue. He is what a real person looks like who hates the war and he knows it cannot be fought without money which supplies the manpower & materials, so he votes against war funding. I disagree with him, of course but he sticks to his principles.
Indi, one other thing when you say Obama like many democrats vote to fund the war on the basis of troop safety you leave out one glaring problem. They also voted to give Bush the power to wage it. Somehow every democrat in congress deferred to Bush, well I think I remember a house rep from Texas voting against it, kinda ironic considering they all thought he was an idiot now isn’t it ? I mean democrats on the armed service committee, House intelligence committee and so on; but somehow they get the free pass. I guess it’s the same pass Clinton got for bombing Iraq 3 times himself, two over WMD’s and Saddams failure to comply.
Before you think to yourself here we go with Clinton again, I fully supported him in that, Somalia (until he left with his tail tucked), Bosnia & Sudan’s bombing.
You see it’s my opinion that history teaches use one thing, every time a U.S. president attempts to get along and pacify the fact that we are the super power of the world some country sees us as an easy target. Now if you can get these same countries to stop taking our money, that could be used to help our inter cities and poor, then I guess we should back off the world stage but as long as they look at us as the central bank, peace maker and leader on EVERY issue then we have to act the part. Sometimes being a leader requires hard work and yes discipline.
.
All I am trying to say is dems want it both ways. they want to yell about fighting the war while they vote to support it, the only thing new is Obama wants to send MORE troops to Afghanistan. But then again that’s also puzzling considering he sees the military as unable to provide a solution in Iraq but APPARENTLY believes it can against the same extremist in Afghanistan. Remember this, if Obama really believes in the war on terror then he should have supported the war in Iraq. Saddam at the very least financially supported suicide bombers in Israel and last I checked that was terrorism.
Well you won’t hear me arguing with a lot of what you’ve said Todd. I’m not particularly eager to defend the democrats original role in beginning this war. But if I were a politician and my son were a soldier, I would never vote to cut the funding that provides him things like weapons, information, and body armor. Because I’d want to see him return alive, no matter what I felt about the war he was fighting.
Many politicians don’t vote as if their sons were soldiers. But they ought to. I see your point, Todd, that it sends mixed messages to the voters and to the nation. But I don’t want to be the one to tell a mother that her son got killed because he made the misjudgement to serve his nation amidst primary season politics. Do you?
I had a cousin serving in Iraq a while back. I never liked the war, but I absolutely felt he deserved the full support of the our government until such time as they brought him home. No politician who votes to leave my family stranded SOL in Iraq would be getting my vote.
“No politician who votes to leave my family stranded SOL in Iraq would be getting my vote.”
IndiMinded, you just hit on what is an important point for me concerning Obama’s withdrawal plan. Pulling one to two brigades a month, I worry about those left with no one to cover their backs. Is that naive?
Todd
“Secondly, Can you not see that Obama has done exactly what you are saying he doesn’t do ? He votes for the money to fund war, votes to condemn attacks on troops and yells for about the need for MORE troops in Afghanistan all while convincing dems that he is not responsible for war.”
Where did I say this? All i was talking about was the difference in media bias in the way they reported a vote. I didn’t say anything about the war. You are lumping voting to condemn the attacks on troops with other things which are independent of that bill. Are you saying that if someone is against the war then they should not be against the attack on military personnel?
And in my Oil statements I was only trying to illustrate the suppressed information that the Democrats leave out of their Argument and Republicans leave out. Democrats when presenting their argument that they don’t want to lift the ban on new leases because the oil companies already have 68 million acres. But what they leave out is not all of those acres are cost and time effective. Some us easier and to tap meaning less money and less time. Some of it is much harder meaning much more money to tap and maybe 30 years before we see anything. Their 23 million acres which they are currently drilling is the most cost and time effective land out of the 91 million acres.
The Republicans when presenting their stance say that the Democrats have a ban on drilling or are blocking new drilling. There is not ban on drilling because they are currently drilling and there is not ban on new drilling because they are allowed to drill on the remaining 68 million acres. But what they leave out is in the Alaskan Northern slope where they have been drilling they export ALL 500 million barrels a day to Japan, China and Korea. So how would we know that if they lift the ban on more leases that they won’t export that as well?
