Bush Administration Repeatedly Peddled False Information About Iraqi Bio Labs
Bush Administration Repeatedly Peddled False Information About Iraqi Bio Labs
This morning, the Washington Post reported an explosive story that a secret, fact-finding team of scientists and engineers sponsored by the Pentagon determined in May 2003 that two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops were not evidence of an Iraqi biological weapons program. What makes the story so important is that this nine-member team “transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003.â€
Despite having authoritative evidence that the biological laboratories claim was false, the administration continued to peddle the myth over the next four months. Below is a compilation of the administration’s false statements specifically in regards to the biological facilities:
BUSH: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. [Bush on Polish TV, 5/29/03]
POWELL: We have already discovered mobile biological factories of the kind that I described to the Security Council on the 5th of February. We have now found them. There is no question in our mind that that’s what their purpose was. Nobody has come up with an alternate purpose that makes sense. [Powell, 6/2/03]
WOLFOWITZ: We — as the whole world knows — have in fact found some significant evidence to confirm exactly what Secretary Powell said when he spoke to the United Nations about the development of mobile biological weapons production facilities that would seem to confirm fairly precisely the information we received from several defectors, one in particular who described the program in some detail. [Wolfowitz, 6/3/03]
RICE: But let’s remember what we’ve already found. Secretary Powell on February 5th talked about a mobile, biological weapons capability. That has now been found and this is a weapons laboratory trailers capable of making a lot of agent that–dry agent, dry biological agent that can kill a lot of people. So we are finding these pieces that were described. … This was a program that was built for deceit and concealment. [CNBC, 6/3/03]
JOHN BOLTON: And I think the presentation that Secretary Powell made to the Security Council some months ago, which he worked on day and night for four or five days before going up to New York, is actually standing up very well to the test of reality as we learn more about what was going on inside Iraq. He explained to the Security Council and, indeed, showed diagrams of mobile biological weapons production facilities. We have already found two such laboratories. [Testimony before House International Relations Committee, 6/4/03]
BUSH: We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents. [Bush, 6/5/03]
POWELL: And I would put before you exhibit A, the mobile biological labs that we have found. Now, people are saying, well, are they truly mobile biological labs? Yes, they are. [Fox News Sunday, 6/8/03]
POWELL: I believe that they did have them and still have them, and I am confident that as we continue our efforts we will find these weapons, as well as the programs that supported these weapons. The mobile biological laboratories that were found and presented to the world, I think, is a further evidence of this. [Powell on al-Arabiyya, 6/23/03]
POWELL: [The State Department’s intelligence analysts’] confidence level is increasing. … And so we have been in complete open analysis with, you know, having a complete open analysis with the CIA, and the Director of Central Intelligence remains confident of his judgment. And frankly, I haven’t seen anything to suggest that that judgment is wrong. [Powell, 6/26/03]
POWELL: I reviewed that presentation that I made on the 5th of February a number of times, as you might imagine, over recent weeks, and it holds up very well. It was the solid, coordinated judgment of the intelligence community. Some of the things that I talked about that day we have now seen in reality. We have found the mobile biological weapons labs that I could only show cartoons of that day. We now have them. [NBC Today Show, 6/30/03]
CHENEY: We had intelligence reporting before the war that there were at least seven of these mobile labs that he had gone out and acquired. We’ve, since the war, found two of them. They’re in our possession today, mobile biological facilities that can be used to produce anthrax or smallpox or whatever else you wanted to use during the course of developing the capacity for an attack. [Meet the Press, 9/14/03]
POWELL: And even though there are differences within the overall intelligence community, the Director of Central Intelligence, examining all of the material with respect to that van and examining counter-arguments as to what it might be, stands behind the judgment that what we found was positive evidence of a mobile biological weapons lab, and it has not been discounted sufficiently. [ABC This Week, 9/28/03]
UPDATE: TPM Muckraker has some more quotes from Rumsfeld (5/29), Wolfowitz (5/31 and 6/3), and Feith (7/7).
UPDATE II: TalkingPointsMemo has a quote from Cheney pushing the myth in January 2004.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
107 Responses to “Bush Administration Repeatedly Peddled False Information About Iraqi Bio Labs”
Topic Cloud
Let the wriggle out begin!
April 12th, 2006 at 12:29 pmSounds like more of the lies. If you don’t have evidence, make some up!
April 12th, 2006 at 12:30 pmI am sure that somehow this was in the best interests of national security and is just showing the courage and conviction of a man of god like Bush. So all you liberal commie american hating traitors should STFU!!!
do I sound like a convincing right wing troll?
April 12th, 2006 at 12:31 pmYou can find anything you need in your own reality.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:32 pmOh, and Colin Powell, you’re a coward.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:34 pmSad that this isn’t even shocking anymore. In fact, I’d say that it is quickly becoming the expectation.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:34 pmI believe that the Guardian reported that the UK had sold these portable hydrogen trailers to Saddam…and i wouldn’t be surprised if it was earlier than all these statements.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:36 pm#3
“I am sure that somehow this was in the best interests of national security and is just showing the courage and conviction of a man of god like Bush. So all you liberal commie american hating traitors should STFU!!!
do I sound like a convincing right wing troll? ”
Krazny, something more like this:
Any thing that Bush said to get us into Iraq was worth it, lie or not, because of the security threat that Iraq posed to America. This just shows the courage and conviction of a man of god like Bush that he would lie to America for its own good. All you liberal commie america hating traitors apparently never learned the lesson of allowing Hitler to grow to strong, and would rather see America stuck in a much larger scale war with casulty rates 100 times higher than the current level. Why do you hate America so much?
