Elections & Politics Scenarios

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Page 1 of 53
Brovero/Lundeen/Moczulski Elections & Politics Scenarios
Elections & Politics Scenarios

Elections & Politics Scenarios...............................................................................................................................................................1
Political Who’s Who..............................................................................................................................................................................2
Political Who’s Who..............................................................................................................................................................................4
********** Obama Good **********................................................................................................................................................5
Obama Good 1NC – Foreign Policy......................................................................................................................................................6
Obama Good Impact – Soft Power........................................................................................................................................................9
Obama Good Impact – Soft Power......................................................................................................................................................10
Obama Good Impact – Soft Power......................................................................................................................................................11
McCain Bad Impact – Iran Attack Bad................................................................................................................................................12
McCain Bad Impact – Iran Attack Bad................................................................................................................................................13
Obama Good Impact – Iran Diplomacy...............................................................................................................................................14
********** Bush Bad **********....................................................................................................................................................15
Bush Bad 1NC – Drilling Bad.............................................................................................................................................................16
Uniqueness – Bush Pushing Drilling Now...........................................................................................................................................19
Uniqueness – Bush Pushing ANWR Drilling Now..............................................................................................................................20
Drilling Bad – Environment.................................................................................................................................................................21
Drilling Bad – Hurts the Environment.................................................................................................................................................22
Oil Spills Hurt Species ........................................................................................................................................................................23
Drilling Bad – AT – Drilling Reduces Oil Prices.................................................................................................................................24
ANWR Drilling Bad – Ecosystem.......................................................................................................................................................25
ANWR Drilling Bad – Ecosystem.......................................................................................................................................................26
ANWR Drilling Bad – Oil Spills.........................................................................................................................................................27
ANWR Drilling Bad – Native Alaskans .............................................................................................................................................28
ANWR Drilling Bad – AT – Energy/Oil..............................................................................................................................................29
********** Obama Bad **********.................................................................................................................................................32
Obama Bad 1NC – Obama Foreign Policy Bad...................................................................................................................................33
Obama Bad Impact – Foreign Policy...................................................................................................................................................37
Obama Bad Impact – Energy Security.................................................................................................................................................38
********** Bush Good **********..................................................................................................................................................39
Bush Good – India Deal Good 1NC....................................................................................................................................................40
Bush Good – India Deal Good 1NC....................................................................................................................................................41
India Deal Uniqueness – Bush Spending Political Capital on India Deal Now...................................................................................42
India Deal Internal Link – Internal Link – Political Capital Key........................................................................................................43
India Deal Internal Link – AT – Congressional Approval Irrelevant...................................................................................................44
India Deal Uniqueness – AT – Nuclear Suppliers Group Will Block Deal Now.................................................................................45
India Deal Uniqueness – AT – Indian Left Will Block Deal Now.......................................................................................................46
India Deal Uniqueness – AT – IAEA Will Block Deal........................................................................................................................47
India Deal Good – Indian Energy Security..........................................................................................................................................48
India Deal Good – Nuclear Cooperation..............................................................................................................................................49
India Deal Good – Collapse of Deal Destroys Relations.....................................................................................................................50
India Deal Good – Collapse of Deal Destroys Relations.....................................................................................................................51
India Relations Good – India-Pakistan War.........................................................................................................................................52
Impact – India Pakistan War................................................................................................................................................................53
Political Who’s Who
National Profile
Democrats
Sen. Barack Obama D-IL Democratic nominee for President
D- Democratic nominee for Vice President
Sen. Hillary Clinton D-NY Former Democratic candidate for President, former First Lady
Bill Clinton D-NY Former President
John Edwards D-NC Former Democratic nominee for Vice President (2004), former Senator
Sen. Charles Schumer D-NY Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair
Sen. Bob Menendez D-NJ Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Vice Chair
Sen. Amy Klobuchar D-MN Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Outreach & Policy Chair
Rep. Chris Van Hollen D-MD Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair
Republicans
Sen. John McCain R-AZ Republican nominee for President
R- Republican nominee for Vice President
Pres. George W. Bush R-TX President
Vice Pres. Richard Cheney R-WY Vice President, President of the Senate
Sen. John Ensign R-NV National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair
Rep. Tom Cole R-OK National Republican Congressional Committee Chair
Senate
Leadership
Sen. Harry Reid D-NV Senate Majority Leader
Sen. Richard Durbin D-IL Senate Majority Whip
Sen. Mitch McConnell R-KY Senate Minority Leader
Sen. John Kyl R-AZ Senate Minority Whip
Senate Committees Chair Ranking Member

Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry Sen. Tom Harkin D-IA Sen. Saxby Chambliss R-GA
Appropriations Sen. Robert Byrd D-WV Sen. Thad Cochran R-MS
Armed Services Sen. Carl Levin D-MI Sen. John McCain R-AZ
Budget Sen. Kent Conrad D-ND Sen. Judd Gregg R-NH
Commerce, Science, & Transportation Sen. Daniel Inouye D-HI Sen. Ted Stevens R-AK
Energy & Natural Resources Sen. Jeff Bingaman D-NM Sen. Pete Domenici R-NM
Environment & Public Works Sen. Barbara Boxer D-CA Sen. James Inhofe R-OK
Foreign Relations Sen. Joe Biden D-DE Sen. Richard Lugar R-
IN
Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Sen. Joe Lieberman I-CT Sen. Susan Collins R-
ME
Indian Affairs Sen. Byron Dorgan D-ND Sen. Lisa Murkowski R-AK
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Sen. John Kerry D-MA Sen. Olympia Snowe R-
ME
Political Who’s Who
House
Leadership
Rep. Nancy Pelosi D-CA Speaker of the House
Rep. Steny Hoyer D-MD House Majority Leader
Rep. James Clyburn D-SC House Majority Whip
Rep. John Boehner R-OH House Minority Leader
Rep. Roy Blunt R-MO House Minority Whip
House Committees Chair Ranking Member

Agriculture Rep. Collin C. Peterson D-MN Rep. Bob Goodlatte R-VA
Appropriations Rep. David Obey D-WI Rep. Jerry Lewis R-CA
Armed Services Rep. Ike Skelton D-MO Rep. Duncan Hunter R-CA
Budget Rep. John Spratt, Jr. D-SC Rep. Paul Ryan R-WI
Energy & Commerce Rep. John Dingell D-MI Rep. Joe Barton R-TX
Foreign Affairs Rep. Howard Berman D-CA Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen R-FL
Homeland Security Rep. Bennie Thompson D-MS Rep. Peter King R-NY
Natural Resources Rep. Nick Rahall, II D-WV Rep. Don Young R-AK
Science & Technology Rep. Bart Gordon D-TN Rep. Ralph Hall R-TX
Small Business Rep. Nydia Velazquez D-NY Rep. Steve Chabot R-OH
Transportation & Infrastructure Rep. James Oberstar D-MN Rep. John Mica R-FL
Select Committee on
Energy Independence & Global Warming Rep. Edward Markey D-MA Rep. James Sensenbrenner R-WI
Other
Ralph Nader Independent Independent candidate for President

Bob Barr L-GA Libertarian candidate for President, former Republican Representative
Wayne Allyn Root L-NV Libertarian candidate for Vice President
Cynthia McKinney G-GA Green Party candidate for President, former Democratic Representative
Rosa Clemente G-NY Green Party candidate for Vice President
Chuck Baldwin C-FL Constitution Party candidate for President
Darrell Castle C-TN Constitution Party candidate for Vice President
********** Obama Good **********

Obama Good 1NC – Foreign Policy

A. Obama will win now
CNN.com, 6-25-8
(McCain says being the underdog suits him, http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/25/campaign.wrap/index.html, accessed 6-
25-8)
A survey out Tuesday suggests that Sen. Barack Obama holds a double-digit lead over McCain among registered voters.
Obama leads McCain 49 percent to 37 percent in a head-to-head matchup, according to the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll.
But when third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are added to the list, Obama's lead over McCain extends to 15
percentage points, 48 percent to 33 percent.
The poll surveyed 1,115 registered voters and was conducted Thursday through Monday. It carries a margin of error of plus or
minus 3 percentage points.
The survey is the second in a matter of days to indicate McCain may face a sizable deficit as the general election campaign kicks
off. A Newsweek poll released four days ago showed the senator from Illinois with a 15-point lead.
According to a CNN analysis of five recent national surveys, Obama holds a lead of 8 percentage points over his presidential rival.
B. Link – Push for renewables in the face of energy crisis will look foolish, costing Democratic victory
in November
Kaminsky, Human Events contributor and conservative writer, 7-16-8
(Ross, “Republicans' Drilling Plus”, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27544, accessed 7-16-8)
Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid responded to President Bush's announcement in typical fashion, discussing everything but
the real issue. Reid argued for more “investment” in alternative energy and said the Senate would pass a bill shortly which goes
after "the greedy speculators". There was not a hint of movement by Reid toward supporting OCS drilling, and it shows the
political box he is in.
The Democrats receive an enormous amount of money from environmentalist organizations and Barack Obama's base is the far
left fringe of the Democratic Party, a point highlighted by this article about the netroots strange obsession with Obama’s vote on
the Foreign Service Intelligence Act. Reid, Obama, and Nancy Peolosi are caught between needing to pander to their financial base
versus addressing the issues important to the larger electoral base. For now, they're going with the former but that could change
once the checks clear, much as we’ve seen with Obama’s recent gut-wrenching swerve toward the political middle.
As John McCain said, it's interesting that the party of the "Yes, we can" candidate spends all their time saying "no, we can't" when
it comes to domestic oil production. And today, Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) called Reid a “scared chicken”.
The public is abandoning the Democrats on this issue. Recent polls show that voters have moved rapidly toward supporting OCS
drilling, with “support for energy exploration at its highest point this decade” and a full 50% now supporting drilling in ANWR.
Over the last few weeks, McCain has been steadily catching up with Obama in national polls, and Congressional job approval is at
an all-time low...reaching single digits in a Rasmussen poll. People know that Democrats control Congress. The inter-related issues
of oil prices and the economy have become the dominating issues for voters, with Iraq moving into third or fourth place (with
health care).
Senator McCain would be in a stronger position if he had been for drilling all along, or if he changed his headstrong opposition to
drilling in ANWR. Still, he can make a case that the entire Democratic Party is an impediment to getting fuel prices lower and that
the all but certain substantial dominance of the Democrats in the next Congress makes electing a Republican that much more
important.
The argument being made most frequently by the "just say no" crowd, is that allowing OCS drilling won't bring new oil to market
for many years, implying that it's therefore a waste of time. Reid also mentioned the already tired claim that oil companies already
have millions of acres under lease which aren't producing oil.
Whether a decade ago or now, it has always been true that exploration can't be done overnight. That is no reason not to begin. How
often do you hear any company say that they're not going to build a factory to produce something because it won't be done in a
week? Also, the idea that a long time to market means that there will not be any short term price impact shows a remarkable lack
of understanding of markets. If investors believed there was a massive new supply of oil coming, even if not for a few years,
they'll
[Card continues, no omissions]

[Card continued, no omissions]
be much less interested in investing in oil now. Furthermore, it would encourage the participation of evil "speculators" willing to
bet on the downside. (Of course, those traders will never receive the thanks that should be the other side of a coin blaming
speculators for all our troubles.)
The implication of the time to market argument is that alternative energy sources would be available on a large scale much sooner.
Those who favor drilling (whether or not we favor alternative energy as well) should point out that approval and construction of a
nuclear plant would take about as long as getting oil out of a new OCS location or ANWR and that the most recent large-scale
wind farm proposal contemplates at least 5 years to finish (and if you believe that project would finish on time, I have a bridge to
sell you.) Large-scale solar may eventually be economical, but right now it is still very expensive. So the only alternative energy
source even somewhat available on a large scale in the short term is ethanol, which is slowly but surely losing support even among
liberals as the world realizes that you can’t save the planet by burning our food. So when an environmentalist tells you that getting
oil out of ANWR or the OCS will take too long, ask them the all-important question: “Compared to what?”
As far as acreage under lease which isn't producing oil now, it defies logic to claim that oil companies are simply sitting on this
land. The companies have a limited number of years to develop production on leased land or lose the lease and the money they
spent on it. The process of getting to production involves of seismic and other scientific studies of the land, determining whether
production is actually feasible and economic, and then getting infrastructure in place after several years and millions of dollars
sunk into the project before getting the first drop out. A non-producing lease is not the same as an inactive one.
Americans notice the words of politicians much less than they notice the prices at the pump. At the end of the day, all the politics
will sound something like "Let's drill" from Republicans and "No way" from the Democrats. There’s nothing subtle about the
difference. The Democrats have a history of snatching defeat, especially Presidential, from the jaws of victory. Oil prices and a
modestly slowing economy are giving them this election season's razor issues with which they may yet again cut their own
electoral throats.
C. Impact – Obama victory key to US leadership
1. Obama victory will restore US soft power

