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

[JPhillips]

I was just bsing. And I did in fact have my toes crossed"- GW Bush


From Knight-Ridder

Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports
By Kevin G. Hall Knight Ridder Newspapers

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.
Presidential adviser Dan Bartlett made a similar point in a briefing before the speech. "I think one of the biggest concerns the American people have is oil coming from the Middle East. It is a very volatile region," he said.
Through the first 11 months of 2005, the United States imported nearly 2.2 million barrels per day of oil from the Middle East nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. That's less than 20 percent of the total U.S. daily imports of 10.062 million barrels.
Imports account for about 60 percent of U.S. oil consumption.
Alan Hubbard, the director of the president's National Economic Council, projects that America will import 6 million barrels of oil per day from the Middle East in 2025 without major technological changes in energy consumption.
The Bush administration believes that new technologies could reduce the total daily U.S. oil demand by about 5.26 million barrels through alternatives such as plug-in hybrids with rechargeable batteries, hydrogen-powered cars and new ethanol products.
That means the new technologies could reduce America's oil appetite by the equivalent of what we're expected to import from the Middle East by 2025, Hubbard said.
But we'll still be importing plenty of oil, according to the Energy Department's latest projection.
"In 2025, net petroleum imports, including both crude oil and refined products, are expected to account for 60 percent of demand ... up from 58 percent in 2004," according to the Energy Information Administration's 2006 Annual Energy Outlook.
Some experts think Bush needs to do more to achieve his stated goal.
"We can achieve energy independence from the Middle East, but not with what the president is proposing," said Craig Wolfe, the president of Americans for Energy Independence in Studio City, Calif. "We need to slow the growth in consumption. Our organization believes we need to do something about conservation" and higher auto fuel-efficiency standards.

[KWhit]

Sigh.

[rexallllsc]

If you took him seriously before, I don't see how you could now.

[Airhog]

what a pansy

[GrantDawg]

Me oil consuption is down in me car.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Me oil consuption is down in me car.

Yeah, I initially read the thread title as if Popeye were speaking.

[CraigSca]

So wait...what the article is saying is...it's nearly impossible to select what region of the world you're importing your oil from because of the way the world's markets works. Is this true?

It sounds like the President is looking to reduce our dependency on oil, however, when you couple that with our increasing need for energy in the future, we'll actually be using more. However, taken from a percentage point of view, our dependency as a whole will be less.

What's the big deal? Mr. and Mrs. American want simple solutions and there aren't any.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

So wait...what the article is saying is...it's nearly impossible to select what region of the world you're importing your oil from because of the way the world's markets works. Is this true?

It sounds like the President is looking to reduce our dependency on oil, however, when you couple that with our increasing need for energy in the future, we'll actually be using more. However, taken from a percentage point of view, our dependency as a whole will be less.

What's the big deal? Mr. and Mrs. American want simple solutions and there aren't any.

Or Mr. Bush wants to sell the American people simple solutions, but there aren't any. Remember, he made the promise.

[QuikSand]

I thought it meant oil from Maine. Maybe you dim the lights at the Kennebunkport home?

[cartman]

Or maybe he meant more oil from offshore of New Orleans.

Oh, that's right, New Orleans wasn't mentioned one time in the SOtU.

[QuikSand]

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."

Actually, that is probably complete disinformation.

In fact, the clear purpose of that phrasing was to prey on the fact that Americans do not understand our importing of middle east oil at all. Most Americnas would probably say that we get 50%, 75% or 90% of our oil from there, when in fact it's much, much less than that. The use of that very carefully chosen phrasing was a clear and deliberate attempt to make this sound like a much bigger deal than it really is.

If he said "we'll replace around 15% of our oil consumption in 20 years" it would have sounded downright pedestrian. They spiced it up, recognizing that they can count on Americans' general innumeracy as a starting point, our understanding of this issue as an expansion, and on some tricky wording to make it sounds really good.

Good political work, gang. That's why you're winning.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Actually, that is probably complete disinformation.

In fact, the clear purpose of that phrasing was to prey on the fact that Americans do not understand our importing of middle east oil at all. Most Americnas would probably say that we get 50%, 75% or 90% of our oil from there, when in fact it's much, much less than that. The use of that very carefully chosen phrasing was a clear and deliberate attempt to make this sound like a much bigger deal than it really is.

