Hooray!...for now.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/21/ ... index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate blocked oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge Wednesday, rejecting a must-pass defense spending bill where supporters positioned the quarter-century-old environmental issue to garner broader support.

It was a stinging defeat for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, one of the Senate's most powerful members, who had given senators a choice to support the Alaska drilling measure, or risk the political fallout of voting against money for American troops and for victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Democrats accused Stevens, the senior Republican in the Senate, of holding the defense bill hostage to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

"It took a lot of guts for a lot of people to stand up," Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Connecticut, said after the vote.

Republican leaders fell four votes short of getting the required 60 votes to avoid a threatened filibuster of the defense measure over the oil drilling issue. The vote prompted GOP leaders to huddle in private over their next move.

The vote that was 56-44.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for procedural reasons cast a vote with ANWR opponents, so that he might be able to resurrect the issue for another try. But Democrats said they expected the defense bill to be withdrawn and reworked without the Arctic refuge provision.

The 43 senators who voted against refuge drilling -- all but four Democrats as well as GOP Sens. Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island -- "are intent and unyielding" and not expected to budge should Frist try for another vote, said Lieberman.

Stevens called the refuge's oil vital to national security and bemoaned repeated attempts over the years by opponents using the filibuster to kill drilling proposals.

Democrats, conversely, accused Stevens of holding hostage a military spending bill that includes money to support troops in Iraq and $29 billion for victims of Hurricane Katrina.

"Our military is being held hostage by this issue, Arctic drilling," fumed Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader. The Nevada Democrat said the Senate could move quickly to pass the defense bill once the refuge issue was resolved.

"We all agree we want money for our troops. ... This is not about the troops," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, a strong critic of disturbing the refuge in northeastern Alaska by oil development.

During the vote, Stevens, 82, who had fought to open the refuge to drilling since 1980 and is the most senior Republican in the Senate, sat unsmiling in a chair midway back in the chamber, watching his colleagues vote. When it became apparent that he had lost, he briefly talked with Frist, presumably over what move should be taken next. He briefly shook his head, a signal of his disappointment.

"We need ... to open up the small area of the coastal plain [of the refuge] for oil exploration and development," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. She called making the oil available a matter of national security by reducing U.S. reliance on oil imports.

Senators determined to protect the refuge from development found it difficult to oppose the politically popular defense bill, which has money for troops in Iraq, relief for Katrina hurricane victims and help for low-income families to pay energy bills.

"Destroying this wilderness will do very little to reduce energy costs nor does it do very much for oil independence," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California.

Block it like Walter Jones

I don't really know how i feel about drilling up in alaska. But goddamn, I love it when stevens doesn't get his way. He is very high on my evil scum-fucks list and i smile everytime he gets screwed out of what he wants and pouts like an eight year old. Fuck you Stevens, eat a dick.

"Kinda makes you wonder, who the f**k is Ted Stevens?!"

Fucking Senate. Jerks.

this is bad news to you?

Forget Bammer. He wouldn't mind if we decided to blow the world up as long as he didn't have to think about it.

Drill that shit!

For prolonging our dependency for foreign oil?
For preserving a frozen useless wasteland?
For hindering our economy?

Hooray for what?

Stupid senate...

And what would we do once the oil is gone?

Why, helplessly retreat back into the dark ages obviously.

Fuckin' A.

No, for forcing us to invest more in oil alternatives.



No. Well, yes actually. But not useless. Unless all you can see is dollar signs.



No, for making us a stringer and better nation as we discard our oil dependancy and lead the world in new and better technologies that drive our economy and better us and the rest of the world.

</hippy rant>

edit: nevermind, i thought this was the gwen steffanie thread

How long would it take to have oil alternatives up and running?

How much oil is in Alaska? In the world?

Would drilling in Alaska benefit the US while readying other energy sources?

I don't know much about this issue, but it's an issue where people typically say yes or no. I'd like more facts.

If it's economically worth it, and would significantly ease the oil problem, why would anyone be against it? I've read plenty of articles that state the wildlife would actually benefit from the warmth of a pipeline.

Stopped driving your car, have you?

Driving a car does not make one automatically endorse any policy to retrieve crude oil.

If you don't support the idea to trade wild caribou for oil, you're out of touch with reality.

Until the world is no longer dependent on oil to run its machinery for production, vehicles, etc, it's basically the most important natural resource that we have.

'Twould be nice if somebody could come up with an alternative way to run cars & factories, but until that day we NEED the oil.

I don't want to get into the political side of things, but the US would have absolutely no reason to involve itself in the Middle East whatsoever if it weren't for our demand for oil. The ONLY reason I would argue to not drill in Alaska right now would be this argument: Use up what we can from the Middle East and when, someday, that supply runs out, then we fall back on our own reserves (in Alaska). That way, we (the US) would be the only ones with oil left and we would have the upper hand. On the flipside, that may invite attacks from other countries to get their hands on our oil - so it might not be the best idea.

Like I said, I don't like political arguments so I'm gonna curb it right there. In any case though, nothing changes the fact that our economy is extremely dependent on oil and until there are alternative energy sources, we need to get our hands on as much of it as we can.