Now you say that are not allowed to drill in the Protected areas along the coast. But my understanding is they don’t have the leases on that land. They can only drill on land which they own or have leases. Are you saying that they have leases on that land but are not allowed to drill on it?
Okay am not against drilling or lifting the ban on more land to lease to the oil companies. But I would want a BAN on any exporting of any of that Oil. This is where I know conservatives would frown on. Because this is more “big government”. I would also want the government to make sure after that ban that their profit margins are not inflated because in the countries like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela where they drill their own oil and refine it they are only paying 30 to 50 cents a gallon. There may be some economics i am ignorant of to those prices but i think if we did the same thing we shouldn’t be paying more than a dollar or a dollar and half. So i think that should be the compromise.
Meanwhile we work on alternatives. Once we get off of oil then they can release the ban on exporting it and they can make the money off of it internationally. Which would help the economy we are in because we are importing more than we are exporting. Back when we did more exporting than importing our dollar was a lot more stronger. But the possible problem then would be being that we are paying so low for oil that the alternatives would be put on the back burner. I mean look at our situation now. Alternatives still aren’t being taken as seriously as they should be and we are paying out the a** for Oil and gas.
It’s not a naive worry, Babs, it’s a definitely a valid concern. But Obama’s made it as clear as he possibly can that he’s not going to do this as carefully and delicately as possible. In fact, he’s taking a lot of flak from people about not putting forth more specifics of his plan. To me that sounds more like a candidate that wants to leave himself some flexibility when it comes down to actually taking action.
The fact that he doesn’t want to put forth too many specifics now, months before he could potentially be taking office, says to me that he doesn’t want to find himself in the White house months down the line being pressured to adhere to specifics which he may realize later to be unwise.
I have no real doubt that, if he’s elected, his plan will vary in accordance to needs on the ground. Some voters will probably get upset at that too, but I can’t imagine it being down any other way.
Hah, ignore the ‘not’ in the 2nd sentence, if you would. I think my subconscious is swinging McCain
I wish I could believe him, IndiMinded. Whether I support him or not, the way things are going its a toss up on who’s going to win this thing. After Obama’s press conference today where he said he talked to Petraeus but basically he didn’t care what he had to say, it worries me more. I have family in Iraq, too, and I’m like millions of other Americans. I don’t trust his inexperience in this area, and I’m not seeing him take the advice of people he should be taking advice from. Like this statement, I don’t like it:
“So there are a range of factors that I have to take into account as a commander in chief or a potential commander in chief that I wouldn’t expect General Petraeus or anybody who’s just on the ground to have to take into account.â€
“Just on the ground”? Nope, I’m not comfortable with that statement at all.
Dreadsen,
I was referring to your comments to Babs where you were comparing who voted for the ‘don’t attack our troops’ measure. I believe you pointed out Obama voted for it and Mac didn’t. My point was that When Obama takes a position it is NEVER a stretch for him to do it. He is getting the benefit of being against the war, yet he never had to decide if he would have voted for the war (like 99% of his mates). He gets to yell about ending the war as he votes to spend more money on the war (by doing this he can make the argument that he is against the war but just wants to give the troops what they need-TO FIGHT THE WAR !) Today he makes this completely stupid statement which was a response to the question he got about the surge working. The reporter wanted to know how did he felt about his opposition to it. Obama actually said that “we don’t know what would have happened if we did what I suggested”. Would it kill the guy to say he is happy with the result ? after all he wanted U.S. deaths to come down and the Iraqi government to take more control-hasn’t/isn’t that happening ?
Obama would impress me a lot-if he actually acted as if he was concerned with the facts on the ground when he continues his party fed lines. Oh better yet, How about this one. Obama is now concerned with the facts on the ground as it relates to his withdrawal plan, I can get the exact quote if need be, but wasn’t that what the Bush administration has been saying all along? that the facts on the ground would dictate any withdrawal plan ? talk about double talk !
Now Obama is saying what he decried as stupidity 2 months ago.
