He didn’t hire Petraeus. Petraeus was there. Petraeus was hired by George W. Bush.

Obama’s constantly complaining about all the problems he inherited from Bush. Now he’s inherited Petraeus. He got Bush’s general, who his party and his voters hate.

And by the way, MoveOn.org has removed their Petraeus ad from their website.

Oh, yes. Remember that full page New York Times ad, General Betray Us? It’s gone. It’s gone everywhere. And their good friends at like-minded Google have removed the ad from their caches, so you can’t see the ad.

Look. Go look for yourself, see if you can pull it up…

They hated Petraeus, and now they’re praising Obama for one of the smartest moves he’s ever made?

And let’s not forget the media.

The media was right in there beating up on Petraeus during the hearings in the Senate leading up to the surge.

McChrystal was a four-star general. He is gone. We have not elevated anybody. We simply took  Petraeus from his CENTCOM commander’s job and sent him to Afghanistan.

They got rid of McChrystal because he was insolent, disrespectful, critical of the president’s policies.

So they go out and they get rid of him and they hire Bush’s general, and the same people who are mad at McChrystal for criticizing the policy now say they hope Petraeus can convince Obama to change the policy.

We still have incompetence, we have cheerleading on parade, we do not have serious accountability going on here, nobody’s reporting any of this accurately, because it’s all about Obama.

He hired Bush’s general.

They’re celebrating because finally he’s acting like commander-in-chief.

The New York Times hated Petraeus so much they gave MoveOn.org a half-price deal on their full-page Betray Us ad. And they’re right in there with all of the rest of them today singing Obama’s praises.

WHERE IS THE HEADLINE… OR EVEN A SUBHEAD:

“Obama Turns to Bush General.”

It’s the truth. It is precisely what’s happened out there.

Obama January 14th, 2007, during a discussion about the status of the Iraq war, and talking about the Petraeus’ surge.

OBAMA:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

Doesn’t matter how many troops, it won’t work, no matter how many troops were sent.

Biden, September 9, 2007, talking with Tim Russert on the eve of the Petraeus hearing:

RUSSERT:

General Petraeus said in a letter to his troops that we’ve not had the political reconciliation we thought we would have, been much slower, but there’s some hope. Then he said my sense is that we have achieved tactical momentum. We’ve wrested the initiative from our enemies in a number of areas of Iraq. We are, in short, a long way from the goal line, but we do have the ball, we’re driving down the field. Is that what you expect him to say tomorrow?

BIDEN:

I think he’s dead-flat-wrong. The fact of the matter is that this idea of these security gains we made have had no impact on the underlying sectarian dynamic, none, none whatsoever.

That’s the current vice president of the United States saying Petraeus has no clue what he’s talking about.

September 11, 2007, on Capitol Hill during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Iraq, Senator Hillary Clinton said this to General Petraeus.

HILLARY:

You have been made the de facto spokesman for a failed policy. The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.

She just called him a liar. She said he is nothing more than a stooge for the White House. Hillary Clinton, now the secretary of state, this was just three years ago talking about General Petraeus, who now represents the smartest move Obama has ever made.

Nancy Pelosi, August 2, 2007, PBS NewsHour:

LEHRER:

From your perspective, Ms. Pelosi, what General Petraeus says in September about the surge is irrelevant in your mind?”

PELOSI:

The purpose of the surge was to create a secure environment in which political progress could be made. That has not happened. The president’s own benchmarks are not being met. The surge was to make the area more secure so that the political solution could take hold and the measure will be, okay, did the surge achieve its purpose? Did the political progress occur? Amending the constitution, calling for provincial elections, having a law for the fair distribution of oil in the region, reviewing the order on de-Ba’athification, some of the president’s own benchmarks.

Nancy Pelosi, one of the many Democrats who ripped General Petraeus.

September 11th, 2007, Washington, Capitol Hill, during the Armed Services Committee hearing on Iraq policy, Senator Obama said this to General Petraeus.

OBAMA:

This is not a criticism of either of you gentlemen. This is a criticism of this president and the administration which has set a mission for the military and for our diplomatic forces that is extraordinarily difficult now to achieve. And there has been no acknowledgement of that on the part of this administration so that we have the president in Australia suggesting somehow that we are, as was stated before, kicking a-s-s. How can we have a president making that assessment?