Nye, Harvard professor and former Assistant Secretary of Defense, 6-12-8
(Joseph S., Jr., Huffington Post, “Barack Obama and Soft Power,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/barack-obama-and-
soft-pow_b_106717.html, accessed 7-17-8)
I have spent the past month lecturing in Oxford and traveling in Europe where Barack Obama could be elected in a landslide. I
suspect that this fascination with Obama is true in many parts of the world. In fact, as I have said before, it is difficult to think of
any single act that would do more to restore America's soft power than the election of Obama to the presidency.
Soft power is the ability to obtain the outcomes one wants through attraction rather than using the carrots and sticks of payment or
coercion. As I describe in my new book The Powers to Lead, in individuals soft power rests on the skills of emotional intelligence,
vision, and communication that Obama possesses in abundance. In nations, it rests upon culture (where it is attractive to others),
values (when they are applied without hypocrisy), and policies (when they are inclusive and seen as legitimate in the eyes of
others.)
Polls show that American soft power has declined quite dramatically in much of the world over the past eight years. Some say this
is structural, and resentment is the price we pay for being the biggest kid on the block. But it matters greatly whether the big kid is
seen as a friend or a bully. In much of the world we have been seen as a bully as a result of the Bush Administration policies.
2. Soft power is key to solve transnational crises, including warming, disease, terrorism, and organized
crime.
Nye, Harvard international relations professor & former Assistant Secretary of Defense, 4
(Joseph S, “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy”, Political Science Quarterly, vol. 119, no. 2, p. 264)
Because of its leading edge in the information revolution and its past investment in military power, the United States will likely
remain the world's single most powerful country well into the twenty-first century. French dreams of a multipolar mihtary world
are unlikely to be realized anytime soon, and the German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, has explicitly eschewed such a goal.
But not all the important types of power come out of the barrel of a gun. Hard power is relevant to getting the outcomes we
want on all three chessboards, but many of the transnational issues, such as climate change, the spread of infectious diseases,
international crime, and terrorism, cannot be resolved by military force alone. Representing the dark side of globalization,
these issues are inherently multilateral and require cooperation for their solution. Soft power is particularly important in
dealing with the issues that arise from the bottom chessboard of transnational relations. To describe such a world as an American
empire fails to capture the real nature of the foreign policy tasks that we face.
Obama Good Impact – Soft Power

Obama will restore US leadership – he will improve relations with many countries by transforming
America’s image
Sullivan, Washington Post foreign service writer, 6-5-8
(Ken, Washington Pos, “Overseas, Excitement Over Obama; In Presumptive Nominee, Many See Chance for New Direction and
New Attitude,” p. A10, lexis)
For much of the world, Sen. Barack Obama's victory in the Democratic primaries was a moment to admire the
United States at a time when the nation's image abroad has been seriously damaged.
From hundreds of supporters crowded around televisions in rural Kenya, Obama's ancestral homeland, to jubilant Britons
writing "WE DID IT!" on the Brits for Barack discussion board on Facebook, people celebrated what they called an
important racial and generational milestone for the United States.
"This is close to a miracle. I was certain that some things will not happen in my lifetime," said Sunila Patel, 62, a widow
encountered on the streets of New Delhi. "A black president of the U.S. will mean that there will be more American
tolerance for people around the world who are different."
The primary race generated unprecedented interest outside the United States, much of it a reflection of a desire for
change from the policies of President Bush, who surveys show is deeply unpopular around the globe. At the same
time, many people abroad seemed impressed -- sometimes even shocked -- by the wide-open nature of U.S.
democracy, and the history-making race between a woman and a black man. "The primaries showed that the U.S. is
actually the nation we had believed it to be, a place that is open-minded enough to have a woman or an African
American as its president," said Minoru Morita, a Tokyo political analyst.
While Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has admirers, especially from her days as first lady, interviews on four continents
suggested that Obama is the candidate who has most captured the world's imagination.
"Obama is the exciting image of what we always hoped America was," said Robin Niblett, director of Chatham
House, a British foreign policy institute. "We have immensely enjoyed the ride and can't wait for the next phase." The
presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, who has extensive overseas experience, is known and respected in
much of the world. Interviews suggested that McCain is more popular than Obama in countries such as Israel, where
McCain is particularly admired for his hard line against Iran."Although no one will admit it, Israeli leaders are worried
about Obama," said Eytan Gilboa, a political scientist at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. "The feeling is that this is the time to
be tough in foreign policy toward the Middle East, and he's going to be soft."
In China, leaders are widely believed to be wary that a Democratic administration might put up barriers to Chinese exports
to the United States.
But elsewhere, people were praising Obama, 46, whose emphasis on using the Internet helped make him better known in
more nations than perhaps any U.S. primary candidate in history.
In Kenya, Obama's victory was greeted with unvarnished glee. In Kisumu, close to the home of Obama's late father,
hundreds crowded around televisions Wednesday morning to watch Obama's victory speech, chanting "Obama tosha!" --
"Obama is enough!"
"I can't express the joy in me," declared Sarah Obama, the senator's grandmother, at her home. "I'm only praying for more
success in the coming days."
Sam Onyango, a water vendor in Kisumu, said that "Obama's victory means I might one day get to America and share the
dreams I have always heard about. He will open doors for us there in the spirit of African brotherhood."
Obama also has strong support in Europe, the heartland of anti-Bush sentiment. "Germany is Obama country,"
said Karsten Voight, the German government's coordinator for German-North American cooperation. "He seems to
strike a chord with average Germans," who see him as a transformational figure like John F. Kennedy or Martin
Luther King Jr.
His father's journey to America as an immigrant resonates with many foreigners who hope to make the same trip. Many
people interviewed said that although the candidate's living in Indonesia for several years as a child doesn't qualify as
foreign policy credentials, it may give him a more instinctive feel for the plight of the developing world.
"He's African, he's an immigrant family; he has a different style. It's just the way he looks -- he seems kind," said Nagy
Kayed, 30, a student at the American University in Cairo.
Card continues, no omissions

Card continued, no omissions
For many, Obama's skin color is deeply symbolic. As the son of an African and a white woman from Kansas, Obama has
the brownish "everyman" skin color shared by hundreds of millions of people. "He looks like Egyptians. You can walk in
the streets and find people who really look like him," said Manar el-Shorbagi, a specialist in U.S. political affairs at the
Cairo university.
In many nations, Obama's youth and color also represent a welcome generational and stylistic change for America.
"It could help to reduce anti-U.S. sentiment and even turn it around," said Kim Sung-ho, a political science
professor at Yonsei University in Seoul.
In terms of foreign policy, Obama's stated willingness to meet and talk with the leaders of Iran, Syria and other
nations largely shunned by Bush has been praised and criticized overseas.
In Israel, Gilboa said, Obama's openness to the meetings has contributed to a sense that his Middle East policies are too
soft. When a leader of Hamas, the Palestinian organization that the United States and Israel call a terrorist group, expressed
a preference for Obama earlier this year, many Israelis were turned off even more.
Many people in Israel said they preferred Clinton, who is well regarded because of her support for the Jewish state in the
Senate and her husband's pro-Israel stance during his presidency.
Obama's candidacy has generated suspicion among Palestinians as well. Ali Jarbawi, a political scientist at the West Bank's
Bir Zeit University, said that even if Obama appears to be evenhanded in his approach to the Middle East, he would never
take on the pro-Israel lobby in Washington. "The minute that Obama takes office, if he takes office, all his aides in the
White House will start working on his reelection," Jarbawi said. "Do you think Obama would risk his reelection because of
us?"
In Iraq, views on Obama's victory were mixed. Salah al-Obaidi, chief spokesman for Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shiite Muslim
cleric who opposes the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, said the Sadr movement favors having a Democrat in the White
House on grounds that McCain would largely continue Bush's policies.
But in Samarra, a Sunni stronghold north of Baghdad, Omar Shakir, 58, a political analyst, said he hoped McCain would
win the election and combat the influence of Shiite-dominated Iran.
In Iran, government officials have taken no official position on the race. But "the majority of Iranians feel that the
Democrats support what they want: a major and drastic change in relations with the U.S. So for them the coming of Obama
would be a good omen," said Davoud Hermidas Bavand, professor of U.S.-Iranian relations at Allameh Tabatabai
University.
In Latin America, Obama's recent declaration that he would meet with Presidents Hugo ChÃ¡vez of Venezuela and RaÃºl
Castro of Cuba has been widely welcomed as a break from Bush policy. Obama, though, has declared that he is not a
ChÃ¡vez admirer. He recently voiced strong support for Colombia in its fight against its main rebel group, which
Colombian officials say receives sanctuary from ChÃ¡vez.
Although Colombian officials worry that Obama will not support a free trade agreement with their country, Obama strikes a
chord with ordinary Colombians because of deep resentments toward the Bush administration's policies, including the Iraq
war. "My number one wish is that Bush be gone," said Salud HernÃ¡ndez, a popular radio pundit in Bogota. An Obama
presidency, she said, would be "a positive turn because of what Bush represented to the world."
Not everyone has been riveted by the U.S. election.
Interviews suggested that the Chinese public, absorbed by the recent earthquake in Sichuan province and preparations for
the Beijing Olympics in August, paid little attention. And Russians have proved supremely indifferent; one poll earlier this
year found that only 5 percent said they were closely watching the race. Of 40 people approached Wednesday on the streets
of Moscow, only five had any opinion on the race or knew who was running.
Still, some Russians hope that a new American president will improve strained relations between Washington and
Moscow. "Barack Obama looks like the candidate that can be expected to take the greatest strides towards Russia,"
Konstantin Kosachev, a member of parliament, wrote in the newspaper Kommersant. "Unlike McCain he's not
infected with any Cold War phobias."

Obama is good for America’s soft power
Baum, Los Angeles Times, 7-16-8
(Geraldine Baum, The Los Angeles Times, “Europe awaits Obama with open arms”, 7-16-8,
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-fg-eurovisit16-2008jul16,0,2643448.story, accessed 7-17-8)
PARIS — From prime ministers to college students, Europeans want to cloak Barack Obama in a warm embrace when
he arrives on the continent next week. But they're also aware that anything that looks or smells like elitist Old Europe could
hurt the Democratic contender with voters back home.
Obama has yet to finalize his itinerary for Europe. However, he is already set to skip Brussels, the capital of the modern united
continent, for the traditional symbols of economic and military power: London, Paris and Berlin.
All those European capitals' leaders have expressed a willingness to adapt their schedules to see the American politician whose
sky-high approval ratings in their countries are at least as good as their own. Polls reveal that if they could vote in the United
States, between 53% and 72% of the British, French and German public would pull the lever for Obama.
"If Britons elected American presidents, Barack Obama would have no worries," began an editorial in the left-wing
British newspaper, the Guardian.
Yet the editorial also recognized that his popularity in Europe would not help at home: "To be seen as Europe's pet is the last
thing a presidential candidate needs -- especially one who wants to shed his elitist image with white working-class American
voters."
In France, where Obama's liberal profile appeals to both Socialists and members of President Nicolas Sarkozy's center-right
party, pundits recalled that four years ago most of Europe gushed over Democrat John F. Kerry (who spoke impeccable
French).
"Look at what good that did him," a Sarkozy friend noted dryly during this week's swanky Bastille Day celebrations in the
garden of the presidential Elysee Palace.
"We're not trying to give advice to Americans," said Samuel Solvit, 22, a French business student who started an Obama
support committee in Paris that counts prominent politicians among its 3,000 members. "We just wanted to show that we
admire Sen. Obama because he can renew politics in America -- and in the world."
At his monthly news conference Monday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested topics for his second meeting with
Obama (they saw each other in Washington this spring), including soaring food and oil prices.
Clearly, the centerpiece of Obama's European visit will be a speech in Berlin. Across Europe, the chattering class has been
caught up in the polemic within the German government over whether he should give that address in front of the historic
Brandenburg Gate near where a wall once divided East and West Berlin.
Obama's staff was in Berlin on Tuesday scouting other locations after Chancellor Angela Merkel 's spokesman said the German
leader was "very much interested" in meeting with Obama but was not enthusiastic about him using the gate as a backdrop for
his electoral effort.
Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, an Obama fan, told reporters that he had no problem with the candidate stopping at
the gate. "The Americans decisively contributed in saving the freedom of Berlin, so we should make it possible for them to
speak at historic sites," he told the German newspaper Bild.
Earlier, Obama advisors were quoted in the German media as saying Obama wanted to answer criticism that he'd shown little
interest in Europe -- having spent only 24 hours here in the last decade -- by rekindling memories of a youthful Democratic
President John F. Kennedy, who in 1963 famously declared at that spot "Ich bin ein Berliner!" (I am a Berliner.)
Germans such as Georg Kaiser, a retired teacher, seem unfazed that the American might milk a symbol like the gate to do retail
politics back home. "The speech, as far as I expect it, will be a clear campaigning thing," he said. "He won't address the
Germans or Europeans, but he will address his potential voters in the U.S.A., and show them how fit he is in foreign policy."
Some of the salivating over Obama in Europe is rooted as much in his profile as an energetic and deft politician with a classic
liberal agenda as in the overwhelming yearning of Europe to see a change, any change, in the political direction of the United
States.
In expectation of Obama's visit, London's Observer last weekend printed an editorial titled "The
world is waiting to love America again."
"Should he win in November," the editorial predicted, "Obama's priorities will be domestic ones but he also has a
formidable opportunity to recast America's relationship with the world. It is this relationship which took such a
battering during the Bush presidency as anti-Americanism took root across the globe."
McCain Bad Impact – Iran Attack Bad

