WASHINGTON, May 20, 2008

Bush Grudgingly Signs Oil Bill

Despite Strong Congressional Support, President Says Halting Reserve Purchases Is Bad Idea

  • President Bush, accompanied by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, speaks to reporters about the economy, May 19, 2008, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. Photo

    President Bush, accompanied by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, speaks to reporters about the economy, May 19, 2008, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington.  (AP)

  • Interactive Oil and Gas:
    Fossil Fuels

    Learn more about energy costs and usage in your state and get the latest prices for gasoline.

(AP)  President George Bush on Monday signed a bill that forces his administration to temporarily stop acquiring oil for its emergency stockpile, even though an aide said the president considers it a bad idea that won't lower fuel costs.

"The president is not going to stand in their way on this bill," said deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel of Congress' overwhelming vote for the measure. Mr. Bush signed the measure without comment.

In a bipartisan rebuke, the Senate last week voted 97-1 and the House 385-25 for the legislation, margins suggesting that a veto could be easily overridden.

Earlier, the president and White House officials had spoken out strongly against the measure, although there wasn't a specific threat to veto it.

"He remains against it," Stanzel said. So why is he signing it? "I think he saw the overwhelming numbers of members of Congress who want to attempt to have an impact on prices by stopping the fill of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve."

"Congress keeps ... going from Band-Aid to Band-Aid that they think will have an impact but really won't," Stanzel said.

Sponsors of the bill said they hoped to lower energy prices. But the administration said the amount of oil involved was relatively small and would have no effect on gas prices.

The reserve, a system of salt caverns on the Louisiana and Texas Gulf coast, is 97 percent full, holding 701 million barrels of crude. The stockpile, currently sufficient to cover two months of oil imports, is kept as a cushion in case of a major disruption of oil supplies.

Not waiting for the bill to be enacted, the administration on Friday suspended oil deliveries into the reserve for the rest of the year.

The Energy Department said it would not sign six-month contracts, scheduled to have begun July 1, for the acceptance of 76,000 barrels of oil a day. The department also indicated it would defer deliveries under existing contracts once the legislation became law.

© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Video and Galleries from Politics

Add a Comment See all 65 Comments
by bobnjersey May 20, 2008 5:30 AM PDT
did he also attach a signing statement saying that he reserves the right to do whatever he wants?

why isn''t anyone proposing incentives for efficiency in consumption? give a 100% tax deduction for (cost of) vehicles w/ mpg ratings over 70mpg. 200% deduction for vehicles over 100mpg.

you''ll have every car manufacturer suddenly finding a way to build these types of vehicles.

an energy policy should not just be another place to drill for oil ... ***.
Reply to this comment
by dowjones20k May 20, 2008 5:34 AM PDT
Another feel good do nothing political trick ...

All the US Congress memebers should be very proud, thier great vote to sacrafice 70,000 bls a day in a 21 million brl a day soceity is laughable.

Obviously, they have, in effect, spit into the ocean.

Pitiful !!

Any lawmaker who has more than two terms should be fired out and replaced with a new untainted blood.
Reply to this comment
by bobnjersey May 20, 2008 5:37 AM PDT
[Your demobrat Congress is trying to show you how they attempted to stem the tide of rising oil prices the Administration is guilty of letting rise. How ludicrous.]
[Posted by maxify55 at 04:45 AM : May 20, 2008]

looks like the ''demobrats'' must have picked up a few more seats when nobody was watching.

"In a bipartisan rebuke, the Senate last week voted 97-1 and the House 385-25 for the legislation, margins suggesting that a veto could be easily overridden. "

the ''idiot in charge'' only vetos the things the ''other half of the country'' wants.
Reply to this comment
by slim1h2o May 20, 2008 5:43 AM PDT
even though an aide said the president considers it a bad idea that won''t lower fuel costs.

Of course he thinks it''s a bad idea, he''d rather do anything, than to help the poor and middle class.

Of course, 3 months from now you will hear that the troops in Iraq are running out of fuel, due to the reduction of these strategic oil shipments.

Mark my words, that''s what we''ll hear!
Reply to this comment
by drinuk May 20, 2008 5:44 AM PDT
The reserve of 701 Billion gallons is 97% full ! AND what about the private reserve''s, just how much stockpiling is going on in the private sector, how much have the Bush Family got stashed away and how does HE know it will not bring prices down ? Unless, as we suspect, his policy for the last eight years as been to walk away with a nice big fat nest egg.

