Bush Says Don’t Blame Saudis For U.S. Oil Problems
President George Bush has made another comment from foreign soil (Egypt) that doesn’t specify who he’s criticizing but it’s again clear who he means: he says don’t blame Saudi Arabia for America’s oil problems, blame Congress (which just happens to be controlled by the opposition party):
US President George W. Bush said on Saturday that a hike in oil output by Saudi Arabia would not solve American energy problems.
“It’s not enough, it’s something but it doesn’t solve our problem,” Bush told reporters in Egypt’s Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.
Bush said he was “pleased” with a Saudi decision taken on May 10 to increase its oil production by 300,000 barrels per day in response to customers, but said that he was “also realistic” about what the Americans should do.
“Our problem in America gets solved when we aggressively go for domestic exploration. Our problem in America gets solved if we expand our refining capacity, promote nuclear energy and continue our strategy for the advancing of alternative energies as well as conservation,” he said.
Fair enough. And how could he open himself to criticism for that? It’s what comes next that could cause some ripples, although not as much as earlier in the week when he used the same rhetorical technique to swipe at Democratic Senator Barack Obama from Israel:
“One interesting thing about American politics these days is those who are screaming the loudest for increased production from Saudi Arabia are the very same people who are fighting the fiercest against domestic exploration, against the development of nuclear power and against expanding refining capacity.”
Who do “those” refer to? Bush often uses this rhetorical device (which Richard Nixon used quite frequently) of saying “there are those” without naming them.
What’s notable about Bush is that he is one of the few Presidents in American history who seemingly rejects the idea of the virtue of seriously working to build genuine bipartisan consensus on solving national problems. It’s almost as if he views bipartisan consensus and problem solving as weakness. It’s all divide and rule hot-button politics.
In fact, BOTH parties are to blame for not coming together over the years and putting aside differences and hammering out a short term plan and a long term strategy. Just insisting that ANWAR must be drilled doesn’t cut it.
9 Responses to “Bush Says Don’t Blame Saudis For U.S. Oil Problems”
[...] [...]
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… wrote an interesting post today on Bush Says Donâ??t Blame Saudis For U.S. Oil ProblemsHere’s a quick excerptBush Says Don’t Blame Saudis For U.S. Oil Problems May 17th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief President George Bush has made another comment from foreign soil (Egypt) that doesn’t specify who he’s criticizing but it’s again clear who he means: he says don’t blame Saudi Arabia for America’s oil problems, blame Congress (which just happens to be controlled by the opposition party): US President George W. Bush said on Saturday that a hike in oil output by Saudi Arabia would not solve A [...]
If enough time elapses between Bush's anger mongering speeches, I can work up a litle empathy tor GWB, the man, if not GWB , the President. Just last week, I was defending him to my European friends.
Then he opens his mouth, again…..
The man just doesn't get that he represents ALL of America when he speaks in foreign lands, Every time he washes his political dirty laundry on a foreign stage, he cheapens America's image I call that unpatriotic, and no lapel pin or posing with soldiers can make up for it. He demeans the country and he demeans the office of the POTUS.
I often disagree with what the Dems in Congress try to do. i see, however, how Bush inspires the worst bulldog instincts in those who disagree with him, at home or abraod. He doesn't talk to Congress; he issues orders. He doesn't understand how his lack of respect, his disdain, inspires rebellion instead of a reasoned response..
I often wonder how our conflict with Iran might have turned out if people who understand human dynamics had written his speeches.
Iit's very important that the next POTIS bring dignity back to the office and to the face of America abroad. On that score, Obama seems best qualified., by far.
Going to Joe's last couple paragraphs about compromise, I'm very against drilling in ANWAR, but I also understand that I can't dictate everything I want to the American people. Many intelligent, well-meaning folk disagree with me. I think there would be many in Congress who would be willing to compromise on a more encompassing energy plan. In other words, if I could get major increases in conservation, such as mpg, and renewable energies — and I mean in a truly significant way — then I might compromise on opening ANWAR. But few seem to search for such compromises. In fact, a quarter of the bills in the legislature seem there only to force the other party to take some political stand.
