By “Middle East” He Means “Wherever”
By Anthony | February 1st, 2006 | 11:09 pmIn last night’s State of the Union Address, Bush laid out a specific goal relating to our dependence on oil:
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. 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.
Of course, being the straight-shootin’, no-nonsense-talkin’ President that he is, by “Middle East” he meant “wherever“:
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.
So he only meant the Middle East figuratively. Twice in two sentences.
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.
This makes no sense at all. It could have been “dramatized” just as easily – and apparently more accurately – by saying, “to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from areas such as the Middle East by 2025.”
It’s not like this was an impromptu speech. The administration presumably knew the State of the Union Address was coming up, and took some time to plan and write the speech. We shouldn’t need assorted administration officials to tell us “what the president meant” in such an address.
(Hat tip: DailyKos)
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:38 am
I suspect they were trying to soften the effect in an effort to keep OPEC from turning off the spigot and sending the price of oil to $100 a barrel. Short-term OPEC holds the cards. However, the conundrum for OPEC is that $100 a barrel oil and subsequent shortages will lead to a more rapid technological advances.
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:42 am
You’re probably right David, but there’s no reason they shouldn’t have anticipated that beforehand and moderated the statement in the speech itself. As I pointed out, with the addition of three words the connection could be made while at the same time not “literally” singling out the Middle East.
Furthermore, if OPEC’s reaction is that much of a concern that we have to backtrack one day after the speech, then isn’t it a bit irresponsible of the President to be making such statements? I’m reminded of the comments Bush made during his push for Social Security reform where he basically said that U.S. financial obligations were worthless.
Finally, it’s yet another example showing that Bush is no more straight-talking than any other politician.
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:49 pm
I agree. If we’re going to be bold, let’s be bold. If we’re going to be pragmatic, let’s figure it out before hand.