Reply to this comment
by drinuk May 20, 2008 5:45 AM PDT
Cont. Sorry, that should read 701 Million. or was I right first time !
Reply to this comment
by closethippy1 May 20, 2008 6:02 AM PDT
Any lawmaker who has more than two terms should be fired out and replaced with a new untainted blood.

Posted by dowjones20k at 05:34 AM : May 20, 2008

Hmmm, excuse me, but hasn''t this been done before? Like, many, many times?
OK, then. That means the problem is we keep voting for politicians who allow the money people to have the last word.
People don''t count in this system, money people do. Can you pay to get your congressman''s attention? If you don''t have a lobby, don''t bother.
It''s clear to me that Americans are confused on who to elect because of their irrational fears. So if you have someone who is unashamedly a socialist but has what it takes to be a great and honest politician, people will simply not vote for him because anything related to socialism is taboo.
So we''re not even considering the issues, we''re just reacting according to how the mass media has conditioned us to react.
Ralph Nader? The media says he''s bad, therefore he has to be bad.
We will never solve our problems if we limit the type of people we can elect into poltical office. It''s amazing that all you need in the US to blacklist people who have the brains and integrity to fix our problems is for some radio and TV hosts to be screaming about them.
If we''re unable to educate ourselves and trust our own instincts then we''ll never vote for people who deserve to be in Congress.
Reply to this comment
by dowjones20k May 20, 2008 6:08 AM PDT
why isn''''t anyone proposing incentives for efficiency in consumption? give a 100% tax deduction for (cost of) vehicles w/ mpg ratings over 70mpg. 200% deduction for vehicles over 100mpg.

you''''ll have every car manufacturer suddenly finding a way to build these types of vehicles.

Posted by bobnjersey at 05:30 AM : May 20, 2008

Uhh I doubt it .... becasue no one could afford to purchase them .. have you gone out and bought your hybrid?

There has been NO energy policy in this country for decades .. just political banter.

Maybe Americans could use thier superior arrogance to stop driving so much ... maybe some pol somewhere could start asking the public to conserve and STAY HOME?


Nahhhh that would be too easy ..... our pols are too stupid and the public is too selfish to sacrifice.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 May 20, 2008 6:51 AM PDT
"Congress keeps ... going from Band-Aid to Band-Aid that they think will have an impact but really won''t," Stanzel said."

Stanzel''s solution? "let it bleed."
Reply to this comment
by Gary Kempf May 20, 2008 7:18 AM PDT
AP) President George Bush on Monday signed a bill that forces his administration to temporarily stop acquiring oil for its emergency stockpile, even though an aide said the president considers it a bad idea that won''t lower fuel costs.

He considers it a bad idea because it just might help the working class families Of America....
Reply to this comment
by itgranny May 20, 2008 7:29 AM PDT
Level the playing field for everyone, not just the ones with tons of money.

Lower the speed limit back down to 55.

Outlaw private jets. Make the oil execs and gov officials fly commercial like the rest of us. (conserve gas and help the airline industry)

then give 10+ billion bonus to any car co. that can make a vehicle that will go 350 miles at 70 miles and hour without using gas. It makes a whole lot more sense than using that money in the middle east like we''re doing now.
Reply to this comment
by frankie2fing May 20, 2008 7:39 AM PDT
Is this going to have an impact at the pump? Probably not. But it is a token of symbolism, aimed at the citizens, that indicates congress is finally trying to grow a pair and stand up to a bully. We subsidise the oil companies, give them rights to minerals that, in reality, belong to all of us, and then create policy that allows them to line their pockets further by hammering us at the pump. What the Hell did you expect when you elected an oil man president? You allowed THEM to select the topic of discussion during the last 2 elections. Gay marriage? Does it really matter if they are gay? They are not marrying you, personally, I feel that is between them and God. Al Gore invented the Internet? Not what he said, but hey, I could care less. You chose a man who could not find oil in Texas. Now he is putting oil into the ground, I sure hope some one else has a pretty good idea where it is at, because this idiot would not be able to find it again. Of course, the jury is still out on evolution, too.
The oil companies only make about $.08 on a gallon of gas. Once you believe that, you will believe anything. Hey, I have a bridge in New York.....
Reply to this comment
by ranger1948 May 20, 2008 7:41 AM PDT
At least congress finally got off it *** and did something, even if it is a token gesture. Maybe bush will realize finally the public has had enough of his incompentency.
Reply to this comment
by chanelle051 May 20, 2008 7:55 AM PDT
Here''s an idea to lower gas prices...get Bush out of office A.S.A.P.! He''s from texas, the oil state of U.S. You really think he cares about gas prices? If he did he wouldv''e put a stop to the a**holes raising prices so there little teenage daughter can have the new louis or chanel bag or have a huge sweet 16 party or a brand new car for their 18th bday! Bush is making money off of the oil prices, of course he won''t lower it or put a stop to the greedy price gougers!
Reply to this comment
by demslie May 20, 2008 7:59 AM PDT
At least congress finally got off it *** and did something, even if it is a token gesture. Maybe bush will realize finally the public has had enough of his incompentency.

