SOMETIMES YOU FEEL LIKE A NUT - BUT NOT IN THE WHITEHOUSE

John McCain makes no secret of the fact that he will keep us mired in the Middle East for decades to come if he assumes the office of the presidency.  While many have talked about the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq, one major difference exists - oil.  Anyone who thinks this foray into nation-building isn’t about oil hasn’t been paying attention to our history with the oil producing countries. 

With oil rising at an almost unbelievable rate, what better course to take than to occupy our own private oil fields in Iraq?  The Bush administration has built the world’s largest embassy in Iraq in order to maintain a presence for an undetermined number of years.  In addition, Bush and Maliki are in the process of negotiating the terms of an agreement which will keep U.S. forces entrenched in Iraq until …. freezes over.  

McCain will simply continue a misguided and disastrous course of action a la George Bush.  Should McCain be elected, Bush will no doubt be smiling broadly as he exits the White House in January 2009.  George Bush, along with his neo-con cohorts, manipulated an American crisis into an invasion of a country which had no connection to 9/11.  But John McCain has no intention of manipulating anything - he blatantly and arrogantly says he will keep us there.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

______________________________________________________________________________

We have had close to eight years of a president who is out of touch with reality and who has never let sanity and logic interfere with his quest to conquer Iraq.  The last thing that is needed is another tunnel-visioned president who sees Iraq and Afghanistan as nothing more than future American bases.

KING GEORGE - “WE DON’T NEED A CONSTITUTION AS LONG AS I AM KING”

Apparently Bush has decided, along with his “War Czar” General Douglas Lute, that permanent bases in Iraq don’t require the approval of either house of Congress. Lute said the White House intends to conclude negotiations on an enduring security guarantee with the Maliki government in July. Permanent military bases and residual troop levels will be specified in the final accord.

The following is Lute’s high-minded view of permanency in Iraq:

Q General, will the White House seek any congressional input on this?

GENERAL LUTE: In the course of negotiations like this, it’s not — it is typical that there will be a dialogue between congressional leaders at the negotiating table, which will be run out of the Department of State. We don’t anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress.

Q Is the purpose of avoiding the treaty avoiding congressional input?

GENERAL LUTE: No, as I said, we have about a hundred agreements similar to the one envisioned for the U.S. and Iraq already in place, and the vast majority of those are below the level of a treaty.

Below the level of a treaty? I doubt that the Founding Fathers even had something “below the level of a treaty” in mind when they wrote the Constitution. After all, we were a fledging nation with no real Army or Navy and with little military might. There would have been no reason to even think of agreements with other nations as anything other than treaties.

But never one to be deterred by the Constitution, Bush has again decided to ignore the checks and balances carefully crafted by the Founding Fathers by using semantics. The Bush administration announced the Declaration of Principles for a Long-term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship with Iraq, an agreement to start formal negotiations with Iraq about a long-term security pact between the United States and Iraq.

The Declaration sets a goal of concluding this final agreement by July 31, 2008. The “agreement” will not be called a treaty - as he so imperiously reminds critics that many other agreements do not bear the label “treaty.” His logic is, of course, that if it isn’t called a treaty then there is no need for Congressional input as required by the Constitution. Here’s what the Constitution and the Founding Fathers said about treaties:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.

He shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur….

In order to enter into formal agreements called treaties, the president must get advice and consent from the Senate. If something is not termed a treaty, then the Senate can be bypassed and thus prevented from providing input as the Founding Fathers mandated.

The issue was raised long ago by the New York Times. On April 20, 2003, The New York Times ran a story citing unnamed sources indicating the U.S. military was planning as many as four permanent military bases in Iraq. The next day, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld dismissed the story as “inaccurate and unfortunate.”

The national media, mesmerized and enamored by the “shock and awe” tactics of the recently initiated occupation and not willing to criticize a war only a month old, dropped the story after Rumsfeld’s disclaimer. Later that same year, the November 19, 2003, edition of the Jordanian daily al-Arab al-Yawm reported that the U.S. government had plans for six bases. The sources revealed the names of these bases and the planned positions for permanent deployment. They were:

• Al-Habbaniyah Airbase [already an RAF airbase for much of the last century] near the city of al-Fallujah, 65km west of Baghdad;
• Ash-Sha’biyah Airbase in Basra, 600km south of Baghdad;
• ‘Ali ibn Abi Taleb Airbase on the outskirts of the city of an-Nasiriyah, 400km south of Baghdad;
• al-Walid Airbase about 330km north west of Baghdad;
• al-Ghazlani Camp in the city of Mosul, 400km north of Baghdad;
• A permanent deployment of forces in the east of Iraq in what is known as the Hamrin mountain range that extends from Diyala Provice, 60km east of Baghdad, and borders on Iran and extends to the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, 260km north of Baghdad.

