http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13767738.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation
I swear to god...

Quote :

"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 <b>didn't mean it literally.</b>"

How does something like "reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 75%" not get said with the intention of literal interpretation? What, is it a metaphor? I swear to god, I just don't understand. I'm not at all surprised that it's not going to happen, but to say it and THE NEXT DAY say that it "wasn't meant literally?" What is that???

Quote :

"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. "

Oh. Great.

Quote :

"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. "

What do you say to this?

Quote :

" 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. "

AN EXAMPLE? AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT? Of what huge liars they are?

Quote :

"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."

If anyone's in trouble, it's us. We're screwed here, people.

2/2/2006 4:07:44 PM

BAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAA

2/2/2006 4:08:41 PM

Quick! Somebody get TGD. We need an interpreter.

2/2/2006 4:15:45 PM

great

this is just great

2/2/2006 4:22:52 PM

I'm not surprised. The president has little to no influence over the origin of importated raw-materials into this country. For him to talk as if it were otherwise is rediculous. Good thing they finally corrected themselves the next day, but it was still a stupid mistake. Unless he submitted a bill to congress that he didn't tell anyone about?

[Edited on February 2, 2006 at 4:26 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/2/2006 4:25:27 PM

Hey, I'm gonna go eat a sandwich.

METAPHORICALLY!!!1@

2/2/2006 4:25:43 PM

i'm literally leaving the office in 33 minutes

2/2/2006 4:27:18 PM

HE LITERALLY RIPPED A MANS HEAD OFF!

2/2/2006 4:29:11 PM

I LITERALLY LOVE LAMP.

2/2/2006 4:29:56 PM

i just took like a hundred hour nap
[/dane cook]

2/2/2006 4:30:04 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: I'm not surprised. The president has little to no influence over the origin of importated raw-materials into this country. For him to talk as if it were otherwise is rediculous. Good thing they finally corrected themselves the next day, but it was still a stupid mistake."

Stupid? Or...

*dun - dun - DUUUUUUUUN!!*

Nuanced?

2/2/2006 4:30:34 PM

there were like a thousand firefighters
[/dane cook]

2/2/2006 4:34:32 PM

Apparently Bush's phone was ringing off the hook last night. Pesky Exxon investors...

2/2/2006 4:35:12 PM

Quote :

"I'm not surprised. The president has little to no influence over the origin of importated raw-materials into this country. For him to talk as if it were otherwise is rediculous. Good thing they finally corrected themselves the next day, but it was still a stupid mistake. Unless he submitted a bill to congress that he didn't tell anyone about?"

The President does have the power to "massage" the industry though through incentives like tax breaks or research money.

That seems like a pretty big "mistake" though for the SOTU address. It's oddly the same kind of mistake they made with the pre-war Iraq intel. Sure, it could have been a mistake, but it also could have just been a trick. You would think they would learn the first time, about those kind of mistakes.

2/2/2006 4:35:27 PM

You're playing dumb if you don't admit that the line was intentionally worded for rhetorical effect.

Quote :

"Bush: To create jobs, we will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy. - 9/2/2004"

Quote :

"Bush: In the last four years, you and I have come to know each other. Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand. - 9/2/2004"

Quote :

"Bush: When the President says something, he better mean it. - 3/18/2005"

[Edited on February 2, 2006 at 5:08 PM. Reason : ...]

2/2/2006 4:49:19 PM

THE SPEECH NEVER HAPPENED

2/2/2006 5:22:54 PM

This is hilarious.

(btw this is a Knight Ridder story)

2/2/2006 5:42:12 PM

sry I only trust prisonplanet

2/2/2006 5:44:32 PM

Quote :

"The president has little to no influence over the origin of importated raw-materials into this country. For him to talk as if it were otherwise is rediculous."

I never thought HE was going to start sending money to researchers. I thought he was asking congress to start passing some damn laws and get this shit going.

2/2/2006 6:46:32 PM

Yeah, I imagine this is a result of some very strongly worded phone calls to the White House from the Saudi royal family.

2/2/2006 9:34:45 PM

But I thought we didn't let other countries tell us what to do.

2/2/2006 9:52:46 PM

WE SURE DON'T

WELL, NOT LITERALLY

2/2/2006 10:09:56 PM

Quote :

"How does something like "reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 75%" not get said with the intention of literal interpretation?"

he did declare a victory in Iraq....i guess not literally though

2/2/2006 10:24:57 PM

Quote :

"I thought he was asking congress to start passing some damn laws and get this shit going."

Dead Horse. Whatever laws they pass, short of taxing/subsidising the shit out of the various industries, society isn't going to change fuels just because congress wishes it would do so. The current conditions do not warrant a switch at this time. I'll let you know when they do... Till then, thanks for coming and be sure to tip your waitress

2/3/2006 12:21:40 AM

^ You don't think the gov. could coerce a switch away from gas? There are currently laws on the books to do away with analog TV, and there's really not market forces guiding that (most people are happy with their analog TVs).

2/3/2006 12:46:58 AM

You do realize that the FCC has far more regulatory power than the Department of Energy.

Since the law states that the airwaves are directly owned by the FCC and are merely being rented, then if the FCC requires you to broadcast in such a way that it kills 10 puppies, you do it.

Conversely, Exxon has complete ownership rights over the gasoline when it contracts to sell it to Kangaroo at wholesale.

