« John McCain Looks Back From 2013 So…
Ted Kennedy In Hospital With Stroke Like Symptoms »



Bush Says Don’t Blame Saudis For U.S. Oil Problems

May 17th, 2008
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief


bush4.jpg

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.



This entry was posted on Saturday, May 17th, 2008 at 9:07 am and is filed under Democratic Party, Saudi Arabia, George W. Bush, Oil, Gas Prices, Alternative Energy Resources, Bush Administration, Democrats, Energy, Congress, 2008 Elections, Economy, Endangered Species, Middle East, Environment, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 7 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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).
    • ^
    • v
    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?
    • ^
    • v
    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 .
    • ^
    • v
    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

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« John McCain Looks Back From 2013 So…
Ted Kennedy In Hospital With Stroke Like Symptoms »

By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.