"Remember, most countries are not democracies. "
This, is so very true. Even democracy in name does not make one a democracy.
This, is so very true. Even democracy in name does not make one a democracy.
Bush calls for end to oil 'addiction' - hidden message?
- Thread starter Huck
- Start date
Posted on Wed, Feb. 01, 2006
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.
© 2006 KR Washington Bureau and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.realcities.com
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.
© 2006 KR Washington Bureau and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.realcities.com
Hey guys, just a reminder to post links with an intro paragraph rather than the whole article whenever possible. Thanks!
The Hag
The Hag
Huck said:
You can make the same argument about trade unions and labour laws too. Trade unions and socialist governments want to make it more difficult to fire workers. This increases the cost to hire workers and increases unemployment. Thus, the law, which was designed to help workers with the best of intentions, hurts workers. Does that make trade unions and socialists pathologic?
Sometimes corporations do bad things. But why would that surprise you? Corporations are not nameless, faceless inanimate objects. They are run by people. And sometimes people do bad things. Sometimes corporations do bad things. Sometimes nonprfofits do bad things. Sometimes governments do bad things. Sometimes trade unions do bad things. Because sometimes people do bad things.
Huck said:
No, they are not. There is no law that states that. There is no law that says that corporations must maximize shareholder wealth. That is absolutely false. I've worked many, many times fighting venal managements to increase shareholder wealth when they obviously aren't.
Huck said:
Why should they then develop the drug? Why should the shareholders subsidize that drug if there is no return on it? You could make that argument about any ailment then. Why shouldn't corporations be spending as much money as possible to find a cure for everything, regardless? Because it would bankrupt the company. Its the profit motive which motivates companies to discover these drugs in the first place.
BTW, once a drug gets into Phase I testing, it rarely gets dropped for financial reasons.
darkbeave: LOL, Good post. It was to be expected that the oil lobby's muscles were going to be flexed at the threat to profits and rectify the situation... there goes puppet bush talking... :roll:
Toro, please note that i agree about the unions. For better or whorse, i am no friend to unions. It was a great concept iniatially, but abuse is now brining to a halt any development (especially in Quebec, where unions are VERY powerfull).
As for corporations working for shareholder interest, i didnt search much, but you can already read this:
http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/articles_2002/rh_corporate_responsibility.html
Cheers to Bush for his 'VERY' strong convictions on reducing oil addiciton !!
PS: about drug development for private corporations, thats what i said form the start: research is performed where profit will be interresting enough. Hence, interresting drugs have been dropped due to lack of profit potential, which in the end hurts humanty, for money.
Corporations are not good nor bad, they do what they have to do: $$$. But, this may not alwways go in the best interrest of humanity...
Toro, please note that i agree about the unions. For better or whorse, i am no friend to unions. It was a great concept iniatially, but abuse is now brining to a halt any development (especially in Quebec, where unions are VERY powerfull).
As for corporations working for shareholder interest, i didnt search much, but you can already read this:
http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/articles_2002/rh_corporate_responsibility.html
Cheers to Bush for his 'VERY' strong convictions on reducing oil addiciton !!
PS: about drug development for private corporations, thats what i said form the start: research is performed where profit will be interresting enough. Hence, interresting drugs have been dropped due to lack of profit potential, which in the end hurts humanty, for money.
Corporations are not good nor bad, they do what they have to do: $$$. But, this may not alwways go in the best interrest of humanity...
Huck said:
That was an interesting article Huck.
I've spent over a decade investing in businesses. I work for an institution that has sued many companies over the years. We have never sued a company for not making profits. Generally when we have sued companies, its because they have made a false claim or when management has done something to enrich itself at the expense of shareholders. Managements will generally act in their own self-interests, which is sometimes not in the the interests of shareholders. For example, over the past ten years, executive pay has risen by about 250% while profits have risen by about 85%. That is not in the interests of shareholders but is in the interests of management. Directors are supposed to work in the interests of shareholders but at times, do not.
Huck said:
Then, if there is drug that society deems worthy of researching, government should undertake that role. And government has in some cases. But you can also ask why government doesn't do more to find cures for disease? For the same reason as corporations - they have limited resources. If a corporation can use its resources elsewhere to find a drug that will have greater demand - because its ultimately demand that will drive profits in the pharmaceutical industry - then that is where they should focus their efforts. Same with government. Its a matter of resources, and that's why I think its wrong to single out corporations because of the profit motive in this manner.