If he said "we'll replace around 15% of our oil consumption in 20 years" it would have sounded downright pedestrian. They spiced it up, recognizing that they can count on Americans' general innumeracy as a starting point, our understanding of this issue as an expansion, and on some tricky wording to make it sounds really good.

Good political work, gang. That's why you're winning.

Yup. Heck, if you tell people that the US is one of the top 3 oil producers in the world, they look at you with blank faces. Heck, the US produces more oil than Iran, Kuwait, and Iraq put together - only the Saudi's and the Russian's produce more.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Yup. Heck, if you tell people that the US is one of the top 3 oil producers in the world, they look at you with blank faces. Heck, the US produces more oil than Iran, Kuwait, and Iraq put together - only the Saudi's and the Russian's produce more.

It might just be semantics, but by oil do you mean crude oil, or any liquid based fossil fuel? I know that the lists I've seen where the US is ranked #3 included liquid natural gas and reclaimed refinery byproducts in the production figures. Since we do a ton of refining, it seems to me that the reclaimed refinery byproducts are actually getting counted twice in the figured.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Or Mr. Bush wants to sell the American people simple solutions, but there aren't any. Remember, he made the promise.

Or better yet, set a goal out there 20 years in the future, knowing that no one will ever remember it 20 years from now and even if they do there will be 3-5 more presidents to blame by then.

Crazy politicians.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Or better yet, set a goal out there 20 years in the future, knowing that no one will ever remember it 20 years from now and even if they do there will be 3-5 more presidents to blame by then.

Crazy politicians.

But that's what Americans want. Blame us, not the politicians.

[moriarty]

Here's an interesting chart. If you look at known oil reserves (basically oil in the ground that is proven with a resonable degree of accuracy and can be extacted with current technology), the USA doesn't crack the top 10 but Canada!! is #2 (if we include oil sand reserves ... whatever that is).

Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2005
Rank Country Proved reserves
(billion barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia 261.9
2. Canada 178.81
3. Iran 125.8
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 77.2
8. Russia 60.0
9. Libya 39.0
10. Nigeria 35.3

NOTES: Proved reserves are estimated with reasonable certainty to be recoverable with present technology and prices.
1. Includes 174.5 billion barrels of oil sands reserves.
Source: Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 102, No. 47 (Dec. 10, 2004). From: U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/petroleu.html .

[JPhillips]

I don't know the methodology of those numbers, but the ME reserves could be off. In the eighties OPEC set production quotas off of reserve numbers and in order to increase production most ME countries announced large increases in oil reserves. Saudi Arabia in particular is very secretive about reserve numbers, but most ME countries aren't willing to "open the books" so to speak.

[flere-imsaho]

[CraigSca]

Who is this "Other"?! Let's take them over NOW!

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Who is this "Other"?! Let's take them over NOW!

Probably the former Soviet Union. Where's Reagan when we need him?

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't know the methodology of those numbers, but the ME reserves could be off. In the eighties OPEC set production quotas off of reserve numbers and in order to increase production most ME countries announced large increases in oil reserves. Saudi Arabia in particular is very secretive about reserve numbers, but most ME countries aren't willing to "open the books" so to speak.

They're from the government / DOE so you have a right to be skeptical.

Also apparently the sand oil (the majority of Canada's reserves) is somewhat like shale in that it a tar type substance that is very difficult to extract into useable oil as we know it. Apparently the technology has just recently gotten to a point that (given the current oil prices) it's effective to obtain oil using this method.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by moriarty

(if we include oil sand reserves ... whatever that is).

Go read "Athabasca" by Alistair McLean. Besides being a fun read, you'll find out all about the oil sands.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by cartman

It might just be semantics, but by oil do you mean crude oil, or any liquid based fossil fuel? I know that the lists I've seen where the US is ranked #3 included liquid natural gas and reclaimed refinery byproducts in the production figures. Since we do a ton of refining, it seems to me that the reclaimed refinery byproducts are actually getting counted twice in the figured.

hmm - you know, that's a good point. my source this time was wikipedia, but I think it refers to oil pumped out of the ground - refining is a whole different ballgame.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

hmm - you know, that's a good point. my source this time was wikipedia, but I think it refers to oil pumped out of the ground - refining is a whole different ballgame.

I think you are correct that we are third in crude oil production per day (behind Saudi Arabia and Russia), the problem is that we have such a demand that we are still the biggest importers of oil.

