PastaJoe Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 Well, this didn't take long... Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports 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. But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are. The president's State of the Union reference to Mideast oil made headlines nationwide Wednesday because of his assertion that "America is addicted to oil" and his call to "break this addiction." 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. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwas...shington_nation
Mickey Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 Well, this didn't take long... Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports 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. But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are. The president's State of the Union reference to Mideast oil made headlines nationwide Wednesday because of his assertion that "America is addicted to oil" and his call to "break this addiction." 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. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwas...shington_nation 592002[/snapback] Good catch Pasta. At least they fessed up to it being total BS right away, we didn't need a full blown investigation and Senate hearings. He is such a "straight shooter" isn't he?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 Good catch Pasta. At least they fessed up to it being total BS right away, we didn't need a full blown investigation and Senate hearings. He is such a "straight shooter" isn't he? 592017[/snapback] Sounds less like he lied than one of those sadly typical situations where a bunch of people were listening to his speech and suddenly exclaimed "Oh sh--! I didn't know Gomer Pyle was going to say that!" And that bunch of people not only includes the Secretary of Energy, but oil execs as well.
Mickey Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 Sounds less like he lied than one of those sadly typical situations where a bunch of people were listening to his speech and suddenly exclaimed "Oh sh--! I didn't know Gomer Pyle was going to say that!" And that bunch of people not only includes the Secretary of Energy, but oil execs as well. 592124[/snapback] I don't know. I would imagine the STOFTU speech is gone over pretty carefully. I think it was one of those toss offs to make him sound like a moderate, if only for a night. Given the price of gas which has been pretty rough on anyone who has a car or a furnace, a BS statement like that wasn't a bad idea, especially since it is not going to be followed up with any acutal action.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 I don't know. I would imagine the STOFTU speech is gone over pretty carefully. I think it was one of those toss offs to make him sound like a moderate, if only for a night. Given the price of gas which has been pretty rough on anyone who has a car or a furnace, a BS statement like that wasn't a bad idea, especially since it is not going to be followed up with any acutal action. 592154[/snapback] Could be. The problem I have with that is it requires a bunch of people sitting around planning on having Howdy Doody say something, so they can retract it themselves within 48 hours and make him look either stupid, or weak and not in control of his cabinet. That also requires greater secrecy and organization that I'm willing to give them - or anyone else in Washington, for that matter - credit for. Occam's Razor dictates that I have to go with the "Oh sh--, not again!" theory.
Recommended Posts