When Bush's own party controlled Congress they couldn't get ANWAR passed. I'm against it, actually. It's really kicking the can down the road, because no one really knows how much oil is there and one day it will run out. Plus there is the environmental impact, not just from the greenhouse gases, but also the destruction of the habitat.
We need to invest in alternative sources of energy instead of whining about lost battles and finger-pointing.
Actually Bush is right about the Saudis not having much impact on the prices if they were to increase production. The high price of oil is caused by quite a few factors and Saudi production is only one of them.
Which brings up an interesting point… Bush asked the Saudis to increase production to help the American public. But the Saudis rebuked him. Obviously Bush knows that the Saudis (if they had increased production) could not have influenced the prices. So really all Bush was doing when he asked the Saudis to increase production to help the American economy was the appearance of doing something. Bush and his energy buddies are all quite happy to be raking in the money due to high oil prices.
But when the Saudis rebuked Bush, he could play the “victim” and say he “tried” to do something about the high prices but the Saudis refused.
Bush really needs to come up with real solutions to our problems rather than play these sorts of games that accomplish nothing other than cause divisions. That's why he loves to attack the Dems- he wants to appear to be doing something, but it's always someone else's fault that nothing gets done. Just to be clear, the Dems don't help matters along very much, but the way they've been treated, especially when they were a minority in Congress contributed to their feelings of ill will. Not that I'm excusing it…. just pointing out the reality (at least that's how I frame it in my own mind).
Our problem could only be “solved” by domestic exploration if we in fact had huge, readily drilled reserves. We don't. So what was the point other than telling another lie?
Compromise is possible in theory, but it breaks down if the government is so corporate friendly that it never gets aound to enforcing the terms of the compromise.or collecting fines.
It breaks down iif the government changes the rules after the compromise has been reached and work has begun.
That's what has been happening with strip mining, I believe.
The record on cleanng up oil spillages also has glaring holes of non-compliance to agreements, which are reduced, ignored, or forgiven..
When there is no trust, compromise becomes too hard .
On Gas Pains at the Gas Pump.
Tut, Tut!: These are the same poor Senators who:
a) Do not allow oil drilling on the Alaskan North Slope
or in ANWAR (Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge)
b) Do not allow drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico,
near Florida
c) Do not allow drilling off the California coast
d) Exclude 40% of BLM (Bureau of Land Management) lands
from oil or gas exploration, while maintaining govt.
ownership of 60% of the land in the West, 99% in
Alaska
e) Do not support or oppose nuclear power
f) Gutted nuclear fusion R & D
g) Similar “geniuses” enacted California state law
forbidding nuclear plant construction in California
h) All of the above forced and cheered by the
environmentalist movement.
As a result of the above (surprise!), we are “short”
of energy & oil. I am a “dumb rocket engineer”, but
even I can “forecast”: $150 / barrel in 2 months,
$200 / barrel in 6 months, $300 in 2 years….
Here is another “forecast”: in view of the entrenched
mutually supportive environmentalist, oil & coal
interests in this country, it will take us at least 5-20
years to “get our act together” on energy. We have
failed for the last 30. It will require “retiring” 1/2
- 2/3 of the current Congress.
This, in turn, will require that our citizens “get a
belly full” of ever higher energy & resource prices.
By the way, a viable “energy infrastructure” is the
“bedrock” foundation for manufacturing, transportation,
the economy, and high-paying jobs. All the tap
dancing with money supply, interest rates and govt.
guarrantees is just “smoke and mirrors”. Even a “six
pack beer drinking rocket engineer”, unlike Congressmen
or Senators, can figure that out.
So “Good luck” America. Enjoy the show!
Perhaps they should be called “the Senators from OPEC?”.
Regards, Art Collins,
Retired Nuclear & Aerospace (Rocket) Engineer