But Quiksand is right, it was just a political trick.

[NoMyths]

I'm waiting for Dutch to explain how the evil liberals are really behind this, and how the statement really represents more of the success and progress the administration has brought us over the past six years.

Because, really.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think you are correct that we are third in crude oil production per day (behind Saudi Arabia and Russia), the problem is that we have such a demand that we are still the biggest importers of oil.

But Quiksand is right, it was just a political trick.

All the networks fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. They got an extra news cycle on Monday with it, too. And this story is nowhere to be found.

SI

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Actually, that is probably complete disinformation.

In fact, the clear purpose of that phrasing was to prey on the fact that Americans do not understand our importing of middle east oil at all. Most Americnas would probably say that we get 50%, 75% or 90% of our oil from there, when in fact it's much, much less than that. The use of that very carefully chosen phrasing was a clear and deliberate attempt to make this sound like a much bigger deal than it really is.

If he said "we'll replace around 15% of our oil consumption in 20 years" it would have sounded downright pedestrian. They spiced it up, recognizing that they can count on Americans' general innumeracy as a starting point, our understanding of this issue as an expansion, and on some tricky wording to make it sounds really good.

Good political work, gang. That's why you're winning.

I was going to say "What CraigSca said"...but now I have to say "What Quiksand said." instead.

However I don't think it was quite as disengenuous as people are making it out to
be. I think it is a difficult point to communicate clearly (remember who is giving the speach now)... especially if you want to put a big number like a 75% cut out there.

[JPhillips]

Glen: There's really nothing that you won't defend from Bush is there? He said "I'm going to do this." The next day his staff says "Actually that shouldn't be taken literally. We're not going to do that." There isn't any spin needed.

I'll admit that talking about oil imports is difficult because ME oil apparently is cheaper than from other nations and would be the last place we'd cut out. Add to that the fact that oil is a global market and the government doesn't really control what gets imported. It would be impossible to present a SOTU style explanation.

But when the President says A and his advisors say B he should be held accountable.

He lied. Plain and simple.

[sterlingice]

I can't believe Glen is actually trying to defend this...

SI

[Dutch]

I'm not an expert on the matter, however, let's take a look at it again. He really does say "replace" not "reduce". That's a huge difference. Reducing imports from the "Middle East" is not feasible. But replacing 75% of what we estimate to use from Middle East sources with alternative fuels is fair enough.

Now, obviously, I realize that replacing 75% of what we estimate to use from the Middle East is really oil that would no longer be purchased from the grand spectrum of oil supplying regions. Oil is bought from everywhere and sold to everywhere and rebought and resold and refined and resold and on and on and on. So there is no way to "reduce" oil from the Middle East by 75%. Ain't gonna happen but that's not what he said.

But his point remains the same, we need to find alternative sources of fuel for the future. And one of the reasons for that if for the enviroment, the other is because we cannot rely on a dependency for oil that comes from turbulent parts of the world such as the Middle East. The State of the Union address is a perfectly reasonable and expected time for the President to set goals beyond the life-cycle of his term. Because every President must be thinking about our long term welfare. And as far as I'm concerned, for the our current President--a Texan, and an oil man--that is even willing to suggest that we should replace oil with other fuels, is sadly being overlooked by the media as well.

Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances.

So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy. (Applause.)

We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. (Applause.)

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. (Applause.) 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. (Applause.)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm not an expert on the matter, however, let's take a look at it again. He really does say "replace" not "reduce". That's a huge difference. Reducing imports from the "Middle East" is not feasible. But replacing 75% of what we estimate to use from Middle East sources with alternative fuels is fair enough.

Now, obviously, I realize that replacing 75% of what we estimate to use from the Middle East is really oil that would no longer be purchased from the grand spectrum of oil supplying regions. Oil is bought from everywhere and sold to everywhere and rebought and resold and refined and resold and on and on and on. So there is no way to "reduce" oil from the Middle East by 75%. Ain't gonna happen but that's not what he said.

But his point remains the same, we need to find alternative sources of fuel for the future. And one of the reasons for that if for the enviroment, the other is because we cannot rely on a dependency for oil that comes from turbulent parts of the world such as the Middle East. The State of the Union address is a perfectly reasonable and expected time for the President to set goals beyond the life-cycle of his term. Because every President must be thinking about our long term welfare. And as far as I'm concerned, for the our current President--a Texan, and an oil man--that is even willing to suggest that we should replace oil with other fuels, is sadly being overlooked by the media as well.