That is how you troll, yours was a bit to generalized I feel.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:38 pmI guess some folks at the WaP.O.S.t (that would be piece of s–t) feel they have to make up for the editorial pages egregious behavior and also that of the suckup loser who wrote the article about Dick Cheney’s opening day pitch.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:38 pmOops, my bad, it was the Observer that said,
Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare, report finds
Peter Beaumont, Antony Barnett and Gaby Hinsliff
April 12th, 2006 at 12:39 pmSunday June 15, 2003
#3 - Yes, you do!
April 12th, 2006 at 12:41 pmHere’s a line for you “trolls,”
I agree, it is sick, wrong, and morally corrupt for George W. Bush to lie repeatedly to the American people, and cause the death and injury of thousands of our troops.
Cummon Guys!
Can we please get back to the important business of the day?
The “War on Easter” isn’t gonna fight itself you know.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:42 pmThanks for the critique sqeegee, I think however facist, commie needs to be added in somehow, maybe all one word? Facistcommie what do you think?
April 12th, 2006 at 12:44 pmlavatory vs. labratory….Really now, do you expect Bush to tell the difference!!!
Let’s see if the press will question the lead up to the war with Iran, or will it just tell the accurate story 3 FK’NG YEARS LATER
who here did not know this was all bushllit in 2003, but no - we were called traitors…WTF
April 12th, 2006 at 12:44 pmThe “War on Easter†isn’t gonna fight itself you know.
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist
We must make the ultimate sacrifice for this Global War on Easter. I heard Dick “Dick” Cheney’s got a gun we can use.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:45 pmLeigh,
June 15, 2003 was after the war started. We need to track down a story from before the war.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:45 pmLeigh,
Oooops, I just expanded the post and saw that they were using the the trailer story in September, so the June 15, 2003 story does work. DO you have a link.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:47 pmScotty…can you talk about this one….I don’t think there is an investigation on this topic….yet.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:49 pm#13 as entertaining as it would be, the right has to be careful about calling the left facist, due to the traditional pull on the right towards facism. It only works well when talking about PC stuff. You could always toss in moonbat for effect though. Maybe combine those, moonunist or commiebat perhaps?
April 12th, 2006 at 12:51 pmOkay so more lies from a corrupt administration, no real suprises here. What needs to be done, is our elected officials need to start taking Bush and his neo-con friends to task for this crap. We have again verifiable proof. I don’t know what to say anymore. The republican controlled congress and senate will not censure or impeach their own. We need to have honest politics, not partisan politics.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:53 pmmoonunist or commiebat
That is about the funniest thing I have read in a while.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:54 pmOn the flip side, we could call the right chickenhawk facists or combine them together. Naw, Chickenhawk Fascist is fine by itself.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:55 pmScotty…can you talk about this one….I don’t think there is an investigation on this topic….yet.
Comment by dlet — April 12, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
dlet - the WH press briefing is starting in about 5 minutes on C-SPAN… We’ll see if Scotty has anything to say.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:56 pm#23
April 12th, 2006 at 12:57 pmI am not holding my breath.
the press may not have this if front of them, and may not know to ask Scotty questions on this subject. may have to wait until tomorrow.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:59 pmGood! We wouldn’t want to lose you.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:00 pm#26 - GW SuperDude, check out squishypoop on the end of the Think Fast thread. He’s confuuused.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:03 pmBy October 2003, Iraq Survey Group head David Kay, who had not seen the classified report, reported to Congress that the ISG found no banned weapons in Iraq and could not verify the potential bio-warfare uses of the trailers. The final Duelfer Report from the Iraq Survey Group in October 2004 concluded definitively that the trailers were not in fact rolling bio-weapons labs:
ISG thoroughly examined two trailers captured in 2003, suspected of being mobile BW agent production units, and investigated the associated evidence. ISG judges that its Iraqi makers almost certainly designed and built the equipment exclusively for the generation of hydrogen. It is impractical to use the equipment for the production and weaponization of BW agent. ISG judges that it cannot therefore be part of any BW program.
The Bush administration, of course, already knew that. In fact, the White House knew it days before President Bush proclaimed in May 2003, “we have found the weapons of mass destruction.”
For the full story, see:
“Trailer Trash: Bush’s Bogus Bio-Weapons Claims.”
For a complete archive of documents related to Iraq pre-war intelligence and weapons fo mass destruction, including the Iraq Survey Group, the Silberman-Robb Commission Report and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report, visit the Perrspectives Iraq WMD and Intelligence Resource Center.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:03 pm#21 how about this one “pinkocommieislamolovinhippie”
April 12th, 2006 at 1:04 pmThis is another piece of evidence that our leaders lied to us, manipulated evidence and tried to otherwise persuade scientists to compromise themselves and “spin” the report a little “softer.”
April 12th, 2006 at 1:05 pmI am not surprised; we all knew this was happening, because some of us read the reports of experts and analysts who were not part of Bush&Co.
So while this is no great surprise (except that it may wake up a few more sleepwalking Americans) I cannot find why this report which had been marked “secret” and shelved, has been released now.
Who released it? How and why?
Why are we surprised? Bush/cheney have lied from the beginning and everyone one of these clowns believed / thought / hoped / prayed that they could convince Americans of the need to kill thousands of innocent people in order to secure access to oil for their corporate bosses. This is nothing more than big business showing how it is in control of big government!
April 12th, 2006 at 1:05 pmWhat will be interesting, is the idea that gas prices could rise to $3.00/gallon or more at the pump this summer. I am willing to bet my Bush $3 bill, that this will hurt republicans in the upcoming elections. Nothing pisses people off more then when they have to spend more to maintain basic services.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:10 pmI was just over at Powerline and the spin they are using on this goes something like this:
April 12th, 2006 at 1:11 pm“This team was only one of three that investigated these mobile labs and the other two teams said they *are* mobile biological labs. It doesn’t matter theat the other two teams weren’t really qualified to make the conclusion they did, or that they were, in fact wrong. It only matters that there were three reports and the one that was right was in the minority.”