Posted by ranger1948

President Bush is absolutely correct. The Band Aid action by Democrats will do nothing. The problem is the same. The United States is the only Modern Industialized Nation on Earth that has not built an oil refinery in 30 years. It is the law of supply and demand. The Arabs say they can ship more oil but, we are producing at 100% of capcity. We have no ability to refine more oil. So the supply stays low and the demand stays high. And while our population has grown from 200 million to over 300 million, the only solution Democrats have ever had was to move the population to communues where everyone will smoke dope, hold hands and sing songs. These are the same Democrat law makers that want to run the country.
Reply to this comment
by bobnjersey May 20, 2008 8:01 AM PDT
[Uhh I doubt it .... becasue no one could afford to purchase them .. have you gone out and bought your hybrid?]
[Posted by dowjones20k at 06:08 AM : May 20, 2008]

saying it can''t be done ... or wont work ... is self fulfilling. nobody would be able to own one if they didn''t make them. being able to afford doesn''t seem to stop anyone from buying everything else they own (cars, boats, houses).

many would be able to afford it if you give them the 100% (cost of vehicle) tax deduction. at $4/gallon ... and climbing ... the savings in fuel costs alone would justfiy the initial expense for those who drive nominal distances daily.

second vehicle is a 2006 honda civic hybrid. cost just about 10% more than the 2003 grand am it replaced ... in 2006 dollars.

Reply to this comment
by fstop100 May 20, 2008 8:07 AM PDT
I like the one Ban Private Jets.
One of the biggest wastes of oil in our country.
Until it becomes more profitable to conserve energy than to waste, this country won''t change. The greed never ends.
Reply to this comment
by bobnjersey May 20, 2008 8:07 AM PDT
[President Bush is absolutely correct. The Band Aid action by Democrats will do nothing. The problem is the same. ]
[Posted by demslie at 07:59 AM : May 20, 2008]

you''re such an ignorant moron. is there anything ''the idiot'' has done that you don''t agree with? i suppose begging his old friends ''the sauds'' was a great idea ... only to be snubbed publically.

check the story again ... oh myopic one ... it''s not the democrats policy ... it''s nearly a uniform vote.
Reply to this comment
by slim1h2o May 20, 2008 8:09 AM PDT
the population to communues where everyone will smoke dope, hold hands and sing songs. These are the same Democrat law makers that want to run the country.
Posted by demslie at 07:59 AM : May 20, 2008

I''ve heard worse ideas coming out of congress. Ever hear of the bridge to nowhere?

Now that was an idea! Wasn''t it?

Reply to this comment
by omnibus66 May 20, 2008 8:20 AM PDT
And while our population has grown from 200 million to over 300 million, the only solution Democrats have ever had was to move the population to communues

Posted by demslie at 07:59 AM : May 20, 2008

The only communes I am aware of in recent times are the ones run by Christian fundamentalist nuts, which are closely tied to your fuhrer, the Decider-In-Chief.

You''re right about no new refineries being built, though. And I''ll give you one guess about the party affiliation of the oil company executives who make the decisions about building new refineries. I''ll even give you a hint. It''s spelled "REPUBLICAN".