Huh? You're playing the semantic game. That's not what the article is saying. The goal is to reduce our importing from the Middle East by 75%. That's what the speech said. And that's what his own policy guy said wasn't very likely.

SI

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Huh? You're playing the semantic game. That's not what the article is saying. The goal is to reduce our importing from the Middle East by 75%. That's what the speech said. And that's what his own policy guy said wasn't very likely.

SI

The man said 'replace' not 'reduce'.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

He really does say "replace" not "reduce". That's a huge difference. Reducing imports from the "Middle East" is not feasible. But replacing 75% of what we estimate to use from Middle East sources with alternative fuels is fair enough.

What the hell is the difference? The problem is that the administration is now saying that we don't really intend to get less oil from the Middle East, and whether its reduce or replace, they both involve getting less oil from the Middle East.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Glen: There's really nothing that you won't defend from Bush is there? ...

He lied. Plain and simple.

First part of your post. I'm not truly defending him. I don't think you actually read my post, if you came to that conclusion. I said the president isn't the most gifted orator, and what we are talking about here is a fairly nuanced point ESPECIALLY if you want to throw out a bit percentage like seventy five percent out there. <-- That was Quiksand's point.

Then I said that I didn't believe that it wasn't really an entirely disengenuous statement, and that it was now being blown out of proportion by some people. In fact, if what Dutch said is accurate, that he said he wanted to increase production of alternative fuels to the point where they could replace 75% of the oil imported from the Middle East....then there really isn't anything disengenuous about his actual statement at all. I'm not convinced that a speaker should be held responsible for what others interpret his statements to mean. If I say "A", yet do it, somehow, in such a way that makes you believe I said "B". Then who is at fault?

In other words I'm starting to consider that his words were technically accurate, yet the context and phrasing were crafted to make the statement seem like he said much more than he did.


So in reponse to the end of your post. No I don't believe it is as simple as "He Lied". I think you can make a pretty good case that he said the truth in a manner that you believed him to say something more than he did.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I can't believe Glen is actually trying to defend this...

SI

Again not really defending him. I'm saying that his speech writers got away with one. He says X, the audience essentially doesn't read the fine print, and concludes that he said X plus fifty percent. I clearly think that the point could have been made more explicitly, but it would have lessened the impact of what he was saying....and there's really nothing sensible about minimizing the impact of a speech that people are likely only going to be talking about for a day or two.


Moreso than defending him, I think those shouting "liar liar" are really grasping at straws by arguing semantics.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Then I said that I didn't believe that it wasn't really an entirely disengenuous statement, and that it was now being blown out of proportion by some people. In fact, if what Dutch said is accurate, that he said he wanted to increase production of alternative fuels to the point where they could replace 75% of the oil imported from the Middle East....

Again, I ask, what is the functional difference between 'replacing' 75% of the oil imported from the ME and 'reducing' 75% of the oil imported from the ME? In both scenarios, the amount of oil going from the ME to the US is lessened by 75%. The choice of words is meaningless to the point. The point is that the administration is now denying that they want to lessen the amount of oil going from the ME to the United States by 75%.

With all the other lies by the administration, this one is mostly meaningless though in my opinion. Nobody really thinks Bush is serious about fossil fuel reduction. If he was, he would stop giving subsidies to the oil industry. As it is, he is giving billions to the oil industry, and millions to the clean fuel industry. The billions more than cancels out the millions, and in fact makes the millions meaningless. If you have apples and want people to grow more peaches, you give subsidies to people to grow peaches. If you also give twice as much in subisidies to people that grow apples, which would you grow, apples or peaches?

[JPhillips]

and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.

"This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.

I wouldn't care if Bush said, "We're going to reduce our dependence on foriegn oil." But he didn't. He clearly stated that the goal is to lessen our dependence on ME oil. His staff has made it clear that the U.S. isn't going to do that. That's a lie.

Its not a big lie. Its not even an important lie, but if you can't call this a lie than as a blogger recently wrote, "You should have your chin dusted for GWB's ball prints."

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.

"This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.

I wouldn't care if Bush said, "We're going to reduce our dependence on foriegn oil." But he didn't. He clearly stated that the goal is to lessen our dependence on ME oil.