Kind of pathetic, but it needs to be countered if it gets any media traction.
#27 - Zooeeper - he really does seem to be comming around… kinda.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:13 pm#21 re
moonunist or commiebat
That is about the funniest thing I have read in a while.
added bonus: plush ‘action figure’ franchise. just think of all the ‘accessory packs’ that could be marketed…
April 12th, 2006 at 1:17 pm#32 The sad part about that is oil prices are going nowhere but up, as China/India increase there demand, and with peak world wide production expected at some point this decade, oil can do nothing but climb, I wouldn’t be suprised to see over 5 a gallon by 2010. Even with development of alternatives were still screwed unless we finally have a technological break thru for a truly viable alternative, or group of alternatives.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:20 pmBush has lied about everything pertaining to Iraq, so news about bio labs being phony is nothing new! George knew the minute he inferred about them that it was nonsense! He needs to resign immediately before Easter, because his lies are too vulgar for this sacred holiday!
April 12th, 2006 at 1:22 pm#36 - Wow. This is weird. I agree with you completely. *sniff*
April 12th, 2006 at 1:31 pmWhat an unAmerican ASS.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:34 pmscotty attacked wapo at the presser today.
Wapo might have fire froomkin to make it up to the “most crooked bunch of liars.”
April 12th, 2006 at 1:38 pm#8, nice job. Now replace Iraq with Iran and you’ve got something a troll can use 3 years from now when we’re uncovering all the lies being told today about Iran’s ‘nuclear ambitions’.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:38 pmEven with development of alternatives were still screwed unless we finally have a technological break thru for a truly viable alternative, or group of alternatives.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 12, 2006 @ 1:20
Why not just invade all the other oil producing countries? (the ones without nukes that is)
Wouldn’t that be in America’s best interest? C’mon Squishy, let’s play!
You stated in another thread that (and I want to be correct, so please tell me if I’m not accurately stating your position) you believed that America should do what ever it deems necessary to protect itself - the rest of the world be damned. So, why not? We’re already going it alone in Iraq (well, there are some other counties there, but they’ve announced they’re pulling out), so why not play Stratego on a grand scale? If you truly don’t care about the rest of the world (not your exact words but close enough), why not roll the dice? We’re “the world’s only “superpower”, and the wogs will just have to live with it if we invade, right?
April 12th, 2006 at 1:39 pm#32
We’re already there. The Wife passed one gas station here in NE Tenn. this morning that had regular unleaded at $2.99/gal.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:40 pmAnd now they claim that Iran will have a Bomb in 16 Days
And Condi Rice said the Big Bad Wolf is gonna huff and puff…..
April 12th, 2006 at 1:44 pmyahoo has the story here:
http://news.yahoo.com/ s/ nm/ 20060412/ pl_nm/ iraq_usa_labs_dc
basically it sounds like since the report did not match up with what was expected, it was ignored.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:51 pm#36 - I agree, except for the part about gas going to $5 a gallon by 2010.
The way the corrupt Republican regime has whored themselves out in favor of corporate special interests over average Americans rights, it’ll happen much sooner than that.
Oil companies have their hands so far up the unethical Republican rear ends they’ve basically become hand puppets for their special interests.
April 12th, 2006 at 2:02 pm#42 Dano,
We can’t invade every country with oil because it would force an actual armed coalition against us, which would result in possibly our loss, but at least a giant squandering of the resources we were after, the costs out way the benifits.
#46 Ryan, there is no current viable combination of alternatives, even a massive building program of nuclear plants for power is only a stop gate messure.
In addition you face the failure of the green revotion and the crash in total growable food due to modern fertilizer being based off of natural gas, which also can’t last much longer.
April 12th, 2006 at 2:06 pmI think it is the way the government as a whole has whored it self out to the highest bidder. It does seem that when there is republican control it gets worse.
April 12th, 2006 at 2:06 pmScottie’s trying to dance around today’s story.
I wish someone in the press would just ask Scottie, “are empty trailers WMDs?”
April 12th, 2006 at 2:13 pmThis is especially relevant in the propaganda-filled climate of the run up to war with Iran. The media must explore every bombastic claim thrown out by the BA, because most of them are false. But, if the meida didn’t even cover the discovery of this info (besides the WP and international news sources, only about a dozen U.S. newspaper websites had any coverage of this story) how are they going to investigate new lies?
Like the one that Iran can produce a nuclear bomb in 16 days
It’s at http://www.lcoliberal.blogspot.com
April 12th, 2006 at 2:16 pmJust ask the ∫*#$¶ why Bush continued to lie about the trailers, when it was known they weren’t being used to manufacture chemical or biological weapons.
April 12th, 2006 at 2:17 pm#52 - Because, um, that’s what the f*cker does?
April 12th, 2006 at 2:30 pmNot sayin’ it’s right, of course.
#50
April 12th, 2006 at 2:32 pmI have to see that when I get home. Scotty demanding an apology from the press for being presumptuous…HAHAHAHAH!! Sorry Scotty, but when you ask a million questions and get nothing but hot air from the White House what does a reporter do? ANSWER THE F@#KING QUESTIONS and your blood pressure will drop back down to a scared chiuahua(sp.).
So what did the Republicans think was going to happen with these stories?
They have consistenetly stonewalled any investigations into the justifications for the war. Given the cost both in lives and money, did they think that the American public was just going to accept their non-answers?
I learned a long time ago that when there’s a problem, you solve it as quickly as possible. The longer you let it go on, the more expensive it becomes to solve.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer group of folks.
