George Bush's Greatest Hits With Energy Policy

  I just happened to be browsing around the Internet looking for nothing in particular when I ran across an article written by Greg Palast of the BBC which happened to look into the Bush energy policy that developed after the idiot was elected in 2000. What got me started on this was a piece that I was reading somewhere about the Iraq problems with meeting the U.S. set benchmarks, the oil law being at the top of the list.

  We all know that this so-called war in Iraq was never about WMD's or democracy, but about profit for the big oil companies and for a few select politicians, Bush being number one on the list.

  The following is some of the favors that Bush did for the energy companies while he was governor of Texas and after he became appointed president in 2000.

Bush energy plan: Policy or payback?

By Greg Palast in Houston

A new power plant every week for 20 years, new nukes, drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge - is this an energy policy, or a payback for President Bush's big campaign contributors?

From the moment George W Bush announced he was running for president, $50m came in from Texas-based energy companies.

But they are hundreds of millions of dollars better off from his time as governor of Texas - and because of decisions taken in the first months of his presidency.

Worst polluter

When it comes to pollution, Texas is champ, the number one state in emissions of greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals.

A visit to the city of Houston is enough to confirm that status.

A 24 km (15 mile) wide forest of smokestacks stands on the edge of Houston, a place famous for pumping out pollution, profits and the political donations which put George Bush into the White House.

There a mile long cloud of black smoke, with flames 60 metres (200 ft) high erupts out of a Houston cracking plant as a ruined batch of ethylene and other toxic chemicals is burned off after a hydrogen line snapped.

Such accidents are common on this side of Houston, where poisonous smoke rains on local neighbourhoods.

And it is not just visible emissions locals have to worry about.

Suspicions aroused

LaNell Anderson lived in the shadow of the Houston smoke stacks - her mother and father both died young, victims of bone cancer and lung disease, which made Ms Anderson suspicious.

She started taking air samples after an ethylene leak caused the local high school running team to collapse on the track.

Lab analysis of her bucket samples has found carcinogens in the air that are way above legal limits.

She has since found that local cancer cases are twice the normal rate.

Against regulations

Driving around the area it is possible to smell hydrogen sulphide in the air, a contravention of regulations.

"They're not supposed to be releasing anything, these are outside chemical impacts, that's not supposed to happen its supposed to stop at the fence," she says.

So how do the polluters get away with it?

Ms Anderson has her own theory about "vending machine governance, where the lobbyists put the money in and out comes slacker regulation."

Centre for petrochemicals

Texas is the centre of America's petrochemical industry - home to the nation's biggest refinery, Exxon's plant in Baytown.

Ms Anderson has Exxon in her sights, "they're the largest emitter in Harris County and they have the worst attitude of any corporation I've ever witnessed," she said.

Exxon would not accept her assessment and neither would George W Bush.

As Texas governor, Mr Bush quietly set up a committee led by Exxon, with other big oil and chemical companies, to advise him what to do about the state's deadly air pollution.

Regulators wanted compulsory cuts in emissions of up to 50% - this "secret" committee instead proposed making the cuts voluntary.

Mr Bush duly steered the polluters plan through the state legislature.

Huge donations

Texas anti-corruption law made it illegal to donate money to Mr Bush as governor whilst such legislation was under consideration.

But that month, Mr Bush declared for his candidacy for president - making the $150,000 donated by committee members and their representatives completely legal.

The bill passed and pollution did go down - by just 3% - saving the companies hundreds of millions of dollars compared to the compulsory cut.

And there has been a bonus for chemical industry donors since Mr Bush became president.

The BBC's Newsnight programme learnt he is quietly restricting public access to estimates of the number of people who will burn or die in the event of a catastrophic explosion near these plants.

Biggest funders

A walk through downtown Houston takes you past the headquarters of some of Mr Bush's biggest campaign fund donors.

The El Paso Corporation, which gave $750,000 to the Republican campaign, is now under investigation for manipulating the California power market.

Other big contributors include Dynegy, which gave $300,000 and Reliant, which gave $600,000.

And the Enron Corporation, America's number one power trading company, has given more money than any other to Mr Bush's political campaigns.

William S Farish, president of W S Farish and Co, gave $140,000. Mr Bush subsequently made him ambassador to Great Britain.

Under investigation

Investigations are proceeding into profiteering by power traders during the California energy crisis and blackouts.

The state of California has accused the El Paso Corporation and Dynegy of deliberately restricting the flow of natural gas through the pipeline from Texas creating an artificial shortage which caused prices to go up ten-fold.

President Clinton ordered an end to speculation in energy prices in California, which bit into the profits of El Paso, Reliant, Enron and Dynegy.

Between them the four companies gave $3.5m to Mr Bush and the Republicans. Three days after his inauguration Mr Bush swept away Mr Clinton's anti-speculation orders.

Profits for these four power traders are now up $220m in the first quarter.

And protection against pollution is set to weaken further, the BBC's Newsnight programme has discovered that deep in Mr Bush's new budget, the million-dollar fund for civil enforcement to deter pollution will be axed.