No, he didn't even say that he wanted to lessen the dependence on ME oil. He stated "a thing of the past" meaning that we would not depend on ME oil at all, which is even a worse mischaracterization of the facts.

[NoMyths]

Glad you finally showed up, Dutch, even if it was only to once again illustrate that the reason the Right is in power has nothing to do with actual right, but more to do with the capacity for dishonesty and the sickening ease with which so-called moral Conservatives will indulge it.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Again, I ask, what is the functional difference between 'replacing' 75% of the oil imported from the ME and 'reducing' 75% of the oil imported from the ME? In both scenarios, the amount of oil going from the ME to the US is lessened by 75%. The choice of words is meaningless to the point.
....

Well, one could argue, that by saying replace, he was saying we plan to produce a volume of alternative energy products that will displace a volume of oil equivalent to 75% of what we import from the Middle East. I'm saying semantics is a fluid "science", and imo his words give him plenty of wiggle to say that he was stating the facts, or providing an example of the amount we would be lowering our dependency on foreign oil.

Again I'm saying the statements were calculated to make people jump to the conclusion that we would be lowering our dependency on foreign oil by a HUGE amount. No one is arguing that we should wean ourselves off of Russian oil or South American oil, you never hear those phrases. You do near daily hear people complain about our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. They took advantage of the average citizen's lack of knowledge. I actually guessed that we got at least 50% of our oil from ME nations, so when I heard the 75% number mentioned....I thought to myself "That just aint gonna happen." The speaker didn't jump to any conclusion...the listeners did. I find it hard to fault the speaker in that case. Credit goes to the speech writers. They got a lot of bang for their buck with that bit of the speech, that is what their job is.

The point is that the administration is now denying that they want to lessen the amount of oil going from the ME to the United States by 75%.

Actually they aren't denying the desire to do that at all. They are saying that it simply isn't feasible to stop buying oil from just one portion of the global market.

But back to the point where I think criticizing the President on this point is silly. First of all it is a debate of semantics, and second of all isn't it a good thing that he is talking about a desire/attempt to reduce the dependence on foreign oil by a respectable chunk?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Well, one could argue, that by saying replace, he was saying we plan to produce a volume of alternative energy products that will displace a volume of oil equivalent to 75% of what we import from the Middle East.

Isn't that exactly the same as reducing imported oil from the Middle East by 75%? You reduce that import by alternative energy.

There really is no difference between reducing or replacing the oil. The end result is 75% less oil from the ME. And I don't think you can wiggle anywhere out of that.

second of all isn't it a good thing that he is talking about a desire/attempt to reduce the dependence on foreign oil by a respectable chunk?

If he was actually serious about it, which I doubt.

[KWhit]

Can someone explain to me how replacing 75% of oil from ME countries with alternative fuel sources would not reduce the oil we import from them?

Are you saying that if we import (using a round number) 100 million barrels of oil from the ME today, that as long as we come up with 75 million barrels of alternative energy sources by 2025, then it doesn't matter how much oil we import from the ME by then? We could import 10 times as much oil as we do now from the ME (and even increase the percentage of oil we get from them) and that would satisfy his statement? Is that what you guys who are defending his statements saying?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Again I'm saying the statements were calculated to make people jump to the conclusion that we would be lowering our dependency on foreign oil by a HUGE amount...The speaker didn't jump to any conclusion...the listeners did. I find it hard to fault the speaker in that case.

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?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Again I'm saying the statements were calculated to make people jump to the conclusion that we would be lowering our dependency on foreign oil by a HUGE amount. No one is arguing that we should wean ourselves off of Russian oil or South American oil, you never hear those phrases. You do near daily hear people complain about our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. They took advantage of the average citizen's lack of knowledge. I actually guessed that we got at least 50% of our oil from ME nations, so when I heard the 75% number mentioned....I thought to myself "That just aint gonna happen." The speaker didn't jump to any conclusion...the listeners did. I find it hard to fault the speaker in that case. Credit goes to the speech writers. They got a lot of bang for their buck with that bit of the speech, that is what their job is.

