1
   

Kicking the Oil Addiction: Bush Lied, Again

 
 
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 12:17 pm
Kicking the Oil Addiction: Bush Lied, Again
By Molly Ivins
Monday 06 February 2006

I like to think that Republicans are having fun. They're such cards. What a wheeze, what a jape. Talking about energy independence in the State of the Union Address! President Bush said, "America is addicted to oil" and we will "break this addiction." Oh what a good trick to see if anyone thought he actually meant it!

I'm not going to embarrass the perennial suckers who fell for it by identifying them, but I assure you they include some well-known names in journalism. Boy, I bet they feel like fools, having written those optimistic columns pointing to how Bush had made a fine proposal-cut oil imports from the Middle East by 75 percent by 2025-and people should take it seriously and stop dissing him.

Of course, the next day the administration trotted out Energy Secretary Sam Bodman and Alan Hubbard, director of the president's National Economic Council, to assure us the president didn't mean it. Bodman explained, "That was purely an example." A 'for instance.' Like, we could set a goal like that. Actually, we could do that without breaking a sweat: set fuel efficiency standards at 40 miles per gallon in 10 years (hybrids already get higher mileage now), and you save 2.5 million barrels a day, just what we import now from the Mideast.

According to Knight Ridder, "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 into trouble."

Aw. Let's see, Bush lied so "every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands." It's our fault. We're so dumb, if he doesn't lie, we don't get it. Of course, those sophisticates who pay attention to stuff like the budget, where they decide how to spend the money, were already aware that the $150 million (a truly pitiful amount by Washington standards) Bush promised would go to making biofuels more competitive is $50 million less than what was in last year's budget for that purpose.

But, you are not to assume that Bush has given up on the Dick Cheney plan to drill our way to energy independence just because he didn't mention it in his speech. Last month, the Department of Interior released a plan that will open 590,000 acres in Alaska's Western Arctic Reserve for drilling. The land has been protected for decades.

The head of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Alaska Project, Chuck Clusen, said: "Scientists, sportsmen and conservation groups all agree we should protect the last 13 percent of the most sensitive habitat in the Western Arctic's Northeast area. Eighty-seven percent was already open. The Bureau of Land Management decided to hand all of it over to the oil companies. ... We can drill every last acre of wilderness, and it won't make us any more secure. We only have 3 percent of the world's oil, and the Middle East has 66 percent. Do the math. We can't drill our way to energy independence."

What a good joke.

And this guy Boehner, John Boehner, the new Republican majority leader, elected because of Tom DeLay's unfortunate indictment, what a gagster this guy is, what a zany madcap. He ran as a reform candidate! Har, har, har, har! This is a guy who's up to his neck in the K Street Project, in which conservative lobbyists and politicians walk hand-in-hand. Boehner has such a highly developed sense of ethics, he once distributed checks from the tobacco lobby on the floor of the House of Representatives.

But now that he's been elected, it's time to get serious, and Boehner has already backed away from Speaker Dennis Hastert's proposal to actually ban (gasp!) gifts and trips from lobbyists. Boehner figures it's enough just to report them. That'll take care of everything.

I tell you, this bunch of cut-ups just keeps the fun coming. Just a few weeks ago, the House of Representatives cut $16 billion from Medicaid over 10 years, which means states will increase co-payments on poor people and drop preventive care-which will cost more in the long run, but what the hey. They also cut $12.7 billion in student aid and loan programs over five years, because who needs that? And cut another $1.5 billion in child support enforcement in the next year, which is positively brilliant and will result in a drop of at least $8.4 billion in child support collected over the next 10 years. Oh, and a measly cut of $577 million in foster care over five years, making it harder to take care of neglected and abused children, who probably did something to deserve it in the first place.