It is absolutely amazing that there is still anyone supporting this idiot, or his party.
Reply to this comment
by demslie May 20, 2008 8:31 AM PDT
Twenty Years ago Nuclear Scientists at the Oak Ridge Labs took a small nuclear reactor like the ones built to power long range satellites and installed it into an all electric car. They did experimentation including packing the thing into an iron safe where it could withstand being hit by a train and still be safe. The Scientists said they could use spent nuclear fuel rods and the rods would provide power for about 20 years. Scientists declared that the government could provide the fuel and Americans could drive for free paying only the cost of the car which was about 30,000. Democrats went out of their minds at the thought and declared the whole idea insane. Of course democrats have never had an idea to solve any problem. And O''bama has learned the magic words. Whenever he is asked about how he is going to solve a problem he just says the magic words,
"I hate Bush" and the Democrats forget there was ever a question.
Reply to this comment
by kennedy7955 May 20, 2008 8:34 AM PDT
If Bush said it won''t make a difference is sure proof that it will.
Reply to this comment
by faith_in_w May 20, 2008 8:51 AM PDT
This is a bad idea but our wonderful President Bush will use this as a learning opportunity for liberals to find out how wrong they are.
Reply to this comment
by bobnjersey May 20, 2008 9:00 AM PDT
[Twenty Years ago Nuclear Scientists at the Oak Ridge Labs took a small nuclear reactor like the ones built to power long range satellites and installed it into an all electric car ... Democrats went out of their minds at the thought and declared the whole idea insane. Of course democrats have never had an idea to solve any problem]
[Posted by demslie at 08:31 AM : May 20, 2008]

so what session between 2001 and 2006 did the republican controlled congress bring this up for a vote? how about a committee? how about sweet whispers in each other''s ears?

was this the thing that cheney wanted to keep so secret from the rest of those they allegedly represent in 2001?

you need some serious de-programming.
Reply to this comment
by ioweign May 20, 2008 9:04 AM PDT
[Twenty Years ago Nuclear Scientists at the Oak Ridge Labs took a small nuclear reactor like the ones built to power long range satellites and installed it into an all electric car ... Democrats went out of their minds at the thought and declared the whole idea insane. Of course democrats have never had an idea to solve any problem]
[Posted by demslie at 08:31 AM : May 20, 2008]

so what session between 2001 and 2006 did the republican controlled congress bring this up for a vote? how about a committee? how about sweet whispers in each other''''s ears?

was this the thing that cheney wanted to keep so secret from the rest of those they allegedly represent in 2001?

you need some serious de-programming.

Posted by bobnjersey at 09:00 AM : May 20, 2008


This would not even make it into the political arena, once big oil, big business got wind of it. Big oil, big business = GOP...
Reply to this comment
by bobnjersey May 20, 2008 9:08 AM PDT
[This is a bad idea but our wonderful President Bush will use this as a learning opportunity for liberals to find out how wrong they are.]
[Posted by faith_in_w at 08:51 AM : May 20, 2008]

are you waiting for the actual vote to be spoon fed to you in a talking point from rush, sean, or ann? if you can actually read .. here it is:

"In a bipartisan rebuke, the Senate last week voted 97-1 and the House 385-25 for the legislation, margins suggesting that a veto could be easily overridden."

demslie and yourself might be able to get a discount on the de-programming efforts if you go together.
Reply to this comment
by cattlekate May 20, 2008 9:10 AM PDT
"The stockpile, currently sufficient to cover two months of oil imports, is kept as a cushion in case of a major disruption of oil supplies."

Drudge is headlining the jpost article claiming Bush plans on attacking Iran before the end of a great American error, 1/20/09. Could this be why we need to fill the reserve?
Reply to this comment
by irliberal May 20, 2008 9:16 AM PDT
This is a bad idea but our wonderful President Bush will use this as a learning opportunity for liberals to find out how wrong they are.

Posted by faith_in_w at 08:51 AM

Are you obtuse or just a troll?
Reply to this comment
by junogoose May 20, 2008 9:22 AM PDT
"Congress keeps ... going from Band-Aid to Band-Aid that they think will have an impact but really won''t," Stanzel said.
-----

and Bush has the jumbo band-aid: Iraq
Reply to this comment
by skyhawk761 May 20, 2008 9:25 AM PDT
demslie, you don''t bother to mention that the oil companies have closed numerous smaller refineries over the past few years for nothing other than to reduce output and to drive prices up. They have available land in which to build new refineries but have held out waiting for the tax payers to pick up the tab. Try taking off those rose colored glasses and see the real world for a change instead of the one Limpbaugh and Hannity tell you about.
Reply to this comment
by faith_in_w May 20, 2008 9:31 AM PDT
rafterman1, its the dollar devaluation that has brought us $4 gas. And the dollar devaluation is good for it will bring the jobs back.
Reply to this comment
by walt1944-2009 May 20, 2008 9:43 AM PDT
The Great Emperor Bush signed a bill "temporarily" stopping oil from goinmg into the government''s oil reserves.

