Even Bush’s modest oil-import goal was a charade

February 2, 2006

In an otherwise-boilerplate State of the Union, Bush’s approach to oil imports was one of the more memorable elements of his address.

“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. 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.”

As I noted yesterday, the comments weren’t nearly as impressive as they may have seemed. The United States gets less than a fifth of its oil from the Middle East. If we reduce just those imports by 75%, it’s really only a reduction of 1.9% a year for 19 years. A “dramatic improvement” this is not.

Nevertheless, on Tuesday night, the comments generated broad praise. On Wednesday, they generating something different: backpedaling.

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.

[The president] 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.

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.”

It’s the quintessential Bush approach to public policy — say things that aren’t true in order to help people “understand.” Perfect.

The target of 2025 is the big joke.

Why doesn’t he suggest something that could be done by 2007? Like raise CAFE standards?

If you are not willing to make any efforts as President in your term, then shut up and leave the issue for the next election.

Remember, in 2000, the plurality of Americans voted for Al Gore, the environmentalist.

  • It’s no wonder they needed 30 rewrites of SOTU, creating your “own realities” is “hardwork”

  • I just started reading Bob Burnett, who has a really good, and sadly, way too obvious, analysis of the Dem response in comparison with Bush’s propaganda speech. It seems like sometimes he goes a little over the top (for instance, his response to the SOTU suggesting Bush is, in fact, an alien), but the point is clear: step up to the plate and knock the president for his fallacious pandering. Sadly, that does not seem to be happening.

    So is it any wonder that we’re getting instant deniability from this administration? It used to be an issue when a candidate made promises he didn’t keep years later (remember “read my lips”?). Now, it seems that the president can deliver a nationally televised public address and, just the next day, his administration feels free to qualify even the most straightforward remarks.

    We have an administration whose rhetoric is so vapid, so obviously and patently false that even they don’t feel the need to put on a show once the cameras are off. While we all complain about the zombies who still support the man, I’d like to posit that the true failure is in the opposition. Not the media, not the voters, not the Republicans (come on, you knew they were morally bankrupt before Bush), but the sorry ole Democrats listening to the same sorry ole advice.

  • Simply put, this whole thing cracks me up….

    First, we find ourselves with a president (sorry; he’s just, in my humble opinion, not worth that upper-case “P” anymore) who applies the brush of “qualifying statements” with such liberal abandon—yes; one might actually apply the “L” word in this case—that a single stroke all but negates the original intent of the bill being signed. Now, the qualifying statement mentality is applied to even the elemental foundation of SOTU:

    “What I say today and what I mean tomorrow do not have to be the same thing.”

    I suppose that someday (if things keep going the way they are now), we’ll in all likelihood find this “gentleman’s” (insert choking sound of your choice here) historical records—the truthful ones, at any rate—filed in a library somewhere—under the classification of “Fiction….”

  • Give Bush a break…you are all just misunderestimating him. By “Middle East” he means the middle of the East…you know, Maryland, Virginia, those places. And he’s right, we’ve been dependent on their oil for far too long…

  • I guess SOTU speech wasn’t first cleared with Bush’s real masters

    “Diplomatically, Mr. Bush’s ambitious call for the replacement of 75 percent of the United States’ Mideast oil imports with ethanol and other energy sources by 2025 upset Saudi Arabia, the main American oil supplier in the Persian Gulf. In an interview on Wednesday, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said he would have to ask Mr. Bush’s office “what he exactly meant by that.” ”

    Once the Saudis objected to it, the White House immediately backed off. Funny how these things work, eh?

  • Well, heck, all we have to do is invade Venezuela, right? The U.S. gets bunches of new oil and Hugo Chavez gets taken out just like Pat Robertson wanted. It’s a secret plan, though, so don’t tell anybody. Shhhhhhh!!! 😉

  • It’s the quintessential Bush approach to public policy — say things that aren’t true in order to help people “understand.”

    It’s also the quintessential mark of an unreformed alcoholic — say anything you need to keep the party going. Lie to your citizens, your party, your closest friends, your family … so long as nobody bursts you bubble by introducing reality and responsibility. Surround yourself only with people who “understand” — Babs, Laura, Condi, Karen.

    George W. Bush is the perfect exemplar of an immature alcoholic.

  • Again, I disagree. As pointed out elsewhere, it’s really impractical to reduce imports of just Middle Eastern oil without some serious invasive government action such as embargoes, which I don’t think is what he’s proposing. The “backpedaling” clarifies that. When Bush says ‘reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil‘ he is likely talking about reducing our dependence on all oil. That’s the whole point of building up technologies that use alternatives such as corn-based ethanol, which we probably have the capacity to become an exporter of, as well as to use to completely fuel ourselves with.

    While just saying “reduce your dependence on oil” probably doesn’t resonate well with a lot of righties or even moderates and independents who probably think the government should leave things alone and let them continue to gas up their SUVs at ridiculously low prices (compare our gas prices to the rest of the industrialized world,) saying “and reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil” probably goes a long way to make the case for a lot of those who are security-minded and remember that 15 of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, or that Osama bin Laden is Saudi Arabian.

    CB, I don’t understand why you take issue with this idea beyond that Bush probably doesn’t mean it. Why not reduce our dependence on oil?

    • Comments are closed.