September 10th, 2007, Capitol Hill, the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Iraq. Robert Wexler questioned Petraeus.

WEXLER:

The surge has failed. In truth, war-related deaths have doubled in Iraq in 2007 compared to last year. Tragically, it is my understanding that seven more American troops have died while we’ve been talking today. Cherry-picking statistics or selectively massaging information will not change the basic truth. It is my patriotic duty to represent my constituents and ask you about your argument that the surge in troops be extended until next year, next summer. I am skeptical, General —

That’s Robert Wexler calling Petraeus a liar, essentially. And now Petraeus, the best move Obama has ever made?

Harry Reid, April 19, 2007, at a press conference talking about General Petraeus.

REID:

I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, secretary of defense — and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows — that this war is lost.

We’ve got an inept commander-in-chief. We got some of the media pretty much admits hasn’t been a commander-in-chief up until now — and I am still not inspired.

We have the Media in uncontrollable joy over the choice of…Bush’s general!

Who they all claimed to say was a lying and only doing Bush’s bidding. They impugned his honesty and his integrity. They accused him of losing the war with his strategy. Now, all of a sudden, this is the best move Barack Hussein Obama has ever made. Really??

I think the intellectual dishonesty, the void here of any media integrity whatsoever to talk about what this story’s really all about, is striking.

Thursday night on ABC’s Nightline, Charlie Gibson is interviewing her, and she says this about terrorists who want to hurt or kill Americans.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink.

February 26th, Cincinnati, Ohio, MSNBC, Democrat debate, Tim Russert to Obama. “Is your contention America would be taking a chance on Senator Obama as commander-in-chief?”

OBAMA: If we have actual intelligence against Bin Laden or other key Al-Qaeda officials, and we — and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to strike against them, we should.

So she’s unqualified, she’s insane, she’s lunatic, she’s unprepared, she’s ill-equipped. And Obama is qualified to be president. He says, “If Pakistan’s unwilling, we’ll go in anyway.”

Obama and Palin on Iran nukes.

This is July 23rd, this year, in Israel, the ill-fated world intern trip for Obama. He said this about a nuclear Iran.

OBAMA: A nuclear Iran would pose a great threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Charlie Gibson talking to Sarah Palin on the same subject.

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons.

You know, she’s unqualified, she’s the hair trigger risk, she’s ill-equipped. Obama’s a genius. They’re basically saying the same things here.

This is Israel, this is June 4th, 2008, Senator Obama at an AIPAC convention.

OBAMA: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.

By the way, after that, when his Hamas buddies got upset, he kinda pulled back from that. But here he’s just said, June 4th this year, sure, keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.

Here’s Gibson with Palin. “What if Israel decides it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?”

PALIN: I don’t think that we should second-guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn’t second-guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would be cooperative or agree with that?

PALIN: I don’t think we can second-guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?

PALIN: We cannot second-guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

I love that answer. He tried to get her tripped up in every which way. She refused to budge.

Obama: I’ll always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.

She’s ill-equipped, she’s unprepared, she’s too risky, she’s too dangerous, but Obama is brilliant, he’s ready to lead.

Obama in Hawaii while on vacation talking about Georgia and NATO.

OBAMA: I consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO, and we must continue to press for that deeper relationship.

Now don’t forget, this is after he had a statement making a moral equivalence between Russia and Georgia, they’re both responsible for Russia’s invasion.

Here is Palin answering the question, “Do you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO?”

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes, yes, and Georgia. Putin thinks otherwise, obviously he thinks otherwise.

GIBSON: And then under the NATO treaty, would we then have to go to war if Russia invaded Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

Now, I think she sounds far more prepared, knowledgeable and informed than Obama does on all of these questions, but especially this one: “I consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO, and we must continue to press for that deeper relationship.”

I don’t even think he understands how NATO works. NATO is north Atlantic. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, transatlantic relationships.

So, side-by-side comparisons because she’s unqualified, ill-equipped, unprepared, too risky.