Given the distinctly "chilly" reception that the Great Emperor got from the Arabs on his recent trip, the Great Emperor is concerned that without the oil going into the reserves, the government won''t have the oil to keep its war machine going in the Middle East.

Of course, it gives the Great Emperor Bush as well as VP Darth Vader Cheney and "Bagdad John Bomber McBush" McCain, an excellent excuse to go into Iran and wage war there. Cheney would use the old argument that the captured Iranian oil would pay for the war in 5 years; just like it did in Iraq(!!!???). McCain would argue that we don''t talk to "terrrrrrorists", even when they are elected to that post by their own people!

Where have we heard all this before???

And, naturally, BIG OIL would continue to price gouge us all at the pump!!!

SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!!
sig heil, DEFINITELY MORE OF THE SAME, McCain!!!!
Reply to this comment
by talkingham May 20, 2008 9:49 AM PDT
There are thousands of oil wells in this country that were not productive at $25/barrel that would be highly productive at $60/barrel, yet big oil and our do-nothing president let these wells sit idle while we pay the Saudis, the biggest financial supporters of terror in the world (besides us), charge us out the nose.

Meanwhile the tree and animal-haters can only think of drilling absurdly expensive well sites in Arctic nature preserves.

Supposedly we are sitting on 2-trillion barrels of oil shale reserves with no real effort to exploit that either with 2/3 of being on federal land.

It''s not a free market economy it''s totally manipulated and I pukeup everytime I hear one of these jackals discuss how the free market determines the price of oil.

Instead of the president going over and kissing Saudis feet he should have been threatening them with shock and awe since their favorite son Osama Bin Bush has made a laughing stock of us.
Reply to this comment
by libh8er May 20, 2008 10:00 AM PDT
"Congress keeps ... going from Band-Aid to Band-Aid that they think will have an impact but really won''t," Stanzel said.

Which is actually very true. It''s really sad to see so many US politicians who have no idea what to do or how we got here.

Are you really tired of paying $4.00/gal? Thank an environmentalist democrat. No drilling, no nuke plants, no new refineries.

But the caribou are loving life! :)
Reply to this comment
by libh8er May 20, 2008 10:03 AM PDT
In addition, existing refineries are not operating at 100% either.
Posted by rafterman1 at 09:41 AM : May 20, 2008

How do you know?
Reply to this comment
by gopack443 May 20, 2008 10:06 AM PDT
Oil prices will never come down so long as there is war happening in the middle east.
If congress wants to lower gas prices stop funding W''s war! Oil prices will come down and we can stop borrowing money from China to pay for it and that will result in higher dollar value and again lower the cost of gas again.
Reply to this comment
by skyhawk761 May 20, 2008 10:09 AM PDT
Are you really tired of paying $4.00/gal? Thank an environmentalist democrat. No drilling, no nuke plants, no new refineries.

But the caribou are loving life! :)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by LibH8er at 10:00 AM : May 20, 2008


And the Republican controled Washington from 2000 - 2006 did what to address this problem? If you live in a glass house you shouldn''t throw stones!
Reply to this comment
by libh8er May 20, 2008 10:48 AM PDT
And the Republican controled Washington from 2000 - 2006 did what to address this problem?
Posted by skyhawk761 at 10:09 AM : May 20, 2008

And the democrat controlled congress since 2006 has done what to solve ANY problem?
Reply to this comment
by libh8er May 20, 2008 10:51 AM PDT
Google around.
Posted by rafterman1 at 10:08 AM : May 20, 2008

I did. Some left coast refineries are curtailing due to gloooooobal warrrrrrming issues. As far as I''m concerned, they deserve everything they get.

If the losers in CA have to pay $22.00/gal that''s fine by me.
Reply to this comment
by msay3 May 20, 2008 10:58 AM PDT
If the losers in CA have to pay $22.00/gal that''''s fine by me.