Which leads me to get back to the subject. I was not saying you actually said anything. I was saying that you inferred something by saying he voted against our troops being attacked. Wow–that’s going out on a limb ! Think about it, he was against the war when 60% of the country was against the war, he was/is against big oil when 80% of the people of the country thought it was big oils fault prices were/are high, he was/is against tax cuts for the rich-like that is a risky policy and now he wants to give himself more room on Iraq because it looks like it may actually be working (McCains plan that is)and guess what else ! he needs more troops in Afghanistan, why ? because 70% of the people feel it is getting out of control. What has this man done that is opposite popular thought ?
and why is he getting credit for saying it like he came up with this stuff on his own ?
Mac was saying the surge would work even when he couldn’t have been positive it would. He was slamming Bush when troops were getting killed at a much higher rate and demanded change. Change Bush was backed into by Mac’s position as a Republican which Dems liked at the time !
now do I really need to respond to the oil thing, oh well I guess I will. Oil is not a U.S. commodity, it’s price is controlled by the world demand. OPEC pumps less when it gets to cheap and more when it gets to expensive. The U.S. consumes 24% of the daily world consumption of oil. That means the other countries, mostly India and China are consuming 75%. The belief hat the U.S. pumping more oil would help is based on the belief that OPEC would be in less control of the market. If we increased production when OPEC decreased it the world price would stay consistent. As it is now we do not produce enough oil to influence the market. Now I agree with the fact that if we produce it we should get it cheap but here is the next problem you would have.
Lets say I go into the dairy business and get 10 cows to produce milk. When I need to increase profits I can simply take 2 cows and put them in the pasture. I can then raise my price based on a lower supply, there is no government control of the price fluctuation. You on the other hand have 10 Oil wells and in your American oil company you get $ 80 a barrel. Iran threatens Israel and the world market goes to $100 a barrel. The non American countries and OPEC are making what the world will pay but here comes the U.S. government and they are saying you can still only make $80 a barrel. Does that make you a competitive company ? Can you employ as many workers ? How long do you think you would be in business ?
Now here is the point you cannot pick one sector out of U.S. business and tell it how much it can make while the rest of the world does what it wants. The result would be no American oil companies.
The only way to control the price is to control the product, since I don’t think you would support an all out war of acquisition the only alternative is to pump more into the market to control price.
As far as leased land and drilling permits. Congress has made it illegal for them to drill off shore. They cannot drill offshore so they don’t lease offshore. The argument is not about exploring the LAND they do have it’s about pumping the known resources that they cannot have access to. I hope we would agree exploration is more expensive than just pumping.
sorry guys I know I talk a lot but I love debating
Todd
“I was referring to your comments to Babs where you were comparing who voted for the ‘don’t attack our troops’ measure. I believe you pointed out Obama voted for it and Mac didn’t. My point was that When Obama takes a position it is NEVER a stretch for him to do it. He is getting the benefit of being against the war, yet he never had to decide if he would have voted for the war (like 99% of his mates).”
Well my point was not to compare Obama to McCain it was still on the position of Media bias. Again I was pointing out the difference of how Fox news is bias versus the other liberal networks. ( actually Babs did you see the CBS news piece which they edited out McCain’s error on Iraq?) In that comparison I was not trying to say that Obama was better than McCain or vice versa. I was presenting the case that Fox omitted the info that Obama actually did vote on a measure condemning the attack on Military personnel by only focusing on the second one which he was absent on. Now my point in showing that McCain did not vote in favor on the first one is not to say anything bad about him. But was to show that the same false argument could have been presented on McCain as well. One of the news outlets could have presented that McCain did not vote in favor for the bill at 11:58 and then tout that he is not in support of condemning attacks on the Military from political groups. But this would be false because he voted for the 2nd one at 12:36. Therefore committing deception by omission. Which was done with Obama as one of the RNC talking points by only pointing out him being absent for the 2nd bill but not showing that he voted for the 1st bill which had the same purpose. Do you see my point now? And either way this goes any politician who was in favor of either bill or against either bill has nothing to do with whether or not they are for the war or against it.
Now on to oil.