Obama’s a genius, Obama’s ready to lead, Obama’s qualified…
— she sounds far more substantive and has far more depth on all these questions than he does.

Just simple observation.

Wesley Clark from 2004 at the Democrat National Convention, and remember General Clark was running for president himself, and he lost out to Kerry in the primaries. Here is a portion of Wesley Clark’s speech.

War. War. I’ve been there. So has John Kerry. John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars. He’s seen the flash of the tracers. He’s lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire. And he’s proved his moral courage too. John Kerry fought a war, and I respect him for that. And he came home to fight a peace. And I respect him for that, too. John Kerry’s combination of physical courage and moral values, is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander-in-chief.

Oh, so much here. First off, how do you come home and “fight a peace”? How do you do that?

Well, Kerry did it. He was the architect. He was the scriptwriter for how you come home and “fight a peace.” We get out of Vietnam, and they won’t let it go. It was John Kerry throwing his medals over the White House gate. (Fake medals. He kept his real ones at home.) It was John Kerry who was telling lies about the Swift Boat buddies, telling lies about American combat troops in general, that they were raping and mutilating and doing all this Genghis Khan stuff. While America was trying to heal from all of this and get over it, John Kerry was indeed “fighting a peace.” Kerry came home and lied about American soldiers to a Senate committee. That’s how he was “fighting a peace.”

Wesley Clark, a man — which, again, Democrats seem to feel the need to prove to people that they are patriotic. Even when nobody is charging them with being unpatriotic, they still feel the need to prove it, which is quite telling to me. Then we have these comments from Wesley Clark four years ago in which we now remember that the Democrats nominated their version of a war hero, as a means of being elected president. This is after 9/11; they’re convinced the American people want somebody tough in the White House, and so Kerry wore a uniform and Kerry was this for them. But then the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth came out with their ads (which nobody has disproven, by the way) and Kerry was toast.

But just above Wesley Clark define qualifications for the presidency based on Kerry and his military service.

“He lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a Senator…” There’s a lot of sacrificing in the Senate. “[H]e proved his physical courage under fire…. [H]e came home to fight a peace… [P]hysical courage and moral values, is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander-in-chief.”

Now, he define presidential qualifications for Americans, by using John Kerry as an example. Let’s now go to Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer talking to Wesley Clark. He said,

SCHIEFFER: “Well, you went so far as to say that you thought John McCain was, quote — and these are your words — ‘untested and untried.’ And I must say, I had to read that twice, because you’re talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war. He was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy. He’s been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years. How can you say that John McCain is untested and untried, General?”

CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policymaking, it’s a matter of understanding risk, it’s a matter of gauging your opponents, and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded? That wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, “I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle this publicly?”

SCHIEFFER: Yeah.

CLARK: He hasn’t made that calls, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Well, General –

“He hasn’t made those calls.” Do you believe this? By the way, I don’t for a minute believe that he’s out there as an independent contractor. This is not an idle comment on MSNBC when nobody is watching at ten o’clock at night. This is one of the revered Sunday morning shows. These comments are rehearsed! These comments are made on purpose.

SCHIEFFER: “I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.”

CLARK: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

SCHIEFFER: Really!

CLARK: But Barack is not… He is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements. He’s running on his other strengths. He’s running on his strength of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment. And those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.

I don’t know how in the world you can sit around and tar and feather McCain as being “unqualified” after having been a prisoner of war for five years. You talked about “sacrifice.” He talked about John Kerry’s sacrifice. You talk about “bravery.” McCain went into the teeth of the dog in this war. He stayed in the Navy for eight years after he got out of the Hanoi Hilton. He never went to Washington and threw his medals over the White House fence. He never bumped and decried his fellow airmen or soldiers or Marines who fought in Vietnam.

Wesley Clark above: “It’s a matter of gauging your opponent. It’s a matter of being held accountable. McCain has never done any of that in his official positions. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall.”

Let me tell you what they’re heading at here.

If you go to certain left-wing blogs and websites, you will find all kinds of vicious attacks on McCain, such as accusing him of war crimes for bombing civilian targets in Hanoi in the 1960s. There are others who are accusing McCain of disloyalty during his captivity in Vietnam because they say that he was coerced into participation in propaganda films and interviews after he had been tortured.