McCain administration would further entrench neocon power, risking attack on Iran
Hartcher, Sydney Morning Herald international and political editor, 7-2-8
(Peter, The Sydney Morning Herald, “Never say die: return of the warriors”,
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/07/01/1214678038502.html accessed 7/6/08)
Even after offering atrocious advice to President Bush during the 2000 campaign, most of them are back again."
And they have indeed found their "better battle". The neocons are now agitating nonstop in the campaign to attack Iran.
But weren't the neocons in the Bush Administration all purged?
Men like the deputy secretary of defence, Paul Wolfowitz, and the undersecretary of defence for policy, Doug Feith, were forced
out. So was the former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, and the chief of staff to the Vice-President, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
With no neocons in government, surely their only attacks now have to be rhetorical - surely they cannot wage war. But a number of
key neocons have arrived in the inner circle of the candidate to become the next Republican president, John McCain.
This is being taken very seriously by American foreign policymakers. "There's no doubt that some neocons like Senator Joe
Lieberman are linked to McCain at the elbow like Siamese twins," said one of the grey eminences of US foreign policy, Zbigniew
Brzezinski, national security adviser to Jimmy Carter and now an adviser to the Democrats' presidential candidate, Barack Obama.
"Lieberman believes that we are already in World War Four and his complaint is that we are not sufficiently conscious of it or
sufficiently belligerent," Brzezinski told the Herald. On Iran, Lieberman advocates air strikes to disable its nuclear program.
Other notable neocons who are now counted as McCain advisers are Bolton; William Kristol, the editor of the neoconservative
journal The Weekly Standard and son of the neocon intellectual founder, Irving Kristol; a former Wolfowitz ally at the Bush
Pentagon, Peter Rodman, and the easily offended Robert Kagan.
Crucially, a neocon has landed as chief co-ordinator of McCain's foreign policy and national security teams. Randy Scheunemann
was the founder of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and, like Kagan, was one of the founders of the Project for the New
American Century.
This clustering of neocons around a possible next president troubles American analysts for two principal reasons.
First, the neocons' record lends them no credibility, yet their positioning around the candidate gives them enormous potential
power. The neocons were adamant about the need to invade Iraq. Kristol and Kagan wrote in 2001: "The road that leads to real
security and peace is the road that runs through Baghdad." They were wrong. The invasion destabilised Iraq and unleashed a civil
war between the Sunnis and Shiites whose future remains completely unpredictable.
The invasion empowered Iran. It energised terrorists around the world. It compromised US power. It sent the US to its lowest point
in world regard since Vietnam. It needlessly killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and 4000 US troops to date.
Its ultimate financial cost will be counted in the trillions of dollars. It reduced Iraq's oil output. And yet the neocons, in general,
remain unbowed and unrepentant.
Second, the neocons' world view is ideological; zealotry is a poor guide for cool-headed and judicious policy-making. The neocon,
unlike the realist, is an idealist and believes in a revolutionary doctrine. He believes that America's unique mission is to civilise the
world at gunpoint.
Professor Andrew Bacevich, of Boston University, says there are five defining characteristics of neoconservatism. The neocon
believes that:
* US global domination is benign and other nations see it as such;
* Any lapse in US domination will create chaos;
* Military force is necessary to impose democracy;
* US military power must always be expanded to allow it to intervene decisively in every critical region of the world
simultaneously if necessary; and
* Realists in foreign policy must be aggressively targeted and defeated.
As Bacevich puts it, the neocon cannot abide the realist because "realism was about defending national interests, not transforming
the global order".
So it has been much remarked in Washington that McCain's advisory group contains not only some of America's leading neocons,
but also some of its famous realists. Asked about the influence of neocons in McCain's campaign, his lead Asia adviser, Mike
Green, points to this fact: "If you look at McCain's senior group, it includes Henry Kissinger and George Shultz and Bob Zoellick -
it's hardly a pantheon of neocons.
CARD CONTINUES, NO OMISSIONS

McCain Bad Impact – Iran Attack Bad
CARD CONTINUED, NO OMISSIONS
"And the advisory group, at the next level down, includes moderate conservatives like me," said the former senior director for Asia
in the Bush White House. "I have never felt I've needed to butt heads with neocons.
"But John McCain has been involved in national security for decades. The idea that he could be taken over by any adviser is totally
mistaken. On almost everything, McCain already has a stated position."
And his stated position on Iran? "You mean a serious position, or him singing 'Bomb Iran'?" asks Green, referring to the infamous
YouTube clip of McCain during a public appearance singing those two words over and over to the tune of the Beach Boys tune
Barbara Anne.
Asked for the longer version of the candidate's position, Green says: "Barack Obama's pledge to meet personally with the
leadership of Iran is definitely not where McCain is. He's been one of the leading people in the Senate arguing that Iran is the
leading threat to Iraq, arguing that Iran is on the offensive in Gaza and Lebanon and efforts of diplomacy and offers of carrots have
been rebuffed by the regime.
"You have France, Germany and Britain arguing we need more pressure on Iran - that's pretty much where McCain is. He is
sceptical of what you can get through talking. The more important thing is to put more pressure on them."
Green portrays this as a practical middle way of approaching Tehran: "There is more to Iran policy than bombing them or talking
to them."
Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation explains that he is anxious about the neocons' Iran policy "because they regard the
mullahs of Iran as the greatest threat to Western values, and many of them also worry about Israel. When you take these concerns
and then consider Iran with nukes, the neocons just go crazy."
But the simple answer is not necessarily to vote Democrat: "I worry that Barack Obama worries that he won't be trusted by the
American people on national security and he may be looking for an action to define himself. So Obama could end up looking a lot
like a neocon."
It is easy to make fun of the neocons, but Washington is alive with the concern that they may yet have the last laugh.
Obama Good Impact – Iran Diplomacy

Obama would use negotiations to avoid a massive war with Iran later on.
AFP, 7-7-8.
(“Nuclear Iran is the world’s biggest thread: Obama advisor”, AFP, July 7, 2008,
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hUfqJRbUw0QnjShus_uoN1O4nbvQ accessed 7-7-08)
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Democratic White House contender Barack Obama thinks a nuclear-armed Iran is the world's biggest
threat and that Europe should adopt tougher sanctions against Tehran, a top aide of his told the Financial Times of London.
"The most dangerous crisis we are going to face potentially in the next three to 10 years is if the Iranians get on the edge of
developing a nuclear weapon," Obama's senior foreign policy adviser Anthony Lake said in an interview published Monday.
"If I were the Europeans I would much rather put on the table more sanctions, together with bigger carrots, and have that
negotiation than I would face that crisis down the road," he added, suggesting Obama's tack should he be elected in November.
European Union nations last week agreed new sanctions over Tehran's nuclear programme, notably banning the country's largest
bank, Bank Melli, from operating in Europe.
Existing UN sanctions against Tehran aim to force it to halt uranium enrichment over fears the process could be used to make a
nuclear weapon.
Obama has come under fire during his campaign for saying that if elected president he is willing to hold unconditional talks with
Iran, which is on a US list of state sponsors of terrorism. His Republican rival John McCain says Obama's proposal is a sign of his
inexperience.
"Unless you assume that (Iranian negotiators) have IQs less than those of eggplants, they are not likely to make major concessions
for the privilege of speaking with us. So the question is: what is your strategy for the talks?" Lake told the Financial Times.
"Do you believe that simply sanctioning them can drive them into concessions before you talk, or do you believe that you need to
have the sanctions there as a stick at the heart of negotiations?" he added.
Iran and the United States have not had diplomatic relations since 1980 after Islamist students stormed the US mission in Tehran
holding diplomats hostage for more than a year.
Washington accuses Iran of seeking nuclear weapon, a charge vehemently denied by Tehran which says its atomic programme is
solely intended for generating electricity for its fast-growing population.
In early June Obama told a powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington that he was willing to hold talks with Tehran, though only
after careful preparation.
"As president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at
a time and place of my choosing," Obama said.
But he also said he would never foreswear the military option to defend the United States or Israel from Iranian aggression.
"Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal
will be to eliminate this threat."
[NOTE: Lake = Anthony Lake, Obama’s senior foreign policy advisor]
********** Bush Bad **********

Bush Bad 1NC – Drilling Bad

A. Uniqueness and link – Compromise on alternative energy would bolster chances of new drilling
CNN, 7-17-8
(“Lawmakers push to break partisan stalemate on oil drilling”,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/congress.oil/index.html, accessed 7-17-8)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two bipartisan groups -- one in the House, the other in the Senate -- are trying to rekindle stalled energy
legislation by forging a compromise to expand domestic oil and gas drilling.
The groups' efforts come as congressional Democrats are expected to bring up legislation meant to lower record energy prices to
the Senate floor on Thursday.
The compromise would include new domestic drilling to satisfy Republicans and promote conservation and alternative energy
sources to satisfy Democrats, lawmakers said.
The Senate group said its plan probably would allow drilling in new areas of the outer continental shelf, an idea that Democratic
leaders vehemently oppose.
The Democratic congressional leadership has resisted efforts to lift the ban on offshore drilling as well as open up areas such as the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration -- two policy changes that President Bush and congressional Republicans have
been advocating.
But Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, is bucking his party's leadership by supporting new drilling. He said he and the other senators
advocating the deal are "people who are all seriously concerned about the issue who want to find solutions that are most likely to
involve compromise." iReport.com: Is drilling the answer?
Another group member, Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia said, "Somebody around here's got to do it. We think the Senate can vote
in the majority for energy proposals that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce the pressure on gas prices."
The Senate group met behind closed doors Wednesday at the Capitol, seeking to forge legislation that could be introduced after the
August recess. Talks were to continue later in the week, according to one senator who attended the meeting.
Both that plan and one from the House of Representatives are expected to include language to curb excessive oil-market
speculation, which many lawmakers said they believe has caused an artificial spike in oil prices.
Several senators pointed to an energy bill scheduled for Senate debate Thursday as a prime example of the need for a compromise.
The Democratic-authored bill is meant to rein in speculators. However, the bill probably will stall, with most Republicans expected
to withhold support unless they are allowed to offer amendments to increase drilling.
Democrats, who control the chamber, privately said they're unlikely to do so. Such a standoff likely would kill the bill, aides and
lawmakers said.
In the House, the bipartisan "energy working group" -- formed by Reps. John Peterson, R-Pennsylvania, and Neil Abercrombie, D-
Hawaii -- includes 23 members, roughly split between the two parties.
Peterson said expansion of offshore drilling is the most effective thing Congress can do to boost domestic supply. But Democratic
leaders have opposed efforts to repeal a 1981 law barring most offshore drilling.
"Locking up offshore is the dumbest thing that we ever did," Peterson said.
Peterson said energy legislation should be the top priority for Congress and said he hopes the group can yield a comprehensive
plan next week.
"Leaders are going to have a hard time refusing to address this issue. This is the issue of the year. This is the issue of the decade,"
Peterson said.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia, said that "everything is on the table" except drilling in the Alaska's ANWR, which he described
as a "lightening rod."
The House group is not expected to advocate drilling there, either.
"Conservation and supply are critical components to ultimately seeing the price of gas come down," Chambliss said, noting that
Democrats generally favor conservation while Republicans generally favor increasing supply.
Chambliss said his bottom line is finding a compromise that works for his constituents who are hurting from unexpectedly high
energy costs.
"There is a lot of pressure being put on back home," he said. "I don't care if you're from a Republican state, a Democratic state or a
mixed state. Everybody is hearing, 'By golly, we need you to do something.' "

B. Impact – Drilling Bad
1. Even risk of a small spill has catastrophic environmental and economic impacts
Independent Florida Alligator editorial, 7-1-8
(Risky Business: Offshore drilling threatens Fla. ecosystem, economy,
http://www.alligator.org/articles/2008/07/01/opinion/editorials/080701_eddy.txt, accessed 7-17-8)
It is nearly impossible to find a silver lining in $4–a–gallon gasoline. But if one is to be found, it is in the fact that skyrocketing
prices at the pump �” and the resulting anger and discontent felt by Americans from sea to shining sea �” are forcing our
politicians to finally have a much needed debate on what should be done to solve the nation’s dependency on foreign oil.
Regrettably, the contours of this debate have been shaped by unabashed duplicity and a complete disregard for reality. Instead of
being honest with the American people about the need to develop alternative energy and to curb consumption of fossil fuels, the
Bush administration, Sen. John McCain, Gov. Charlie Crist and a legion of right–wing radio talkers have propagated the myth �”
made out of equal parts deception and delusion �” that we can simply drill our way out of dependence on foreign despots for our
energy needs.
In recent weeks, both McCain and Crist have flip–flopped on the issue of repealing Congress’ moratorium on offshore drilling,
contending that advanced technology has made drilling environmentally safe and that the exponentially increasing price of energy
has made it economically essential. In actuality, however, the calls to expose Florida’s coasts to the vagaries of Big Oil, while
perhaps politically expedient, are environmentally and economically suicidal.
Floridians should roundly reject the hollow rationale for drilling off the Sunshine State’s coastline, if not for the prospect of serious
environmental harm, then for the tremendous threat that such action poses to our tourist economy, which brings in some $50
billion to our state annually. One needs to look no further than historical precedent to determine how detrimental and catastrophic
an oil spill could be to Florida’s tourism industry: In 1979, an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico caused tar balls to wash up on Texas
beaches. The result was a 60 percent decline in the state’s tourism.
Even a relatively minor spill could cause enormous and irreparable damage to Florida’s overall economic health.
But Florida need not face an environmental disaster on par with the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989 to feel the deleterious effects of
offshore drilling. Toxic chemicals such as mercury, lead, benzene, barium, chromium and arsenic, just to name a few, are routinely
emitted from “technologically advanced” oil platforms. And while large oil spills may be unlikely, smaller ones are quite frequent
and almost as damaging �” the U.S. Coast Guard estimates that more than 200,000 small spills occurred in the Gulf of Mexico
from 1973 to 2001.
Even if new drilling rigs can drastically reduce the chance of spillage and allay environmental concerns �” the evidence suggests
this is dubious �” the economic benefit of drilling would not be felt for at least seven years, with some estimates placing the
economic impact of exploration around 2030. And what’s more, Big Oil has not drilled three–quarters of the territory that
Congress has made available for exploration. Why should we endanger our beautiful, economically lucrative beaches if the oil
industry refuses to explore the areas already open for drilling?
Offshore drilling proponents claim that the price of oil has nothing to do with price gouging, speculation or unrest in the Middle
East. It is simply a supply–and–demand problem that is easily curable if we would just invest in domestic exploration. Once again,
those little things called the facts get in the way of a pro–drilling talking point. According to the House Natural Resources
Committee, domestic drilling permits have increased 361 percent since 1999, yet the price of gas continues to climb to record–
breaking plateaus.
Florida’s beaches are a national treasure, and their preservation should be a top priority for all Floridians. Our elected state and
federal officials should fight to prevent unnecessary and risky exploration in the name of political gamesmanship.