In the future law enforcement will be left to locals.

Biggest industry donators to Bush campaign

Enron $1.8m

Exxon $1.2m

Koch Industries $970,000

Southern $900,000

BP Amoco $800,000

El Paso Energy $787,000

Chevron Oil Corp $780,000

Reliant Energy $642,000

Texas Utilities $635,000

  The next time some stupid Bush supporter defends this crook, just slap the fuck out of them and tell them to go and read something educational.

Technorati tags: Greg Palast, George W Bush, Exxon, Dynegy, El Paso Corporation, energy policy, contributions

NIE Report Has Media Covering For Bush Again

   As is usual for the MSM, any report critical of the Bush Iraq war strategy is being spun by the media as a mixed bag of " this is good " or " on the other hand " bullshit.

    Arianna Huffington has a few things to say about this subject so I'm giving it all to you right here.

In the Name of Objectivity, Media Clouds the Reality of Terror Report

Posted July 19, 2007 | 06:37 PM (EST)

Here we go again. Another devastating report being spun as a mixed bag -- with the spin dutifully echoed by the media. Another administration brain tumor being "offset" by shiny hair.

  This time it's the new National Intelligence Estimate report on the threat of terrorist violence against America that is being given the utterly ludicrous "on the one hand... and on the other hand" treatment.

A prime example of this came on AC 360, where Anderson Cooper reported that "both sides in the Iraq debate are spinning [the NIE] to support their case." To prove his point, he rolled a video clip of Bush making the case for staying the course in Iraq. Back on camera, he said, "The Democrats, of course, see it differently."

"Of course" they do. Not because there are always two sides to every issue, but because the facts are different than Bush claims they are.

Cooper then turned to a trio of experts whose goal was "Keeping Them Honest."

Up first was the always bracing Michael Ware, beamed in via satellite from Iraq, where he has spent most of the war. Ware took a cudgel to the White House spin machine, beating down the administration's attempt to portray the war as a fight between America and al-Qaeda by reporting that "al-Qaeda would be lucky to make up 3 percent of the insurgency." Ware's verdict on the White House: "They're trying to play the American public."

Next up was CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen who agreed with Ware that al-Qaeda in Iraq is a "relatively small group" but was quick to add: "On the other hand, the largest number of suicide attackers in Iraq are foreigners... few Iraqis are involved in the suicide attacks. And it's the suicide attacks, of course, that sparked the civil war, that got the United Nations to withdraw, and that made Iraq a much more dangerous place. So, despite their small number, they have had a disproportionate strategic effect on the ground."

So for those keeping score, that's one "the administration is not being honest" and one "the administration is partially honest and partially dishonest." Hmm... I wonder what could be next? Perhaps someone to defend the administration as "totally honest"?

Enter CNN military analyst, retired U.S. General David Grange. Like the White House, Grange sees a silver lining in the fact that the war in Iraq has "multiplied" the number of terrorists: "I kind of like the idea [terrorists] assemble in Iraq, because there's more of them there to take down, instead of hunting them around the world of global operations, which are very difficult. Here, we have a license to kill or capture. Many other places, we do not. And, so, I don't think it's a bad thing that they're assembling in Iraq."

As usual, Ware refused to let the spin go unchallenged: "The whole notion of 'better to fight them over there than over here,' let's bring them in like a honey pot and draw them to Iraq and kill them, is absolutely ludicrous. In fact, it's so ludicrous, it's downright dangerous, because what they're doing is, they're creating entire generation of jihadis that did not exist... Iraq has been a total disaster, in terms of limiting the number of jihadis on the planet."

So there you had it -- a typical media sampler. One saying "it's A", one saying "it's B," and one saying "it's a little of each".

Fair, balanced, objective. And utterly confusing for the very public they are trying to inform.

There are such things as facts. There is such a thing as reality. And refusing to see those facts and report that reality -- undiluted by an "on the other hand" mixer -- isn't a sign of objectivity, it's a sign of intellectual laziness and journalistic muddled thinking.

The NIE report represents the consensus view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and is a stark and unambiguous repudiation of the Bush administration's counterterrorism strategy and its contention that the war in Iraq has made us safer.

Indeed, the report suggests that it's just the opposite -- that the war in Iraq has fueled a growing hatred of America, spread Islamic extremism, and spawned an expanding crop of newly inspired jihadists around the globe. And it eviscerates the Bushies' bedrock notion that we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. It turns out that the odds of us having to fight them over here have greatly increased precisely because we are fighting them over there.

The report also highlights the "regenerated" strength of al-Qaeda. So not only have we failed to capture bin Laden and destroy those that attacked us on 9/11 -- we have, thanks to Bush's tragic actions, actually helped keep al-Qaeda strong and deadly.

If this NIE assessment was a Keeping Us Safe report card, Bush would get an F.

There are times when there aren't two sides to an issue -- when there is no "other hand." This is one of those times.

The president vowed to keep us safer and, according to 16 intelligence agencies, he has failed. Period. End of story.

Technorati tags: NIE, media, Iraq War Supplemental, George Bush, Al Qaeda