Bush didn't really mean what he said....oil

Parent Cafe
1

<p>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.</p>

<p>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…</p>

<p>He pledged to “move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.”</p>

<p>Not exactly, though, it turns out.</p>

<p>“This was purely an example,” Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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…"</p>

<p>mymymy- in a speech that was planned for MONTHS, they are retracting</p>

<p>and he said addicted to FORIEGN OIL, so that means he wants more drilling here…be careful what he says, cause he is a tad confusing</p>

<p>what he says and what he means are very different</p>

2

<p>“the Middle East” is the boogeyman. Osama, Saddam, and the shifty Saudi’s. He knows his audience. Message = I’m keeping you all safe and lessening our dependence on the evildoers.</p>

<p>Bush and company are not idiots. Nothing in this speech was an accident, you can be sure.</p>

3

<p>I don’t know about that. I went back and watch a streaming video of the “addicted to oil” part of the SOTU speech. While Bush always has that goofy Alfred E. Newman look which makes it hard to figure out if he actually has any clue at all about what he’s saying, I could swear that as he was reading that part off the Teleprompter, even though his lips were moving and saying those words, his eyes had that deer in the headlights look as if he was thinking: “Did I just actually say that? “Addicted to oil?” Who wrote this %#&@? Why didn’t Cheney read this stupid speech before they sent me out here? “Addicted to oil” - like that’s a bad thing?”</p>

4

<p>LMAO. <a href=“http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i10249[/url]”>http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i10249&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

5

<p>But then they retract it today…hmmm</p>

6

<p>There’s nothing wrong with the correction. It should have been obvious. You can’t tell companies from where they have to buy their oil. They should be able to get it from whereever they want, which is from the cheapest and most reliable nations. But ASAP’s right. I don’t think it would have hit Americans as hard if he said Nigeria or Mexico.</p>

7

<p>9/11 !!!
War on Terror!!!
Weapons… of MASS destruction!!!
We are addicted to farn orl!! </p>

<p>Every time I scan the initials “SOTU” speech I have to go back and reread because my eyes read, “S<em>T</em>F_U” speech! LOL</p>

<p>whoops! almost forgot:
We must defeat our enemies!</p>

8

<p>Ah, so how come he didn’t make the correction about the nucluer weapons part of his SOTU speech way back when…hmmm</p>

<p>His people are making mistakes, or are they…hmmm</p>

<p>Not our enemies only, but we must defeat the evildoers…doesn’t that sound like the devil is in them? And a very simplistic turn of phrase so that his base can understand him- the evil doers is everywhere…</p>

9

<p>Of course I think that all politicians are Idiots. Thank goodness that we as a nation have nearly equal amounts of Idiots in Congress.</p>

<p>As for GW, I refuse to listen to him on TV or radio. I can’t stand his delivery, he is also severely dexlexic, and he has too many post speech corrections. I’d rather read the speech but I listened to a few minutes. </p>

<p>He has come a long ways since his first State of Union message. This being his 6th SoU speech, his delivery is so much better. Its like comparing a speech from a 7 grader to a 12 grader (6 years). </p>

<p>Because of his speech mannerisms and delivery, this SoU address seems to be somewhat not GWB’ish. The speech writers tried to reflect his normal style, but did not capture his essence. This speech’s word usage and his pronounciation of longer words are at a much higher comprehension level. I wonder if a word analysis would reveal that this is at least a 10th grade level speech rather the typical lower level. Because of this, there can be a disconnect on his credibility for some people. </p>

<p>His initiatives are not as far reaching as before. I wonder what happened to establishing a man moon base station in 10 years? He is becoming more open to other ideas that affect the US in a intellectual way. Someone has been reading Thomas Friedman’s book, The World is Flat, A Brief History of the 21st Century, or at least someone viewed Charlie Rose’s interview of Friedman, on Public TV. Has GWB acknowledged that NCLB initiatives sacrificed the education of Pareto’s 20%. Has GWB been persuaded that “Home” fuel development is far cheaper and assured than “middle east” supplies? </p>

<p>The second session of Congress will be a very interesting session.
Go, Idiots!</p>

10

<p>Wo, where did you get that domestic supplies are cheaper than ME supplies?</p>

11

<p>Hey, next SOTU, Bush is liable to call himself the “Environmental President”, " A Man of Peace" or even claim to have a plan to end global warming.</p>