Do you go around applauding used car salesman for saying a 2005 with 100K miles is just "slightly worn" or a realtor for calling a house that a tornado reduced to rubble as a "fixer upper"? That's what you're doing with applauding the speech writers for this. If a Democrat had done this, you'd be calling him a liar. It's. Intentionally. Misleading. I don't know to make it any more black and white than that. (whoops, guess Bigglesworth beat me to it)

Say, I have a "high risk but possibly very rewarding" investment for you if you send me $5000!

SI

[NoMyths]

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?

Yes -- Glen is saying that it's the fault of American citizens for believing what the President said was true.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Yes -- Glen is saying that it's the fault of American citizens for believing what the President said was true.

"Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

[Dutch]

Can someone explain to me how replacing 75% of oil from ME countries with alternative fuel sources would not reduce the oil we import from them?

Let's say that our oil consuption is 8 gallons of oil.
Estimate that 50% of our imports are from the Middle East region. (4 Gallons)

The rest comes from other parts of the world, domestic. (4 Gallons)

Total=8
ME = 4
Other = 4

To replace 75% of the ME oil production we would have to remove 3 gallons of Oil with alternative fuels. 3 gallons represents 75% of the ME imports.

If the 2025 goal is to replace 3/8 of our oil consuption with alternative fuels, that's reducing our oil intake OVERALL by 37.5% by replacing it with alternative fuel sources.

No President says shit like that in a speech!

Now, the question then becomes, if he wanted to replace 37.5% of our oil consuption with alternative fuels, why didn't he just say that?

The reason would be because of our situation in the Middle East. I think we all see that the Middle East and Oil and Conflict are too closely related. He wanted to drive home the point about Oil and our reliance on foreign imports, particularly from the Middle East.

The reality is that since the US can't simply place an embargo on middle eastern oil and think we won't still support them, the only way the US can take a stand is by cutting back how much oil we need.

But we can't reduce how much energy we need to keep our economy running. We must consume the same ammount. You must replace your fuel source with alternative fuel sources. Once you pave the way to reducing oil consumption by replacing it with alternative fuels, we can stop our reliance on ME oil. Eventually, the goal is to make oil (relatively) obsolete.

And the reason liberals want to make oil obsolete is so we can make our enviroment better. And the reason conservatives want to make oil obsolete is so we can better our own security. We both agree with both of those rationale's really, it's just a matter of how we are priortizing them in the fight. The bottom line for Americans is that this is a good problem for our politicians to wrangle over, so long as they make progress.

But sadly, like fixing social security, the fight appears to rest with who will get credit for getting the ball rolling. Pointing fingers and snarling at one another is part of the game but hurtful nonetheless. We should be working together and hopefully, eventually, we will.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Dutch

To replace 75% of the ME oil production we would have to remove 3 gallons of Oil with alternative fuels. 3 gallons represents 75% of the ME imports.

So "remove" and "replace" mean the same thing, then, right? I still don't understand the distiction you were making between the two.

I understand the rest of your points. I don't really agree with them, because by clearly stating "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East" he focused the statistic on the ME region, not on the total amount of oil we import.

That's like saying "100% of the people in Atlanta, GA will buy an iPOD this year" but really meaning that Apple will sell 4 million iPODs worldwide.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Let's say that our oil consuption is 8 gallons of oil.
Estimate that 50% of our imports are from the Middle East region. (4 Gallons)

The rest comes from other parts of the world, domestic. (4 Gallons)

Total=8
ME = 4
Other = 4

To replace 75% of the ME oil production we would have to remove 3 gallons of Oil with alternative fuels. 3 gallons represents 75% of the ME imports.

If the 2025 goal is to replace 3/8 of our oil consuption with alternative fuels, that's reducing our oil intake OVERALL by 37.5% by replacing it with alternative fuel sources.

No President says shit like that in a speech!

That doesn't answer the question. That still reduces ME oil imports, something the administration says they are not looking to do. Not only that, it admits to being intentionally misleading to score cheap political points.

Originally Posted by Dutch

But sadly, like fixing social security, the fight appears to rest with who will get credit for getting the ball rolling. Pointing fingers and snarling at one another. When we should be working together.

You still don't understand the social security debate, do you? Not only that, but this oil thing is completely different. Bush wanted to drastically change SS, he has no plans to change energy policy. Look at the actions, not the rhetoric.

[Dutch]

That doesn't answer the question. That still reduces ME oil imports, something the administration says they are not looking to do.

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.

Not only that, it admits to being intentionally misleading to score cheap political points.

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