2. Ocean species key to biodiversity and human survival.
Brown, SeaWeb Writer, 2006
(Jessica, Bio-Medicine, November 2, 2006, http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-3/Accelerating-loss-of-ocean-species-
threatens-human-well-being-4310-2/, Date Accessed: 7/16/08)
Accelerating loss of ocean species threatens human well-being have ever seen regarding biodiversity's value," adds
Peter Kareiva, a former Brown University professor and US government fisheries manager who now lead science efforts at
The Nature Conservancy. "There is no way the world will protect biodiversity without this type of compelling data
demonstrating the economic value of biodiversity." The good news is that the data show that ocean ecosystems still hold
great ability to rebound. However, the current global trend is a serious concern: it projects the collapse of all species of
wild seafood that are currently fished by the year 2050 (collapse is defined as 90% depletion). Collapses are also hastened
by the decline in overall health of the ecosystem fish rely on the clean water, prey populations and diverse habitats that are
linked to higher diversity systems. This points to the need for managers to consider all species together rather than continuing
with single species management. "Unless we fundamentally change the way we manage all the oceans species together, as
working ecosystems, then this century is the last century of wild seafood," says co-author Steve Palumbi of Stanford
University. The impacts of species loss go beyond declines in seafood. Human health risks emerge as depleted coastal
ecosystems become vulnerable to invasive species, disease outbreaks and noxious algal blooms. Many of the economic
activities along our coasts rely on diverse systems and the healthy waters they supply. "The ocean is a great recycler," explains
Palumbi, "It takes sewage and recycles it into nutrients, it scrubs toxins out of the water, and it produces food and turns carbon
dioxide into food and oxygen." But in order to provide these services, the ocean needs all its working parts, the millions of
plant and animal species that inhabit the sea. The strength of the study is the consistent agreement of theory, experiments and
observations across widely different scales
[NOTE: Peter Kareiva is a former Brown University professor and US government fisheries manager who now lead science
efforts at The Nature Conservancy.]
Uniqueness – Bush Pushing Drilling Now

Bush repealed drilling executive order
CNN.com 7-14-8
(CNN.com, “Bush lifts executive ban on offshore oil drilling”,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/bush.offshore/index.html, accessed 7-14-8)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush lifted an executive order banning offshore oil drilling on Monday and urged Congress to
follow suit.
Citing the high prices Americans are paying at the pump, Bush said from the White House Rose Garden that allowing offshore oil
drilling is "one of the most important steps we can take" to reduce that burden.
However, the move is largely symbolic as there is also a federal law banning offshore drilling.
"This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil reserves is action from the U.S.
Congress," Bush said. VideoWatch Bush announce lifting of ban »
Bush has been pushing Congress to repeal the law passed in 1981.
"There is no excuse for delay," the president said in a Rose Garden statement last month.
"In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil, and that means we need to increase supply here at
home," Bush said, adding that there is no more pressing issue for many Americans than gas prices.
Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, signed the executive order in 1990 banning offshore drilling.
Bush pushing to expand drilling now

Hunt, Associated Press, 7-14-8
(Terence, The Huffington Post, “Bush, Congress, Both?: Who's To Blame For Energy Prices?”,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/14/bush-congress-both-whos-t_n_112492.html, accessed 7-14-8)
Bush said that Democrats are at fault and that "Americans are increasingly frustrated with Congress' failure to take action.
"One of the factors driving up high gas prices is that many of our oil deposits here in the United States have been put off-limits for
exploration and production. Past efforts to meet the demand for oil by expanding domestic resources have been repeatedly rejected
by Democrats in Congress."
Bush repeated his call for Congress to lift the restrictions, including a ban on offshore drilling. A succession of presidents from
George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton to the current president have sided against drilling in these waters as has Congress each year for
27 years, seeking to protect beaches and coastal states' tourism economies.
Bush pushing for offshore drilling now

Agence France Presse, 7-14-8
(“Bush to Lift Offshore Oil Drilling Ban”, http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/14/10358/, accessed 7-14-8)
WASHINGTON - US President George W. Bush will announce Monday he is lifting an executive ban on oil drilling on the US
outer continental shelf and urge lawmakers to follow suit, the White House said.0714 09
“The president will announce that he has decided to lift the executive ban on oil exploration in America’s outer continental shelf
and he will again call on Congress to lift its legislative ban,” said spokeswoman Dana Perino.
Bush’s statement, set for 1:30 pm (1730 GMT) in the Rose Garden, comes roughly one month after he urged lawmakers to end the
decades-old restrictions in order to reduce dependence on oil imports and offset sky-high energy prices.
The president’s actions will not clear the way for drilling “because Congress needs to act as well” and then states must decide
whether to allow offshore drilling, how much and where, and how to manage revenues.
“We think that this should not wait, the sooner they act, the faster we can send a signal to the market that we’re serious,” Perino
told reporters, noting that the US Congress’s August recess loomed.
“It is going to take some time, and it’s not an automatic fix but this is a transition period that we will be in for quite a while and we
think it’s important to start now,” she said.
Faced with a public outcry over soaring gasoline prices, Bush on June 18 said Congress should lift or modify its ban for the entire
outer continental shelf, then he would lift his executive directive.
Uniqueness – Bush Pushing ANWR Drilling Now

Bush pushing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
CNN.com 7-14-8
In his statement last month, Bush also renewed his demand that Congress allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, clear the way for more refineries and encourage efforts to recover oil from shale in areas such as the Green River Basin of
Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.
The White House estimates that there are 18 billion barrels of oil offshore that have not been exploited because of state bans, 10
billion to 12 billion in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Green River Basin.
Drilling Bad – Environment

Offshore drilling will destroy the environment, and not solve the energy crunch
Agence France Presse, 7-14-8
(“Bush to Lift Offshore Oil Drilling Ban”, http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/14/10358/, accessed 7-14-8)
Under the 1981 federal moratorium, states are prohibited from allowing offshore oil and gas drilling and exploration, protecting
virtually the entire Atlantic and Pacific coastlines and sections of the Gulf of Mexico.
Critics of lifting the drilling moratorium say it would jeopardize the environment and that production would take years to get up
and running, and thus is not a realistic answer to the current supply crunch.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has already said he wants no drilling off his state’s lengthy portion of the US west
coast, and urged the country to move away from its dependence on oil.
“California’s coastline is an international treasure. I do not support lifting this moratorium on new oil drilling off our coast,”
Schwarzenegger said in a statement.
Drilling Bad – Hurts the Environment

Drilling hurts the environment – California and Louisiana prove
Jervis, et al. USA Today Reporter, 8
(Rick , William M. Welch and Richard Wolf, USA Today, “Worth the risk? Debate on Offshore Drilling Heats Up,” July 13, 2008,
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-07-13-offshore-drilling_N.htm, Date Accessed: 7/16/08)
No two places illustrate the two sides of the debate better than Louisiana and California, where much oil has been produced but
much more lies below: •Louisiana has had offshore drilling since 1947. About 172 active rigs dot the Gulf of Mexico
waters off the coast, producing about 79% of the oil and 72% of the natural gas that comes from drilling off the nation's
coastlines. The state gets about $1.5 billion annually in oil and gas revenue, a figure that will grow when it starts receiving part
of oil companies' royalty payments in 2017 under federal law. "It's absolutely worth it," says Garret Graves, head of the
Governor's Office of Coastal Activities. The biggest environmental impact has been the estimated 10,000 miles of canals
dug by the oil and gas companies to transport oil and lay pipelines. The canals crisscross the coastal wetlands of
Louisiana and have contributed to coastal erosion, says Mark Davis of Tulane University. Environmentalists say the
canals and lack of marshland removed an important natural buffer against storms and amplified Hurricane Katrina's
damage. Offshore drilling also draws bustling ports, pipelines, petrochemical plants and other infrastructure that can
disrupt natural coastal ecosystems. "Where you have oil and gas, you have petrochemical plants," says Cynthia Sarthou of
the Gulf Restoration Network. "I haven't seen one come without the other." California was home to the first U.S. offshore oil
production in 1896, from a wooden pier in Summerland. Today, it's easy to spot oil rigs from coastal highways and the
pricey seaside real estate that dots Santa Barbara County's hillsides. There are 26 oil and gas drilling platforms off the
southern California coast and 1,500 active wells. Those in federal waters have produced more than 1 billion barrels of oil and
1.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas since the 1960s, says John Romero of the Minerals Management Service. Since the 1969
spill, he says, they've spilled only 852 barrels of oil, the result of better technology and regulatory vigilance. Federal geologists,
Romero says, estimate an additional 10 billion barrels of oil and 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are under the sea floor in
areas where drilling is banned. But producers are mindful that, since 1969, public opinion has not been on their side. "Our
industry has gotten a pretty clear message from the California public that at least up until recently, there was not much interest
in seeing new drilling off California," says Joe Sparano, president of the Western States Petroleum Association.
[NOTE: Mark Davis is a Senior Research Fellow and Director of the Institute on Water Resources Law and Policy BS Indiana
University]
Oil Spills Hurt Species

Oil spills cause harm to animals in a multitude of ways.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2004
(“Effects of Oil Spills on Wildlife and Habitat: Alaska Region,” December 2004, P. 1,
alaska.fws.gov/media/unalaska/Oil%20Spill%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf, Date Accessed: 7/16/08)
Oil causes harm to wildlife through physical contact, ingestion, inhalation and absorption. Floating oil can contaminate plankton,
which includes algae, fish eggs, and the larvae of various invertebrates. Fish that feed on these organisms can subsequently
become contaminated. Larger animals in the food chain, including bigger fish, birds, terrestrial mammals, and even humans may
then consume contaminated organisms. Initially, oil has the greatest impacts on species that utilize the water surface, such as
waterfowl and sea otters, and species that inhabit the nearshore environment. Although oil causes immediate effects throughout the
entire spill site, it is the external effects of oil on larger wildlife species that are often immediately apparent.
Marine invertebrates hit hard by oil spills

Oil can be directly toxic to marine invertebrates or impact them through physical smothering, altering metabolic and feeding rates,
and altering shell formation. These toxic effects can be both acute (lethal) and chronic (sub-lethal). Intertidal benthic (bottom
dwelling) invertebrates may be especially vulnerable when oil becomes highly concentrated along the shoreline. Additionally,
sediments can become reservoirs for the spilled petroleum. Some benthic invertebrates can survive exposure, but may accumulate
high levels of contaminants in their bodies that can be passed on to predators.
Fish are directly impacted by oil spills

Fish can be impacted directly through uptake by the gills, ingestion of oil or oiled prey, effects on eggs and larval survival, or
changes in the ecosystem that support the fish. Adult fish may experience reduced growth, enlarged livers, changes in heart and
respiration rates, fin erosion, and reproductive impairment when exposed to oil. Oil has the potential to impact spawning success,
as eggs and larvae of many fish species, including salmon, are highly sensitive to oil toxins.
Years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, environmental damage still lingers.
Wilkinson, Christian Science Monitor Correspondent, 2002
(Todd , Christian Science Monitor, "After 13 Years, Valdez's Oil Damage Lingers," October 29, 2002,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1029/p03s01-usgn.html, Date Accessed: 7/16/08)
"People who spent a lot of time in Prince William before the spill will tell you it has become the 'Sound of silence,'" Mr. Steiner
says. "There used to be a profusion of seabirds filling the sky with their calls but their absence is, I believe, symptomatic of
something more far- reaching. The oil spill left the system in a condition of chaos." On March 24, 1989, some 11 million gallons of
North Slope crude escaped through a cracked hull into the Gulf of Alaska, spreading a toxic sheen westward across thousands of
square miles of open ocean and soaking 1,500 miles of largely pristine coastline. Exposure to oil resulted in the deaths of 250,000
seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 250 bald eagles, nearly two dozen killer whales, and billions of salmon crucial to the thriving
commercial fishing industry. After the spill, Exxon enlisted a small army of independent scientists to assess the damage. "Exxon
was horrified by this spill, and we are extremely sorry for it," Mr. Cirigliano says. "We stayed on the scene carrying out cleanup
until the Coast Guard and the state of Alaska told us it was time to stop." The Alaska Coalition's request for additional damages
comes in the wake of an ecosystem assessment released in August by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. The council was
created to oversee disbursement of roughly $1 billion paid by Exxon in the settlement aimed at restoring the sound to its former
vitality. That fee is on top of the $2.5 billion charged to the company for cleanup in the two years after the spill.
Drilling Bad – AT – Drilling Reduces Oil Prices