Yes you would employ even more because being that we use 24% of the oil in the world the American Oil companies do not produce enough to meet domestics needs. But if their business expanded to meet those demands they would employ a lot more people and bring in a lot more revenue. I understand the economics of inflation and supply and demand. But if our only purpose of drilling is focused on controlling the price of the world then that means we are still leaving our fate in the hands of the world market. Opec could slow down production to match the amount of Oil we are pumping into the world market and the prices would be the same or they could lower to the point that they are higher. We would have to put trust in Opec and trust in our Oil companies to not export 100% of the new supply to prevent this. So we should look at the economics of the countries who only pay 30 to 40cents a gallon for gas. Because i don’t think the American people would be happy if we give the Oil companies new Leases on land only for them to us to get gas reflecting $129 a barrel. Because if the countries which only pay 40 cents a gallon for gas are ALSO selling on the world market as well. Then we could be doing the same thing. ( that would be abandoning my idea of banning export of the new supply) So if we change my first idea to not ban the export but to ban them from selling oil on the domestic market for the same price as the world market we should be in the same position as Saudi Arabia. In my first idea i was not suggesting that they be limited on the amount they make on the world market but only on the domestic one.
“As far as leased land and drilling permits. Congress has made it illegal for them to drill off shore. They cannot drill offshore so they don’t lease offshore. The argument is not about exploring the LAND they do have it’s about pumping the known resources that they cannot have access to.”
Yes but they can not drill where they don’t have leased land. And there is a ban on any new leases. True they can not drill off shore but they even if they could drill there they wouldn’t be able to get a lease on the land because it is a ban on any new leases. I was pointing out the false argument both parties are presenting. To say that there is a ban on off shore drilling is wrong because there is off shore property which they can drill on because they have leases on the land. And to say that they don’t need new leases because they already have 68 million acres is misleading because those remaining acres with KNOWN OIL are not as cost and time effective as the known sources which they are already tapping.
Todd and Dreadsen, I’m enjoying this debate so much I’m not going to say much, except answer you, Dreadsen, on what you asked me specifically. No, I didn’t catch the clip you referred to, but I am going to have to give kudos to Katie Couric (write it down in your record books) for at least making a good attempt at a fair interview with both Obama and McCain, giving McCain fair time for rebuttal. I will say she tried ever so hard to get Obama to say the surge worked, and that I think he even became a little irritated with her over it. But kudos to her for trying *this once* to appear unbiased, even though it was under pressure from the public to appear not “in the tank” for Obama.
And on the other vote issue we were discussing earlier, the vote to denounce moveon.org’s ad of “General Betrayus” was symbolic, if you will, and should have been supported by every member. There was nothing stopping Obama from voting yes on that bill except his allegience to moveon.org, and the fact that he needed them. Whether he had already voted on another bill or not is immaterial, this bill was specifically a symbolic statement denouncing an organization that Obama happens to have personal ties to. By casting a “not voting” ballot, he slapped Gen. Petraeus in the face by essentially supporting the ad by moveon.org.
Babs but a similar argument can be made about the first bill which was created for the very same reason.
There were a good number of people who voted against the first one.
So shouldn’t everyone have voted for BOTH OF THEM.
And over all both parties Obama and McCain throwing Freedom of speech down the river.
But as to be fair all information should be shared. But only presenting the evidence of the 2nd bill and not telling people about the first bill is misleading. Because whether right or wrong people may be satisfied knowing he voted for the first one which was created for the same reason. that bill was created after moveon.org’s commercial. The first one covers Moveon.org as well. He should have not voted for the first one either. Especially being that it was drafted in response to their ad.
Now what is that to say about all the politicians who voted AGAINST the first one. Shouldn’t they be attacked too? All kinds of spin could be used against them. But my point is the first bill was hidden when presenting the argument of the 2nd bill. Which means all information is not being presented.
This lessens the chance of someone being satisfied with his vote for the first bill by omitting it.
Dreadsen, I think we’re trying to draw a fine line here between freedom of speech….and slander. What moveon.org did was slanderous in my opinion, and in the opinion of many more Americans. Freedom of Speech is a protected right of Americans. Slander is illegal.