John Aravosis at something called Americablog.com wrote, “A lot of people don’t know that McCain wrote propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity. Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain’s experience that prepares him for being commander-in-chief? Getting shot down, tortured, and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience,” this guy wrote in a blog post titled, “Honestly, Besides Being Tortured, What Did McCain Do to Excel in the Military?”

So the left-wing blogs have started this, and Wesley Clark is picking up the theme. There is an echo chamber on the left too, and more and more of these left-wing talking points that are shouted and emitted by Obama’s people and his campaign come from the dark reaches of the kook left. So now, not only is McCain not qualified just because he flew a bombing mission and got shot down over Hanoi and then spent five years in as a prisoner of war. That doesn’t qualify him! No, what John Kerry did is more of a qualification! John Kerry had moral character! You heard Wesley Clark. After Clark twice now rip McCain, praises Kerry four years ago at the Democrat National Convention.

Wesley Clark ought to have zero credibility with anybody. This is nothing but a partisan, political hack who himself was incompetent! Didn’t Clinton fire the guy? He was the NATO general in the Bosnia war, and I think even Clinton fired the guy! He’s a big pretender.

And by the way, here’s Obama out there with his patriotism lecture, frankly, I don’t think we need to be lectured to on patriotism by Barak Obama. Here’s a guy who trashes the country all the time. His minister trashed the country all the time. His friend William Ayers tried to overthrow the country!

We don’t need lectures from Obama on patriotism. “Well, that’s not the William Ayers that I knew. That’s not the Reverend Wright that I knew all these years.” He has just, by his own definition, thrown both of these guys on the bus. They are not American patriots. Obama gets away with recasting himself as often as he wants. The Media will bend over forwards and backwards — they’ll put themselves in pretzel-like positions — in order to accommodate this guy’s daily recalibrations so he can appear to move to the non-controversial “center.”

Barack Obama and the Democrat Party are out there suggesting that drilling for oil off the coastline of the United States and at ANWR is nothing more than “the failed policies of the past.”

Can I be honest with you and tell you what the failed policies of the past are? In 1988, New York governor Mario Cuomo shut down a nuclear plant. That is a failed policy of the past. In 1996, the delightful, the wonderful, the roguish Bill Clinton vetoed exploration and drilling in ANWR.

That is a failed policy of the past. Both of those are failed policies of the past. Changing from these failed policies of the past would be to un-fail the failures, to dis-fail the failures. Building nuclear plants, opening ANWR — and then we could sue Cuomo and Clinton for malpractice, political malpractice, for gumming up the works.

I’ll tell you something else. How many times have you heard that immigrants made us great? We’ve heard that a lot in the last two years, right?

Well, we hear it all our lives. And nobody disputes that when talking about legal immigration.

But let me tell you what made us greater.

You know what really made us greater? Petroleum. Oil.

I’m not talking about greater as individuals of character. I’m talking about what propelled this country.

It was a number of forces coming together: the establishment of a worldwide Navy, which was not possible without petroleum. Petroleum made us greater. You don’t have to be a Nostradamus; to see that reality will get us off the dime and produce the energy we need.

The only question is sooner or later? Will the left help solve this now or wait until the prices at the polls cause enough voters to throw them out of office, which is entirely possible.

OBAMA: The most optimistic assumptions indicate that offshore drilling might reduce the overall world price of oil by a few cents. So this is not something that’s going to give consumers short-term relief, and it is not a long-term solution to our problems.

The guy is dim-witted! He is just an idiot. He is locked into this position because he’s a leftist, radical Democrat.

Have you ever noticed…? Who is it that really makes things happen in this country? It’s the entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs of all stripes, all sizes, create business of all sizes. They’re a wide range. And who is it that always sets out to punish them and destroy them? Liberals, the American left!

What does Obama want? Barack Obama wants you to suffer. Barack Obama wants higher prices on fuel, right now. Barack Obama wants a windfall profits tax, right now. Barack Obama wants to raise your income taxes, by the way, right now. He wants to raise capital gains taxes, right no right now. He wants to raise Social Security taxes, right now.