Drilling won’t solve oil prices – exploration takes years
CNN.com 7-14-8
Experts say offshore oil drilling would not have an immediate impact on oil prices because oil exploration takes years.
"If we were to drill today, realistically speaking, we should not expect a barrel of oil coming out of this new resource for three
years, maybe even five years, so let's not kid ourselves," said Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. Equity
Capital Markets Division.
Offshore drilling will not lower oil prices, especially not in the short term
US News and World Report, 2008
(“Will Offshore Drilling Lower Gas Prices?,” July 16, 2008, http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-
news/080716-Will-Offshore-Drilling-Lower-Gas-Prices-/, Date Accessed: July 16, 2008)
President Bush has lifted an executive ban on offshore oil drilling, the price of oil has seen its steepest one day drop in
17 years, and the price Americans pay at the pump is… Not budging. The AP reports, "President Bush on Monday lifted
an executive ban on offshore oil drilling and challenged Congress to follow suit, aiming to turn the enormous public frustration
about gasoline prices into political leverage. Democratic lawmakers rejected Bush's plan as a symbolic stunt." Bush argues
that lifting the offshore drilling ban would send an important psychological signal to markets, which could ease oil
prices. According to NPR, "The Department of Energy says there may be 18 billion barrels of oil in coastal waters, but
they also say that drilling for it would not have a significant impact on production or prices until 2030." Oil industry
insiders "say drilling won't ease the oil pinch." Matthew Simmons, President of energy investment bank says, "It's
really misleading to hold that out as a panacea. It won't work. It might work for our grandchildren." The AP cautions,
"The president's direct link between record gas prices and offshore drilling glossed over a key point. Even if Congress
agreed, the exploration for oil would take years to produce real results. It is not projected to reduce gas prices in the
short term. Even the White House routinely emphasizes there is no quick fix." In fact, even a sharp drop in the price
of oil doesn't seem to shake gas prices in the short term. CNN Money reports, "Oil prices plummeted by the second-largest
margin on record Tuesday as investors feared a further decline in U.S. demand." The price drop was seen as a reaction to
comments by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, warning that "high energy prices have helped to limit the purchasing
power of U.S. households." Despite Bush's announcement and the drop in oil prices, however, CNN reports, "Gasoline
prices in the U.S. maintained record highs at $4.109 a gallon Tuesday." Research the most fuel-efficient small cars and
hybrids with U.S. News' car rankings and reviews.
ANWR Drilling Bad – Ecosystem

Oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge will result in loss of bird population and environmental degradation
National Audubon Society’s Alaska State Office and Science Division, No Date Given
(Audubon Alaska, “Birds & Oil Development in the Arctic Refuge,” p.3,
Latest date in article: 2001; http://www.protectthearctic.com/files/Birds_and_Oil_Development.pdf Date Accessed: July 16, 2008).
The Arctic Refuge, including its coastal plain, has extraordinary value as an intact ecosystem, with all its native birdlife.
The millions of birds that nest, migrate through, or spend the winter in refuge are conspicuous and fundamental parts
of the refuge system; the construction and operation of a sprawling industrial oilfield would reduce bird populations
through the inevitable loss, degradation and fragmentation of habitat in the narrow coastal plains; disturbance
associated with routine human activities, including helicopter traffic, is stressful and would harm birds, especially those
nesting near oilfields or gathering in large number during molt or migration; oilfields attract predators (e.g., foxes and raves)
that prey on birds, and increased predation on nesting waterfowl is a significant impact of oil development at Prudhoe Bay and
other central Arctic oilfields; if an oil spill were to reach coastal lagoons and wetlands, harm to loons, waterfowl and
shorebirds could especially serious and long-lasting; birds with small, declining or vulnerable populations are most at
risk from oil development in the refuge. See the Audubon WatchList on pg. 6 for examples; and if the refuge is left whole
and free of the influence of oil development, its birdlife can serve as sentinels, helping scientists evaluate the effects of
environmental change on Arctic ecosystems.
Alaskan oil development harms caribou, bears, and fowl; restoration may be impossible
Gwich'in Steering Committee, No Date Given
(Gwich’in Steering Committee, “History of Wreckage,” http://www.gwichinsteeringcommittee.org/history.html Date Accessed:
July 16, 2008)
The National Academy of Sciences documented major negative impacts from oil development on wildlife, the land, and
Native American cultures across extensive areas of the North Slope. Their study, Cumulative Environmental Effects of
Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North Slope (2003), concluded oil development harmed wildlife and habitats in many
ways: Major cumulative impacts to caribou, grizzly and polar bears, waterfowl and shorebirds, and endangered
bowhead whales; The Porcupine Caribou Herd is the most vulnerable to human-caused and natural stresses of all the
caribou herds in Alaska; Natural recovery of tundra is very slow, "it is unlikely that most disturbed habitat on the
North Slope will ever be restored."
ANWR oil drilling would interfere with animal reproduction

McNoldy, The Sandspur Staff Writer, 2006
(Kelly, The Sandspur, “Is Alaskan Oil Natures Foil: Drilling in ANWR,” February 10,
http://media.www.thesandspur.org/media/storage/paper623/news/2006/02/10/Opinions/Is.Alaskan.Oil.Natures.Foil.Drilling.In.An
wr-1600616.shtml Date Accessed: July 17, 2008)
Drilling for oil would also effect how the animals reproduce. ANWR is an important onshore denning habitat for polar
bears, whose reproduction rate is already low and whose breeding tactics are extremely sensitive to human
disturbances. If there are nay unfavorable signs in the area of which the polar bears would like to breed, the polar bear
will continue searching until she found a favorable place. However, if the polar bear cannot find a suitable place to give
birth, the new cub would surely be less-likely to survive because it would not have the protection, warmth or food that it
needs in the early stages of the bear's life that a sufficient den could provide.
ANWR Drilling Bad – Ecosystem

Prolonged exposure to oil and toxins will lead to biological magnification
Marine mammals could be severely injured as well. If oil were to catastrophically spill or leak out slowly over time in
the arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea, the frigid temperatures would cause the oil to remain longer in the water
compared to if it spilled in warmer waters. This then exposes the animals to the oil for longer periods of times and the
toxins that these animals would absorb would be transferred to other animals when they are eaten as prey.
ANWR Drilling Bad – Oil Spills

Oil spills in Arctic regions are especially difficult to manage
Associated Press, 2008
(MSNBC, AP, “Oil Drilling Off Alaska Raise Spill Fears,” April 13, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24094955/ Date Accessed:
July 17, 2008)
No oil spill responders have demonstrated that they can clean up oil in broken ice that ranges from slush to cakes, said
Margaret Williams of the World Wildlife Fund in Alaska. Ice jams skimmers, tears up containment boom, clogs pumps
and impedes access to floating crude. "We're not antidevelopment. We're not antigrowth. But this is just stupid," Williams
said. The same conditions that contribute to oil spill risk — darkness during the long Alaska winter, extreme cold,
moving ice, high wind and low visibility — would make spill response difficult or ineffective, according to the WWF.
[WWF: World Wildlife Fund]

ANWR Drilling Bad – Native Alaskans

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) drilling undermines the Native Alaskan lifestyle
CBC News, 2006
(CBC News, CBCnews.ca, “Inupiat Prefer Drilling in ANWR,” July 20, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2006/07/20/inupiat-
oil.html Date Accessed: July 16, 2008)
However, the Gwich'in of Alaska, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are opposed to drilling in the refuge because
it's the calving grounds of the migrating Porcupine caribou herd, which they rely on for food. Lloyd Paningona, who is
with Barrow's tribal government, says fighting offshore development may be a losing battle. "Unfortunately, my
opinion is something like this is inevitable, it's going to happen," said Paningona. "Now when it does will it be regulated
to a point where it's going to ease a lot of concerns and worries of this community or North Slope-wide?"
Oil drilling increases asthma, stress, alcoholism, and drug and child abuse
(Gwich’in Steering Committee, “History of Wreckage,” http://www.gwichinsteeringcommittee.org/history.html Date Accessed:
July 16, 2008)
The National Academy of Sciences also reported health and social impacts from oil and gas development and few jobs for
local Alaska Natives: "In addition to stress contributing to adverse health effects, oil development has increased the
smog and haze near some villages, which residents believe is causing an increase in asthma. The stress of integrating a
new way of life with generations of traditional teachings has increased alcoholism, drug abuse, and child abuse. Higher
consumption of non-subsistence food…has increased the incidence of diabetes." "That few who live in the North Slope
Borough are directly employed by the oil and gas industry has been noted for almost two decades… and is supported by
findings of both the NSB survey … and the Alaska Department of Labor."
Not only will ANWR oil drilling cause a 40% decrease in caribou birthrates but it will also hurt the
Gwich’in Indian Tribes and their livelihood
Additionally, ANWR is home to the Porcupine Caribou Herd, one of the largest caribou herds remaining in the world.
For the past two millennia these caribou have migrated from Canada to ANWR to give birth to 40 to 50 thousands
calves. The vast valleys are an ideal calving place for the caribou because it allows them to escape the predators and insects
that plague them in Canada. However, if the oil found near this two thousand year old calving ground were to be drilled,
the infrastructure created by man would bleed into this area, causing a 40 percent decrease in caribou birthrates,
according to local biologists. Not only will this sudden decrease in birthrates affect the herd's ability to survive, but also
the Gwich'in Indian tribe, which has lived off the caribou for as long as they have existed. The Gwich'in have built their
villages along the migration paths of this heard, and have used the caribou's meat for food, skin for clothes, bones for
tools and jewelry and antlers for spiritual ceremonies. In short, the entire tribe's livelihood would diminish.
Oil developers express hostility towards Alaskan Natives

(Gwich’in Steering Committee. “History of Wreckage” http://www.gwichinsteeringcommittee.org/history.html Date Accessed:
July 16, 2008)
"In addition, Inupiat at Prudhoe Bay find they are a small minority in a primarily white workforce that can sometimes
express hostility toward Alaska Natives. The jobs available to the Inupiat often are seen by them as menial or as token
jobs."
ANWR Drilling Bad – AT – Energy/Oil

The oil in the Arctic is only enough to sustain us for eight to nine months – also this oil will not be
available for another decade
Jorgensen, Ventura County Congressional District Nominee, 2008
(Marta, Ventura County Star, “ANWR Not the Answer,” May 2, http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/may/02/anwr-not-
the-answer/ Date Accessed: July 17, 2008)
The campaign the environmental societies and scientists are running focus on a couple of main points — that there's not
enough oil to make it worth our while and that any production will drastically affect the wildlife living in the refuge. The
politicians and oil companies will lead us to believe that oil produced from ANWR will be America's salvation and reduce our
dependence on foreign oil. They state that they have, and will follow, environmentally friendly policies in exploration and
production of the oil fields. How accurate are these statements? Existing North Slope oil fields produce nearly 1 million
barrels of oil per day. The U.S. consumes about 21 million barrels of oil per day, 25 percent of the worldwide total of 84
million barrels consumed per day. Assuming a mean of 5.3 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil, we will only
find an eight- to nine-month supply of oil in the 1002 Area. It will also take from seven to 10 years before any of this oil is
available to consumers in the United States. (Conversely, increasing the fuel efficiency of automobiles to 45 mpg for cars
and 34 mpg for trucks would save 3 million barrels of oil each day.)
ANWR results in environmental damage, and won’t lower oil prices in the short term.
Freed, Physical Oceanographer, Outdoor Writer, and Former Alaskan, 2008
(Martin, The Daily Times, “ANWR is Not the Answer to Our Oil-Cost Problems”
June 12, 2008, http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080612/OPINION03/806120461/-1/newsfront2, Date
Accessed: July 16, 2008)
The would-be despoilers of the world, aka Republicans, twist, exaggerate and outright prefabricate to make their points.
This proud tree-hugger refers to the push to drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Here are the facts: At the peak of
production, world petroleum output would only increase by three gallons for every 1,000 produced. This would not
decrease the cost of fuel by one single cent. It would take 10 years for this petroleum to come to market -- not two. At
the peak of production, it would account for only 3.3 percent of total U.S. usage. Antienvironmentalists say drilling
would occur over less than 2,000 acres, but this only takes into account areas where equipment touches the ground. Oil
reservoirs are spread out, resulting in 1.5 millions acres of ANWR being exploited. As a former Alaskan -- and someone
who has hunted and fished in ANWR -- I know this part of the Arctic is a treasure too precious to be risked. It is particularly
fertile ground where polar bears hibernate and bear their young. It is also one of the few places where certain herds of caribou
are able to successfully calve and rear their fawns. If you want to do something productive, demand government mandate
an increase in vehicle efficiency to 40 miles per gallon over the next decade. This would save 6.5 times more oil than
ANWR can produce. It would also create 1.3 million good-paying jobs. We would already have that if it weren't for
obstructionist Republicans in Congress. Vote them out next November.

