United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Sarah Palin's Oil Regulation" Lies"
Source:
HUFFINGTON POST
URL Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoff ... ins-oil-regulati_b_616724.html
Published: Jun 18, 2010
Author: Geoffrey Dunn
Post Date: 2010-06-18 12:23:21 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 1889
Comments: 79
Sarah Palin has been busted for so many lies in the past year and a half, it's become nearly impossible to keep track of them all. Whenever she opens her mouth, she simply cannot stop herself from engaging in duplicities, exaggerations and half-truths that not-so-coincidentally always distort the political record in her favor. It's a pathology.
She did it again this week during a somewhat contentious interview with Bill O'Reilly in which she chastised her Fox News host out the gate: "I kind of have a big beef with you too though, Bill, if you don't acknowledge that President Obama is wrong on his call for a need for energy policy."
O'Reilly lied, too, of course, when he said, "I'm pleased to have you on the program tonight [as] there is not a governor in the United States who has more experience than you do dealing with the oil companies." Sarah Palin? The half-governor? Uh, Alaska isn't even the largest oil-producing state in the union. Texas is, followed by Alaska, California... and you didn't guess it: North Dakota. Is anyone touting current North Dakota governor John Hoeven as a national expert in resource policy? And why does everyone -- including Palin herself -- keep pretending that she is still governor?
As Andrew Halcro, the bright and witty Anchorage based businessman who ran against Palin for governor in 2006, wrote me yesterday: "Listening to Sarah Palin lecture on the oil-and-gas industry is like listening to Bernie Madoff talk about safe investing; zero credibility."
Remember, Halcro is someone from Palin's own party in Alaska. Indeed, Palin's mishandling of Alaska's natural gas and oil reserves in the Last Frontier turned nearly all interested parties against her by the time of her resignation -- from oil producers to environmentalists alike. Americans will recall her speech at the Republican National convention in which she claimed that "we began" to build a $40-billion natural gas pipeline "to help lead America to energy independence."
Only there was and is no pipeline. It has never been built. If it's ever built, it will be constructed not because of Palin but in spite of her.
Drill, baby, drill? Shill, baby, shill is more like it. Sarah Palin talks the talk, but she has never walked the walk in her life, especially when it comes to resource management. Not only did she quit her failed governorship, she also quit her appointed position to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission after serving little more than a year. That's two-for-two in the last decade alone. Sarah Palin a doer? Hardly.
Here's one of Palin's big laughers from the interview. When asked by O'Reilly is "how to stop" the oil leak, Palin responded:
Got that, Bill? You betcha. Then there was the matter of her inflating her own resume again:
Only Palin didn't really "set up" the PSIO so much as reconfigure it as a photo-op session. A year earlier, her Republican predecessor, Frank Murkowski, had established the Arctic Pipeline Technology Team to "ensure the integrity of oil pipeline infrastructure and continued crude oil production."
Most significantly, a journalist friend of mine in Anchorage who has covered resource issues in Alaska for more than a decade assured me yesterday:
I just this week received a massive dump of Palin's emails through an Alaska Public Records Act request. It provides a fascinating glimpse of how Palin dealt with the oil industry. Writing on her infamous private Yahoo account on which she conducted state business, Palin expressed her desire to host a fish barbecue in Juneau during the spring of 2007 for representatives from TransCanada Corp., which she essentially selected to build the pipeline. Here, in her inimitable own words:
The level of "expertise" is astonishing. And, yes, Sarah, I think we know what you mean (wink).
Watch Palin's performance on O'Reilly closely. There is a deep inner anger boiling beneath the surface with every phrase she recites. Her smiles are forced and contrived. Each response is uttered in odd, staccatoed cadences, as though someone has pulled the string on a talking doll. Palin's currency in American politics is not her faux expertise on energy resources -- it's her inner rage. And those who share it with her tap into that common anger and see her as their leader. It is as ugly as it is dangerous.
Palin's pretentions and duplicities would all be a joke if the potential political implications were not now so serious. Sarah Palin is clearly positioning herself for a run at the presidency in 2012. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply fooling themselves. My sources in Wasilla have assured me that Palin fully believes that "God has opened the door for her." With every Facebook lie she posts, with every Fox News distortion she spews, she is trying to reconstruct her tarnished image as an expert in resource production and foreign affairs. P.T. Barnum may have been right that there is a sucker born in America every minute. Sarah Palin is now their ring leader.
Perhaps the biggest joke being fobbed by Palin to the American public is that she is some sort of expert on energy issues. Sarah Palin isn't an expert on anything -- remember that this is a woman who didn't know the difference between England and Great Britain as she began her not-so-celebrated run for the vice-presidency -- and who quit her governorship after two-and-a-half years of failed leadership and being found guilty of "abuse of power" in the Last Frontier. It's all smoke and mirrors. She is fed a series of talking points by her advisers before each of her punditry appearances and then dishes them out in what my friends in Alaska have dubbed "word salads" -- without the dressing.
The Dutch. They are known... and the Norwegian. They are known for -- for dikes and for cleaning up water and for dealing with spills.
... as governor of Alaska, what I did in dealing with the oil companies and I'll betcha 75% of my time was being taken up by energy issues here in this state. I had to set up our Petroleum Systems Integrity Office [PSIO] so that we could be there on the front lines making sure what the oil companies were telling us was legit when they were dealing with their corroded pipes that we find out and other lax maintenance issues.
