The lie I was referring to is singling out one person (the Secretary of Energy) and saying that because he didn't meet with environmentalists, no one on the energy commission did.
Here are a couple articles that came on the web today. It's up to you to decide if either one is credible. You were rightfully skeptical a day or two ago about Saddam's award for suicide bombers. How about showing similar skepticism about the articles published on the energy policy?
From the Washington Times: Energy sought green's advice
From the Washington Post: Energy Task Force Belatedly Consulted Environmentalists
The fact of the matter is that they did seek input from environmentalists, perhaps late in the process, but they did do it. That completely contradicts the assertions yesterday that "only" energy companies were consulted in making the policy. Try reading the policy itself or at least the summary before making up your mind. If you don't want to slog through all 170 pages of the policy, here's a summary. If you have not read it, then you really don't know what you're talking about.
Oh, yes. There's this article that strongly suggests the environmentalists have been cooking their numbers for some time now.
Current Events » in reply to Reading for comprehension?
They did ask for inputs from environmentalists
The whole thread (30 posts)
- Energy contacts disclosed
- Re: Energy contacts disclosed
- Good God! He met with people who actually know something about energy!
- So Phil, Larry, and Tom all believe...