Five years later, it looks like the story was accurate. Bush and his neocon supporters had a plan all along to go into Iraq and stay. The American public, so hungry for revenge after 9/11, gave the “King” a blank check. His plans are made, and he has utter disdain for our Constitution and its checks and balances. By calling this an informal agreement and not a treaty, he hopes to circumvent Constitutional protections that were structured to guard against just such a dictatorial frame of mind.

However, in an attempt to thwart King George’s most recent power grab, Rep. Barbara Lee recently introduced a bill to prevent Bush from signing any agreement emerging from the Declaration of Principles without consulting Congress. A parallel bill was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Photo Credit: Hillary for President

____________________________________________________________

Since November 2007, attacks on the Bush-Maliki agreement’s constitutionality have mounted. Bill Delahunt, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, has held a series of hearings on the legality of the Declaration of Principles. During the most recent Delahunt hearing, experts almost universally concluded that the agreement violates the Constitution, since Congress was not consulted in the process of its approval.

Throughout his seven years in office, Bush has undertaken an onslaught against liberties and rights as well as undermined the Constitution.   No matter how much power a president usurps, his reign always comes to an end.  King George’s term is about at an end. With its end, perhaps we can get back to a government based on our Constitution and its checks and balances - a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

Photo credit: Wikipedia

WHERE ARE OUR YOUNGINS? IS ACTIVISM TIED TO THE DRAFT?

Conscription is a system to provide manpower to be used in the armed forces. In the United States, conscription was introduced in the Union Army during the American Civil War. The 1863 Enrollment Act permitted draftees to hire paid substitutes to fight in their place. In the United States during more recent times, conscription has simply been called the “draft.”

During the Civil War and again during World War I the draft mechanism was dissolved at the end of hostilities. In 1940, prior to U.S. entry into World War II, the first peacetime draft in our nation’s history was enacted in response to increased world tension with the result that the system was able to fill wartime manpower needs smoothly and rapidly after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

At the end of the war, the draft law was allowed to expire, but it was reenacted less than two years later to maintain necessary military manpower levels as a result of the Cold War. From 1948 until 1973, during both peacetime and periods of conflict, men were drafted to fill vacancies in the armed forces which could not be filled through voluntary means.

Induction authority expired in 1973, but the Selective Service System remained in existence in a “standby” posture to support the all-volunteer force in case an emergency should make it necessary for Congress to authorize a resumption of inductions.

Vietnam War draft

Opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War began slowly and in small numbers in 1964 on various college campuses in the United States. This happened during a time of unprecedented student activism reinforced in numbers by the demographically significant baby boomers, but grew to include a wide and varied cross-section of Americans from all walks of life.

Much of the protest movement was fueled by a system of conscription that provided exemptions and deferments more easily claimed by middle and upper class registrants - and thus inducted disproportionate numbers of poor, working-class, and minority registrants. By the end of 1967, as U.S. troop casualties mounted and the war ground on with no end in sight, public opinion polls showed a majority of Americans were opposed to the war and wanted it to end. In 1967, the continued operation of a seemingly unfair draft system then calling as many as 40,000 men for induction each month fueled a burgeoning draft resistance movement.

But where is that resistance from the youth of today? An undeclared war is being waged in a foreign land, thousands of military personnel are being sent to fight, thousands are dying, and thousands more are being maimed for life.

Yet, the youth of today are strangely silent. Could it be that the primary reason so many college age and young people are not participating is because they do not have a “vested” interest in this war? The Selective Service is still in place for males, but the draft is not. But it is folly to ignore the authority to reinstate the draft at any given moment.

The sole purpose of the Selective Service is to keep track of the number of available young males in case the draft needs to be reinstated. And, as the youth of today sit back comfortably assuming that they are “safe” from forced service to this country, the reality is that our military is stretched thin by our ongoing and misguided efforts in Iraq.

