Del. Joe Bouchard was Commanding Officer of the destroyer USS Oldendorf, had two Pentagon tours as a strategic and operational planner and served on the staff of the National Security Council at the White House for three years. From February 2000 to January 2003, Captain Bouchard was Commanding Officer at the Naval Station in Norfolk. Here he is, speaking out against offshore drilling not for environmental reasons (although those are strong as well), but for national security reasons. Back in December 2007, Bouchard spoke out about global warming, arguing that climate change posed a "serious threat to U.S. national security" and a "threat multiplier." Do we need any other reasons to take action against this threat, and to stop talking about non-solutions that will only hurt the situation, like offshore drilling? (hint: the answer is no!) Thanks to Joe Bouchard for showing leadership in this area, unlike some of our other...er, "leaders."
The Impact of Offshore Drilling on the Virginia Capes Operating AreaFloor Speech on HB 6006
Delegate Joe Bouchard
July 9, 2008
Mr. Speaker,
The United States is at war...
I spent most of my adult life on storm-tossed warships patrolling the hostile seas off the coasts of our adversaries. Before we sailed in harm's way, we conducted intensive combat training in training ranges off the coast of the United States. Those training ranges are instrumented for accurate assessment of combat readiness, and clearly marked on navigation charts to prevent civilian vessels and aircraft from being endangered by Navy training.
One of those critically important training ranges is located off the coast of Virginia. It is called the Virginia Capes Operating Area and is being used every day to sharpen the combat skills of US forces fighting the war on terror.
The Virginia Capes Operating Area is threatened. Ironically, it is not threatened by our terrorist enemies, it is threatened by our search for transportation revenue. The bill before us would earmark royalties from oil and gas drilling off the Coast of Virginia for the Transportation Trust Fund. But those revenues come with severe consequences for the Navy and Air Force units based in Virginia whose combat readiness depends on unencumbered use of the Virginia Capes Operating Area.
Virginia's offshore oil and gas drilling area cuts through the heart of the Virginia Capes Operating Area. Almost all of the offshore area allocated to Virginia by the Federal Government lies within the Virginia Capes Operating Area. 72% of the larger area desired by Virginia lies within the Virginia Capes Operating Area. Clearly, Virginia cannot gain significant royalties from offshore oil and gas without extensive drilling in the Virginia Capes Operating Area.
The Navy has stated clearly and unequivocally that drilling for oil and gas in the Virginia Capes Operating Area is incompatible with the combat training conducted there. The Navy, Air Force and Department of Defense consistently have opposed opening offshore training ranges for oil and gas drilling. We need to take heed of their opposition to drilling in the Virginia Capes Operating Area.
We have many other revenues sources from which to finance transportation. We do not need to endanger US combat forces to solve our transportation problems. I ask all of my esteemed colleagues to stand by our men and women in uniform and vote against this bill.
Eileen: More poop... 16-18 at 1:23am this morning, that sucker died! Patriotism wins! Greed loses.JR: Rational-behavior loses, head-in-the-sand, anti-American enviornmentalistism wins.
Eileen: Then please explain to me Delegate Joe Bouchard's floor speech and how you then consider this to be "head-in-the-sand, anti-American enviornmentalistism"?
Brian Kirwin: Who?
JR: I echo Brian's sentiment, but not for the same reason. In Bouchard's statment, he says that the military opposes drilling...but who? Second Fleet? Fleet Forces Command? CNO? Secretary of the Navy? Who? Who is on record opposing it? I have seen no such opposition voiced.
Concern that the military should be consulted, perhaps. But opposition? That would be a huge step for an organization that prides itself on its taking orders from civilians, saluting smartly, and carrying-on, all the while not taking sides in political debates.
What a cowardly attempt to spin away this smackdown point on why offshore drilling is wrong for Virginia. Hoeft has a lot of nerve!
So Captain Bouchard must have made this up, according to Not-Captain Hoeft, with no source or attribution whatsoever. And all in the name of "saluting smartly" and "not taking sides in political debates," while posting on a Republican blog. Hard to begin to fathom the contradictions. Maybe Hoeft should just salute smartly and shut up.
PS: Why do we never hear anything about the drilling already underway in the Dakotas in the Bakken shield, which supposedly will provide us with 40 billion barrels of crude, or more, a lot sooner than anything drilled off our coasts?
Jokes aside, is there any type of offshore drilling that is acceptable? What about for natural gas? Some might argue that if we become energy dependent (oil included) we wouldn't need such a large military.
If it weren't for our dependence on foreign oil, we wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq the first time. We wouldn't have a base in Turkey. I would guess that 9/11 attacks would not have happened (since our foreign policy emboldens terrorists) and as such the second invasion of Iraq would not of occured.
Anyways, as much as I like Al Gore I think we need to continue to drill for oil, even offshore when it makes sense, - while at the same time investing heavily in alternative energy. We aren't out of the woods yet, and we probably won't be out of the woods for another 20 years. Countries don't reverse 100 years of history over night. There is no way we will be dependent of oil for transportation any time soon.
I want us to be innovative and smart, but at the same time we've got to be practical.
If the price of oil/gas rises much more, it will spell disaster for our economy. I'm not sure where each threshold lies - ie at what price point will the national desire to transition to alternative enery subside and at what price point will our economy collapse.
I feel we are getting dangerously close to an economic collapse. I can tell you that if/when this occurs, the environment takes a back seat to basic survival. I think it is in everyone's interest that this not occur.
Developing viable alternatives is better for us economically and environmentally in the long term - no doubt about it. I don't disagree with you there.
BUT you can't have a plan that won't mitigate short term pain. We can't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Perhaps an alternative to drilling would be to put some of the oil in our reserves on the market. Of course, we won't be able to refine it into gasoline.
I see your argument as, using addiction to drugs as an example, putting a heroin addict into a padded cell and letting him suffer from withdrawal symptoms - which in many cases kills the person.
The solution I support would by administering a drug that counteracts the heroine, allowing the addict to withdraw without so much pain. He'll keep using but his use will decrease until at some point he is clean.
This is a nuanced issue, and I don't see nuanced arguments. I see two extremes. One extreme says "stop the flow of oil and prevent future development" and the other extreme says "every town should have their own oil pump".
Just to reiterate, I agree with you long term. I think doing what Al Gore proposes would harm our economy short term, and is not very realistic.
I think this entire debate should be framed on a timeline. Not only should you describe what your plan is, but also describe when key events will occur and at what levels.
This isn't a simple issue that can be solved with Bush-like thinking - and that goes for both sides. This is perhaps one of the most complicated issues to ever face our country.
I agree.
Be realistic. The people "leading" this country - on both sides - have their own addiction and that is to campaign contributions from the rich and connected. In short, the national security and environmental imperatives take back seat to what big business wants.
This Congress has no chance of solving the problem. They have been unable to solve the trade deficit, budget deficit, immigration, health insurance, education, wars, and just about any crises that our country faces. How on Earth does anyone expect this Congress with a 9% approval rating to solve this issue?
Before we solve any of these issues, we have to solve the core issue. That is big money in politics and ethics reforms. Until that day, dream on. Our government is broken and until it is fixed, nothing changes.
Unfortunately, these guys are outnumbered big-time. The Senate has it the worst.
Let's see...
John Kerry
John Edwards
John F Kennedy
Jim Webb
aka
James Webb
Jon Tester
John McSam...doh that breaks my theory.
I'm preparing for a trip to Japan for two weeks. I catch up when I get back...have a good one RK bloggers.