knows about the fraudulent information that was presented to persuade Congress to vote for that.
I would like to point out that Edwards was by no means the only senator to vote for Yucca Mountain. The bill passed by 60-39. A lot of smart people were fooled by the lies promulgated on that bill.
Edwards' attack on the D.C. culture is based on his disillusionment about what happened to him in the Senate. The Yucca Mountain votes were based on lies that said the Yucca mountain site was safe. The IWR was based on the lies that there was strong evidence of WMDs in Iraq. This is why Edwards is attacking the influence of the mega-corporations in D.C. Congress relies on the information that in fact comes from these guys. That is why Edwards will not take the corporate money. He made good points about the funding that Obama and Hillary take from the corporations.
It was interesting how Hillary pointed to the fact that Obama takes money from a major proponent of nuclear energy. She was silent of course about the money she takes from oil and gas, the pharmaceuticals and insurers. So, if Obama is tainted by the money he accepts from the nuclear proponents, doesn't by extension that suggest that Hillary is tainted by the money she takes from the other special interests? Edwards is the only one walking the walk on this fundamental issue. And much of his fervor on this is due to the cheating and lying that influenced important votes while he served in the Senate. Another example is the vote for the Medicare presription drugs bill.
Here is some information on the Yucca vote:
With a Senate vote on July 9, Congress has now played its role in the approval of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the nation's central nuclear waste repository. The Senate vote of 60-39, coupled with a House vote on May 8, effectively overrides the Nevada Governor's veto of the project, enabling the Department of Energy to submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (see FYIs #51 and #63). Forty-five Republicans and 15 Democrats voted in support of the project. Only three Republicans, John Ensign (NV), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (CO), and Lincoln Chafee (RI), as well as Independent James Jeffords (VT), voted against it.
The Senate devoted four hours of debate to this issue. A number of Senators expressed concerns over the validity of the science supporting the Yucca Mountain site, and over the safety of transporting spent nuclear fuel to Nevada. Many, however, felt it was preferable to consolidate much of the nation's waste at one location than let it continue to accumulate at current rates at temporary storage sites around the country, or be moved to other locations without a coordinated transportation plan. Supporters emphasized that congressional override of the Nevada veto does not give the go-ahead for construction at Yucca Mountain, but only allows DOE to submit an application for a site approval license. The NRC can then take up to four years to examine the supporting documents and consider the suitability of the site before making a decision on issuing a license. Selected excerpts from the debate are provided below:
JEFF BINGAMAN (D-NM): "The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which I chair...carefully considered the arguments against the repository that have been raised by opponents of the project. I am the first to admit that not all of the questions that have been raised by the opponents have yet been adequately answered. They have not been. Many of those are questions, though, that are best answered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its licensing procedures and nothing in the record before us justifies a decision, in my view, to terminate the program at this stage."
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2002/081.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