April 12th, 2006 at 2:32 pmRyan
And were to we get the oil necissary to manufacture/upkeep the wind power after oil runs out? How do you build solar panels with out the oil necissary in their construction? Synthetic oil, perhaps from coal? Are we willing to polute our environment that much to keep our economy going?
Freed from foreign oil? America is already past its peak production, what happens when we run out?
Once we’re unable to produce efficent fertilizer due to the lose of natural gas that is needed to produce it, all of our food growth will have to go into feeding the population, you can’t produce biomass fuel if you don’t have the surplus to put into it.
All of your ideas need a oil based economy to support them, with out oil, they all crash and burn with in 50 years, tops.
April 12th, 2006 at 2:36 pmAccording to the Scotty transcripts http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000353.php, he kept asking one reporter if ABC was going to apologize for reporting that the Prez had lied about the trailers. The story is now gone from ABC.com
April 12th, 2006 at 2:41 pmIs natural gas different from oil? this is a serious question. I don’t know the answer.
Sqeegee,
I don’t think we have a choice anymore. We have built our society on cheap oil. the problem being it’s not cheap anymore. What Ryan is trying to say I think is we as a country need to sit down and fund projects that will get us off of the oil standard. Preferebly something that we can produce in this country. I think this is something that we can all agree on.
April 12th, 2006 at 2:41 pm#60
April 12th, 2006 at 2:46 pmI just went to ABC and the story “Trailer trash” is still up.
#61 Yes, we do need to sit down, it prob won’t happen though. Carter tried it, one of the few things I actually admire about the man, and he got laughed out of office due to that, and the Iran hostage situation.
Natioral gas is different then oil, but the US is believed to already be past its peak for that resource also.
Ryan, the info I just found on organic growth rates puts it form 20% less, to comparable, at a higher cost in man hours. But it did say its still inconclusive. Even splitting the difference at 10% is still a substancial loss that would sky rocket food prices.
April 12th, 2006 at 2:52 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_agriculture
Once we free ourselves from needing oil as an energy source the amounts left will be more than enough for industrial purposes, such as producing and maintaining wind/solar systems. I doubt we would even need synthetic oil from coal. As to the natural gas problem, the solution is the same: once we move to renewable, clean energy (like wind, solar, tidal, etc.) we will be using natural gas at a much lower rate as well. Again, leaving plenty for food production. For that matter, as someone else pointed out, who says we need those fertilizers? Organic techniques have become quite advanced, we can definitely greatly reduce our need for fertilizers, if not eliminate them altogether, leaving plenty of biomass for additional energy.
We don’t *need* an oil-based economy, the barons of the current system are just afraid of change.
April 12th, 2006 at 2:52 pmWV
Then you’d have to look at quiting things like NAFTA, which currently forces us to sell natural gas to Mexico, to keep our own supply, in addition the threat from other nations that squandered/don’t have the resources they need, assuming that America would even make the necissary investment in alternative sources, which probably won’t start until a point where achieving them causes immense economic turmoil, assuming we havn’t already passed that point.
April 12th, 2006 at 2:58 pm“And were to we get the oil necissary to manufacture/upkeep the wind power after oil runs out? How do you build solar panels with out the oil necissary in their construction? Synthetic oil, perhaps from coal? Are we willing to polute our environment that much to keep our economy going?squishypoop”
Fossilized oil is compressed oils that can be extracted from biomass. You seem to miss the point that the same nature that created the oil, did so from PLANT AND ANIMAL MATTER. Duhh…
“Freed from foreign oil? America is already past its peak production, what happens when we run out? squishypoop”
Freeing us from foreign oil pulls back the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in dollars we spend in securing oil around the world. Once again we can apply that to our infrastructure, instead of spending that money on a commodity that we don’t actually need.
“Once we’re unable to produce efficent fertilizer due to the lose of natural gas that is needed to produce it, all of our food growth will have to go into feeding the population, you can’t produce biomass fuel if you don’t have the surplus to put into it.
squishypoop”
You stick a hose in a cow’s ass and you extract METHANE - the major component of natural gas. How do you think plants got fertilized before the green revolution. Why do you think it works - DUhhhh
You really need to do more research before you spout that stupid mouth of yours off. Go look up bio-gas, go read some stuff, and then come back when you can make a useful contribution.
The issue is not technology, or resources, it’s political will controlled by campaign contributions - PERIOD.
April 12th, 2006 at 3:07 pm#66
April 12th, 2006 at 3:22 pmIt is all about the will to do something instead of finding excuses not to do it. Humans have willed themselves to the moon. There has been so much technological change within the las hundred years that it is scary and if you really believe that there is no alternative to an internal combustion engine then I would say your just a nay-sayer. Weak on Homeland Prosperity.
[…] Related quotations from Think Progress: […]
April 12th, 2006 at 3:29 pmRegarding #67
April 12th, 2006 at 3:31 pmI wasn’t aiming the point at you personally Ryan….just to those who think it can’t be done or solutions aren’t out there. I re-read it and it came out the wrong way.
Ryan “Freeing us from foreign oil pulls back the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in dollars we spend in securing oil around the world. Once again we can apply that to our infrastructure”
Where do you get the inital money to free us from oil to get the money for the infrastructure that isn’t in place yet? Jacking the debt, or jacking taxes, neither of which is politically viable.
You seem to be putting all your hope in the politicians to fund this before it passes a tipping point were it can be done at relative low cost, but politicians will prob do what they do best, and ignore the issue until its past that point.