Of course, you will see some younger protesters at the rallies and marches, but take a closer look as you drive by. When I stand on the sidewalk along the Clinton street side of our Courthouse, I look up and down the row of protesters, and I see older individuals - many in their 40s, 50s, 60s, and, yes, even in their 70s.

Many of us protesting and rallying are from the Vietnam War era - we remember those days, and we are willing to stand on sidewalks and street corners in blistering hot weather as well as zero degree temperatures to protest a war that is not only unjust but also one of the greatest blunders ever made by a president.

So our youth, for the most part, turn their heads away from the horrors of Iraq, comfortable in their false sense of security and the notion that they are safe from being snatched into service. They are not yet affected; they are not the ones fighting and dying in an unjust war.

But those thoughts are misguided; the Selective Service hovers in the background with the power to rip complacent bodies into forced military service. A vested interest in this war and any other wars may very well arise only when the individual has the most to lose - his or her own life. What a shame that it takes extrinsic motivation to force the youth to do something that should arise from intrinsic values - caring about their fellow human beings.

Photo Credit: Mike Keefe - InToon.com

 

HUCKABEE AND RELIGION - TAILOR CONSTITUTION TO GOD’S STANDARDS

Huckabee is getting desperate, and he is getting dangerously close to emulating the Islamic religious view of government. In Michigan, he made the following statement:

“[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,” Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Many Muslim countries base their governments and official duties on Islamic Law:

Saudi Arabia:

Sources of Law. - Word “law” in Saudi Arabia is understood to refer to Islamic law (in Arabic, Shari’ah). All secular regulations are subject to and interpreted in accordance with Shari’ah precepts.

Chapter 1 General Principles

Article 1

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God’s Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God’s prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution, Arabic is its language and Riyadh is its capital.

Pakistan:

Islam to be State religion

Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan.

Iraq:

Chapter One: Basic Principles

Islam is the national religion and a basic foundation for the country’s laws; however, freedom of religion is upheld.

Iran:

Article 4 (Islamic Principle)

Article 4 is immutable and the Council of Guardians ensures that all articles of the Constitution as well other laws are based on Islamic criteria.

Afghanistan:

Chapter 1 The State

Article 2 Religions

(1) The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam
(2) Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.

Article 2 Law and Religion

In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.

These are just a sampling of the countries with Islam as the national state religion. Huckabee’s statements go against the very reasons many of our founders came to this country. The Constitution prohibits both an “establishment of religion” as well as the use of a “religious test” for public officials. The Huckabee clip is below.

Huckabee is the worst kind of presidential candidate. He is a cleric, he is fanatical, he campaigns with his eye to exploiting religion using his beliefs - whether sincere or not, and he sees his interpretation of the Bible and God as the correct one. When Huckabee says “We should amend the Constitution to follow God’s standards”, whose denominational standards would be talking about? Reviewing biblical passages reveals that the Bible does not mention “abortion” or “homosexuality.” But, of course, tailoring the Constitution according to God’s standards really means tailoring the Constitution to Huckabee standards.

BUSH - NO CONSERVATION NEEDED - JUST ASK SAUDIS TO BOOST OIL PRODUCTION

George W. Bush speaks with a forked tongue; he speaks dishonestly, and he does it so well. His trip to the Middle East, while giving him an opportunity to strut around with the various heads of government, has also given him the chance to urge the Saudis to up their oil production. Ever the consummate Texan with his swagger and blather, Bush turned from the topic of his peace mission to the topic of oil production.

He craftily made oil the centerpiece of his public communication on Tuesday as he reminded the Saudis that “we” are their biggest consumer, and, gosh, if our economy suffers, it will mean “less purchases, less oil and gas sold.” Never mind his hypocritical talk about conservation. After all, why worry about conservation - just ask our buddies, the Saudis, to increase oil production so we Americans don’t have to think about our energy devouring society and how we can work on becoming energy independent.

The Saudi oil minister, Ali al Naimi, said although Bush raised valid concerns about the effect on the U.S. economy, the Saudis would “raise production when the market justifies it.” Whoops, I think Bush tipped his hand, and he lost. The Saudis aren’t worried about increasing oil production to benefit us.