Posted by LibH8er
---------------------------
Unfortunately, what affects CA will have an effect on the rest of the country...Hey! I''m all for getting a horse...They don''t use gas, and their "emissions" can fertilize the garden.
Reply to this comment
by libh8er May 20, 2008 11:05 AM PDT
From everything I just read, refineries are running at near full utilization. Not everything works 100% of the time, so full utilization is not possible.

The last new refinery was built in 1976 (the result of extremely tight environmental restrictions, not-in-my-back-yard community opposition, and the high cost of new construction.)
Reply to this comment
by libh8er May 20, 2008 11:07 AM PDT
They don''''t use gas, and their "emissions" can fertilize the garden.
Posted by msay3 at 10:58 AM : May 20, 2008

I''d have to move a LOT closer to work! :)
Reply to this comment
by ov442 May 20, 2008 11:07 AM PDT
Senate last week voted 97-1 and the House 385-25

Bush still against it.
Bwaaahaaahahaaahaaaaaahaaa!
see? the man has been doing this on purpose his entire presidency.
this man is truly insane and a bad human being to boot.
we have a bad lunatic as a president.
great. Mussolini, Hitler were bad lunatics, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
Reply to this comment
by thgdriver May 20, 2008 11:30 AM PDT
Tired of spending $4.00 a gallon for gas? Thats funny because when gasoline was $2.10 a gallon in 2006 the Dimwitocrats were touting how that was outrageous and if elected to office they would fix it. LOL. They sure fixed it alright. Almost two years and they made it far worse! I can still hear Nancy Pelosi saying how great every thing would be once they controlled Congress.

Now you Dimwitocrats can put a Dimwit in the white House--$6.00 a gallon can not be far behind that! LMFAO!!
Reply to this comment
by tonyd_31 May 20, 2008 11:41 AM PDT
Now you Dimwitocrats can put a Dimwit in the white House--$6.00 a gallon can not be far behind that! LMFAO!!

Posted by thgdriver

Now this is funny! This idiot is talking about us DEMs putting a dimwit in the Whitehouse. Who is more of a dimwit the "W" and just look at the last 8 years. Sir, you are a fool and should be on here apologizing and begging for forgiveness for helping the most, incompetent, corrupt administration in history come to power. You neocons are absolutely retarded. Have you got the slighest bit of brain?
Reply to this comment
by tonyd_31 May 20, 2008 11:48 AM PDT
This is a bad idea but our wonderful President Bush will use this as a learning opportunity for liberals to find out how wrong they are.

Posted by faith_in_w

Our wonderful President? LOL :). Little lady, I have this terrific bridge in NYC that I would like to sell you dirt cheap. Or maybe you might be interested in buying my summer home that I call the Whitehouse on Pennsylvania Avenue that I could give you a great deal on. :)
Reply to this comment
by byeneocons May 20, 2008 11:53 AM PDT
If there''s one thing Bush really knows, it''s oil, and how to bankrupt things, like Harken Oil, the company his Daddy bought for him.
Reply to this comment
by tonyd_31 May 20, 2008 11:57 AM PDT
thgdriver, are you in one of those brainwashed fogs or just plain stupid? I am still trying to digest the part where you posted DEMS wanting to put a dimwit in the Whitehouse. The epitome of Dimwit, "W" and his loyal (brainwashed) followers. Instead of letting you idiots make my blood boil, I now feel genuinely sorry for you. Its not your fault. Get some counseling. I will pray for you.
Reply to this comment
by cusefanjapan May 20, 2008 12:12 PM PDT
Someone needs to tell him that NOTHING is going to lower fuel costs. As if he really cared. Only a few more months to deal with the worst presidency in history.
Reply to this comment
by bobnjersey May 20, 2008 12:17 PM PDT
[And the democrat controlled congress since 2006 has done what to solve ANY problem?]
[Posted by LibH8er at 10:48 AM : May 20, 2008]

nearly every bill that passed by ''the shrub'' between 2000 - 2006 was rubber stamped ... responsible for increasing the national debt by nearly 30% in just 6 years.

nearly every bill that passed by ''the shrub'' between early 2007 and now has been vetoed ... responsible for complete gridlock in getting anything done.

so ... why didn''t ''your boys'' address the issue while they had the rubber stamp out?

this is the real ''inconvenient truth'' that none of you can answer ... for any issue you bring up. refineries, drilling, conservation, war, veterans, economic policy, ethics, etc.

replying with another question is not an answer to the initial question.
Reply to this comment
See all 65 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented
Latest News
Featured Blogs