Christine Todd Whitman Shills for Nuclear Power

CONTEXT UPDATE: I wrote the article below without asking WHY she was on the radio this morning. A news item clarified why (Google: ‘posted 6 hours ago’):

New York TIMES:

U.S energy bill aids the expansion plans of atomic power plants
By Edmund L. Andrews and Matthew L. Wald
Published: July 31, 2007

WASHINGTON: A one-sentence provision buried in the Senate’s recently passed energy bill, inserted without debate at the urging of the nuclear power industry, could make builders of new nuclear plants eligible for tens of billions of dollars in government loan guarantees. … The nuclear industry is enjoying growing political support after decades of opposition from environmental groups and others concerned about the risks. An increasing number of lawmakers in both parties, worried about global warming and dependence on foreign oil, support some expansion of nuclear power….

So, they’re back at the public trough. Now, the original post:

How sick is that?

If there were ever any doubt that Republican Barbie-Doll-from-Hell ex-NJ Gov. Christine Todd Whitman was the right person for the “Clean Skies” initiative and the “Clean Water” initiative for Bushco before she jumped ship, well, she’s confirmed it with her slimy “buddies” interview on the “liberal” Bill Press Show.*

(*Syndicated by Jones Radio— Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, etc. Rightie hosts, too, like The Neal Boortz Show. Press, the former Chair of the California Democratic Party, and co-host of CNN’s late, unlamented “Crossfire,” seemingly swings both ways,: Left and Right.)

What’s astonishing is how sweetly and uncritically Press does this. His “incisive” question about the nightmare of nukes: “Why do we have to subsidize them?”

Whitman’s slimy answer: Environmentalist lawsuits. Oh. This from the former head of EPA under Bush. She supposedly “distanced” herself from the current Administration’s environmentally rapine policies, and now is shilling for Nuclear? The rankest of the rank hypocrites, a more palatable version of Ann Coulter, but just as sleazy with the facts. Some highlights:

Yucca Mtn. in Nevada “As we all know it’s being held up.” (By Harry Reid). She “understands.”

She holds up France and Japan as examples. (Right. Suddenly crapping on France is forgotten.)

We need to start doing these things now. (Getting Kyoto permits: “time consuming” and “we’ve got to get in line now.”)

Whitman pretends that her assessment of Ground Zero after 9-11 (asbestos and toxins in the air are allegedly responsible for debilitating effects, respiratory diseases, long-term health disasters in 9-11 responders, volunteers, rescue workers … and are being ignored by the Federal Government) was “correct.” (With nuances, which is the Democratic term for “not just black and white,” but which is the GOP term for “I’m a lying sack of crap.”)

“No higher risk of long-term health problems … in general.” and “We were always concerned [about asbestos, but] … not in a position legally to be able to enforce it.”

Which is a lie. She told the people of Manhattan that the air at Ground Zero was safe. They believed her. Now, they’re dying.

So we’re supposed to believe her about nuclear power?

You gotta give her style points for sheer brazen gall. Having aided and abetted in covering up deadly aftereffects of 9-11, and having been the Administration’s “point man” on wrecking new arsenic standards in drinking water, wrecking air and water regulation, and assisting in the Bush/Cheney attack on the environment (or, turning the EPA into an oxymoron again, as the Reagan Administration did), she NOW both acts like she’s NOT an environmental thug, a murderess and someone who “cares” about the environment, AND pushes the most toxic substances known to man as the “solution” for getting us energy independent.

She conveniently forgets that ONE of the 9-11 targets was the Indian Head Nuclear Power Plant on the Hudson River above New York City. HAD they succeeded in slamming one of the jets into that plant, ALL of NYC would now be ground zero.

Thank goodness

[End interview 4:23 AM PDT]

Press invites callers to discuss the question, “Nuclear energy: should it be part of the mix?”

[Press continues to rely heavily on his old CNN connections for ‘timely’ guests. From his website this morning:

Guests

* Former Governor and EPA Administrator Christine Whitman
* MSNBC Host Tucker Carlson
* CNN Weekend Legal Analyst Avery Friedman
* Politico’s DC Gossip Queen Anne Schroeder

Gee, that’s “liberal.” (NOT!) Oh, and this weirdly pathetic posting on his blog:

July 31, 2007
Bill WINS!!!
Dan wrote this at 7:13 am:

Bill Press is “D.C.’s Hottest Male On-Air Media Type” according to Mediabistro’s FishbowlDC. Thanks to YOUR votes!

Now, I (Associate Producer Dan) humbly ask for forgiveness to allegations of giving instructions on how to cheat the contest. Competition was getting tough, and we know for a fact other campaigns were cheating as well – it just so happens we got caught! I ask for forgiveness. Bill has given me my lashings.

For the record, Bill took the high road and did not accept the win from FishbowlDC, but they rejected his rejection.

Isn’t this what politics is all about? Cheating, then forgiveness? 🙂

No: that’s just slimy. I know they think it’s “funny,” but it’s basically disgusting.

Just a couple of additional comments, here.