ANWR can’t make a dent in US oil supplies and wouldn’t be effective until 2027.
National Resources Defense Council, Wildlife Protection Organization, 2008
(“Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Why Trash an American Treasure for a Tiny Percentage of Our Oil Needs?,” July 16, 2008,
http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp, Date Accessed: 7/16/08)
What would America gain by allowing heavy industry into the refuge? Very little. Oil from the refuge would hardly
make a dent in our dependence on foreign imports -- leaving our economy and way of life just as exposed to wild swings
in worldwide oil prices and supply as it is today. The truth is, we simply can't drill our way to energy independence.
Although drilling proponents often say there are 16 billion barrels of oil under the refuge's coastal plain, the U.S. Geological
Service's estimate of the amount that could be recovered economically -- that is, the amount likely to be profitably extracted
and sold -- represents less than a year's U.S. supply. It would take 10 years for any Arctic Refuge oil to reach the market,
and even when production peaks -- in the distant year of 2027 -- the refuge would produce a paltry 3 percent of
Americans' daily consumption. The U.S. government's own Energy Information Agency recently reported that drilling
in the Arctic would save less than 4 cents per gallon in 20 years. Whatever oil the refuge might produce is simply
irrelevant to the larger issue of meeting America's future energy needs.
Drilling in ANWR won’t decrease prices lower than one to four cents and even this will take a decade
The Wall Street Journal, 2008
(The Wall Street Journal, “Don’t Expect Too Much From ANWR,” June 18, http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/06/18/dont-
expect-too-much-from-anwr/ Date Accessed: July 17, 2008)
Last month the Department of Energy produced a report titled, “Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge.” (Hat tip, Menzie Chinn) The report makes two points that indicate that drilling in ANWR
won’t do much to decrease energy prices any time soon. First, the report states that drilling wouldn’t add to domestic
production for at least 10 years, and peak production can’t be expected until the 2020s. Meanwhile, under the middle-of-
the-road estimate for output oil prices would be expected to decline by only 75 cents per barrel in 2025. If there’s less oil than
expected in ANWR the reduction in prices would be 41 cents per barrel in 2026, and if there’s more than expected the drop in
prices is seen around $1.44 per barrel in 2027. That would translate into a reduction in gas prices between just one cent
and four cents, according to an analysis prepared by Congress’s Joint Economic Committee.
[Menzie Chinn: Professor of Public Affairs and Economics]


ANWR will not ease oil prices
Lavelle, US News and World Report Writer, 2008
(Marianne, US News and World Report, “Arctic Drilling Wouldn't Cool High Oil Prices,” May 23, 2008,
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/23/arctic-drilling-wouldnt-cool-high-oil-prices.html, Date Accessed: July
16, 2008)
Drilling for oil beneath the pristine tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would do little to ease world oil prices,
the federal government's energy forecasters said in a new report issued in a week that saw oil surpass $130 per barrel
for the first time. Congress has fought bitterly for years over whether to allow oil companies access to the Alaska refuge's 1.5
million-acre coastal plain, a habitat for seabirds, caribou, and polar bears. Oil company executives, called to Capitol Hill for a
grilling over high oil prices, pointed to the untapped resources of ANWR and off the U.S. coastlines as evidence that Congress
was as much to blame for the tight global supplies of crude as the petroleum industry. But the U.S. Energy Information
Administration, an independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy, concluded that new oil from
ANWR would lower the world price of oil by no more than $1.44 per barrel—and possibly have as little effect as 41
cents per barrel—and would have its largest impact nearly 20 years from now if Congress voted to open the refuge
today. EIA produced the analysis in response to a request by Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, who noted that the last
time the agency had taken a look at the economics of ANWR production was in 2000, when oil was $22.04 a barrel. Higher
world oil prices don't necessarily mean that oil companies could pull more crude out of ANWR, the EIA said. Some
advanced methods of extraction may be limited by the features of the Alaska North Slope; for example, steam injection could
endanger some of the permafrost, the EIA noted. The agency pointed out, however, that higher prices would make it more
attractive to go after small fields that are near the larger fields that would be the first targets for development, and some
advanced, expensive techniques of extraction could become more attractive in the later years if oil prices stay high. However,
EIA predicted these high-tech methods wouldn't have an impact until after 2030, beyond the horizon of the agency's forecast of
the global energy situation. So EIA assumed little change—and in fact, a slight decline—in ANWR's productive capacity since
2000, when it projected that the production in the refuge could reach 650,000 to 1.9 million barrels per day. In the new
analysis, EIA says that production could range from 510,000 barrels to 1.45 million barrels per day. If Congress approved
development in 2008, it would take 10 years for oil production to commence, EIA said. With production starting, then, in
2018, EIA said the most likely scenario is that oil would peak at 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and decline to 710,000 barrels
per day in 2030. Currently, the United States consumes about 20 million barrels of oil per day. EIA said its projection is that
ANWR oil production would amount to 0.4 percent to 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. The figure is
low enough that OPEC could neutralize any price impact by decreasing supplies to match the additional production
from Alaska, EIA noted. New oil from Alaska would, however, reduce foreign oil dependence slightly, EIA said. With the
United States currently on track to get 54 percent of its oil from overseas by 2030, EIA said, if ANWR were opened, the share
of oil from foreign countries would drop to 48 percent in the best-case scenario or 52 percent if ANWR turns out to produce at
the lower end of the range of projections. That would mean that U.S. spending on foreign oil between 2018 and 2030 would be
reduced by $135 billion to $327 billion. EIA noted the uncertainty in its predictions, which are based on the oil productivity of
the geological formations elsewhere in Alaska, including neighboring Prudhoe Bay, the largest oil field ever discovered in the
United States. "There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region," said the report, titled
"Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." The agency stuck with the U.S. Geological Survey's
1998 estimate that the amount of oil in the portion of ANWR being considered for development is 10.4 billion barrels.
[NOTE: EIA is the Energy Information Administration]
********** Obama Bad **********

Obama Bad 1NC – Obama Foreign Policy Bad

A. Uniqueness and link – Do-nothing-on-energy Congress bolsters the case for a Republican ballot,
making a Republican win more likely in November now
Investor's Business Daily, editorial, 7-16-8
(“Ball Squarely In Congress' Court”, p. A11)
Congressional Democrats have charged that with prices at historic highs, oil companies have intentionally kept oil off the market.
The president illustrated the absurdity of that notion, pointing to the huge capital costs for leasing and purchasing land, as well as
geophysical assessment.
And then "if you happen to find oil or gas, you'll find yourself in a position where a lot of capital is tied up. And it becomes in your
interest, your economic interest, to continue to explore so as to reduce the capital costs of the project on a per-barrel basis."
Ultimately, he stressed the fundamentals that are driving up prices:
"Demand for oil has increased, and supply has not kept up with it. And so part of our strategy in our country has got to be to say:
OK, here are some suspected reserves and that we ought to go after them in an environmentally friendly way."
Bush also noted that "we haven't built a new refinery in the United States since the early '70 s . . . you try to get one permitted, it is
unbelievably difficult to do. People aren't willing to risk capital if they're deeply concerned about how their capital is going to be
tied up in lawsuits or regulations."
The president also accused Congress of keeping the medicine of expanded free trade from the ailing U.S. economy.
"I do not understand why it's OK for Colombia to be able to sell into our country close to duty free, and we don't have the same
advantage . . . turning our back on somebody like (Colombian President Alvaro) Uribe makes no sense at all. He is a courageous
fighter against terrorists. And yet our Congress won't even bring up a free-trade agreement with Colombia."
Of course, the president actually understands it very well: Congress' Democratic leaders have a vendetta against Uribe for being
one of the few Latin American leaders to support the Iraq War. They don't like it that under Uribe, Colombian forces (helped by
U.S. satellite intelligence) just deftly rescued 15 FARC-held hostages.
If this "lame duck" president succeeds in exposing this do-nothing Congress' self-serving pettiness in the midst of so much
consumer pain at the pump, things might not turn out as badly for Republicans this November as the pundits predict.
B. Impact – Obama win crushes US leadership
1. Obama will crush US leadership – his policies will tank US relations

Kirchick, New Republic assistant editor, 7-21-8
(James, The Weekly Standard, “The Democrats' Popularity Fetish; Global approval is overrated.”, vol. 13, no. 42)
A major theme of this year's presidential campaign is that the United States has lost the respect of the world and that electing a
Democrat, especially Barack Obama, is the way to fix it. "What if we could restore America's place in the world, and
people's faith in our government?" asks one Obama ad.
Obama's supposed ability to make the United States loved again is taken as a given by the pundit class, not to mention his adoring
followers. Listing his reasons for supporting the junior senator from Illinois, the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan swooned, "First
and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan." In a New
York Times dispatch datelined Paris, foreign affairs columnist Roger Cohen gushed that the French see Obama
as one of "les bons Américains" alongside John F. Kennedy, Michael Moore, and Al Gore. Writing in the Baltimore
Sun, University of Maryland professor Thomas Schaller declared that Obama
"may yet prove to be America's next great export."
The fervor for Obama here at home appears to be matched by equal, if not more ardent, enthusiasm abroad. "Excitement
about Obama spreads around the world," read the headline of a recent Associated Press story, which described the junior
senator from Illinois as a "global phenomenon." Yet as tempting as some may find it to support Obama
for his worldwide appeal, to believe that his election will dramatically improve America's relations with the world is incredibly
shallow.
In the simplistic narrative of the Obama boosters, President Bush and his party's successor, John McCain, are cranky nationalists
who view the world through the barrel of a gun. But the fact is, in this election it is the Democratic candidate who is proposing
Card continues, no omissions


Card continued, no omissions
policies profoundly at odds with his promise to restore America's preeminent place in the world.
Take the issue of trade. In Senate debates earlier this year, Obama vocally opposed free trade deals with both South Korea and
Colombia. Asked what Congress's failure to pass the Colombia Free Trade Act would mean for bilateral relations between his
country and the United States, Colombian president Alvaro Uribe replied, "It would be very serious."
But Obama hasn't just opposed free trade pacts with our closest allies in Asia and Latin America. During the Democratic primary,
in an attempt to shore up the votes of rust-belt blue-collar workers in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, he vowed to renegotiate
NAFTA, the free trade pact between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. A minor scandal erupted when it was revealed that
Obama's chief economic adviser had reassured Canadian officials that his boss's protectionist rhetoric was just campaign
sloganeering. After he clinched his party's nomination, Obama tried to confirm that the Canadians' fear was unfounded in an
interview with Fortune magazine, saying that "sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and
amplified."
Given his anti-trade voting record, though, it's hard to know whether to take Obama 's latest statements seriously. His easy ability
to go from calling NAFTA a "big mistake" to disavowing the comments months later doesn't inspire confidence in his
supposedly unshakable principles, never mind his ability to send a positive message to the world that America is open for business.
Indeed, so put off was he by Obama's protectionist rhetoric that British foreign minister David Miliband in May sent Obama
an implicit warning to unmoor himself from the agenda of American labor unions. "The problem is not too much trade, the
problem is too little trade," he told the Financial Times. "That is our position as a British government, and it will be
articulated clearly and consistently." Alarmed at Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric, Canada's National Post opined, "The
treaty is simply too integral to our prosperity to take anything about it for granted," and suggested that should the United
States even consider renegotiating NAFTA, Canada, America's largest supplier of oil, should threaten to cut off supplies.
Also disconcerting to many around the world is Obama's promise--articulated in a debate last August--to meet with a variety of
anti-American dictators without preconditions. He has since tried to backtrack from this off-the-cuff remark, yet its utterance
showed Obama's remarkable hubris--his apparent belief that seemingly intractable world problems will be easier to solve simply
by dint of his charming personality. He is far from alone in this belief. Writing recently in the Boston Globe, Mark Oppenheimer
suggested that "given Obama's popularity abroad, it's possible to imagine that his meetings would embolden pro-American
or pro-Western forces wherever he went."
Yet negotiating with tin-pot tyrants is a double-edged sword. For every despot a President Obama meets with, he runs the risk of
demoralizing the democracy activists suffering under the despot's boot, and the neighboring countries threatened by said tyrant's
hegemony. An unconditional meeting with Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, for instance, would rightly anger Colombians, as Chávez's
Venezuela has provided assistance to Colombia's antigovernment FARC guerrillas.
Ah, but then there is the Bush foreign policy, Obama partisans argue. It's true that the Iraq war is exhibit A for America haters
around the globe, yet it's unclear how Obama's solution--complete withdrawal in little over a year and unconditional negotiations
with the Syrians and Iranians--will win us popularity. Leaving Iraq at the pace the Democrats propose would very likely throw the
country into chaos, and the people most obviously pleased by this policy would be the Iranians.
Yet let us assume that it is Bush's foreign policy that has earned the evident displeasure with the United States expressed in many
countries around the world. Voters desiring to reverse this trend should then give a second look to John McCain, for the
Republican's worldwide appeal has been badly underestimated. In March, McCain toured through Europe and the Middle East, and
won winning headlines wherever he traveled. The Guardian, a newspaper hardly known for its pro-American or pro-Republican
sympathies, noted that "Mr. McCain should not be dismissed as Bush mark two" because he is "made of sterner
stuff and he has a lifetime of engagement with the outside world --and the scars to prove it--that gives him the moral seriousness
Mr. Bush so lacks." And in the past several weeks, McCain has toured Canada, Mexico, and Colombia in an attempt to
highlight--to its potential victims abroad--the differences between his pro-trade agenda and the protectionist pandering of his
opponent. McCain has distinguished himself from President Bush on a variety of issues--from the closure of Guantánamo to global
warming--that are frequently cited in the litany of alleged American misdeeds that Obama will fix.
Ultimately, it remains questionable whether American voters should concern themselves much with "global opinion."
In any case, so committed are Obama supporters to the belief that Bush has lowered America's standing to an unprecedented extent
that they cannot explain the election of pro-American leaders in Italy (Silvio Berlusconi), Germany (Angela Merkel), and France
(Nicolas Sarkozy). Partly because of their candidate's multi-ethnic background, and partly because of their hatred for Bush, many
Obama supporters have a wildly overconfident view of their candidate's powers, one that assumes his emergence onto the world
stage will, in the candidate's own phrase, begin to heal the planet. It won't.