Huck said:
I wouldn't necessarily delineate businesses separately from other insitutions or individuals. Individuals and other institutions will also act in their own self-interests that are not always in the best interests of society.
Toro, I think we are on the same wavelength, and talking about the same thing, we just have different approaches to describe the same object. I also agree with what you said.
Just in case it may interrest you, a very good documentary to watch is the Corporation:
http://www.thecorporation.com/
As discussed with 'I think not', this movie is only a tool to better forge our own opinion on things and not all may agree with everything it says. but for sure, diversificating our knowledge sources is always a good think. If you haven't seen it, i suggest you do.
Cheers!
Just in case it may interrest you, a very good documentary to watch is the Corporation:
http://www.thecorporation.com/
As discussed with 'I think not', this movie is only a tool to better forge our own opinion on things and not all may agree with everything it says. but for sure, diversificating our knowledge sources is always a good think. If you haven't seen it, i suggest you do.
Cheers!
Huck said:
I think your American bashing is juvenile.
Imperial operations around the world? Such as?
You cant mean leading the free nations? Defeating communism? LIberating 50 million in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Saving the Muslims in Kosovo? Paying 22% of UN bills while your strong rich China pays 3%. If China is so rich why is Canada giving them $50 million a year in foreign aid? To finance their military indirectly?
How does the US control communications? The media is primarily leftwing so how do they do it? They do not have a CBC.
How is the US looking at Iran's oil supplies? They do not buy any as it is. Iran is building a nuclear bomb to wipe Israel off the map. That should concern you more than sniping at Americans.
what about China controlling the media .....and what about your savior Hugo Chavez who rewrites the constitution to give him more power...power to control the media, power to jail anyone who does not agree with his govt?
But I guess Bush attempting to wire tap people who are suspected terrorists or people who attempt to contact known Terrorists is much worse.
woohoo, here come the usual flamming, i was wondering when that would come *puts on fire resistant suit*
ok, first. Hank C, you got me all wrong, i never supported china or chavez. If you reread the part of my sayings you quoted, i never sided with anyone when saying what i sais about communications. This is a universal war and pollitical concept. When you control communications, you control the people. that's it.
now, Zoofer. When did you hear me go american bashing? all i do is ask questions about the oil industries influence on the world (mainly USA and china from my speach) and how it can be associated with the USA's foreign policies on oil.
What im always wondering is why dont the USA, in their great altrustic world view, go on about saving the countries that really need help, such as cuba, many african states, chinese, north koreans, some south americans, etc. Why do they almsot always contentrate their efforts on countries that will yield benefits to the country (most usually oil). Afghanistan coincidently had a project for an oil pipeline that was in trouble. iraq, with it's oil, iran, also has oil, venezuela's president, ohh, there's oil there too. What a coincidence...
Why do the USA support depspot governments as long as their oil flows on their side of the map (think turmekistan, iraq, while saddam was still their puppet, chavez, as long as he wasn't talking about oil nationalization, etc.). did you know that saddam was placed there by the americans in the early eighties? Did you know that he 'rebelled' from his usa puppet mandate, and this is why their took him out? Just remember kuweit, "shit, saddam is invading an oil rich country, gotta go". did you know saddam was negociating his oil in euros instead of US dollars since 2000, and that OPEP had begun discussions on swithch oil trade currency from US dollard to Euro? Did you know that the only ministry in iraq that was kept open and was guarded by american tanks after the invasion was the iraq oil ministry? And then again, it was the USA that instanted aogusto pinochet. This is besides all the diactors the USA have supported, as long as it went their way:
http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm
This is why i raise these questions. No one becomes strong and rich by giving all it has to others. To get rich, you must agglomerate riches, and the USA have more than 50% of the world money. Hmm, i wonder why?
as for communications, no private institution can be trusted to be perfectly neutral. Information that is presented is thoughrly selected, as much more happens in the world than the late hour news can display, now its jsut a matter of deciding what to show. News can also be manipulated to achieve certain goals; it has been done before. This is why it is important to diveresify news source, the internet, TV, papers, etc. Just watching fox news will NOT give you all the facts.