Brazil, starting in the 70’s took 20 years to convert to biomass for the majority of their transportation, which means it will prob take us 20+ years also, once we start in ernest.
we use roughly 20 million barrels a day in oil, with over 2/3s now being imported, even if we stop increasing our use, and the amount we produce dosn’t continue to fall roughly 5% a year, and i’ll even toss in doubling effience, your looking at ramping up a fledgling industry to 7 million barrels of biomass a day. Assuming we move off of oil based energy/heating, your looking at maybe knocking of 1 million more, down to 6 million a day. Then you have all the ifrastructure changes taht need to happen before you reach that point, which you still havn’t covered how to pay for.
So basically, unless we start all this now, were FUBAR, and politics as usual will prob happen for the next decade at least.
April 12th, 2006 at 3:37 pmLiar number 1, 2, and 3, all on record.
But McClellan wants the press to apologize for reporting it.
Cute.
That will really bring the press around, won’t it?
Maybe Scottie can lay his hand on the collective reporter forehead and do a spiritual healing. Then they might not feel so compelled to write news stories.
April 12th, 2006 at 3:38 pm[…] Think Progress […]
April 12th, 2006 at 3:57 pm“Where do you get the inital money to free us from oil to get the money for the infrastructure that isn’t in place yet? Jacking the debt, or jacking taxes, neither of which is politically viable. squishypoop”
And yet that wasn’t your claim. Your RIDICULOUS claims consistent of one stupid rant after another about technological hurdles and impossibilities of implementation and resource allocation. And what’s your final argument - the same I began with. That this is a POLITICAL and not a RESOURCE problem. If we had spent those HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS we wasted on Iraq on alternative fuels, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
“Brazil, starting in the 70’s took 20 years to convert to biomass for the majority of their transportation, which means it will prob take us 20+ years also, once we start in ernest. squishypoop”
Wow, you’re stupid. That 20 years wasn’t about CONVERTING to biomass it was about developing cost effective technologies to push over the tipping point - which they’ve done. Biodiesel and BioEthanol are now cheaper than petroleum in Brazil - just as they are in the US.
“we use roughly 20 million barrels a day in oil, with over 2/3s now being imported, squishypoop”
Where do you get your misinformation? We get approximately HALF not 2/3 of our oil from foreign sources.
“even if we stop increasing our use, and the amount we produce dosn’t continue to fall roughly 5% a year, and i’ll even toss in doubling effience, your looking at ramping up a fledgling industry to 7 million barrels of biomass a day. Assuming we move off of oil based energy/heating, your looking at maybe knocking of 1 million more, down to 6 million a day. Then you have all the ifrastructure changes taht need to happen before you reach that point, which you still havn’t covered how to pay for. squishypoop”
You forgot all of the solutions such as car efficiency requirements would solve the foreign imports.
You also forgot to mention that the US produced over 3.5 BILLION GALLONS of ethanol last year. (9 million gallons a day) - which is ~1/2 million barrels of ethanol a day.
Yeah I think we have both the technological and infrastructural capabilities to grow this. If Brazil can manufacture 5 billion gallons of bio ethanol a year, I’m quite sure we can do the same.
And in typical myopic fashion, you’re too stupid to see past OIL as the only option. Biodiesel, electric and super-hybrid rechargeable cars all can increase the efficiency and solve the problem.
As I said before, this is NOT a technological problem - it’s a Political one. And I’m glad to see you admitting that, even if unintentionally.
Your vision of the state of the technology and the manufacturing capabilities of the US is sadly pessimistic. The only thing this country lacks is not the technology, but the capable leadership. And as long as republicans continue to hijack elections, that won’t change.
April 12th, 2006 at 4:14 pm“We get approximately HALF not 2/3 of our oil from foreign sources.”
So instead of 6 million a day, its 4-5 million, which would still require ramping up the industry by 800%+. Then when we run out of our domestic oil/natural gas, how do you get the power to recharge the cars? more Nuclear plants, and more coal plants? Nuclear plants can’t be built due to the NIMBY effect, and coal is only expected to be around anouther 2 centuries at current use, what happens when its use also gets increased? Wind Power requires windy areas to be useful, same types of limitations on solar, when we move to organic food assume a 10% production drop, as well as increased population by then, how much land is left for biomass fuels? Even the high yield growths are only several hundred gallons an acre, so maybe 5-10 barrels an acre, getting it from algea could result in horrible effects for the ocean, and would need years of research before going to any large scale use, so the highest yeild biomass isn’t viable yet. There are serious technological issues that exist, that are then hampered even more by the political issues that wrap around them. Then as the political issues delay any attempts to switch over, the technical issues become harder and harder to surmount with out a huge economic crash, as the smallest problem, in our attempt to switch off of oil.
You seem to feel the two, political and technical, are seperate issues, however they are completly intertwinned.
April 12th, 2006 at 4:53 pm“So instead of 6 million a day, its 4-5 million, which would still require ramping up the industry by 800%+. squishypoop”
You’re being STUPID again. You forget that we have access to Oil from canada and Mexico. The real problem is freeing us from ‘dangerous’ oil.
“Wind Power requires windy areas to be useful squishypoop”
Go to the ocean or the great plains sometime. There are more than enough windy areas to solve this problem PERIOD.
“same types of limitations on solar - squishypoop”
Crap, lies and stupid assumptions. You’re WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG as usual.
“when we move to organic food assume a 10% production drop - squishypoop”
Bullshit. Long term organic production carried out at UC Davis showed the opposite to be true.
“as well as increased population by then, how much land is left for biomass fuels? - squishypoop”
Biomass uses the WASTE from all of that fool your ridiculous bafoon.
“Even the high yield growths are only several hundred gallons an acre, so maybe 5-10 barrels an acre - squishypoop”
Yeah, and then there’s land fills which produce methane. There’s straw and grass that is currently BURNED as waste. There’s sewage and cattle and farm manure - all of which can be converted to bio-fuels.
