So what was the major idea that people seemed to take away from the State of the Union address? Apparently it was this:
We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We’ll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. (Applause.)
Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. (Applause.) By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past. (Applause.)
Got that? “Replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025,” and “make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.” Sounds great, right? I couldn’t believe what I was reading (since I can’t bear to watch Bush actually speak, mostly because of his utterly distracting coke jaw — check out this piece to see what I mean, or just Google “coke jaw bush” if you have somehow missed this annoying tic). I mean, here’s a guy who is so entrenched in the oil business that he is best friends with the Saudi Royal Family and basically started a war in Iraq so Halliburton could control the oil fields of a soverign middle-eastern nation, and he’s now saying he wants to make “dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.” Incredible. I thought maybe the guy was turning over a new leaf, that he realized that EVERY TIME he had a 50-50 chance to make the right decision in the past six years, he made the wrong one and was now determined to correct that record.
But once again, it all turns out to be a shell game.
ONE DAY after Bush’s State of the Union address, his aides came out to clarify his statements. I would imagine quite a lot of you never heard this, and I certainly would have missed it if I hadn’t gotten an e-mail from Media Matters regarding the “retraction.” You can read the whole story here, at the Miami Herald, but here is the key section from the article:
Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing “more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 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.
Asked why the president used the words ”the Middle East” when he didn’t really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that ”every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands.” The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him in trouble.
Even when this guy seems to tell it straight out, he’s still lying. Why did I ever doubt it?
The first thing I would like to say is that just because someone has a tic doesn’t necessarily mean that they are a drunk or use drugs. I’d be willing to bet that almost everyone has some kind of tic when speaking in front of a crowd of people. Your statement that George Bush is ‘so entrenched in the oil business that he is best friends with the Saudi Royal Family’ is contradicted by the Afghanistan invasion (which toppled the Taliban Regime which the Saudis strongly supported), and by the Iraq War (which the Saudis opposed). You claim that President Bush ‘basically started a war in Iraq so Halliburton could control the oil fields of a soverign middle-eastern nation.’ Then why have gas prices gone up’ I’m all for changing how we power our automobiles but I think that it’s important to point out that if it wasn’t for liberals our dependence on Middle Eastern oil would already be a thing of the past. The oil industry constantly has to go to court to fight to be able to explore, drill, and refine. No matter what they seek to do to increase the flow of their product, environmental groups sue them. Politicians stand in their way. Regulations hamper their every move. They have to listen to environmental extremists and liberal members of Congress and liberal bureaucrats tell them they can’t go there to get it, they can’t drill here, they can’t explore there, can’t build a refinery here, can’t have a shipping lane there, can’t send the tanker here. At the end of your blog you claim that the President lied about wanting to replace U.S. consumption of foreign oil. That statement is untrue. In a his first post-State of the Union stop in Tennessee he outlined his plan for furthering alternative energy exploration:
‘Increased federal research into alternative fuels such as ethanol made from weeds or wood chips instead of corn;
‘Construction of new nuclear power plants, increased use of wind and solar power and clean coal technologies;
‘The Advanced Energy Initiative, which includes a 22 percent increase in clean-energy research to change how Americans power homes, offices and automobiles;
‘More investment in zero-emission, coal-fired plants, solar and wind technologies and clean, safe nuclear energy;
‘A doubling of federal funds to research programs in nanotechnology, supercomputing and alternative energy sources over the next 10 years
I would hope after six years as “president,” someone would get a grip on speaking in public, whether they enjoyed it or not. You’re inferring that Bush is nervous speaking in front of people. He’s a politician. Have you ever met a shy politician? I would imagine it’s virtually impossible to be in his position and be afraid to speak in public. Nevertheless, your point is taken.
Ask yourself why they opposed it? What would be most threatening to a country that derives most of its money from oil? How about having it’s largest buyer control oil production next door?
Well, number one, things didn’t exactly go as planned, did they. Oil production is still at pre-war levels. I doubt Halliburton thought that would be the case. Secondly, have you seen the record profits that the oil industry has generated in the past two years? My dad just sent me an article from his local paper saying that Exxon/Mobil’s year-end profit was over thirty-six BILLION dollars, and they they had a quarterly profit of 17%. Their “advertising rep was proud of their success and expected to see 2007 as a ‘cakewalk.”
So you can count greed as a reason that gas prices have risen. You can also thank your neighbors who are driving themselves, alone, back and forth to work in hemi-powered cars and giant SUVs that get 15 miles to the gallon. Supply and demand at work, my friend.
That’s funny. The last time a big liberal ran for president on a populist platform, he was crucified for talking about the end of the internal combustion engine. If it wasn’t for liberals our dependence on Middle Eastern oil would already be a thing of the past? Where have you been for the last six years? The Republicans have basically controlled EVERY branch of government for six years now. Have they passed ANY legislation that would indicate they’re ready to give up on Middle Eastern Oil? Please point me to ONE piece of legislation.
As you know, flow is not the issue. It is refinement. And that’s not what we’re talking about anyway. Please visit peak oil. Any meaningful amount of oil left in the ground is soon to be claimed anyway, despite environmentalists trying to stop it. You might be talking about ANWR and drilling there. The thing about ANWR is that even if we opened it up for drilling, the United States wouldn’t see a pint of that oil anyway. It would be sold to China, a country with an oil appetite that rivals our own, and a country that is MUCH closer to ANWR (more profits if you don’t have to ship that far).
OK, that’s fine. He can talk about all these things all he wants. The question is, is he a man of his word? Will he take action?
All those conservatives in the midwest voted for Bush because he promised to amend the Constitution to make marriage “between a man and woman.” What happened to that? Looks like he just dropped that one. Remember when he promised to enroll millions of poor children in government health care programs? That didn’t happen either. Need a few more things that Bush talked about then didn’t deliver? How about a “humble foreign policy.” Remember that one? What about when he promised to cut farm subsidies, and then signed a bill to raise them? Or how about this article that shows Bush’s ability to say one thing about free trade, and do another. How about the health care promise on the Bush-Cheney 2000 website where Bush claims he’ll reverse the trend of climing rates of uninsured Americans? Six years later, more Americans are funding health care costs out of their own pockets and the rate of uninsured Americans has climbed even higher. How about some more promised from the campaign site? “To provide energy assistance to low-income Households and Address Short-Term Supply Threats, Governor Bush will expand the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) by seeking the release of $155 million, and directing a portion of oil and gas royalty payments to the program, costing $1 billion over ten years.”
What did he do instead? He slashed the LIHEAP budget by $300 million in his first budget, despite the fact that assistance was needed by Americans more than ever, due to the extremely cold weather.
Clearly, this is a man who cannot be taken at his word. Please write back to me in a year and we’ll see how many of the five pledges he made in your statement have come to pass or are in the process of becoming reality. My guess is the number will be zero.