Here’s the press release where she goes to work for her NEW satanic masters:

WASHINGTON, DC, April 24, 2006 – Two prominent environmental figures today announced that they will co-chair a new coalition designed to add fresh voices from across America to the resurgent movement advocating increased use of nuclear energy. The creation of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition – also known as the CASEnergy Coalition – was announced by Christine Todd Whitman, former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and former New Jersey Governor, and Patrick Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace.

Gov. Whitman and Dr. Moore called on Americans to join them in supporting the use of nuclear power as a clean, safe, reliable and cost-effective way to balance America’s energy demands and protect the environment.

“Our country’s significant energy needs keep growing. We must diversify our energy sources to meet these needs,” said Whitman. “Nuclear energy should be an important part of this diversification plan, especially since its production generates no air pollutants or greenhouse gases.”

Oh, disgusting comment (4:36) Bill Press: “I think Christine Todd Whitman can still be counted among the environmentalists.”

Really, Bill? And Torquemada can still be counted among the non-violent pacifists of the Fifteenth Century.

Jesus. They lie to us with a straight face, and Press collaborates with this environmental thug to be polite. This is the liberal problem in a nutshell: we are civil to barbarians, when they only USE our civility to accomplish their (barbaric) ends. They DEPEND on it, and we oblige them.

[The Nazis depended on the civility of the Jews to get them to march in orderly fashion into the showers, so beware!]

But Whitman is “still” an “environmentalist”?

Look. I debated nuclear power in college, having to DEFEND it against the many cases that wanted it killed. We never ran an anti-nuke case, so our research specialty was the literature that DEFENDED nuclear energy, of which I read mountains of. At the end of the time — my cousin worked at Los Alamos for many years, and having been brought up among PRO-nuclear engineers and scientists — I was forced to conclude* that nuclear energy has been an unmitigated disaster in virtually EVERY case, from weapons to power plants, and that in any sane cost/benefit analysis, we risked everything to gain virtually nothing. (They never mention that uranium is an even MORE limited resource than oil and coal, or that, if you go to “breeder reactors” to produce more nuclear fuel, they produce plutonium in great abundance.)

[* Intellectual honesty demands that we embrace the truth, as facts emerge, whether we like the conclusions or not. I would be just as willing to convert back, were there any meaningful new arguments. But there aren’t.]

Nothing I’ve seen since has altered that conclusion. Intellectual honesty demands that we put aside the lies and half-truths of an astonishingly dangerous and disingenuous industry … that now hires “environmental hero” Whitman and “Greenpeace Founder” Moore?

Well so what? Al Capone was once an altar boy. People change when lots of slimy cash is waved under their noses.

The Nuclear Power industry has huge investments in technology, siting and plant construction that they would rather make back than worry about those laughable nuclear accidents. And they’ve been hiring big-buck shills like Christine Todd Whitman for years and years.

What’s HILARIOUS is that she’s working for the nuke people because she’s supposed to be an “environmentalist.’ I guess they didn’t bother reading the newspapers from 2001 through 2005, when she ran (into the ground) the EPA. Or perhaps they were impressed by her rationalizations that it wasn’t her fault. She was just following orders.

Hmm. That sounds familiar. I wonder where I’ve heard it before?

But, of course, if we put nuclear plants everywhere, we wouldn’t be dependent on terrorists.

See: Impacts of a Terrorist Attack at Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant from the Union of Concerned Scientists ( a group, unlike Whitman, that actually has credibility).

But I guess terrorists are only dangerous when Republican thugs say they are, and NOT when they say they aren’t.

Bill Press (4:58 AM): “I’m still not ready to get on board.”

Gee. And I’m still not ready to get on board with legalizing child rape. But the way I just said it implies that it’s a REASONABLE choice. Just like nuclear power.

[Here, from the REAL Greenpeace website: Nuclear Power’s Extreme Makeover]

OK in a nutshell, what’s wrong with nukes? The fact that we’ll have to contain the waste for over 100,000 years for a few years of power. Insane. That plutonium is the MOST TOXIC SUBSTANCE known. Lunacy. That every plant is a target, and that even if ALL accidents could be prevented, they will always be magnets for terrorism, the success of which would functionally make the surrounding area uninhabitable forever.

None of this is remarkable, except that this right wing slime shows up on “liberal” talk radio. It’s not like the barbarians who dominate the field with their astonishing hatespeak don’t have plenty of time to give Whitman’s lies, half-truths and criminal rationalizations. But no.

There is a special spot in hell for you, Christine Todd Whitman.

But take solace in George Bernard Shaw’s observation that the damned feel perfectly comfortable in hell.

After all, it was made for them.

Courage.

«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»

[NOTE: 5:15 AM, Tucker Carlson disconnects himself from Bush in classical “rat deserting sinking ship” modality. And “who cares what Dick Cheney thinks?” I shoulda stayed in bed.]

© 2007 Hart Williams. Cross-posted from Zug - Hart Williams' Blog
The continuation of
Skiing Uphill and Boregasm, Zug is 'the little blog that could.'