The biggest reason? China. China has become the world’s fastest growing economy, and they are sucking up energy at an alarming pace. Its middle class, roughly 100 million will increase to 700 million by 2020 - just 12 years away. And, its increasing middle class is developing a taste for the better things in life. China’s citizens are rapidly moving into a society based on consumerism and instant gratification. The genie is out of the bottle and there is no shoving it back in.

With 1.3 billion people, China has four times the population of the United States. China is the second largest consumer of oil, right behind the United States. But, its oil consumption is growing at seven times that of the United States. Today, 58% of China’s oil comes from the Middle East, putting it in direct competition with the United States. The thirst for oil will drive China into co-existence with oil-producing countries - those that are terrorist havens and those that are not. When an energy resource is necessary, stopping to moralize will not be an option.

China’s government thinks nothing of denying its own citizens human rights, so it surely wouldn’t stop to think about how its hunger for energy might impact other nations around the world.

Bush preaches his goal of conservation here, yet all the while begging the Saudis to increase oil production. His tactic didn’t get him very far. But, in his short-term logic, it beats the alternative - that of making the hard choices necessary to curb and redirect our insatiable appetite for oil.

Photo Credit: EIA

LINE DRAWN IN THE SAND - U.S NOT WELCOME TO FIGHT AL-QAIDA IN PAKISTAN

Pakistan’s beleaguered president, Pervez Musharraf, has made it clear that the U.S. is not welcome in the Pakastani tribal regions to continue the fight against Al-Qaida. Bush had been considering expanding the authority of the CIA and U.S. military to launch aggressive covert operations in tribal regions along the Pakistan-Afghan border which has long been considered a hiding place for Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. The regions are also home to Taliban militants planning attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Photo Credit: CNN

Musharraf said every tribe in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) has its own armory, and they don’t like intrusions into their privacy at all. The FATA is an area encompassing about 10, 700 square miles where the Pakistan government controls only nominally by working through a combination of effective Political Agents and tribal elders.

The Tribes are governed by the Frontier Crimes Regulation introduced under the British Raj and are represented both in Pakistan’s lower house and in its upper house of parliament. Years of isolation coupled with high illiteracy rates, scarcity of water, no banking system, and little health care have left the area lagging behind socially and economically.

Photo Credit: Fata.gov

$736,000,000 BAGHDAD BEMEMOTH CALLED A “FIRE RISK”

The firefighting system in the massive $736 million embassy complex in Baghdad has potential safety problems that top U.S. officials dismissed with a “not to worry” attitude. In their rush to declare construction largely completed by the end of last year, officials ignored defects according to internal State Department documents, e-mails and interviews.

Some officials assert that in the push to complete the long-delayed project, potentially life-threatening problems have been left untouched. A State Department official who spoke anonymously because he feared retaliation said the problems are serious enough to get someone killed. The fire systems are the tip of the iceberg; no one has ever inspected the electrical system, the power plant and other parts of the embassy complex, which will house more than 1,000 people and is vulnerable to mortar attacks.

Other sources involved in the project, also requesting anonymity, insisted that disputes involve technical paperwork issues, largely because the contractor had never built an embassy and did not realize that under State Department rules it needed approval for substituting certain materials. Much of that work needs to be reexamined and checked, delaying the project even further. A Congressional Services Research report provides the breakdown in expenditures accumulating under the Bush administration.

But, heck, what’s a billion dollars more when Bush has already sunk close to 500 billion dollars trying to make Iraq safe for the largest U.S. embassy in the world. Looks like Bush is anticipating an unending presence in Iraq and the Middle East.

Yep, build it, and we will stay.

The unfinished embassy in Baghdad

Photo Credit: MSNBC

MIKE PENCE - HYPOCRITE ON RAMADAN RESOLUTION

HYPOCRITE (from the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary)

1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

A few weeks ago Mike Pence made the absurd observation that being in Iraq was just like being in Indiana on a summer day. I could swear I could hear guffaws from around the world on that one. What on earth would possess someone to liken a day in an Iraqi market to a day in Indiana? Loss of sanity? A true misunderstanding of the Iraqi situation? Blind following of his leader’s path?

Pence just amazes me. On Tuesday, forty-one Republicans and one Democrat voted “present” on a resolution recognizing the commencement of Ramadan. There were zero “no” votes, so representatives voted either “yes” or “present.”

