Clinton lies again

[deltecs]

Speaking in Manchester, N.H., Clinton said oil-producing countries would lower prices in an attempt to foil her plans to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil.

"I predict to you, the oil-producing countries will drop the price of oil," Clinton said, according to the New York Daily News. "They will once again assume, once the cost pressure is off, Americans and our political process will recede." 

Hillary made this comment yesterday.  If she is president does one really believe that ANWR will open for oil development.  Slick Willy refused to assist in opening it.  How can the Demoncrats say that oil prices will drop just because they are in the Presidency.  The huge environmentalist movement in the US has successfully lobbied against all types of alternative energy sources in attempts to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.  They have stopped all proposed nuclear plants, most proposed hydro electric generation, stated that wind farms are an eyesore, solar panels are blinding, and open coal mines dangerous.  Since they have also stopped new oil exploration on land and the continental shelf, just what energy policy would she incorporate that reduces our dependency on foreign oil?  I have not read anything in her campaign literature regarding her views on energy conservation.  Does she have one and what is it or is she just making a statement to gain votes by misleading the populace like her husband did?

[deltecs]

Recycling Nuclear Fuel: The French Do It, Why Can’t Oui?
Thursday, December 27, 2007
By Jack Spencer
What if the government allowed you to burn only 25 percent of every tank of gas? Or if Washington made you pour half of every gallon of milk down the drain?
What if lawmakers forced us to bury 95 percent of our energy resources?
That is exactly what Washington does when it comes to safe, affordable and CO2-free nuclear energy. Indeed, 95 percent of the used fuel from America’s 104 power reactors, which provide about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, could be recycled for future use.
Over the past four decades, America’s reactors have produced about 56,000 tons of used fuel. That “waste” contains roughly enough energy to power every U.S. household for 12 years. And it’s just sitting there, piling up at power plant storage facilities. Talk about waste!
The sad thing is, the United States developed the technology to recapture that energy decades ago, then barred its commercial use in 1977. We have practiced a virtual moratorium ever since.
Anti-nuclear fear mongering has proved baseless. The French have recycled fuel like this for 30 years without incident: no terrorist attack, no bad guys stealing uranium, no contribution toward nuclear weapons proliferaton, and no accidental explosions.
A viable reprocessing capability not only would give the United States a valuable energy resource, it would reduce the amount of material going to Yucca Mountain. The U.S. has already produced enough waste to nearly fill Yucca’s legal limit of 70,000 metric tons—subsequent studies estimate that its actual capacity is about double that amount and some believe that it is even greater.

France too has its share of terror attacks and seems to be able to keep its nuclear facilities secure.  Not that I'm a strong supporter of France but you cannot argue with the facts.  Recycling nuclear waste into more usuable nuclear fuel would substantially reduce our dependency on foreign oil.  And we already have the raw materials and technology to recycle and reduce nuclear waste.  Do you honestly think the Demoncrats will support an energy policy that includes nuclear recycling?