New York Sen. Chuck Schumer last month:
"Oil price goes through the roof and what does the president do? He takes out the old saw of ANWR," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), speaking at a rebuttal press conference. "ANWR wouldn't produce a drop of oil in 10 years, and it's estimated that if they drilled in ANWR, in 20 years it would reduce the price one penny. And that's the president's answer to the oil crisis."
Schumer last week:
A group of Democratic Senators Tuesday threatened to block a multi-million dollar US arms deal with Saudi Arabia, unless the kingdom ups oil production and helps cut soaring gasoline prices.
The senators introduced a resolution of disapproval on the arms sale, as President George W. Bush prepared to head for Saudi Arabia, partly on a mission to contain runaway oil prices.
"We are saying to the Saudis that, if you don't help us, why should we be helping you?" said New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer.
"We are saying that we need real relief, and we need it quickly. You need our arms, but we need you to cooperate and not strangle American consumers."
The resolution, expected to be fast-tracked to the senate floor, would prohibit the mammoth arms sale unless Saudi Arabia agrees to increase oil production by one million barrels per day.
Schumer, speaking as the price of a barrel of crude oil hit a record 126.98 dollars, said the extra Saudi oil could bring down the price of a gallon of gasoline at the pump by 50 to 75 cents.
It's difficult to reconcile these two statements. Is Saudi oil just more naturally potent than U.S. oil? Is it imbued with the power of the Magical Unicorn?
Schumer says that inferior ANWR oil would only drop oil prices by one cent in 20 years ... is he suggesting that the U.S. economy is going to go so far in the tank that in 20 years what is worth 50-75 cents today will only be worth 1 cent in 2028?
Is that a threat or a promise?
Schumer was either lying then, or he's lying now. I'm curious to know which one is right.
(via American Thinker)