2. US leadership prevents proliferation and global nuclear war
Khalilzad, US Ambassador to the United Nations, 95
(Zalmay, “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War.” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2.
pg. 84 Spring 1995)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global
rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and
vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises
leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to
American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of
dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony
by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile
global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant
dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than
a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. Precluding the rise of a hostile global rival is a good guide for defining
what interests the United States should regard as vital and for which of them it should be ready to use force and put
American lives at risk. It is a good prism for identifying threats, setting priorities for U.S. policy toward various regions and
states, and assessing needs for military capabilities and modernization.
Obama Bad Impact – Foreign Policy

Obama is bad for America’s image abroad – he’ll tank relations, and destabilize Iraq
Gottlieb, director of the policy studies program at Yale, 7-7-8
(Stuart, Christian Science Monitor, “The Democrats’ foreign-policy game,” p. 9, lexis, accessed 7-17-8)
The Democratic Party and its presumed presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, have made "restoring America's image"
and "renewing American leadership" cornerstones of their foreign-policy promises for 2008.Nearly every Democratic
foreign-policy speech, press release, or Web link says as much.
This is a powerful message that certainly resonates with American voters and our friends around the world. However, if we
look just below the surface of the rhetoric and analyze specific policies proposed by Democrats in Congress and on the
campaign trail, we find plans that would only further damage America's international standing.
On two critical issues in particular - trade and the war in Iraq - Democrats have been trying to have their cake and eat
it too: They claim they will restore America's image and leadership and simultaneously promise unilateralist and
irresponsible policies certain to have the opposite effect.
This foreign-policy "house of mirrors" (where what you're told is not necessarily what you get) may have been useful to
get through the primaries. But it risks tying the Democrats up in a Gordian knot in the general election, and, if they win
the White House, well beyond.
Regarding trade, Democrats have become unabashedly protectionist to the point where they are willing to thumb their
noses at American friends and allies like South Korea, Colombia, Canada, and Mexico. In May, House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi shelved a painstakingly negotiated trade pact with Colombia that would have primarily benefited American exports. If
the US is wary of trading with tiny Colombia - a democratizing neighbor confronting terrorism and drug trafficking - what does
that say about America's capacity for global economic leadership?
Ms. Pelosi also recently killed "fast-track" procedures intended to ease congressional votes on trade agreements, meaning new
pacts with South Korea and Panama are also likely to remain in limbo. And just last month, Democrats in the House and Senate
proposed a bill (containing many of Senator Obama's campaign promises) that would require the president to submit plans to
renegotiate all current trade agreements - including the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico -
before Congress would consider any new agreements.
The message Democrats are sending to the world is clear: You cannot trust America to honor its trade agreements, even
with developing nations struggling to enter the global middle class. This is a far cry from Obama's Lincolnesque
promise in his Democratic nomination victory speech June 3rd to restore "our image as the last, best hope on earth."
On Iraq, Democrats have put themselves in an equally tenuous position. Despite all evidence to the contrary, Obama
and congressional Democrats remain committed to calling the "surge" a failure. And they are wedded to promises for
immediate troop withdrawals.
Every reputable analysis of Iraq - including from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group - warns that a rapid reduction of US
troops would reignite sectarian violence and threaten the government in Baghdad.
Nonetheless, more than 40 Democratic congressional candidates recently pledged that, if elected, they would legislate an
immediate withdrawal of all troops except those guarding the US Embassy. And Obama maintains his vow to immediately
begin removing "one to two combat brigades each month" - a pace that would represent the most frantic retreat since
Vietnam.
To ignore recent hard-won stability in Iraq and withdraw in the face of a certain humanitarian catastrophe would be
viewed across the world as the height of irresponsibility; and it would make a mockery of Obama's hopes that America
will "once again have the courage and conviction to lead the free world."
Perhaps we should not take the Democrats too literally - perhaps this is simply a crafty election year strategy aimed at placating
an antiwar and increasingly protectionist electorate. After all, two of Obama's senior advisers - in unguarded moments -
described his campaign promises on trade and Iraq as mere necessities to win the election; afterward prudence would prevail.
But Democrats may be playing it a bit too clever, possibly hindering their chances in November. Despite lofty promises, the
policies they are most aligning themselves with leave them vulnerable to Republican charges of "defeatism" - that America
cannot compete in a world of open markets and cannot successfully finish the job in Iraq.
Obama Bad Impact – Energy Security

Obama victory bad – opposition to oil shipment will short-circuit US energy policy, ensuring
catastrophic impact on energy security
Beschloss, Desert Sun contributor, 6-27-8
(Morris R., Desert Sun, “Energy policy hinges on election,” Lexis)
With energy development rapidly becoming the presidential campaign's critical issue, there are several happenings bringing the
collision between the environmentalist partisans and the "Energy Now" protagonists to a rapid showdown.
Thursday morning, the OPEC chief minister predicted crude oil per barrel to rise to $170 later this summer. He also added that
U.S. gasoline could rise to $6 per gallon. The crude oil target is $20 more than what I had predicted at the first of the year, along
with $125 per barrel by Memorial Day.
The Obama campaign's position to forego drilling, in alignment with the "greens" is sending tremors throughout Canada.
Our neighbors to the north are worried the "climactic change prevention" lobby will convince the Democratic president, if elected,
to issue an executive order to prevent oil derived from tar sands to be cut off from further U.S.-bound delivery.
This is due to the high level of CO2 and greenhouse gases released by this all important energy component, making up an
increasingly significant part of shipments from Canada, our No. 1 energy supplier.
I had predicted this a month ago, when Canada demanded a release from the U.S. Defense Department, which had earmarked a
substantial segment of the tar sand-derived oil, before shipment over the border.
With Canada providing the single-most source of supply to alleviate the U.S. energy shortage, a halt to such deliveries would
prove catastrophic. We are told that the Canadians are already contemplating alternative delivery targets in case Barack Obama is
elected.
It's becoming increasingly clearer that the winner of the Nov. 4 presidential election will also determine the nature of America's
approach to energy survival for years to come.
********** Bush Good **********

Bush Good – India Deal Good 1NC
A. Uniqueness and internal link – Bush’s political capital key to securing India deal
Chengappa, India Today deputy editor, 7-21-8
(Raj, India Today, “The long last mile”, Lexis)
That process would not be a shoo-in as several members have expressed their reservations over making such a special deal for
India.
Countries like Ireland, New Zealand and some from the EU maintain that it would irrevocably damage the current nuclear non-
proliferation architecture which is built to deny countries that don't sign the NPT access to civilian nuclear technology.
These countries argue that India had not only refused to sign the NPT but also conducted nuclear tests. By ending India's pariah
status, the NSG would weaken compliance among the nuclear have-nots who have signed the NPT.
India's other concern is that the NSG may not give it "a clean exemption" and instead foist killer caveats. Given the domestic
political opposition, India has requested the US to ensure that there were no hiccups or embarrassments at the NSG.
It would need all of Bush's dwindling clout to get NSG clearance by September, just in time to have it listed for ratification by the
US Congress before it adjourns.
The deal is unlikely to get the US Congress' seal of approval without some debate. Many Congressmen are already seething that
Bush used his presidential powers to waive some uncomfortable clauses that the Hyde Act could foist on India.
[Note – NSG = Nuclear Suppliers Group]
B. Link – Plan spends political capital - ______________________________________
C. Impact – India Deal Good
1. Now key – failure to finish the deal now collapses it

The Left's stringent objections and delaying tactics have left both the Indian and the US governments with little elbow room to
consummate the deal during US President George Bush's tenure which ends in January 2009.
Apart from the IAEA Board clearing the India-specific safeguards agreement, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) has to agree to
make an exception in its rules that would permit its 45 members to carry out civilian nuclear trade with India even though it is not
a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
After that the US President will make a determination that India has fulfilled its part of the deal and send it to the US Congress
which will then have to take an up-or-down vote on it.
Only after all these processes are completed to everyone's satisfaction, will the deal become operationalised and allow India to
engage in nuclear trade with American entities.
If Manmohan suddenly seemed in a hurry to push the deal through, it was because any further delay would mean that India would
have to negotiate with a new President and a new Congress to seal the deal.
And there was every danger that they may not be as responsive or enthusiastic as Bush and the current legislators are.
[Note – Manmohan = Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]

Bush Good – India Deal Good 1NC
2. The deal is critical to U.S.-India Relations

Schaffer, Center for Strategic & International Studies South Asia Program director & former US Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for South Asia 7-12-07
(Teresita, YALE GLOBAL, July 12, 2007,
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=9386
The US opposed India’s nuclear policy, especially after the 1998 test of an explicitly military nuclear device. India saw the Indian
Ocean as its own “security space,” and looked with a jaundiced eye on other powers, including the US, maintaining a regular
military presence there. Ironically, the nuclear test provided the occasion for India and the US to have their first serious discussion
about respective strategic perspectives and what would make the world a safer place. This dialogue ultimately did not change
either country’s fundamental approach to nuclear proliferation. But it did lead the US to accept that it must deal with India as a
nuclear power. It also led both countries to recognize a common interest in preventing the spread of nuclear-weapons technology.
The test set the stage for changes during the 21st century: the simplification of US procedures for exports of non-nuclear high
technology that India wanted to buy and the agreement making possible India-US civil-nuclear cooperation, which had been off
limits for nearly 30 years. The US Congress passed legislation authorizing the agreement, and the understanding now makes its
way through a multi-layered implementation process. This agreement has caused heartburn both in the US and India and, if
implemented, will lead to major adjustments in the nonproliferation institutions that the US painstakingly built over the
last 40 years. Still, the agreement should be supported for two reasons: First, removing India from the list of “nuclear
outlaws” is an essential step in securing India’s energetic participation in preventing the spread of nuclear-weapons
technology. Second, the US could not have developed a real partnership with India – one that could stabilize Asia and
strengthen the region’s democratic orientation – without breaking the nuclear taboo.
3. Strong US-India relations are critical to prevent nuclear war

Dugger, New York Times 02
(Celia Dugger, 6-10-02, “Wider Military Ties With India Offer U.S. Diplomatic Leverage,” p. A1)
Military cooperation between India and the United States has remarkably quickened since Sept. 11, with a burst of navy, air
force and army joint exercises, the revival of American military sales to India and a blur of high-level visits by generals and
admirals. The fledgling relationship between American and Indian military leaders will be important to Mr. Rumsfeld in talks
intended to put to rest fears of war between India and Pakistan. "We can hope this translates into some influence and trust,
though I don't want to overstate it," a senior American defense official said in an interview on Thursday. "I don't want to predict
this guarantees success." The American diplomatic efforts yielded their first real gains on Saturday when India welcomed a pledge
by Pakistan's military ruler to stop permanently the infiltration of militants into Kashmir. India indicated that it would soon take
steps to reduce tensions, but a million troops are still fully mobilized along the border -- a situation likely to persist for months --
and the process of resolving the crisis has just begun. India has linked the killing of civilians in Kashmir to a Pakistan-backed
insurgency there and has presented its confrontation with Pakistan as part of the global campaign against terrorism. India itself
made an unstinting offer of support to the United States after Sept. 11, and Washington responded by ending the sanctions
placed on India after its 1998 nuclear tests. With that, the estrangement that prevailed between the world's two largest democracies
during the cold war, when India drew close to the Soviet Union and the United States allied with Pakistan, has eased. India, for
decades a champion of nonalignment, seeks warmer ties with the United States in hopes of gaining access to sophisticated military
technology and help in dealing with Pakistan. From the start of President Bush's term, some influential officials in his
administration saw India as a potential counterweight to that other Asian behemoth, China, whose growing power was seen as a
potential strategic threat. But since Sept. 11, the priority has been terrorism. The United States is hoping its deeper military and
political ties with India will give it some measure of leverage to prevent a war between India and Pakistan that could lead to
a nuclear holocaust and would play havoc with the hunt for Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
India Deal Uniqueness – Bush Spending Political Capital on

India Deal Now
Bush committed to using capital to get India deal now

Also the G8 Summit in Toyako, Japan, was an ideal place for Manmohan to canvass for the deal with not only Bush but other
leaders belonging to NSG countries including China.
Judging from the unequivocal endorsement he got from the G8 countries as also from China, indicating that it would not be an
obstacle at the NSG, the gamble was well worth the effort. In his 50-minute meeting with Bush, the prime minister also got
assurances that the US President would go all out to move the deal through the remaining hoops.
India Deal Internal Link – Internal Link – Political Capital

Key
Bush will need to use all of his limited political capital to get the India deal
Chicago Tribune, 6
(March 3, 2006, p.Lexis
Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, predicted that Bush can win approval if he presses
Congress hard enough. "But with Bush much weaker than he has been, including in the national security area, and with Iran
looming as a nuclear problem, this one will be a tougher sell," Ornstein said. "I think he gets it in the end, but he will
probably have to spend more of his limited political capital than he would like." Baker Spring, a research fellow in national
security at the Heritage Foundation, agreed. "The reaction in Congress will be cautious," he said. "However, I think it is more
likely than not that Congress will approve the deal."
Congressional cooperation key to India deal passage

Political capital key to Congressional approval
ECONOMIC TIMES, July 22, 2007
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/US-India_nuke_deal_All_set_to_go/articleshow/2224071.cms)
But at all times, diplomats said, they were conscious of the political will on both sides to consummate the controversial deal that
has critics on both sides. That hard-fought 123 Agreement, still under wraps except for broad outlines, will now be presented
before India's Cabinet Committee on Security for a final seal of approval and to the U.S. Congress for a yes-no vote before things
start rolling. Officials declined to speak on record about the details of the 123 agreement, but the broad picture sources offered
suggests both sides made important concessions to arrive at a mutually acceptable text sans square brackets. From India's side,
there was never any doubt that it would win the right to reprocess spent fuel from the moment it made the offer – a concession - of
setting up a dedicated safeguards facility. The more contentious portion of the agreement related to sanctions and the 'right of
return' of materiel and technology in the event of India conducting a nuclear test – a congressionally mandated law that
Washington said it could not overwrite. Instead, sources suggested without getting into details, the agreement included language to
work around this situation. The language, which Indian negotiators ensured would preclude a repeat of the Tarapur episode, when
US invoked sanctions despite guarantees, is to New Delhi's satisfaction. One key element in the negotiations that finalised the deal
was the direct involvement of representatives from India's scientific establishment. Dr R.B.Grover, Director of Strategic Planning
Group in the Department of Atomic Energy, participated in the technical talks and ran the developments by Dr Anil Kakodkar,
Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. Kakodkar did not take part in the talks directly, but was a major backroom
presence. While the political establishment hopes that this show of consensus will mollify dissenters in the scientific community,
the government itself faces the tough task of getting its allies and the opposition on board. That is why, sources said, it was
decided that 123 Agreement would not be released before the CCS had discussed it and the government had briefed allies and key
opposition leaders. In Washington, administration officials are expected to brief key law-makers and their aides on the agreement
and bring it up for a final vote soon. The country's vocal non-proliferation community is expected to raise hell as usual about
concessions to India. But the vote in Congress will be a straight up-down, yes-no vote with no amendments allowed, so the
administration expects to get it done without too much trouble.
India Deal Internal Link – AT – Congressional Approval