Republican representative Mike Pence of Indiana’s 6th district said, “I voted ‘present’ because I read somewhere that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.” Really? He read somewhere? Would that somewhere be the United States Constitution? So why didn’t he just vote no?

When a lawsuit was filed challenging the use of the religious motto “In God We Trust” as an establishment of religion, Pence joined 46 other members represented by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) in urging the federal court to dismiss the lawsuit. The basis for requesting the dismissal? The motto was not an establishment of religion but simply evidence of patriotism and our national religious heritage.

Recognizing the Islamic religious observance of Ramadan in Pence’s eyes becomes an “establishment” of religion and he ducks behind the Establishment Clause. On the other hand, when it comes to the motto, “In God We Trust”, Pence joins in the position that the motto certainly does not violate the Establishment Clause even though the ACLJ Amicus Brief flat out refers to the motto as a reflection of our national religious heritage. And, even though we are a nation of religious diversity, in 2001,76.5% (159 million) of Americans identified themselves as Christian.

Funny how Pence’s reliance on the Establishment Clause changes with his views. What a hypocrite.

THE GREAT DECEIVER TO TRY AGAIN

George W. Bush - the Great Deceiver - will try again to turn fantasy into, well, more fantasy. With General Petraeus plugging the success of Bush’s “surge”, we seem to have forgotten that Bush’s rationales for going to war in the first place have shifted like the sands of the Indiana Dunes.

Stripped of all his gobbledy-gook rhetoric, let me remind you of his reasons for marching into a nation which had not harmed us. His reasons can be boiled down to three main objectives:

(1) to eliminate Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD);

(2) to diminish the threat of international terrorism; and

(3) to promote democracy in Iraq and surrounding areas.

The first reason? Despite early attempts to classify anything that even remotely looked like it might be a weapon of mass destruction, none was found. Today, that reason is seen as a joke. But it is no joke that 3700+ American lives have been snuffed out and thousands of psychologically, emotionally, and physically scarred veterans who will need life-long care are returning to try to put their lives back together. Add to that the thousands of Iraqi lives destroyed and maimed, and you have an absolute unjustifiable situation based on a lie.

The second reason? What better way to diminish the threat of terrorism than to create an area so unstable that, if terrorists didn’t call Iraq home before, they surely have made it their living quarters now. If Bush had kept his mind on Osama bin Laden instead of pursuing his vendetta against Saddam Hussein, perhaps terrorists would not be springing up like field daisies in Iraq. And, we wouldn’t be discussing the insane idea of attacking Iran.

The third reason? Bush’s ethnocentric view of the world guided this one. Naturally, he had to think of something high-minded and idealistic after the first two based in reality didn’t pan out. Gosh, and how appealing is it to argue that democracy should be spread to the four corners of the globe. Why no self-respecting and patriotic American would dare disagree with that reason.

But the bottom line is that not one of his reasons held water and not one of his reasons justified invading and occupying Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction, no protection for the region against terrorism, and no flourishing of democracy. What Bush seems to ignore is that the Islamic religion and its people are not going to conveniently step out of his way to make his life easier.

The world has 6.5 billion people (more or less). Of those 6.5 billion people on this Earth, more than half are concentrated in two major religions: Christianity and Islam. Christianity is the largest religion in the world with 2.1 billion followers and a growth rate of 1.38%, and, not too far behind is Islam with 1.5 billion followers and a growth rate of 1.84%. Convincing an entire religious population that democracy is best is a pretty tough sell.

And now, after four years of fighting and a troop surge of almost 30,000 personnel, President Bush will supposedly tell the nation Thursday evening that he plans to reduce the American troop presence in Iraq by as many as 30,000 by next summer but will condition those and further cuts on continued progress.

Now here is where I feel like the Aflac duck in the commercial with Yogi Berra in the barber shop. After listening to some nonsensical statements by Yogi, the Aflac duck teeters out of the barber shop shaking his head, dizzy from listening to Yogi’s inane mutterings. Why do I feel that way? Here’s why. Bush sent about 30,000 soldiers to Iraq to implement the surge. Now he boasts that he will “draw down” the troops by 30,000. Isn’t this leaving us where we were to begin with?