“getting it from algea could result in horrible effects for the ocean - squishypoop”
How about see grass, and kelp and any number of other naturally occurring sea forests? There are lots of kelp forests that can be harvested ecologically, but aren’t because there’s not enough demand for the products.
“and would need years of research before going to any large scale use - squishypoop”
Already done, thanks to brazil, denmark, germany, japan and lots of other countries that have pioneered and solved most of the issues already.
“so the highest yeild biomass isn’t viable yet. There are serious technological issues that exist, that are then hampered even more by the political issues that wrap around them. squishypoop”
Nonsense. Your ignorance of the technology - doesn’t mean anything other than you’re ignorant.
“You seem to feel the two, political and technical, are seperate issues, however they are completly intertwinned. Comment by squishypoop”
Only in that politicians interfere with the technological progress. The government subsidizes oil through vast military and security projects internationally, as well as through subsidies to countries through kickbacks in other economic forms. Then there’s the straight out tax giveaways that they never seem to offer to bio companies. If they gave a zero tax rate to any company producing only green bio fuels - we’d see how long it would take to make this widespread.
Sorry, but as advocate for ’stay the course’, you’re as inept as brown was a FEMA. Learn something - you’re just posting misconception and preconceptions one after another that are just STUPID and WRONG.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:10 pmAnd squishypoop:
If you want to see where and how much wind potential the US has, look at this image
http://www.ucsusa.org/ assets/ images/ renewable_energy/ windmap.gif
And the US wind site here:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/ windandhydro/ windpoweringamerica/
There’s a SURPRISING amount of information available from the federal government that completely contradicts your ridiculous anecdotal stupid comments.
Go educate yourself, you sound like a moron and a jackass again today.
For as much as the government isn’t doing - it’s actually providing a lot of information about the ‘potential’ of renewables:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/
http://www.nrel.gov/
All of the things you post are 10+ year old critiques from stupid reichwing OIL sites that don’t know crap about anything. You really need to get better resources, or STFU so you don’t look so retarded.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:19 pmAnd Squishypoop, a study done by stanford university estimates that Global wind power potential is estimated to be ~72 TW (or ~54,000 Mtoe). As such, sufficient wind exists to supply all the world’s energy needs (i.e., 6995-10177 Mtoe).
And we aren’t even talking about the potential of biomass from BIOWASTE or Solar, or Wave energy or any other option.
As I said, we’re not talking about a technology or even a feasibility issue - we’re talking about a 100% political issue at this point.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:22 pmAnd from the federal NREL site comes the following information:
http://www.nrel.gov/wind/wind_potential.html
This is from 1993 - you know when Democrats controlled things and actually cared about scientific and economic progress for the country, as opposed to economic benefits for Exxon and Halliburton:
And guess what, those technologies not only have been deployed, but they’ve been better than expected in efficiency.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:25 pmRyan,
In one of our nearby cities we have a landfill that is now producing enough methane for a company by the name of Energy Systems Group Inc. to sign a contract to use it in the production of energy. They are also going to pipe some methane to several businesses to be used in place of natural gas.
The neat thing is, the landfill was originally designed for this purpose. The landfill is expected to produce methane for at least the next 25 years, and the company will be giving the city an up-front payment of $200,000 soon, with another payment of $100,000 once production ramps up.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:27 pmWC,
That’s great to hear, and it’s exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. The government could readily facility this through loans and other programs that could be repayed by industry or federal power companies. It doesn’t need to be a hand out like we give to big oil, and in the end all americans would benefit, instead of just a few stock holders.
At this point it’s all political, and anti-capitalistic, because the government UNFAIRLY and UNCAPITALISTICALLY subsidizes big oil and just big oil. It’s a rigged game, and that’s no a competitive market. If we’re going to subsidize oil, we should also subsidize the alternative energy sources. And we’re much more likely to get something of value in return and not just $3 gas and stupid SUVs that only get single digit MPGs.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:38 pmRyan
Well, I got nothing left, except I’m not an advocate for stay the course, I just think were FUBAR once oil runs out.
Thanks for the informative session.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:45 pmWe’ve also got the technology to convert diesel engines to run on vegetable oil; a local retired engineer purchased a conversion kit for about $1200 to do this, and a local restaurant gives him their used oil at no charge.
There are also other technologies that are being introduced that, while not major breakthroughs, are notable in the quest for better efficiency from today’s automobiles.
5-, 6-, and 7-speed automatic transmissions are being introduced to increase gas mileage; gasoline engines utilizing direct injection of the gas into the cylinders, which reduces gas usage while providing more power, are being introduced (GM has one in the Pontiac Solstice GXP and Saturn Sky Redline).
Honda, GM, and Chrysler have 6 and 8 cylinder engines that can run on 3 or 4 cylinders, respectively, under light engine loads; while the benefit of hybrids are still being debated…many drivers are seeing mileage way below the EPA estimates — there are several explanations for this, such as driving habits and EPA testing standards not suited to hybrid engines…one benefit is that the engines shut down automatically when the vehicle comes to a stop, saving gas and reducing pollution. And let’s not forget the capability of some cars to run on E85, composed of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline…a feature that will find its way into more autos in the future.
