DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Teareerah** · 02-03-2006, 02:23 PM

In case you've forgotten the energy policy in this country was written by the oil company executives in closed session with former oil comany executive cheney. Forgive me if I seem cynical but when the foxes are running the henhouse don't expect them to become vegetarians.

"Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports".
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...n/13767738.htm
WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.
(...)
He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

Not exactly, though, it turns out.

"This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.

He said the broad goal was to displace foreign oil imports, from anywhere, with domestic alternatives. He acknowledged that oil is a freely traded commodity bought and sold globally by private firms. Consequently, it would be very difficult to reduce imports from any single region, especially the most oil-rich region on Earth. You know, I heard Bush had turned into a hippie on the radio, but I didn't think anything of it. Perhaps the references to "clean coal" and nuclear power should've suggested something.. But I like the twist on this story - no need to invent anything, or suggest any possibilities on how the Bush- administration is treating policy and official statements. They explain it themselves. Good thing, or they'd be caught in /lying/ later..

Of course, how many other papers would refer to their "conference call" after the speech, and instead discussing the viability of his suggestion(and gain a few points towards their "balance" award)? And how many papers would refer to the pre- briefing of the SOTU speech they attended, and explain what they were told the speech would be about, instead of figuring out a way to fit Bush's remarks into the unspoken context? I would guess - not many.

Anyway - what did the president mean, then? Why did he bring this up at all? Suggestions?

02-03-2006, 02:23 PM	#14
Teareerah Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 440 Senior Member	In case you've forgotten the energy policy in this country was written by the oil company executives in closed session with former oil comany executive cheney. Forgive me if I seem cynical but when the foxes are running the henhouse don't expect them to become vegetarians. "Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports". http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...n/13767738.htm WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally. What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025. (...) He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past." Not exactly, though, it turns out. "This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said. He said the broad goal was to displace foreign oil imports, from anywhere, with domestic alternatives. He acknowledged that oil is a freely traded commodity bought and sold globally by private firms. Consequently, it would be very difficult to reduce imports from any single region, especially the most oil-rich region on Earth. You know, I heard Bush had turned into a hippie on the radio, but I didn't think anything of it. Perhaps the references to "clean coal" and nuclear power should've suggested something.. But I like the twist on this story - no need to invent anything, or suggest any possibilities on how the Bush- administration is treating policy and official statements. They explain it themselves. Good thing, or they'd be caught in /lying/ later.. Of course, how many other papers would refer to their "conference call" after the speech, and instead discussing the viability of his suggestion(and gain a few points towards their "balance" award)? And how many papers would refer to the pre- briefing of the SOTU speech they attended, and explain what they were told the speech would be about, instead of figuring out a way to fit Bush's remarks into the unspoken context? I would guess - not many. Anyway - what did the president mean, then? Why did he bring this up at all? Suggestions?
	Quote