"When I Said We Would Reduce ME Oil Consumption...

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

But what's said is said, I don't find it particularly clear or well thought out, nor do I find it malicious in nature.

I would consider a President whose words and statements not clearly and well thought out to be malicious in nature.

He's a complete abomination.

hxxp://wimp.com/presidential

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm not particularly fond of the wording. I wouldn't have said it that way. I would have said, "Reduce US oil consumption by 37% by finding alternative fuels to make up the difference to satisfy our needs as a nation."

But what's said is said, I don't find it particularly clear or well thought out, nor do I find it malicious in nature.



If he didn't try to score political points for cheap, would you vote for him for being a trailblazer among politicians?

Dutch, you seem to be missing these sections of the article:

""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. "

And:

"He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.""

The situation is just not how you described. This was not some innocent confusion. Bush promised an easy answer when one is impossible. I may be wrong, but I think he has done that before.

[Dutch]

Like I said, I think he could have done a better job. Or better yet, his speech writer and speech "scrubbers" should have done a better job of clarifying the point. I am always a proponent of "clarity" and this part of the SOTU doesn't pass the test. So that much I agree with.

I was simply asked by NoMyths to better explain it as a proponent of the president, and that's what I did.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Like I said, I think he could have done a better job. Or better yet, his speech writer and speech "scrubbers" should have done a better job of clarifying the point. I am always a proponent of "clarity" and this part of the SOTU doesn't pass the test. So that much I agree with.

I was simply asked by NoMyths to better explain it as a proponent of the president, and that's what I did.

So it is, in your opinion, an honest mistake and not intentionally causing confusing?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

So it is, in your opinion, an honest mistake and not intentionally causing confusing?

Questions like these always wonder what trap will be sprung. "Behind Door #1, Mr Biggleworth will pounce upon you and stab you with a pencil....and behind Door #2? You guessed it....death by pencil stabbing!"

Seriously, I don't know, I think they really wanted to drive home the point about our dependence on Middle Eastern Oil and left themselves open to a "Say What?" moment. I think the connection was done on purpose, but could have been done in a way that didn't lead to this sort of questioning.

[JPhillips]

I think they really wanted to drive home the point about our dependence on Middle Eastern Oil and left themselves open to a "Say What?" moment. I think the connection was done on purpose, but could have been done in a way that didn't lead to this sort of questioning.

And on this we agree.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I was simply asked by NoMyths to better explain it as a proponent of the president, and that's what I did.

And kudos for showing up to help bail water out of the Titanic, when so many other apologists around here steered clear.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

And kudos for showing up to help bail water out of the Titanic, when so many other apologists around here steered clear.

NoMyths - "Hey Dutch, what do you think?"

Dutch - "Well, I think that...."

NoMyths - "Oh, look who fucking shows up to chime in.....fucking apologists."

[Anthony]

They're always after ME Lucky Charms.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Wait a second, forgetting the replace/reduce inanity for a second, your point is that Bush was INTENTIONALLY misleading, but it's not his fault for being misleading, it's the listeners fault for falling for it?

I'm just going to reiterate my position on this again with different words.

I believe that he made a statement intentionally crafted to make drive home a point of emphasis in the SOTU. When unveiled fully the plain and simple fact he was stating wouldn't seem that impressive to the average listener....Just so you know, he could have said he wanted to reduce oil imports across the board by 15% by focusing on internal alternative energy sources, and I would have been impressed as hell... But 15% or whatever it works out to be, just doesn't sound all that sexy. Sexy sells, and he needs to sell himself in a big way...so they came up with a way for him to make a statement that impresses people, and absolutely opens the door for people to jump to a conclusion that he, quite arguably, didn't state. Since I do believe the intent was to artificially enhance a point he was making in the SoTU, I'm not happy with what was done. I do however realize that politicians do this kind of crap all of the time. He should have spoken with clarity, even if it required him, honestly his writer(s), to simplify the language probably diminishing his point.

So I'm not defending him. He participated in Spin in a big way, although I don't believe it was quite as disingenuous as people have made it seem.

That said. I think it is pretty ridiculous to attack the president on this. He certainly has enough wiggle room to claim the statement was truthful--> He was talking about replacing a volume of oil equivalent to 75% of that imported from the Middle East as an example(essentially what they said initially), mis-communicated...maybe he missed a key word on the teleprompter...or possibly the teleprompter in his head..remember "the internets". Either way, there is NOTHING to gain from coming after him on this, especially when what he is actually proposing should be considered to be a good thing.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm just going to reiterate my position on this again with different words.

I believe that he made a statement intentionally crafted to make drive home a point of emphasis in the SOTU. When unveiled fully the plain and simple fact he was stating wouldn't seem that impressive to the average listener....Just so you know, he could have said he wanted to reduce oil imports across the board by 15% by focusing on internal alternative energy sources, and I would have been impressed as hell... But 15% or whatever it works out to be, just doesn't sound all that sexy. Sexy sells, and he needs to sell himself in a big way...so they came up with a way for him to make a statement that impresses people, and absolutely opens the door for people to jump to a conclusion that he, quite arguably, didn't state. Since I do believe the intent was to artificially enhance a point he was making in the SoTU, I'm not happy with what was done. I do however realize that politicians do this kind of crap all of the time. He should have spoken with clarity, even if it required him, honestly his writer(s), to simplify the language probably diminishing his point.

So I'm not defending him. He participated in Spin in a big way, although I don't believe it was quite as disingenuous as people have made it seem.

That said. I think it is pretty ridiculous to attack the president on this. He certainly has enough wiggle room to claim the statement was truthful--> He was talking about replacing a volume of oil equivalent to 75% of that imported from the Middle East as an example(essentially what they said initially), mis-communicated...maybe he missed a key word on the teleprompter...or possibly the teleprompter in his head..remember "the internets". Either way, there is NOTHING to gain from coming after him on this, especially when what he is actually proposing should be considered to be a good thing.

I think that sums it up pretty decently.

[MrBigglesworth]

Shorter Glengoyne: "It was wrong of him to say it, I'm not defending it and I'm not happy about it, but it's rediculous to attack him for it."

Yes, that does sum it up quite nicely. I guess when he says something right that you are happy about, then is the time to attack him for it.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Me oil consuption is down in me car.

Daiyooo!!!!!!

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Shorter Glengoyne: "It was wrong of him to say it, I'm not defending it and I'm not happy about it, but it's rediculous to attack him for it."

Yes, that does sum it up quite nicely. I guess when he says something right that you are happy about, then is the time to attack him for it.

First, I would never spell ridiculous in such a way.

Other than that, I think I'll agree that any time I'm genuinely happy about something the President has done, that you will be be more than likely to attack him.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Other than that, I think I'll agree that any time I'm genuinely happy about something the President has done, that you will be be more than likely to attack him.

No, you said YOU were unhappy with what he had done, that YOU thought it was wrong, but that it was ridiculous to attack him for it. I'm just wondering when it would. It's not like anyone here is saying that he should be impeached over it. Mostly everyone just thought it was a douchebag thing to do that has been par for the course. So I'm wondering how you could be unhappy about it, consider it wrong, and yet still call it 'ridiculous' to give it mild criticism.