Irrelevant
Congressional approval key to stable deal – congressional imprimatur provides more certainty
Rivkin, BakerHostetler partner and constitutional law expert, 9-10-07
(David B., Jr., India Today, GUEST COLUMN: AN AMERICAN VIEW: The 123 Agreement Will Prevail, p. 30)
Once India fulfils the preconditions that have been agreed upon, e.g., the IAEA safeguards, and the ban on nuclear trade is lifted by
the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the 123 Agreement is to be approved or disapproved by an up and down vote in the Congress,
without providing Congress the opportunity to modify the Agreement. It is far better for India to have an Agreement that is blessed
by Congress. This is because congressional approval makes it more difficult to change in the future and provides New Delhi with
greater certainty. In contrast, a purely executive agreement could always be changed by the next President.
India Deal Uniqueness – AT – Nuclear Suppliers Group Will

Block Deal Now
Nuclear Suppliers Group on board to pass deal now

Also the G8 Summit in Toyako, Japan, was an ideal place for Manmohan to canvass for the deal with not only Bush but other
leaders belonging to NSG countries including China.
Judging from the unequivocal endorsement he got from the G8 countries as also from China, indicating that it would not be an
obstacle at the NSG, the gamble was well worth the effort. In his 50-minute meeting with Bush, the prime minister also got
assurances that the US President would go all out to move the deal through the remaining hoops.
Nuclear Suppliers Group approval coming now

The endgame IAEA clearance: After winning the vote of confidence in Parliament, the Government would request the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board to clear India-specific safeguards that were under negotiations. At the earliest
this could be done by July 28.Nuclear suppliers group: Once the IAEA clearance is in, the US would ask for a special meeting of
the NSG and ask it to make an exception to permit its 45 members to engage in civilian nuclear trade with India. The NSG
clearance to do so is expected to happen by September. US Congress ratification: After US President George Bush makes a
determination that India has fulfilled its side of the deal, he would send it to the US Congress for ratification. The current US
Congress term ends in January 2009 and it may leave it to the incoming one to endorse it.
India Deal Uniqueness – AT – Indian Left Will Block Deal

Now
Left concerns have been met – assurances are part of IAEA deal
In the UPA-Left confabulations over the nuclear deal, the Left parties wanted the IAEA safeguards to have a clause ensuring that
supply of fuel to Indian reactors, designated as civilian, would be guaranteed.
They also wanted some escape mechanism in case these commitments were not fulfilled. It was meant to protect India's nuclear
plants from being subject to punitive sanctions including cutting off of fuel supply in case America or other NSG countries decided
to do so, especially if New Delhi conducted another nuclear explosion.
The draft document that has been negotiated with the IAEA and now circulated to its 35-member Board does contain these
assurances in some of the clauses and the Government told the Left parties that most of their concerns on these counts had been
met.
India Deal Uniqueness – AT – IAEA Will Block Deal

IAEA will approve the deal – vote is only a formality
About the Government requesting the IAEA to circulate the draft among its Board members and fix a date to consider its approval,
Indian officials maintained it was only procedural and that the Government would seek a vote of confidence before the Board took
a decision. The IAEA Board is expected to fix July 28 for its India specific meeting.
When the IAEA approves the draft, the onus would then shift to the US to convene a special meeting of the NSG to make the
necessary exception for India to be permitted to carry out civilian nuclear trade with its members.
[Note – NSG = Nuclear Suppliers Group]

India Deal Good – Indian Energy Security

Deal key to India’s energy security
For Manmohan, if he is able to pull off this incredible gamble, history beckons. For, in one master-stroke he would end India's
years of nuclear isolation even while maintaining its strategic force intact-a major achievement.
As importantly, with nuclear energy now looked upon as a solution to the world's climate change woes, the prime minister would
have ensured that India had access to the latest technology, helping boost the country's energy security while allowing it to bring
down its carbon footprint. No wonder the rush.
[Note – Manmohan = Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]

India Deal Good – Nuclear Cooperation

Failure to complete the deal will stall nuclear cooperation and research
The Hindu, 9-4-07
(BBC Monitoring South Asia – Political, India will have to pay price if it does not implement US nuclear deal – expert, Excerpt
from unattributed report headlined "We must have access to nuclear energy" published by Indian newspaper The Hindu website on
3 September)
Chennai: If India fails to go ahead with the nuclear deal, it will have to pay a price for being unfriendly with the United States,
former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission M.R. Srinivasan said here on Saturday. [1 September]
India would not be able to obtain nuclear fuel and technology from the United States and other supplier countries nor would it be
able to join international nuclear science research programmes without the agreement, Mr. Srinivasan said at a discussion
organised by the Triplicane Cultural Academy and the Kasturi Srinivasan Library.
"We must have access to nuclear energy to meet the country's power demands in the future," he said. If the deal is finalized, the
Department of Atomic Energy would set up nuclear power generation projects. The private sector would also be welcome to
participate in nuclear power programmes, he said.
Mr. Srinivasan said India had got a much better 1-2-3 Agreement with the US than China had in terms of provisions for nuclear
fuel supply and reprocessing. [Passage omitted.]
India Deal Good – Collapse of Deal Destroys Relations

Reversal of deal kills relations
Hindu 7-16-07
('Major US firms ready to lobby for Indo-US nuke deal', “ http://www.thehindu.com/holnus/001200707160325.htm, accessed 7-
16-8)
”This deal is very very important to both countries," Bill Begert, vice-president at Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies
Co., which hopes to supply engines for the fighter-jet deal, is quoted as saying. "If this falls apart, it will have real near-term
consequences for everyone in the defence industry." Pakistan presents another foreign-policy wrinkle, the Journal says, adding
any advances in India's nuclear capabilities could further unsettle the government of President Pervez Musharraf, currently beset
by countrywide protests after he cracked down on the judiciary and pro-Taliban Lal Masjid in Islamabad. Pakistan also had sought
similar consideration from Washington, but was rebuffed. Many US lawmakers, the Journal says, also have vowed to oppose any
deal that loosens restrictions on how India can use US-provided nuclear fuel. The stakes are high for Bush's embattled foreign
policy, it added, stressing that aides often cite the thawing of relations with India as a key accomplishment of his presidency at a
time of deep frustration in the Middle East and rising tensions with powers such as Russia and China. The nuclear deal, they say,
is key to cementing a partnership between the world's oldest democracy, the US, and its largest, India, after decades of chillness.
Failure to implement the deal will crush relations

HINDUSTAN TIMES, 6 (1-4-6, http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1598242,00050001.htm)
Any failure to implement the civil nuclear pact could hurt the US's vital interests and set the clock back on its strategic relations
with India, former US Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill has warned. Blackwill's remarks, made during a talk at the US India
Business Council in Washington, were clearly directed at Washington's non-proliferation lobby that is continuing it s all-out efforts
to thwart the deal. "We are at a historic intersection in our relationship. Indians see this (the nuke deal) as a litmus test of American
seriousness about developing a strategic partnership," he said adding that the Indians have "a long history of suspicion" on this
score. Blackwill, currently the president of Barbour Griffith and Rogers International, one of the top lobbying firms, went on to say
that non-implementation of the pact could prove to be "very damaging" for US's vital interests in the decades ahead.
Bush has heavily touted the deal – reversal would collapse reliable relations
Levi, Council on Foreign Relations Science & Technology Fellow, 07
(Michael, U.S.-INDIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION: A STRATEGY FOR MOVING FORWARD, 2007,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10795/usindia_nuclear_cooperation.html)
Since then, though, the dynamics have shifted. In the immediate aftermath of the U.S.-India deal, Russia supplied India with
uranium for two reactors at Tarapur, partially alleviating near-term pressures for outside sources of nuclear fuel. More
fundamentally, the high-profile announcement of a U.S.-India nuclear deal has changed the choices available to American
policymakers. If Congress blocks cooperation after the Bush administration has made strong and public commitments to India, it
would damage the bilateral relationship. Rejecting the nuclear deal now would leave the United States in a substantially worse
position than had that deal not been made in the first place, reinforcing unfortunate Indian perceptions of the United States not only
as anti-Indian but also as an unreliable partner.
India Deal Good – Collapse of Deal Destroys Relations

Nuclear deal is critical to smooth relations between US and India – we cannot risk relations
Tellis, Senior Associate Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 06
(Ashley J. Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony April 26, 2006, p. Lexis)
The question that is sometimes asked in this connection is whether a close U.S.-Indian partnership would be impossible in the
absence of civilian nuclear cooperation. The considered answer to this question is "Yes." This is not to say that U.S.- Indian
collaboration will evaporate if civilian nuclear cooperation between the two countries cannot be consummated, but merely that
such collaboration would be hesitant, troubled, episodic, and unable to realize its full potential without final resolution of the one
issue that symbolically, substantively, and materially kept the two sides apart for over thirty years. At a time when U.S.-Indian
cooperation promises to become more important than ever, given the threats and uncertainties looming in the international system,
the risk of unsatisfactory collaboration is one that both countries ought not to take.
India Relations Good – India-Pakistan War

US-India relations are key to Kashmir and India-Pakistan peace
Schaffer, Center for Strategic & International Studies South Asia Program director & former US Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for South Asia 02
(Teresita, The Washington Quarterly; Spring)
Both the long-term health of U.S. relations with India and short-term concerns about maintaining peace in South Asia argue for a
more active U.S. diplomatic engagement on the issue of relations between India and Pakistan, including Kashmir. Reengagement
with Pakistan and the buildup of ties with India has produced the strongest simultaneous set of bilateral U.S. relations with both
countries in many decades. A sophisticated but persistent effort to press the participants to develop a peace process is needed.
Neither side will greet these attempts with unalloyed enthusiasm. Pakistan traditionally welcomes international involvement, but
its government will have to acknowledge that the first U.S. demand is likely to be a real crackdown on violent militant groups.
India's long-standing preference is for a purely bilateral approach, but a quiet diplomatic effort will almost certainly be accepted if
the United States can build up the trust it has begun to establish with India. The stakes are too high for all parties concerned to
ignore the issue.
Impact – India Pakistan War

India-Pakistan war would trigger nuclear winter
Nabi Fai; Kashmiri American Council 01
(Ghulam; July 8, 2001 (Washington Times)
The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a
unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed
territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It
has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a
nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic
view. The Director of Central Intelligence, the Department of Defense, and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of
their nuclear worries. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery
vehicles. Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations. Neither country has initialed
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile
Material/Cut-off Convention.

Elections &amp; Politics Scenarios - Brovero

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elections &amp; Politics Scenarios - Brovero

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Page 1 of 53

Brovero/Lundeen/Moczulski Elections & Politics Scenarios

Political Who’s Who

Senate Committees Chair Ranking Member

Political Who’s Who

House Committees Chair Ranking Member

Ralph Nader Independent Independent candidate for President

********** Obama Good **********

Obama Good 1NC – Foreign Policy

[Card continues, no omissions]

Obama Good 1NC – Foreign Policy

[Card continued, no omissions]

C. Impact – Obama victory key to US leadership

1. Obama victory will restore US soft power

Obama Good 1NC – Foreign Policy

Obama Good Impact – Soft Power

Card continues, no omissions

Obama Good Impact – Soft Power

Card continued, no omissions

Obama Good Impact – Soft Power

McCain Bad Impact – Iran Attack Bad

CARD CONTINUES, NO OMISSIONS

McCain Bad Impact – Iran Attack Bad

CARD CONTINUED, NO OMISSIONS

Obama Good Impact – Iran Diplomacy

********** Bush Bad **********

Bush Bad 1NC – Drilling Bad

Bush Bad 1NC – Drilling Bad

Bush Bad 1NC – Drilling Bad

Uniqueness – Bush Pushing Drilling Now

Bush pushing to expand drilling now

Bush pushing for offshore drilling now

Uniqueness – Bush Pushing ANWR Drilling Now

Drilling Bad – Environment

Drilling Bad – Hurts the Environment

Oil Spills Hurt Species

Marine invertebrates hit hard by oil spills

Fish are directly impacted by oil spills

Drilling Bad – AT – Drilling Reduces Oil Prices

ANWR Drilling Bad – Ecosystem

ANWR oil drilling would interfere with animal reproduction

ANWR Drilling Bad – Ecosystem

ANWR Drilling Bad – Oil Spills

[WWF: World Wildlife Fund]

ANWR Drilling Bad – Native Alaskans

Oil developers express hostility towards Alaskan Natives

ANWR Drilling Bad – AT – Energy/Oil

ANWR Drilling Bad – AT – Energy/Oil

[Menzie Chinn: Professor of Public Affairs and Economics]

ANWR Drilling Bad – AT – Energy/Oil

********** Obama Bad **********

Obama Bad 1NC – Obama Foreign Policy Bad

B. Impact – Obama win crushes US leadership

1. Obama will crush US leadership – his policies will tank US relations

Card continues, no omissions

Obama Bad 1NC – Obama Foreign Policy Bad

Obama Bad 1NC – Obama Foreign Policy Bad

Obama Bad Impact – Foreign Policy

Obama Bad Impact – Energy Security

********** Bush Good **********

Bush Good – India Deal Good 1NC

[Note – NSG = Nuclear Suppliers Group]

B. Link – Plan spends political capital - ______________________________________

Elections & Politics Scenarios - Brovero

Elections & Politics Scenarios - Brovero

Obama Good

Bush Bad

Obama Bad

Bush Good