To make the two regulatory regimes compare, the approval of the Department of Energy would have to be mandatory for every wholesale exchange of gasoline before it could take place.

2/3/2006 1:49:44 AM

if you think the federal government doesn't have any power to control the importation of oil, you are severely deluding yourself.

2/3/2006 1:53:28 AM

Its all about his approval rating my friend. Hes not going for a 3rd term but he has to keep the people happy. He says something we want to hear>it goes up>he retracts it the next day>people dont catch the retraction>he still looks like the man.

2/3/2006 2:18:28 AM

no, its all about damage control/distraction for the up coming midterm elections. republicans are seriously in danger of losign the house and the senate.

if the democrats ever get a backbone, that is.

2/3/2006 3:57:37 AM

we don't get dick from the middle east as it is. tops 10% of what we import. and we import slightly over half of what we produce. lame.

2/3/2006 4:31:20 AM

ERASE THE TAPES!

2/3/2006 8:28:30 AM

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/13768901.htm

Quote :

"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 advisor said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally."

[Edited on February 3, 2006 at 9:06 AM. Reason : +]

2/3/2006 9:05:57 AM

aahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah

2/3/2006 9:10:15 AM

would it be soooooooooo bad to stage a coup?

i mean, our military is in iraq. who would stop it.

"depends on what the definition of 'is' is"
"president 'didnt mean it literally'"

this shit is stupid

2/3/2006 9:29:52 AM

Quote :

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

BUT THEY DIDN'T MEAN IT LITERALLY

2/3/2006 10:14:19 AM

I gotta admit, I get a kick out of seeing our Strong Executive® equivocate.

2/3/2006 1:41:06 PM

Argue whatever you want about the economics of it but please go ahead and try to justify somebody being dumb enough to say something like this in the first place.

2/3/2006 1:47:32 PM

when i was watching it, I was just thinking the whole time that it was the emptiest political speech I had heard in my life. After you get past the parts that were exagurated, it almost seems like a step back in objectives to modernize our energy policy. In fact, a great step back...

2/3/2006 2:56:35 PM

Pat Buchanan agrees with you here:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12168

Bob Novak agrees with you here:
http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2006/02/02/184900.html

2/3/2006 4:57:23 PM

i love when i agree with pat buchannon

it feels like cheating on a lover

2/3/2006 6:23:06 PM

has anyone noticed that the bushies are talking about how they're glad it isn't true rather than that it was a lie?



[Edited on February 4, 2006 at 10:11 AM. Reason : j]

2/4/2006 10:07:24 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, I imagine this is a result of some very strongly worded phone calls to the White House from the Saudi royal family."

check this out:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A926E260-F00C-4231-9A0F-C2EBFD596411.htm

Saudi surprise at Bush oil call

Quote :

"President George Bush's call to reduce America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil has sparked "serious concern" in Saudi Arabia, the kingdom's ambassador to Washington has said. "I was taken aback," Prince Turki al-Faisal told CNN television in an interview on Sunday. He was commenting on Bush's State of the Union speech last Tuesday in which he said America needed to end its addiction to oil. Expressing his suprise, al-Faisal said he had brought up Saudi concerns over the speech with White House officials. Al-Faisal had been among ambassadors watching the president's address from the floor of the US House of Representatives. "This is something that is of serious concern to us because oil is our major income earner," the prince said. Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil producer, although the US gets more of its oil imports from neighbouring Mexico and Canada. Alternative sources Al-Faisal added that he had "a very good meeting at the White House" with national security adviser Stephen Hadley the day after the speech to discuss his concerns. "We are talking through that issue," said al-Faisal, noting that Saudi crude makes up about 15% of US oil imports. In his speech Bush set a goal of reducing US imports of Middle East oil by 75% by 2025, saying that "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world". He said America had to develop alternative sources of energy, saying he would push for a 22% increase in funding for clean energy research, including nuclear and renewable energy. The United States is the world's largest consumer of oil and although it has its own oil fields in areas such as Texas, Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, it relies heavily on foreign imports to meet its needs."

2/6/2006 5:57:59 PM

yeah i bet the knee-jerk reaction by the saudi royal family upon hearing that was a collective shitting of the pants, but then that 1/4 of a second passed and they realized it was all bullshit to begin with

2/6/2006 6:15:28 PM

no one will touch the one thing they could do RIGHT NOW

and that's impose a maximum 55 mph speed limit on all roads across the board

(and yes, i know they don't have the power directly, but they can attach it to federal funding for roads, just like they did in the past)

[Edited on February 6, 2006 at 7:43 PM. Reason : .]

2/6/2006 7:43:22 PM

^You go to hell. You go to hell and DIE.

[Edited on February 6, 2006 at 9:04 PM. Reason : . I appreciate the benefits of a low speed limit, and I frankly don't give a damn.]

2/6/2006 9:03:14 PM

Replacing signs costs money.

2/6/2006 9:15:50 PM

So much for sovereignty...

2/6/2006 10:47:14 PM

2/6/2006 10:51:22 PM

Quote :

"The choice today is between low-cost energy that occasionally spikes in price due to producer instability and high cost energy that is less subject to disruption and thus periodic price spikes. It's not obvious that the latter arrangement is economically preferable to the former."

2/7/2006 12:06:00 AM

thats a shortsighted attitude which ignores the unseen costs of using fossil fuels. Those include environmental and health costs as well as the huge liability of being dependent on energy from the Middle East.

2/7/2006 12:19:30 AM