Babs
In Boxers bill it covered Gen Petreaus ad by even bringing it up in the minutes.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi.....0uh26wh:e0:
But what they are pointing out is this
“My friend from Texas is taking one example, attacking an organization that he doesn’t agree with–I am sure of that–and we are going to be pretty busy in the Senate if we turn into the ad police. When Senator Cleland was attacked we didn’t have a resolution on the floor of the Senate. When Senator Kerry was attacked we didn’t do it. When General Batiste was attacked we didn’t do it. For General Zinni we didn’t do it. We did speak out, and we did speak out about the ad, all of us on both sides of the aisle, that attacked General Petraeus. But we didn’t have a resolution all these times.
Suddenly, now, a political organization is attacked by name in a resolution in something that reminds me of the old, bad days in America when organizations were attacked by the Government. So what we have done is we have written this. I thank Senators Levin and Reid and Durbin and other Senators who believe what we see is a trend to attack heroes. We say it is wrong. We don’t go after one organization. We say it is wrong.
Let me show you the Max Cleland ad. We have the picture of Max Cleland in the same ad with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
This is what Senator McCain had to say about that ad. Here is what he said:
I’ve never seen anything like that ad. …..Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to a man who lost three limbs on the battlefield, it’s worse than disgraceful, it’s reprehensible.
But we didn’t come down and pass a resolution attacking the campaign that ran this ad. But now we have an attack on one organization. It is wrong. It should be defeated. This amendment I have offered is the one that ought to pass this Chamber.”
Boxers resolution would prevent slander against present AND PAST military. The one McCain voted on only covers PRESENT.
You see the comments McCAin made about putting saddam and osama next to Max Cleland.
This would also cover any attacks on MCcain as well which people have been talking about.
After you read the excerpt i posted and read the entire minutes in the link tell me why should this have been voted against by ANYONE. These were not political attacks but attacks on their patriotism.
So everything in the amendment at 12:36 is included in this one with those additions.
But the RNC talking point is misrepresenting Obama by omitting this amendment which is better than the 2nd one AND…
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi.....eW9:e99041:
here is the counter argument on the other ammendment at 12:36. Read Boxer and Durbins argument to Cornyn. If slander is illegal then Slander on Kerry and the triple amputee should also be Illegal especially if the slander is aimed specifically at his Military record. But remember Kerry is also a democrat.
Todd weather the surge worked are not is a mutt point.Obama has and exit strategy. does McCain. what is victory to McCain. Quite frankly he sounds like they want not to leave the Iraqis
in control.And If the surge is working then its time to leave this distraction.The MP of Iraq agrees,but McCain wants to listen to the general. The President is the commander and chief
not the generals( who only have this war to worry about )the pres. has other stuff to worry about to(such being a diplomat)such as keeping us out of even bigger messes.That is a much bigger pic. . The generals should not in control of foreign policy the pres. is.And it is not just about on the ground sit. .
Okay I can’t let this one slide. I know it’s a Conservative myth.
“Before you think to yourself here we go with Clinton again, I fully supported him in that, Somalia (until he left with his tail tucked),”
Clinton did not leave. He wanted to send in more troops similar to the amount for the surge. But Congress opposed it by cutting off funding.
http://www.youtube.com/wa.....vXtdA2spWM
Ok,
Dreadsen I’ll take your last post 1st again. I will admit that I began researching the Somalia Issue in order to disprove your statement that Clinton did not cut and run. As a result I must admit I was wrong. I did not know Clinton had the aggressive opinion which he did. I also found that he actually said in a cabinet level meeting that we should kill three times as many of them as they do of us, so I was incorrect in may statement.
Now with that said, researching this reinforced my thoughts on democrats response to war and the need to be tough.
McCain did introduce legislation to stop funding the Somalia effort however it was tabled in favor of Democratic senator Robert Byrd’s even more restrictive motion which was passed with a majority of democrats voting for it. So it was the democrats in congress who cut and ran. Now I can see your response-McCain wanted to run also, right ? and as I said he did. Either way I didn’t like it ! but here is my slant on that. At least McCain had the balls to actually vote what he thought. I don’t think he wanted them to leave but hid behind the excuse that cutting funds would only hurt the troops. I don’t think he wanted them to leave so he could send them somewhere else.