I’ve also read of development of compression-ignition gasoline engines, which are supposed to combine the high mileage of diesels with the low pollution (relatively speaking) of gasoline engines.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:47 pm“Well, I got nothing left, except I’m not an advocate for stay the course, I just think were FUBAR once oil runs out. Thanks for the informative session. Comment by squishypoop”
That’s what you get for thinking. We’re FUBAR’d if we continue to use oil until it runs out. The problem isn’t that oil is going to run out, but that the exercise of using it up will destroy us ecologically. Short sighted dipwads like yourself who don’t know you’re peeing in your own cornflakes are in the process of destroying the world’s ecosystem - and all you worry about is how expensive oil is going to get. You’re a fool, and a jackass. If you actually care about this country, this planet, and our survival you’ll educate yourself and realize that the reichwing is a poison wound on the soul of this country. And it’s going to fester the whole world into an early grave if it isn’t cured.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:49 pmThe largest potential source of energy is frozen methane, both at the poles and beneath the ocean. This methane is being released as the poles melt, and a temperature rise in the ranges as that predicted for the next 100 years will cause this methane to “burp” from its current locations, worsening the effects of global warming. It’s been posited that a similar occurence was the reason for mass extinctions in Earth’s distant past, when oxygen fell to levels which could no longer support life. If we don’t find a way to use it, it is going to be a major problem in the near future. Hear anything from the Bush admin. about this? [chirping crickets]
April 12th, 2006 at 5:49 pmWC,
Biodiesel is a good choice to reduce waste. It’s hard to scale that without something like Hemp seeds as the oil source (most other plants aren’t productive enough in their oil production). But it’s a great choice for some percentage of the population. It’s one more brick in the wall.
And your points coincide with my complaints that the government doesn’t force car companies to produce better mileage in their autos.
There are also solutions like Brazil where the cars are built with small computers that can handle flex fuels efficiently. You can fill up with Gasoline, Ethanol or any percent combination of the two and the fuel mix is automatically adjusted as the car runs by this computer. Ford and GM sell their cars with these systems in Brazil because they HAVE TO - yet they don’t deliver them here for the most part. It’s just absolutely ridiculous!
Brazil has shown that the government must make the car and power companies act responsibly, or they won’t.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:59 pmThe CIA/DIA white paper that purported to conclude the trailers were for biological WMD culture was a lie. Not a mistake, not a misinterpretation of the informaiton, a lie.
see this:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0129-03.htm
Whether or not Bush ever saw the suppressed report he was telling a lie - and somebody high inthe administration had to know it was a lie.
April 12th, 2006 at 6:00 pmdano,
The problem is if we use that frozen methane, the resulting CO2 becomes greenhouse gas. It MUST remain fossilized if we ever want to preserve our environment. Otherwise here comes the next great mass extinction.
April 12th, 2006 at 6:02 pmRyan “all you worry about is how expensive oil is going to get.”
I could care less about how expensive oil gets, I make more than enough to fill my tank, my concern is the world economy crashing once the oil its based on is gone. Something you have explained very well as being quite possible to deal with, assuming the politicians do whats in our best interests, not theirs.
However, you really should try just disagreeing with your political opponents, as opposed to hating them. People who believe in their own righteousness have gone on to do horrible things.
April 12th, 2006 at 6:56 pm“I could care less about how expensive oil gets, I make more than enough to fill my tank, my concern is the world economy crashing once the oil its based on is gone. squishypoop”
You sound like all of the people who worried about buggie makers getting put out of work by automobiles. And the economy runs on ENERGY, not oil. We can readily tweak the system to not run on oil if we have the political will to do so.
“Something you have explained very well as being quite possible to deal with, assuming the politicians do whats in our best interests, not theirs. squishypoop”
I accept your admission that you were wrong - too bad you didn’t have the guts to declare it more clearly.
“However, you really should try just disagreeing with your political opponents, as opposed to hating them. People who believe in their own righteousness have gone on to do horrible things. Comment by squishypoop”
MORONS like yourself of the ‘politically correct’ school of politics think that an ignorant opinion carries the same weight as an educated one. It’s the ‘politically correct’ warfare of the reichwing that thinks any story that doesn’t carry their ridiculous ‘opinions’ is ’slanted’ no matter how WRONG or STUPID they are.
I don’t hate you, I think you’re an IDIOT, there’s a difference. And for someone who acts so self righteous (you) based on IGNORANCE - you’re in no place to lecture others. You and MORONS like yourself with ‘different opinions’ are about to destroy the world (A VERY HORRIBLE THING) because of your self righteous, pompous and STUPID ideas.
Too bad you don’t take your own advice, the world would be a better place if reichwingers did.
April 12th, 2006 at 7:39 pm89
MORONS like yourself of the ‘politically correct’ school of politics think that an ignorant opinion carries the same weight as an educated one.
In a democracy it does though.
April 12th, 2006 at 10:05 pm“I accept your admission that you were wrong - too bad you didn’t have the guts to declare it more clearly.”
My concern is about a future event, we’ll find out if I’m wrong when it happens, or fails to happen due to a smooth transition to alternative energy/fuel sources.
“And the economy runs on ENERGY, not oil. ”
April 12th, 2006 at 11:00 pmRight, just like saying the economy runs on money, not american dollars. While technically correct, you remove the second half, and the economy still fails, regardless of the higherlevel value such as energy, or money, that the second value represents.
Do you try to be so intellectually dishonest, or does it just flow naturally for you?
#85
From http://www.e85fuel.com I count 50 cars from model years 1998-2006 that are E85 compatible. This includes the “Big 3″ (or Big 2 if you don’t count Chrysler as an American company…some still do, including one of our local car dealers, but that’s another story).
It’s a shame that Big Oil has so much control over the auto industry. That’s why we don’t have any meaningful increase in the CAFE standards, which relates to what you were saying and would lead to an increased effort in developing more efficient vehicles. But that would mean less gas purchased and used, and thus less profit. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, I think that’s why we haven’t seen any really serious effort at designing and building hybrids by our American companies. Yeah, Ford has the hybrid Escape (and Mercury Mariner, I think, which is a twin of the Ford), but DaimlerChrysler currently has none. GM, of all vehicles, has what they call a “mild hybrid” full-size Silverado pickup (and GMC Sierra), although despite a claim of a 10-12% increase in fuel economy, from what I’ve read the hybrid system works best as a mobile generator (there are electrical outlets in the bed of the truck) and to smooth transmission shifting.