I dont want to be associated with chavez, as i dont support him, but are you sure everything you hear about him is true? maybe what you hear is biased? You got to question these things? (there are reports that the private media have been lieing to the public during the failed coup in the early 2000s). And hell, we all know china does it, why wouldn't we? (i suggest you download or buy a documentary called: "the revolution will not be televised" about the chavez coup. You can watch it and consider it as the oposiing view's defence and use it to make your own independent idea of the story, not what CNN and fox news say).
As for china, its a different story. China is growing at a rate never seen before in the history of humanity, hence no one knows exactly how to handle it. But one thing is for sure, although china is becomming extremely rich, there is still +/- 80% of it's population living in poverty. This begin said, the chinese government is building up it's army at an impressive rate...
I am only asking legitimate questions about the actions of the USA, no USA bashing there. It is by questioning actions that we can define what is good and wrong, and how we can improve on what has been done for the future.
It is said that the perfect slave is the one that doesn't think he is one...
NB: when i ay the USA support's despot governments as long as it pleases them, i dont particualry aim the USA, i just use them as the main example. Supporting evil governments for imperialistic advantage is nothing new and applies to all current great countries of the world such as G-B, France, Etc. It has also been done by other great historical powers such as the catholic church, roman empire, etc. I dont bash the USA< i bash the concept of hypocrisy.
*puts on fire resistant suit*ok, first. Hank C, you got me all wrong, i never supported china or chavez. If you reread the part of my sayings you quoted, i never sided with anyone when saying what i sais about communications. This is a universal war and pollitical concept. When you control communications, you control the people. that's it.
now, Zoofer. When did you hear me go american bashing? all i do is ask questions about the oil industries influence on the world (mainly USA and china from my speach) and how it can be associated with the USA's foreign policies on oil.
What im always wondering is why dont the USA, in their great altrustic world view, go on about saving the countries that really need help, such as cuba, many african states, chinese, north koreans, some south americans, etc. Why do they almsot always contentrate their efforts on countries that will yield benefits to the country (most usually oil). Afghanistan coincidently had a project for an oil pipeline that was in trouble. iraq, with it's oil, iran, also has oil, venezuela's president, ohh, there's oil there too. What a coincidence...
Why do the USA support depspot governments as long as their oil flows on their side of the map (think turmekistan, iraq, while saddam was still their puppet, chavez, as long as he wasn't talking about oil nationalization, etc.). did you know that saddam was placed there by the americans in the early eighties? Did you know that he 'rebelled' from his usa puppet mandate, and this is why their took him out? Just remember kuweit, "shit, saddam is invading an oil rich country, gotta go". did you know saddam was negociating his oil in euros instead of US dollars since 2000, and that OPEP had begun discussions on swithch oil trade currency from US dollard to Euro? Did you know that the only ministry in iraq that was kept open and was guarded by american tanks after the invasion was the iraq oil ministry? And then again, it was the USA that instanted aogusto pinochet. This is besides all the diactors the USA have supported, as long as it went their way:
http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm
This is why i raise these questions. No one becomes strong and rich by giving all it has to others. To get rich, you must agglomerate riches, and the USA have more than 50% of the world money. Hmm, i wonder why?
as for communications, no private institution can be trusted to be perfectly neutral. Information that is presented is thoughrly selected, as much more happens in the world than the late hour news can display, now its jsut a matter of deciding what to show. News can also be manipulated to achieve certain goals; it has been done before. This is why it is important to diveresify news source, the internet, TV, papers, etc. Just watching fox news will NOT give you all the facts.
I dont want to be associated with chavez, as i dont support him, but are you sure everything you hear about him is true? maybe what you hear is biased? You got to question these things? (there are reports that the private media have been lieing to the public during the failed coup in the early 2000s). And hell, we all know china does it, why wouldn't we? (i suggest you download or buy a documentary called: "the revolution will not be televised" about the chavez coup. You can watch it and consider it as the oposiing view's defence and use it to make your own independent idea of the story, not what CNN and fox news say).
As for china, its a different story. China is growing at a rate never seen before in the history of humanity, hence no one knows exactly how to handle it. But one thing is for sure, although china is becomming extremely rich, there is still +/- 80% of it's population living in poverty. This begin said, the chinese government is building up it's army at an impressive rate...
I am only asking legitimate questions about the actions of the USA, no USA bashing there. It is by questioning actions that we can define what is good and wrong, and how we can improve on what has been done for the future.
It is said that the perfect slave is the one that doesn't think he is one...
