This letter is in response to Debra Saunders April 14 commentary titled “Drilling in ANWR deserves full support now.”

Sorry, but Debra didn’t convince me. In fact, I found most of her arguments completely irrelevant. Saddam Hussein may well cut off oil production for thirty days, but he’s not going to cut it off for very long. That would undermine everything he stands for and believes in, i.e. money and power. And trying to guilt the American people out with the fact that Saddam is paying the families of suicide bombers $25,000 of our own money is, at the very least, hypocritical on her part. I could find similar unsavory practices being performed by every oil-producing country in the world.

The one thing I will agree with her on, is the sad fact that our senate became gutless when it came to raising the fuel-efficiency standards for U.S. automakers. Gee, I guess there must be an election year coming. However, if the senate were really serious about sending a clear and concise message to not only Saddam, but every other country that now produces oil, they would not only increase fuel-efficiency, they would require that U.S. automakers double the fuel-efficiency over the next ten years. An idea that is not so far-fetched considering that the technology to do this already exists.

As far as I’m concerned ANWR is the United States emergency oil of last resort. No one in the rest of the world can touch it or use it against us. And as long as it stays where it is, it’s a far more potent deterrent than turning on the taps and using it up as fast as we can pump it out of the ground.

If Debra Saunders really wants to change the world, she should use her column to induce our own government to spend more money on hydrogen-fuel-cell-technology. And then let’s see just how fast other countries are to change their tune and current practices when they realize that the United States has once again become a leader, and is willing to lead the way out of the oil rich sand box of the Middle East forever.

Clinton