The address will stake out a conciliatory tone toward Congress. In his speech, the president will say he understands Americans’ deep concerns about U.S. involvement in Iraq and their desire to bring the troops home. Bush will say that, after hearing from Petraeus and Crocker, he has decided on a way forward on a way to patronize the American people by telling them that he will reduce the U.S. military presence but not abandon Iraq to chaos.

His deception is priceless. He increased troop strength for the surge, then removes only the surge force calling it a “draw” down and selling it as a “bringing home of the troops.”

By next summer the 30,000 surge force will be back home, and we will be left sitting right where we were before the surge. When are those troops coming home?

Bush will place more conditions on reductions than his general did, insisting that conditions on the ground must warrant cuts and that now-unforeseen events could change the plan. Right back to square one - benchmarks that are never met and no more troop cuts.

And, again, I am left shaking my head - not at the mutterings of Yogi Berra in a paid commercial - but at the inane logic of George W. Bush in his role as the Great Deceiver.

YOU’VE GOT TO BE KIDDING - SOUDER’S SELLOUT

The House of Representatives voted 387-26 Wednesday in favor of a resolution condemning the state of Indiana’s permit to allow British Petroleum to increase its daily dumping of ammonia and mercury into Lake Michigan. The Resolution was triggered by last September’s joyful announcement from Governor Mitch Daniels and BP executives that the company - which touts its distinct British heritage as “making it as much a part of the UK landscape as football, tea drinking and the Royal Family” - planned to reconfigure its Whiting, Indiana, refinery to handle Canadian heavy crude oil processing. The company’s $3 billion investment is anticipated to create up to 80 new permanent full-time jobs and 2,500 construction jobs during the three-year construction phase.

The state says this is the largest capital investment it has ever had. Once the project is completed in 2011, the refinery will be able to supply motor fuel to about 6 million automobiles. Of course, in order to get BP to invest in its Whiting Foundry, the Indiana Economic Development Corporation (IEDC) offered incentives to assist in the company’s decision to expand its operations at the Whiting facility. The IEDC offered incentives including up to $450,000 in training grants and approximately $1.2 million in tax credits based on job creation and capital investment.

Additionally, the Indiana Department of Transportation and Indiana Department of Workforce Development will provide assistance in the form of infrastructure improvements and worker training. But of course, in expanding its current capacity, it also has to increase its dumping of toxic and hazardous materials straight into Lake Michigan.

BP - already one of the largest polluters along the Great Lakes - received permission from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to be exempt from environmental laws that cap the amount of toxins discharged into the lake. The refinery’s discharges, which are expected to include 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more sludge daily, will remain within federal and state pollution water standards. While BP quibbles as to the characterization of its discharge as “sludge”, the total suspended solids (TSS) as well as the ammonia it intends to discharge into Lake Michigan can have a disastrous impact by blocking light from reaching submerged vegetation, thus setting into motion a process that, ultimately, results in aquatic destruction and fish kills.

And, no surprise, Souder was one of the 26 to vote against the Resolution - imagine that! Representative Souder is astute at spinning his losing position. Here is a short snippet from his news release:

“U.S. Rep. Mark Souder voted today to lower the cost of gasoline and reduce America’s reliance on Middle East oil by voting against H.Con.Res. 187, a resolution introduced by the House Democrat Caucus chairman that would express Congress’ disapproval of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s (IDEM’s) issuance of a permit relating to BP’s Whiting refinery. Despite Souder’s objection, the Democrat-controlled House passed the non-binding resolution by an overwhelming majority. “

Wow! What a spin! And what a slap in the face to his own home state!   Souder’s news release shows a complete disregard for the environment of Lake Michigan and environmental issues in general. While Souder spins the situation to try to “pin the tail on the donkey” and blame the Democrats, he totally ignores the fact that the vote was 387 for the Resolution and 26, I say 26, against the Resolution. Looks to me like an awful lot of Republicans joined the Democrats to vote for the Resolution; yet, conveniently, Souder doesn’t even put the vote tally in his press release.

Souder has decided that Americans need the increased oil and gas output more than they need to protect the largest fresh-water lake in the United States. He talks on the one hand about decreasing our reliance on oil, yet on the other hand he supports expansion of the Whiting Refinery. The difference is that the Whiting Refinery will be processing Canadian oil rather than Middle Eastern oil. And that makes it acceptable in his mind.