From the Wall Street Journal:

"The Obama Administration is under political pressure to reverse its ill-considered deep water drilling moratorium, and the latest blowback comes from seven angry experts from the National Academy of Engineering who say their views were distorted to justify the ban.

"In the wake of the oil spill, President Obama asked Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to produce a report on new drilling safety recommendations. Then on May 27 Mr. Obama announced a six-month deep water drilling ban, justifying it on the basis of Mr. Salazar's report, a top recommendation of which was the moratorium. To lend an air of technical authority, the report noted: 'The recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.'

"That would be false, sir. In a scathing statement this week, the seven experts explained that the report draft they had reviewed did not include a six-month drilling moratorium. That was added only after they signed off. 'The Secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct, but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions,"'wrote the seven in a letter to Gulf Coast politicians."



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...675625258.html

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

From the Wall Street Journal:

"The Obama Administration is under political pressure to reverse its ill-considered deep water drilling moratorium, and the latest blowback comes from seven angry experts from the National Academy of Engineering who say their views were distorted to justify the ban.

"In the wake of the oil spill, President Obama asked Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to produce a report on new drilling safety recommendations. Then on May 27 Mr. Obama announced a six-month deep water drilling ban, justifying it on the basis of Mr. Salazar's report, a top recommendation of which was the moratorium. To lend an air of technical authority, the report noted: 'The recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.'

"That would be false, sir. In a scathing statement this week, the seven experts explained that the report draft they had reviewed did not include a six-month drilling moratorium. That was added only after they signed off. 'The Secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct, but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions,"'wrote the seven in a letter to Gulf Coast politicians."



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...675625258.html

Is anyone really surprized anymore? The man can do nothing but lie!

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

From the Wall Street Journal:

"The Obama Administration is under political pressure to reverse its ill-considered deep water drilling moratorium, and the latest blowback comes from seven angry experts from the National Academy of Engineering who say their views were distorted to justify the ban.

"In the wake of the oil spill, President Obama asked Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to produce a report on new drilling safety recommendations. Then on May 27 Mr. Obama announced a six-month deep water drilling ban, justifying it on the basis of Mr. Salazar's report, a top recommendation of which was the moratorium. To lend an air of technical authority, the report noted: 'The recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.'

"That would be false, sir. In a scathing statement this week, the seven experts explained that the report draft they had reviewed did not include a six-month drilling moratorium. That was added only after they signed off. 'The Secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct, but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions,"'wrote the seven in a letter to Gulf Coast politicians."



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...675625258.html

At the beginning with this guy, I was walking a fine line as I DO differentiate from promises made during a campaign and the inability to produce them, but this man flat out lies and has been for a long long time.

Someday the MSM will wake up and call him on it. Many are beginning to, but he sincerely believes he is above the fray and that he and his folks are always correct. There is NO other side of any discussion !

He was a poor choice by the Democrats and a poor choice by 52.9% of voters (THAT was the percentage even though many will say he won by a landslide)

There's no way to take anything this President or his lackeys say at face value. How do we debate what this man says or proposes when it seems to always end up being a lie, or at best, duplicitous. For the life of me I can't figure out how this man has supporters.

Originally Posted by newbee

Many would follow him over a cliff, rather then support a conservative.

You are so correct with this response !!

I will be forever struck by the complete lack of interest into his background that so many, including the media showed during the primary and the campaign.

ANY other candidate would have been disqualified had we heard about his mentor and pastor, his training, his complete and utter lack of any kind of experience, his associates, etc.

Originally Posted by newbee

Many would follow him over a cliff, rather then support a conservative.

Wouldn't that be just wonderful?

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

From the Wall Street Journal:

"The Obama Administration is under political pressure to reverse its ill-considered deep water drilling moratorium, and the latest blowback comes from seven angry experts from the National Academy of Engineering who say their views were distorted to justify the ban.

"In the wake of the oil spill, President Obama asked Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to produce a report on new drilling safety recommendations. Then on May 27 Mr. Obama announced a six-month deep water drilling ban, justifying it on the basis of Mr. Salazar's report, a top recommendation of which was the moratorium. To lend an air of technical authority, the report noted: 'The recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.'

"That would be false, sir. In a scathing statement this week, the seven experts explained that the report draft they had reviewed did not include a six-month drilling moratorium. That was added only after they signed off. 'The Secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct, but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions,"'wrote the seven in a letter to Gulf Coast politicians."



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...675625258.html

So did Obama come out a clearly say that the report included a 6 month ban? If so then he lied however, if he didn't then who actually said the document included a 6 month ban? That would be the person that lied.

Originally Posted by cologal

So did Obama come out a clearly say that the report included a 6 month ban? If so then he lied however, if he didn't then who actually said the document included a 6 month ban? That would be the person that lied.

COLOGAL...that is a very interesting twist on the story....wonder if that kind of logic existed in the past ? Hmmmmm...let me see !!!

Once you have come to grips with THIS particular little fib, there are more...let me know and will let you deflect them.....

Cologal: from the WSJ, "The seven noted that they broadly agreed with the report and had even signed off on a proposal to suspend new deep water permits for six months. They also agreed to a "temporary pause" in drilling to perform additional testing on the Gulf's 33 deep water wells that have already received permits to drill.