Obama wants you to suffer. The Democrat Party wants you in pain. They want you angry, and they are willing to block any remedy to this problem in order to keep you suffering and in pain and ang. Obama wants prices up, he wants your income down, and he wants taxes up.

“The most optimistic assumptions indicate that offshore drilling might reduce the overall world price by a few cents”?

He’s getting that from Chuck Schumer, but Chuck Schumer is contradicting himself. The world’s going nuts here over the fact the Saudis are going to pump an additional 800,000 barrels a day. ANWR would give us a million — and everybody is talking of 30 to 40 dollars a barrel off the market price if we could just add a million barrels.

But nobody is saying cents except the Democrats.

Obama says, “Offshore drilling will only save a few cents; repealing the gas tax, ah, that will only save a few cents; offshore drilling, ah, it will only save a few cents; ANWR, ah, it will only save a few cents.”

Everything is only a few cents. How much does changing your lightbulb save, Obama?

Here’s the Democrat talking point on this. This is Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, and Representative Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon.

BOXER: Bet you didn’t know that there are 31 million acres leased in the Gulf of Mexico that the oil companies have not drilled.

MCCASKILL: The oil companies have 68 million acres already under lease they’re not using. So why just give them more acres?

NELSON: We have 68 million acres that can be drilled.

DEFAZIO: Come on, guys! They are not developing what they have now! There’s 20 years’ supply out there! They haven’t developed it!

Well, even if this is true — and it isn’t — could we ask all of you Democrats why? Could it be you? Could it be that there are so many ridiculous, stupid environmental obstacles in their way? Could it be that there are so many taxes weighting upon them put in place by you? Could it be that you are the ones impeding them?

The congressional Democrats are claiming that the oil companies are sitting on millions of acres and are not tapping federal leases they own.

Here are some facts for you on this, and this is from the Institute for Energy Research. Now, the Institute for Energy Research is the energy equivalent of the Heritage Foundation.

The reality is that 97% of federal offshore areas are not leased. “Ninety-seven percent federal offshore areas are not leased. Ninety-four percent of federal onshore areas are not leased. Right now only 15% of the Outer Continental Shelf acreage is even available for leasing. With domestic oil production in the US declining since 2000 to the lowest level since 1947, it is clear that we need to tap more domestic oil.” The oil companies have paid money for the leases they own in addition to an annual fee. So it would make no sense to leave them dormant and not drill for oil or even test to determine what oil capabilities are there, particularly at a time of $130 oil. The companies have every incentive to explore, tap the existing leases that they have.

Nobody is in charge of dropping the price of oil or raising it. Too many market factors really make the price of oil what it is. But theoretically, I assume that, they would be very alarmed if there were much greater supply coming on the market, regardless where it came from because it is going to put downward pressure on the price.

I also think that simply if we did unite and get congressional approval with the president, sign the legislation, yep, we’re going to do this, I do think that it would immediately impact the oil markets in a positive way with a whole lot of confidence because it would mean more supply.

You know, it’s always the lack of supply, of necessity, that causes unease and sometimes panic, it causes disquiet, it causes nervousness. We’re talking about a need here. You know, we’re not talking here about a shortage of paper clips.

We’re talking about a shortage of supply, necessary supply, just to maintain current levels of use and even growth, oil. And that’s going to make a lot of people nervous. If people figure out that the world’s banding together one way or the other to go get more of it, it will have a very positive effect.

Links to series post:

1. OBAMA; the solution to the rising gas prices…

2. Democrats attack failed policies of the past.

3. Simple TRUTH about oil in the U.S.A.

4. Domestic drilling – only to reduce price by a few cents?

McCain went down to talk to Big Oil execs. He gave a speech on energy and conservation. Here is the first of two portions.

MCCAIN: We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States, but a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production, and I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and put our own reserves to use.

All right, all right, all right, drill here, drill now, pay less.

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

Folks, this is the issue. It’s not the equivalent of going to the moon, but it is close. This is a goal, a national goal, to become energy independent.

We have the crude. We have the supply. We have it. We just have to go get it. And you don’t get it by sitting around waiting.