Aside from conducting pretty thorough reviews of some fires that broke out at BP-operated facilities on the North Slope, PSIO never really did anything. The gap analysis concerning coverage that was promised was never written. It's really hard to find any PSIO accomplishments at all...
Cool! We should cook it [salmon] for whomever needs to have that get-together reception opportunity....I'll let AGIA folks know the fish is a good opportunity to have folks over for informal gasoline chat....
Tonight's great for Todd and me--now these type of events can be quite informal and still be successful. There's a Costco in Juneau, if you know what I mean. And my family is quite capable of setting out food and cleaning up afterwards.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 73.
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Could you keep the opinion pieces in the correct place please
Every article that Badeye posts he puts into "Obama Wars". How come you never admonish him?
war is saying you are biased. He is on the exact same path he went down at FR, LP, Freedom4um. war is all fight, all day, every day. pure ego.
White Sands wants war banned, the sign of a failed poster.
At one point here it was one out of three posts. AT LP it was every post.
Evidently the Sacred Sabra isn't getting her queenly way. She reminds me of Marguerite, same sense of entitlement, and hatred and disdain for the untribes.
Whitey is irrelevant. Ignore Amos is probably byteshredder...
White Sands isn't irrelevant. He posts good articles and isn't an Obamunist. By definition people who oppose Obama are superior to supporters of zero.
By definition you are a collectivist is too because St Sarah is on the record blindly suppporting Israel and they are a socialist county to the point of communistic ideals ie: they love their collectives, have socialized health care, take billions from other countries with no plan to pay it back, etc etc. And you have expressed your avid support of her many, many times. See how that works?? You also must hate Christians too as you seem to see nothing wrong with WS constantly smearing the largest Christian church in the world, while giving similiar behaviors exhibited by adherents of her own religion/ethnic group, or whatever her changing definition is at the moment, a pass. Unbiased anyone?? When you blindly contrive allegiances and unfairly brand posters because they are against your candidate of choice, or have exhibited the same attitudes as the SCOTUS in accepting a legitimately elected president with all his faults and flaws so discussion can progress beyond the childish tantrum stages, it can also be made to work against YOU. You need to quit with the 'either or' as nothing in this world is that pure or that simple.
I do nothing blindly. There are reasons behind what I say. Who have I blindy branded?
Who have I blindy branded? You give no reasons only assertions based on your 'either or' philosophy. Most here you brand Obama supporters are on record voting for Ron Paul or the Constitution party candidate. I thought you said you were against the wars ....I guess not. You give it only lip service.
What would be the point of just saying I was against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? It is the one that you defend, Obama the usurper that is keeping the war going.
He can't end the wars, unless you know what happens to him.
He is commander in chief. Of course he can. He promised to if elected. Do you like Obama? Do you think he is better, worse or about the same as Bush? Do you think he is hte same better or about the same as Palin? Why?
Do you like Obama? I think he's another puppet. He seems likable to me though I can't say that I like him as president. Do you think he is better, worse or about the same as Bush? I think he's less destructive than Bush was to America and the world, so I guess that qualifies as slightly better. Do you think he is hte same better or about the same as Palin? Since Palin quit as governor I give her zero respect, so I that would qualify him as better in my book. Why? See above... Do you really think Lieberman eats dead babies? Answer the question or be gone.
Oh and thanks for answering.
You're welcome. Those are my true feelings about them. I really can't stand Palin and I hope you don't hold that against me in the future.
I wont hold it against you. I really don't understand how anyone could think that Obama is less of a threat then Sarah Palin.
He's smarter by a factor of 10. That aside, her playbook is the same failed GOP paradigm that has left us in fiscal and/or economic disarray every time that it has been played.
He is so smart that he doesn't know he supports murdering babies. Ok say he is that smart (he is not). Then the only conclusion is that he is evil. Why do you support evil people?
I have 0 interest in discussing abortion.
Smart move. I might have just stepped in it...next above There's still that edit feature...
There are no replies to Comment # 73. End Trace Mode for Comment # 73.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: A K A Stone (#1)
#5. To: A K A Stone (#3)
(Edited)
#7. To: WhiteSands (#5)
#10. To: mininggold (#7)
White Sands wants war banned
#12. To: war (#10)
At one point here it was one out of three posts. AT LP it was every post.
#13. To: mininggold (#12)
#30. To: war (#13)
Whitey is irrelevant. Ignore Amos is probably byteshredder...
#31. To: A K A Stone (#30)
White Sands isn't irrelevant. He posts good articles and isn't an Obamunist. By definition people who oppose Obama are superior to supporters of zero.
#36. To: mininggold (#31)
#46. To: A K A Stone (#36)
I do nothing blindly. There are reasons behind what I say.
#47. To: mininggold (#46)
I thought you said you were against the wars ....I guess not. You give it only lip service.
#48. To: A K A Stone (#47)
#50. To: Fred Mertz (#48)
#60. To: A K A Stone (#50)
#64. To: Fred Mertz (#60)
#65. To: A K A Stone (#64)
#66. To: Fred Mertz (#65)
#68. To: A K A Stone (#66)
I really don't understand how anyone could think that Obama is less of a threat then Sarah Palin.
#69. To: war (#68)
#70. To: A K A Stone (#69)
#73. To: war (#70)
I have 0 interest in discussing abortion.
Replies to Comment # 73.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]