NB: when i ay the USA support's despot governments as long as it pleases them, i dont particualry aim the USA, i just use them as the main example. Supporting evil governments for imperialistic advantage is nothing new and applies to all current great countries of the world such as G-B, France, Etc. It has also been done by other great historical powers such as the catholic church, roman empire, etc. I dont bash the USA< i bash the concept of hypocrisy.
RE: Bush calls for end to
It comes down to 'Peak Oil' and the fact that the middle east oilfields cannot and have not been able to maintain their 30million barrel-per-day maximum.
you can read more about peak oil from a nice little conspiracy theorist magazine called 'NEXUS' well it's not really conspiracy theorist, it's investigative journalism, but sometimes you have to wonder if all the twists and turns in the plot are there for readers' pleasure, or torment.
www.oilempire.us/bushnazi.html
http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/index.shtml#oil
the article I refer to is not publicised on the web, but information on it is here:
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/backissues/1105.conts.html
Bah! here it is, reproduced for those interested :
http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/111705_center_stage.shtml
It comes down to 'Peak Oil' and the fact that the middle east oilfields cannot and have not been able to maintain their 30million barrel-per-day maximum.
you can read more about peak oil from a nice little conspiracy theorist magazine called 'NEXUS' well it's not really conspiracy theorist, it's investigative journalism, but sometimes you have to wonder if all the twists and turns in the plot are there for readers' pleasure, or torment.
www.oilempire.us/bushnazi.html
http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/index.shtml#oil
the article I refer to is not publicised on the web, but information on it is here:
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/backissues/1105.conts.html
Bah! here it is, reproduced for those interested :
http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/111705_center_stage.shtml
Huck said:
Because each and every country acts in their own best interests, the US happens to get more publicity of it because of the "superpower" label.
Huck said:
Oh for pete's sake Huck, where was the oil flowing in places like Korea, Vietnam and Serbia, or did we just decide to kill off thousands of Americans for fun. And Saddam rose to power on his own, Here's the Short Version
Huck said:
We've already covered the US to Euro hyper-myth, do a search on here.
Huck said:
The US was the primary importer of Iraqi oil, why would we spend billions to get what we had in the first place?
Huck said:
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."
That's why.
RE: Bush calls for end to
The dollars-to-euro oil thing is the biggest tin-foiler theory in all of economics.
The dollars-to-euro oil thing is the biggest tin-foiler theory in all of economics.
To keep it . The U.S must control hydrocarbons in the middle east,it cannot allow that resourse to be used to fuel another competeing superpower. It,s a very simple rule, no control of oil no U.S.A.
Mr Bush said in the onion speech that the U.S.A (MUST) lead the
world in delivering democracy to the world.
How can anyone believe that it,s possible to dictate into existance
global democracy. How can a failed democracy, and that,s the real state of U.S democracy, (failed) deliver what it does not have?
darkbeaver said:
Brilliant analysis, markets control the oil, not the big bad USA, it's a very simple rule of economics that seems to escape the meek.
darkbeaver said:
You can't even begin to comprehend the democracy, accountability and transparency in the US, but I'd love to hear your analysis on the subject. :roll:
The market is controled by the U.S.A.
[/quote]You can't even begin to comprehend the democracy, accountability and transparency in the US, but I'd love to hear your analysis on the subject. Rolling Eyes
[/quote]
Necessary Illusions provide the Manufactured Consent that substitute for accountability and transparency in your beloved Union.
The meek shall inherit.
darkbeaver said:
This is plain silly.
If it was only about the oil, the US would have cut a deal with Saddam and paid him, say, $20 billion instead of the $300 billion and rising it has cost, the 2000 Americans who've perished, the 10,000 who've been injured, the 30,000 Iraqis who have died and the enormous ill-will that has been generated in the world thus diminishing America's capacity to lead.
darkbeaver said:
Really? Then be grateful we allow you a piece of the pie. :roll:
darkbeaver said:Necessary Illusions provide the Manufactured Consent that substitute for accountability and transparency in your beloved Union. The meek shall inherit.
This coming from someone that lives in a country that bans books at the border, censors free speech with hate laws that are open to interpretation based on the mood of your government, a notwithstanding clause that can legally strip you of your rights because a PM didn't get laid the night before, a government riddled with scandals that has held no one accountable and election blackout laws, and you speak of democracy, transparency and accountability? Well perhaps it is in your mind.