Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Indigo5
Originally posted by Indigo5
You mean they could have lied?
Why is it you so easily assume they aren't lying now to uphold the leases? 
You can lead a horse to water....
*sigh*edit on 6-10-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)
Because denying the leases would have been the politically expediant and advantageous thing to do.
It would have avoided OPs just like this. It would have pandered to the Democrats base during an election year.
They gain no support from the conservatives by affirming the lease.
Their was great disincentive to affirm the leases, but they were obligated to report back to the courts whether the envirornmental parameters set out
by the court were met, and they did just that. They didn't sell the leases, Bush did, they just FOLLOWED THE LAW.
ZERO motivation to lie in affirming that the leases met the envirornmental parameters.
TONS of motivation to fudge the numbers and deny the leases.
They chose to be honest and follow the law rather than lie for political advantage...and the possibility that it was simply an honest accounting is a
big empty black hole in your logic. Does not compute.
I can point out logic until I am blue in the face...but an ideologue doesn't "think", they just eat what they are fed. Their ideology is part of their
self-perception, and if logic challenges a claim, they see it as a personal challenge to "who they are" and their "belief system" and defend the
contorted of failed logic as if it represents "them" and their "belief system", rather than a topic.
Give it a try...respond with a logical answer rather than an emotional or personal one. I have made a plain and logical case above.
edit on 7-10-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