"But as for a 'blanket moratorium,' the seven said it 'is not the answer. It will not measurably reduce risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation's economy which may be greater than that of the oil spill.' If anything, the ban could prove "counterproductive to long term safety."

"One of the seven, University of California at Berkeley engineering professor Bob Bea, further explained in an email cited in the New Orleans Times-Picayune: 'Moratorium was not a part' of the 'report we consulted-advised-reviewed. Word from [the Department of Interior] was it was a [White House] request.' In other words, the drilling ban is a West Wing political invention designed to make the boss look tough on oil companies. Our guess is that the credit goes to energy czar Carol Browner, who has been loudly touting the ban to show the Administration is doing something."

But do you think Browner does anything, especially of this magnitude, without Barry's approval?

Originally Posted by Bucco

COLOGAL...that is a very interesting twist on the story....wonder if that kind of logic existed in the past ? Hmmmmm...let me see !!!

Once you have come to grips with THIS particular little fib, there are more...let me know and will let you deflect them.....

Bucco....thanks you make my point. On this forum I have repeatly said that Bush lied and provided the lies he told. Only someone always has a reason why it wasn't really a lie.

Some of the best: He believed it at the time. Many other people believed also.

So its not logic from the past but logic from the present......

Its only a lie if a D is behind the persons name.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

Cologal: from the WSJ, "The seven noted that they broadly agreed with the report and had even signed off on a proposal to suspend new deep water permits for six months. They also agreed to a "temporary pause" in drilling to perform additional testing on the Gulf's 33 deep water wells that have already received permits to drill.

"But as for a 'blanket moratorium,' the seven said it 'is not the answer. It will not measurably reduce risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation's economy which may be greater than that of the oil spill.' If anything, the ban could prove "counterproductive to long term safety."

"One of the seven, University of California at Berkeley engineering professor Bob Bea, further explained in an email cited in the New Orleans Times-Picayune: 'Moratorium was not a part' of the 'report we consulted-advised-reviewed. Word from [the Department of Interior] was it was a [White House] request.' In other words, the drilling ban is a West Wing political invention designed to make the boss look tough on oil companies. Our guess is that the credit goes to energy czar Carol Browner, who has been loudly touting the ban to show the Administration is doing something."

But do you think Browner does anything, especially of this magnitude, without Barry's approval?

The point I was and still am trying to make is did President Obama actually say the report included a ban. I agree with a temporary ban to see what the heck is going on out there in the Gulf. How many other Blow Out Preventer's lack batteries? How many don't work at all? So your statement that Browner doesn't do anything without the President's approval leads me to believe Obama hasn't actually said this. If so then he personally did not lie.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

There's no way to take anything this President or his lackeys say at face value. How do we debate what this man says or proposes when it seems to always end up being a lie, or at best, duplicitous. For the life of me I can't figure out how this man has supporters.

And we can't figure out how Bush had his either.... I really enjoyed Candi's remark that we can't wait for a mushroom cloud over the US....or maybe the Veep's comments that the Iraq war would be paid with oil revenue and it would be done in 6 months to a year. How long has it been? Longer than even the Vietnam war now. I can still see the Mission Accomplished banner.

HA.

Originally Posted by cologal

Bucco....thanks you make my point. On this forum I have repeatly said that Bush lied and provided the lies he told. Only someone always has a reason why it wasn't really a lie.

Some of the best: He believed it at the time. Many other people believed also.

So its not logic from the past but logic from the present......

Its only a lie if a D is behind the persons name.

Lost cause...YOU, COLOGAL, are about nothing but the parties and you must use Bush's name in the greatest amount of your posts. I NEVER mentioned Bush, nor the parties and you went right for it. I dont want to talk about Bush unless it is relevant to the subject...you somehow turn a thread about Obama lies to Bush....simply amazing that someone could think like you do.

Well, keep your dues up to date with MOVEON and enjoy !

Originally Posted by Bucco

Lost cause...YOU, COLOGAL, are about nothing but the parties and you must use Bush's name in the greatest amount of your posts. I NEVER mentioned Bush, nor the parties and you went right for it. I dont want to talk about Bush unless it is relevant to the subject...you somehow turn a thread about Obama lies to Bush....simply amazing that someone could think like you do.

Well, keep your dues up to date with MOVEON and enjoy !

I have NEVER been a member of MOVEON. I am trying to make a point when Al Gore ran all we heard about was how he lied. The best one was about how he said he invented the internet. How many times did we hear about Clinton lying and now Obama.

And you saying that I am all about party is down right funny coming from you.


Did Obama say, himself, that the report did not include a 6 month ban on drilling? Please provide a link.....to that statement by Obama.

Originally Posted by cologal

I have NEVER been a member of MOVEON. I am trying to make a point when Al Gore ran all we heard about was how he lied. The best one was about how he said he invented the internet. How many times did we hear about Clinton lying and now Obama.

And you saying that I am all about party is down right funny coming from you.


Did Obama say, himself, that the report did not include a 6 month ban on drilling? Please provide a link.....to that statement by Obama.

As one of the last great Democrat Presidents said "The Buck Stops Here".

Nothing goes on in the authority of the White House that the President doesn't know about. I don't need a document or a link to ascribe the failures or untruths of actions of this regime to the President, just as you don't seem to need any documentation to lay every perceived failure of the former administration at the feet of the former President.