877-851-6347 call congress toll free

Bookmark and Share

About Hart Williams

Mr. Williams grew up in Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas and New Mexico. He lived in Hollywood, California for many years. He has been published in The Washington Post, The Kansas City Star, The Santa Fe Sun, The Los Angeles Free Press, Oui Magazine, New West, and many, many more. A published novelist and a filmed screenwriter, Mr. Williams eschews the decadence of Hollywood for the simple, wholesome goodness of the plain, honest people of the land. He enjoys Luis Buñuel documentaries immensely.
Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Christine Todd Whitman Shills for Nuclear Power

  1. Darrell Prows says:

    We should be allowed to have all of the nuclear power that big money wants to build, just as soon as all statutory incentives are removed from the books. If the things can pay for themselves, including full and complete waste neutralization, then let’s have them.

    There, that killed the whole horrendous idea of resurrecting nuclear generated electricity. The technology has never stood on it’s own two feet, will never stand on its own two feet, and can never stand on its own two feet.

    And think of this. If we spend the ten or so years to build one of these monstrosities, and, oh, say, five billion dollars, we will still have no electricity produced at day 9 years + 364, and at dollar $4,999,999,999. Were we to spend $5 billion on solar generation, we would have electricity with some of the first dollars, and not real long after making the decision to go this route. Oh, and no one would be incinerated in event of a mistake.

  2. Darrell Prows says:

    We should be allowed to have all of the nuclear power that big money wants to build, just as soon as all statutory incentives are removed from the books. If the things can pay for themselves, including full and complete waste neutralization, then let’s have them.

    There, that killed the whole horrendous idea of resurrecting nuclear generated electricity. The technology has never stood on it’s own two feet, will never stand on its own two feet, and can never stand on its own two feet.

    And think of this. If we spend the ten or so years to build one of these monstrosities, and, oh, say, five billion dollars, we will still have no electricity produced at day 9 years + 364, and at dollar $4,999,999,999. Were we to spend $5 billion on solar generation, we would have electricity with some of the first dollars, and not real long after making the decision to go this route. Oh, and no one would be incinerated in event of a mistake.

  3. Mike Oliver says:

    You may not like what I will say, but if anyone calls me a shill or otherwise tries to defame because of my ideas, I shall sue that person for defamation. While I do not wish for you to go to hell, it is quite likley that the hotest place in that location may be reserved for those who engage in such tactics, not for the defenders of nuclear energy, of which I am proud to be one. I am not associated with any energy company of any kind nor am I getting a penny out of them, and you best not accuse me of being a shill.

    Airplanes flyin into nuke plants would have to penetrate three to four feet of strongly reinforced steel concrete anmd even the blaeds from their jet engines could not go as far as the reactor vessel. Moeover, even if that had happened , New York would not be destroyed. I am not wishing you to go to hell for insinuating that it would . I am not a green fascist, nor a fascist of any other type, so, instead of telling you to go to hell, I am merely telling you to go fly a kyte, and quit using slogans to spread your propaganda. People are getting wise to this tactic.

    Mr Wms. Responds: I have no idea whether you’re a “shill,” sir. But you CERTAINLY are shrill. Shrill to the point that I believe you to be a troll. I hope, for your sake, that you don’t enter the homes of strangers with the same wild vituperation.

  4. Mike Oliver says:

    You may not like what I will say, but if anyone calls me a shill or otherwise tries to defame because of my ideas, I shall sue that person for defamation. While I do not wish for you to go to hell, it is quite likley that the hotest place in that location may be reserved for those who engage in such tactics, not for the defenders of nuclear energy, of which I am proud to be one. I am not associated with any energy company of any kind nor am I getting a penny out of them, and you best not accuse me of being a shill.

    Airplanes flyin into nuke plants would have to penetrate three to four feet of strongly reinforced steel concrete anmd even the blaeds from their jet engines could not go as far as the reactor vessel. Moeover, even if that had happened , New York would not be destroyed. I am not wishing you to go to hell for insinuating that it would . I am not a green fascist, nor a fascist of any other type, so, instead of telling you to go to hell, I am merely telling you to go fly a kyte, and quit using slogans to spread your propaganda. People are getting wise to this tactic.

    Mr Wms. Responds: I have no idea whether you’re a “shill,” sir. But you CERTAINLY are shrill. Shrill to the point that I believe you to be a troll. I hope, for your sake, that you don’t enter the homes of strangers with the same wild vituperation.

  5. Mike Oliver

    Chill out instead of coming here and attacking someone whose views you disagree with. Hart’s post was not directed at you.

  6. Mike Oliver

    Chill out instead of coming here and attacking someone whose views you disagree with. Hart’s post was not directed at you.

  7. Mike makes me 😆 Get a grip!

  8. Mike makes me 😆 Get a grip!

  9. Darrell Prows says:

    Wow! It sounds like someone got a little close to the reactor core.

  10. Darrell Prows says:

    Wow! It sounds like someone got a little close to the reactor core.