by Libby Spencer on Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 8:15 PM
http://info.detnews.com/redesign/blogs/politicsblog/index.cfm?blogid=12858For me, a person who lies by implication is the worst kind of liar because they use a germ of truth to cover their culpability with the deliberate intention to deceive. But in deference to my critics who insist on literal definitions, I'm going to adopt the Anchorage Daily News language and call this stretching the truth, almost beyond recognition. From Palin's acceptance speech:
PALIN
: "I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence. That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.
THE FACTS: Palin implies that construction has begun on a major natural gas pipeline from the top of Alaska into Canada. That is not correct.
In fact, no building has begun and actual construction is years away, if it ever happens. This summer the Alaska Legislature, at Palin's request, passed a bill under which the state will issue a "license" to a Canadian energy company, TransCanada Corp., and pay it up to $500 million as an incentive to someday build this enormous project, which Alaska politicians have long sought with little success. The license is not a construction contract, and federal energy regulators have not yet approved the project.
I'm focusing on this issue specifically, because we had a rousing debate in the comment section on a earlier post of mine on the same subject. I would also note her careful language about our dependence on dangerous foreign powers because the pipeline that Palin's agreement has locked Alaska into would in fact run this line through Canada, so our energy supply is still controlled by a foreign country, just not a dangerous one. Not exactly the same as having sole control over the delivery. If Canada got mad at us, they could cut off the supply.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