Now here's a little howler: Bush proposes cutting $36 billion from Medicare over the next five years only ... wait for it ... he's not cutting the money, he's saving it! A $36 billion Medicare savings. That's so clever.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 581 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 12:27 pm
Poor Molly Irvins. She wants so bad to be Anne Coulter...
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 12:36 pm
poor Anne Coulter. She wants so bad to have a brain.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 12:47 pm
Lied again!?!?! I can't keep up.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 12:53 pm
Admit the truth Dys, we know you have a pinup of Anne on your bedroom wall.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 12:57 pm
You knew it was a bold-faced lie the moment the words tumbled from his smirking lips.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 01:01 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Admit the truth Dys, we know you have a pinup of Anne on your bedroom wall.


I sincerely doubt that! I've known Dys for a long time and he has never shown any interest in a transvestite!

Anon
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 01:05 pm
Have something against transvestites Anon? Are you calling Molly Irvins a transvestite? tsk, tsk. I thought you libs were all about acceptance and understanding.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 01:09 pm
Exxon: America will always rely on foreign oil

Quote:
HOUSTON (Reuters) - The United States will always rely on foreign imports of oil to feed its energy needs and should stop trying to become energy independent, a top Exxon Mobil Corp. executive said on Tuesday.

"Realistically, it is simply not feasible in any time period relevant to our discussion today," Exxon Mobil Senior Vice President Stuart McGill said, referring to what he called the "misperception" that the United States can achieve energy independence.


Bush, if he didn't lie, exaggerated heavily in his SoTU speech; his allies are quickly moving to clear up any confusion on this matter.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 01:12 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Have something against transvestites Anon? Are you calling Molly Irvins a transvestite? tsk, tsk. I thought you libs were all about acceptance and understanding.


Not at all! I just saw your comment about Ann the transvestite Coulter, and was just trying to correct yet another one your misconceptions!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 01:44 pm
How can you tell when Bush is lying?

When Cheney's hand is moving.

http://www.bongonews.com/StoryImages/bush%20puppet-2004-05-05.jpg
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 02:17 pm
Bush did not lie. America is addicted to oil.

Why do you think he said that? So someone can say..there you go lying again?

Why did Jimmy Carter say something similar nearly 30 years ago?

You are sleepwalking into disaster. But I for one dont care anymore...

except for the fact you are taking me with you.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 02:17 pm
Or is it really the Oil Companies...

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/08/news/companies/exxon_energy.reut/

"HOUSTON (Reuters) - The United States will rely on foreign imports of oil for the foreseeable future to feed its energy needs and should stop trying to become energy independent, a top Exxon Mobil Corp. executive said Tuesday.

"Realistically, it is simply not feasible in any time period relevant to our discussion today," Exxon Mobil Senior Vice President Stuart McGill said, referring to what he called the "misperception" that the United States can achieve energy independence."

So long as this Govt does not penalize Oil Companies for not putting R&D on the fast track, we will continue to be dependant.

The arrogance of the Exxon Exec is quite apparant.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 02:39 pm
woiyo wrote:
So long as this Govt does not penalize Oil Companies for not putting R&D on the fast track, we will continue to be dependant.
That sounds like government interference in the free market. And therefore Communism. Did no one tell you Communism died circa 1990?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 02:44 pm
I don't believe that is communism.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 03:27 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
woiyo wrote:
So long as this Govt does not penalize Oil Companies for not putting R&D on the fast track, we will continue to be dependant.
That sounds like government interference in the free market. And therefore Communism. Did no one tell you Communism died circa 1990?


How is this communism??

This silly US Govt, and every administration dating back to the 1970's has given TAX BENEFITS to oil companies in the "effort" to have them find alternative sources.

How about if this Govt showed the guts to face the oil companies with this deal.....IF you do NOT have an alternative in 2 years, we will tax you 100%.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 03:29 pm
of course its not communism
0 Replies
 
flyboy804
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 09:53 am
It is not communism; it is not fascism; but it does rub against the grain of libertarianism which lies in the core of most Republicans.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 10:10 am
I'm amazed Bush's comments haven't attracted more discussion on these boards. I thought it was the most significant thing he said, and the implications are really serious, but (it seems) most Americans either dont care or dont understand.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Kicking the Oil Addiction: Bush Lied, Again
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/08/2024 at 04:53:29