Comments on: Not much closer to quenching U.S. thirst for foreign oil

By: brown

brown — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 06:56:54 +0000

Well said, JR.

By: J R

J R — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 04:39:26 +0000

Is anyone surprised? bush is an oily…..er I meant oil man. cheney is a greedy…..er I meant greasy oil man as well. cheney even allowed oil executives to help delineate this “administrations” energy policy.Remember Enron? Is Ken Lay in jail yet?This “administration” is of by and for the interests of big oil. This is to the exclusion of everything else, and is the driving force behind all of their endeavors from the environment to foreign policy. To expect any sort of alternative energy solutions or indeed anything that is not in the interests of big oil from these “men” is equivalent to asking a fish to advocate against the water in which it swims.

By: brown

brown — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:24:39 +0000

Congress had a chance to do one meaningful thing in this energy bill, requiring that vehicles get better fuel economy. Unfortunately, this was left out. Do you think Exxon-Mobil, Shell, or BP had anyting to do with this? It was a payback. We have the very best Congress that money can buy.

By: Joe Williams

Joe Williams — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:26:04 +0000

Oil? This energy plan is another farm program.

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:20:38 +0000

Bush can’t cut our need for oil. His oil rich cronies won’t let him hurt their bottom line.

By: Emily

Emily — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:14:29 +0000

So where is Bush’s alternative fuel program? Being so dependent on OIL is the problem, too.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 06:28:41 +0000

Actually Rhonda,

If you were to look at the energy policy, drilling in Alaska was only one small part of Bush’s plan.

Perhaps it is the only thing you know about simply becuase that is all the liberals attack and make such a fuss about.

I suppose if you read your own biased news for a long enough time you start to even believe it yourself Rhonda.