Saturn is preparing the so-called “Green Line” line of hybrids for sale later this year, using a simplified electric motor/generator in place of a conventional alternator, which is supposed to cost several thousand dollars less than a hybrid from competitors. In the meantime, Honda introduced the first publicly available hybrid way back in 2000. Oh, wait…Japan does not have big oil companies to stifle research into higher mileage autos.
April 12th, 2006 at 11:36 pmHey, If Iran can go from their first blob of enriched uranium to having a nuclear bomb in just 16 days, just think what we could do about renewable energy if we really put our minds to it! Don’t be such “Negative Nan’s”, okay? That’s better! ;)
April 12th, 2006 at 11:40 pm“My concern is about a future event, we’ll find out if I’m wrong when it happens, or fails to happen due to a smooth transition to alternative energy/fuel sources. squishypoop”
That wasn’t what you claimed, and why you were wrong. You claimed that it wasn’t possible to do this from alternative energy resources - I showed you were an IDIOT and WRONG - but like most reichwing IDIOT TROLLS you won’t admit you were wrong. It’s what I expect from losers like you - but nonetheless your RIDICULOUS CLAIMS were wrong. I never claimed that we could transition smoothly without political will, in fact that was MY ARGUMENT - thank you for also admitting I was right with that. You trying to CLAIM that as your argument is typical of the STUPID way you argue, and the PSYCHOTIC way you approach problems.
You’re and IDIOT AND A FOOL.
“Right, just like saying the economy runs on money, not american dollars. While technically correct, you remove the second half, and the economy still fails, regardless of the higherlevel value such as energy, or money, that the second value represents.
Do you try to be so intellectually dishonest, or does it just flow naturally for you?
Comment by squishypoop”
But that’s EXACTLY what happened last century. The country used to run on GOLD, and it was replaced by DOLLARS, and guess what, the country kept on running. WOW YOU’RE STUPID!
April 13th, 2006 at 1:55 amIn a democracy it does though.
Comment by Tundra — April 12, 2006 @ 10:05 pm
But we’re a Republic and not a true Democracy.
April 13th, 2006 at 7:33 am“You claimed that it wasn’t possible to do this from alternative energy resources ”
Name one modern nation that dosn’t use any natural oil. Once you can, then we will know if its possible or not. Until then it’s all theory that has yet to be tested. All of these technologies still lay ontop of a ground work of oil.
#95 Wow, way to take a conservative talking point to your own advantage, well played.
April 13th, 2006 at 8:17 amFor #33: the bushies have put out so much faulty info. for example, the drones, the bio labs, the chemical weapons, the nuclear weapons, the cost of the war, who will pay for it, the strenghth of the resistance, the civil war and the jessica lynch rescue to name a few. the list keeps growing. at some point one must ask “…are these deliberate lies or honest mistakes?”
April 13th, 2006 at 9:34 am#95 Wow, way to take a conservative talking point to your own advantage, well played.
Comment by squegeeboo — April 13, 2006 @ 8:17 am
I was just stating a fact. :)
April 13th, 2006 at 9:37 am[…] Yesterday the Washington Post revealed that a Pentagon field report transmitted to Washington on May 27, 2003 stated that trailers found in Iraq “had nothing to do with biological weapons.†Nevertheless, top administration officials continued to claim for months that the trailers were evidence that weapons of mass destruction had been found. […]
April 13th, 2006 at 10:34 am[…] Think Progress Click to enlarge photo Yesterday the Washington Post revealed that a Pentagon field report transmitted to Washington on May 27, 2003 stated that trailers found in Iraq “had nothing to do with biological weapons.†Nevertheless, top administration officials continued to claim for months that the trailers were evidence that weapons of mass destruction had been found. […]
April 13th, 2006 at 10:59 am#88 Wow, you would actually say that you don’t care how expensive oil is, you have enough. That is why you aren’t a christian or even a good person. You are really selfish and greedy. You only worry about yourself and what others may get with your tax dollars.
I find you deplorable and it makes me very sad. So before you spout about anger, I am not, I am upset by your admission. Jesus would be very ashamed at what you have become. Jesus doesn’t value your wealth, he values your sole, of which you are selling.
Humble yourself and try to care about your fellow humans. If our nation becomes even half as selfish as you, we are in trouble. You are why I have a job though. Sad indeed.
April 13th, 2006 at 1:20 pmKELP
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page?and have to say thanks. nice read?
March 18th, 2008 at 5:46 pmLoss Secret Super Weight
‘%KEYWORD%’ and more about weight loss
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:18 pmJessie
Great post. I have added you to my digg bookmark
March 23rd, 2008 at 3:58 amJack
Wow, nice blog.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:32 amkit car for sale
Many diesel powered cars can also run with little or no modifications on 100% biodiesel. Although various pistonless rotary engine designs
April 1st, 2008 at 3:04 amSherri Myers
The Citroen DS article offers a pictorial illustration of US-model vs. Banks are thus compensator’s of money flows in space. One of
April 4th, 2008 at 1:13 amWeight Loss Low Carbohydrate Diet The Zone Diet
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 6:35 pmIesha
A friend is someone who sees through you and still enjoys the view.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:36 amlist of weight loss products
This is similar to comment spam but avoids some of the safeguards designed to stop the latter practice. Six Apart started a working
April 9th, 2008 at 9:16 amValentin
You always have a choice, even if it is only a choice of your attitude.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:22 pm