You gotta take the first step. In building anything, it takes time. So this is something to rally the people behind. We’ve got the tipping point here, four dollar a gallon gasoline, and it’s going to be great because the Democrats are going to oppose this. They’re going to stand in the way of it. They’re going to be easy to caricature. It will be easy to explain to people. This is not a complicated issue at all. Here’s another McCain qoute.

MCCAIN: He wants a windfall profits tax on oil. To go along with the new taxes he also plans for coal and natural gas. My friends, if the plan sounds familiar, it’s because that was President Jimmy Carter’s big idea, too. And a lot of good it did us.

He’s right about that. It’s accurate, it’s correct, and he’s telling the truth about Obama.

He wants to raise taxes on all these things. The more you tax an activity, the less of that activity you get.

It’s just that simple, proven by years and years and years of human existence.

Here is Obama. This is aboard his campaign plane, he’s trying to paint McCain here as a flip-flopper while he has on his staff the original flip-flopper, John Kerry. Here’s Obama, first of two.

OBAMA: This is yet another reversal by John McCain in terms of his earlier positions, and I think we could set up an interesting debate between John McCain 2000 and John McCain 2008.

Let me help out here, Senator Obama…

If you say no to offshore drilling or drilling in ANWR when oil is at $20 or $30 a barrel, and then you change your mind and say yes to offshore drilling when oil is $140 a barrel, sir, that’s not a flip-flop. That’s just common sense.

It’s like John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist, was asked, “Sir, how come you’ve changed your mind?” He said, “Sir, when the facts change, I change my mind.”

The facts have changed here. Oil is no longer $30 a barrel, it’s $140. It’s now profitable to get the shale oil the president was talking about. This is not a flip-flop.

What we have here, the “No-Drill Democrats“ — are on a crash course not to meet our energy needs. They are in a full-court press to cover their rear ends.

This is almost, not quite, but similar to what’s happening in Iraq. Last year at this time and the year before that, the Democrats were openly embracing defeat, saying our troops couldn’t win, they had no chance, we were fighting an unjust war, we need pull out, we need to lose, and Harry Reid was saying we already have lost.

Now we’ve done a 180 and all of a sudden the news out of Iraq is good, but Democrats don’t dare admit it. Same thing’s happening here with the price of oil, energy independence. They continually are on the wrong side of every major issue facing this country and its growth and its future.

So the Democrats are doing everything they can to cover their rears here, not meet our energy needs. As the law of supply and demand jacks up prices, as more voters realize they’re paying the price for liberal special interests, as the polls swing in favor of more drilling, which they are doing, the last refuge of liberals is always to lie and mislead.

They pop up on television, they smile, they say drilling will not lower prices now.

— Wake up people: Nothing will right now.

DEMOCRAT: There’s not one thing we could do to lower prices right now. ANWR alone won’t make us energy independent for more than six months.

–– Nobody ever said that it would. But I’ll tell you what, just this announcement, just the announcement of this initiative, I’m going to be curious to see what goes on in the speculation market, in the futures market.

I’m going to be interested to see how it affects the overall market.

I’ll guarantee you that if the Democrats ever got wise and went along with this and we lift the executive order that prohibits offshore drilling, you watch what happens to the price of oil, once the world knows that the United States of America is going to go get.

They know it, they resent it, and they fear it, as do the Democrats. Democrats don’t like us being this big. They don’t like us being a superpower. They think it creates victims in the rest of the world; we need to be cut down to size.

This issue fits perfectly.

We could probably have a fairly immediate effect on price just by announcing our intention to start drilling. Democrats are saying that there are drilling leases out there. Is it, what, millions of acres?

Well, the leases are too short-term to allow for EPA rules and test drilling. So then they blame it on Big Oil or Big Speculators or Big Bush or Big Cheney.

They blame it on everything but themselves, and their no-drill, no-refine, no-nuclear-plant policies, and that’s exactly who they are: the no-drill, no-refine, no-nuclear-plant Democrats.

Links to series post:

1. OBAMA; the solution to the rising gas prices…

2. Democrats attack failed policies of the past.

3. Simple TRUTH about oil in the U.S.A.

4. Domestic drilling – only to reduce price by a few cents?