As for media bias, we agree they all are bias which is what I said several days ago. I also pointed out Fox is conservative and NBC, CBS & ABC are liberal. What I don’t understand on this from you is why are you saying they are all bias and then attacking Fox as if the are the only ones ? I will make this argument on the vote issue however, Obama is looked at as the anti-war, weak foreign policy candidate. He will get issues pertaining to that looked at harder. I mean come on is it not a moronic position to vote on a resolution expressing that attacking our troops is wrong while you acknowledge you plan on fighting and winning the war on terror ? All while demanding troop reduction in Iraq so you can send them to Afghanistan. I mean do we really think the terrorist would target our troops and then call it off because the U.S. senate said it was wrong to do so ? Obama was doing nothing but trying to appear to take a tough stance. It was a completely stupid and useless resolution and I WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED AT ALL IF I WAS THERE.
With that said the media will slam Mac on his economic plans because he is suppose to be weaker in that area. Maybe if Mac votes yes on a resolution condemning poverty democrats will jump on board then.
We will just have to disagree on this oil thing. I find it fundamentally wrong to tax one person or one business more than another. All of us should pay the same rate and all businesses should pay the same rate.
I am sure I do not have to remind you that this is the USA it is not Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Jordan or another dictator state. Our system runs off free enterprise. The government cannot dictate the price of only one product. Common since should suggest that the one business whose product is priced by the government will be the one that cannot compete. Saudi Arabia doesn’t need to be concerned with the price of oil since they are the one of only a few that produce it. I will bet you that the price of wheat is very high compared to that same product in this country though.
On the issue of offshore drilling, it is point on correct to say drilling is taking place off shore, but the Republican argument is not that it isn’t. The argument is that it is restricted to where the government says they can. This policy has restricted oil companies from accessing 200 billion barrels of oil recovery from one 80,000 acre field in the central gulf alone. The ban on new leases therefore prevents off shore drilling in the most productive areas of our coast. Listen don’t take my word for it, Democratic Senator Landrieu of Louisiana has joined “the group of ten” in the US senate calling for opening up new leases in the off shore areas where drilling is currently banned by congress. The group has 5 dems and 5 republicans, Landrieu today on the senate floor stated we needed to drill as much as possible everywhere we have oil near our coast. She introduced statistics and graphics which showed the modern ways of drilling without hurting the environment, she documented the Chinese and three other countries who are drilling closer to the mainland than American companies are allowed too. She most importantly stated that Durbin has signaled he is about to sign onto the deal. The 5 republicans will agree to take Anwar off the table and pass new environmental protection laws but Reid says it is just a wet blanket being thrown over the issue and he will not support it. Therefore he is providing flip flop insurance for Obama and it is the dems once again who will block price cutting measures, even when they get concessions from the Republicans. Landrieu’s proposal calls for higher fuel ratings on cars(she said she would like to see 60 MPG cars in 10 years), more money for alternative fuels and a requirement that automakers sell flex fuel vehicles in the US at a higher rate.
She also talked about the fact that oil is a world commodity not unique to the U.S. She said the only way to influence the price is to flood the world market with what we have and that she knows of no other country in the world that bans themselves from their own natural resources while mandating through it’s restrictive laws that they import the product that they have a documented abundance of.
I tried to post the floor statements but it has not been posted on the congressional site yet. In the meantime you can google her or follow her web site to get more.
Rayven,
what is the definition of victory ?
answer : a success or triumph over an enemy in battle or war.
when we have complete success and triumph over the enemy we will have won our victory in Iraq then the war will be over and we can come home.
otherwise when Obama gets more troops in Afghanistan he will leave after the enemy is beaten down not when they have lost and there is a difference.
It is not an exit strategy to leave based on time. An exit strategy is based on results.
I do not compare this on a actual basis but when you bake a cake do you take it out because the recipe says bake for 30 minutes or because it is done ?
Do you say to the mechanic ; you have 16 minutes to fix my brakes and if your not done I am driving off ? The obvious answer is when it is done it’s done isn’t it ? We shouldn’t leave Afghanistan until is done either but what happens under your logic if we start getting beat there? Do we put a time line on it and say win or lose we are gone in 16 months ? Obama doesn’t believe that applies in Afghanistan why in Iraq ?
I promise you if we don’t have victory in Iraq and we leave based on time the PM will beg us back when Sadar is beating on his door and his military has deserted. Oh yeah that’s when Obama will send in the strike team and save the country, I forgot.
Todd, evidently you didn’t hear about how CBS basically sacrificed their journalistic integrity and flat out lied to the American public in order to protect McCain from potential embarrassment. When he made a gaffe on an interview question they removed his response but kept the question in the interview - inserting footage from an entirely different portion of the interview in it’s place, as if that were his response.
If they had a true liberal bias they might do it the other way around, taking inappropriate responses of his and pretending they were awful answers to other questions
In fact they simply don’t have an ounce of journalistic integrity, or the decency to objectively report any newsworthy responses that result from their own interviews.
Anyway, strike CBS from that list and remember this next time you complain that the media’s in love with Obama and against McCain. Evidently someone’s rooting for him.
http://blog.washingtonpos.....id=topnews
Just to comment on previous posts, I’m all for offshore drilling. So it might take 10 years to actually get the oil, so it won’t have any immediate effect on the price of a barrel, eventually there will be oil flowing and eventually it will bring down the price at the pumps.
I’m all for nuclear power too.
McCain’s a white monotoned boring old fart and Obama is a young vibrant black orator. The only way the media would love McCain is if he was running against someone more dull than him, someone like Joe Lieberman.
Nz, your first comment was spot on. Your second was a cheap shot. You can do better.
Todd , So we agree on the definition .
http://www.youtube.com/wa.....FijzDyJnVE
The war in afganistan suffered becase we started this war. That war was started becuase of terrorism . The people who attacked us are in afganistan .
So we liberated Iraq .We took out there leader ,and made sure that there was no WMD. Why are we still there again. o yeah to achieve success . What are they trying to achieve here.Occupation ,naa that couldn’t be it.what exactly is a time horizon anyway? do you ever really get to the horizon?
http://therealnews.com/id/1792/June 26, 2008/New+Bush-push+for+US-Iraq+security+pact
Does it matter what the Iraqis want? O yeah we beat them right, R were we even against them? I think there trying to confuse us.
Todd
No. McCain’s logic for Somalia was not cut and run. McCain’s logic was that there was no end in sight so there was no sense in fighting the war in Somalia. If you watch the video I presented with Chuck Hagel you will see how he does a parallel comparison of Iraq to Somalia. But you can see what McCain said right here on Meet the Press.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs
For the media bias I hope you can see the difference in being bias and lying and creating propaganda. That is what I was pointing out. And yes I hope you strike CBS off of that list now. And Msnbc does have Joe Scarborough. Yes he is one man but fox doesn’t have an equivalent. Meaning a Liberal with his own show.
“Obama is looked at as the anti-war, weak foreign policy candidate. He will get issues pertaining to that looked at harder. I mean come on is it not a moronic position to vote on a resolution expressing that attacking our troops is wrong while you acknowledge you plan on fighting and winning the war on terror ? All while demanding troop reduction in Iraq so you can send them to Afghanistan. I mean do we really think the terrorist would target our troops and then call it off because the U.S. senate said it was wrong to do so ?â€
Todd you are not reading anything we are posting about those amendments. It is not about physical attack in war. It is about political attacks on the patriotism of current and past members of the military! If you read what Babs and I have been talking about you will understand. Once you get a real understanding then look at what you have been basing your argument off of.
On oil well you don’t have to convince me of either side of the argument. But as far as Republicans saying there is a ban on drilling maybe I should have just specified Hannity and Guilani because in a video I provided they were claiming there was a ban but Colmes called him out on it. You don’t have to convince me of either argument I am aware of both sides and I am not against drilling. But you know there is a liberal argument that the only benefit in drilling would be for the oil companies.
IF it was up to me we would be drilling in the Rocky Mountains! BUT…. There is no sense in doing this if th