PDA

View Full Version : Bush continues to kiss Saudis a**.


banyon
06-21-2006, 08:59 AM
Bush "addiction" speech no longer rankles: Saudi
Jun 20, 2:29 PM (ET)


By Chris Baltimore

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush has reassured Saudi Arabia's king that he will continue to cooperate with the kingdom on energy issues even after his pledge to wean America off Middle East oil, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States said on Tuesday.

Bush's pledge in January to cut U.S. oil imports from the Middle East rankled some kingdom officials, because Saudi Arabia had announced plans to spend $50 billion expanding oil production to meet rising global demand.

"When that statement came out we got in touch with the White House," Saudi Ambassador Prince Turki Al-Faisal told reporters at a news conference hosted by the United States Energy Association.

Bush later sent a letter to Saudi King Abdullah pledging to honor a 2005 agreement the two reached at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, Al-Faisal said. His remarks provided new details on how the White House smoothed relations with the Saudis after Bush's speech.

Saudi Arabia is the world's largest crude oil exporter and the leading voice within the OPEC cartel, and the United States is the world's biggest oil guzzler.

In his State of the Union speech in January, Bush said the United States should cut its oil imports from the Middle East by 75 percent by 2025. House political advisors added the remarks hours before Bush spoke, and Al-Faisal was "totally blindsided" as he listened to the speech in Congress' visitors gallery, an industry official later said.

After the speech, Saudi officials contacted the White House seeking an explanation, Al-Faisal said. Bush later sent a letter to Saudi King Abdullah pledging to honor the agreement, he said.

"I can tell you that the President ... sent a letter to King Abdullah affirming his commitment to the agreement that they had reached in the April 2005 meeting in Crawford," he said.

In that Crawford meeting, Abdullah, then the Saudi Crown Prince, walked arm-in-arm with Bush and both pledged to cooperate on future energy issues.

Saudi Arabia detailed plans to boost its production capacity and build new refineries, and Bush pledged to find ways to boost U.S. refining capacity, Al-Faisal said.

Saudi Arabia, de facto leader of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, plans to boost production capacity from 11 million barrels per day to 12.5 million bpd by 2009.

Expansion plans beyond 2009 are murky. Saudi Arabia has called for consumer nations to offer a "roadmap" to ensure that OPEC and other producers do not unleash so much capacity that crude oil prices spiral downward as they did in the 1980s.

"By the time 2009 comes along we will have a clearer picture as to where everybody stands," Al-Faisal said. "It will be then that when we will make decisions on where to go."

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060620/2006-06-20T182938Z_01_N20444067_RTRIDST_0_POLITICS-ENERGY-BUSH-SAUDI-DC.html

Iowanian
06-21-2006, 09:19 AM
"energy prices are too high...Bush should do something"

"Bush is being nice to a semi-friendly Major oil producing nation while Iran and Venezuala openly taunt us"

What do you people want him to do?
I'm very supportive of alternative E....fact.
It is going to take some time to realisticly seriously reduce our dependence on Petroleum. Fact.

There is a requirement to Bridge the gap by working and playing well with friendly oil producers, while competing with Europe, China, India and the rest of the oil using world. Fact.

mlyonsd
06-21-2006, 01:40 PM
Come on banyon....

What do you really expect Bush to do? We need that oil and will for a couple of decades.

Do you want Bush to tell the ME to kiss off so they cut production now when they have agreed to increase it?

Really, as Iowanian has pointed out, it doesn't matter what Bush does you'll whine about it either way.

Hydrae
06-21-2006, 01:47 PM
C'mon, Bush makes a big splash with his State of the Union address by saying what everyone wants to hear, we need to cut our dependence on oil. At the same time he is making agreements at his personal ranch with the King of Saudi (did anyone else notice that at no point in the article was the contents of that agreement even hinted at?). Which side of his mouth is he speaking out of today?

mlyonsd
06-21-2006, 01:50 PM
C'mon, Bush makes a big splash with his State of the Union address by saying what everyone wants to hear, we need to cut our dependence on oil. At the same time he is making agreements at his personal ranch with the King of Saudi (did anyone else notice that at no point in the article was the contents of that agreement even hinted at?). Which side of his mouth is he speaking out of today?

You're right, it was a poorly written article.

Although I think it's eluding to the fact that SA has agreed to increase production from 11m barrels a day to 12.5m.

banyon
06-21-2006, 02:04 PM
Come on banyon....

What do you really expect Bush to do? We need that oil and will for a couple of decades.

No, I wouldn't whine if he did what everyone knows needs to be done, which is have a serious effort to shift away from oil importation and secure alternative energy resources. I've heard Bush say on several occasions that he thinks these are good ideas, but so long as his friends are making money, then what he worry?

Do you want Bush to tell the ME to kiss off so they cut production now when they have agreed to increase it?


Ideally yes. For a variety of reasons, mostly sustainability, but also including the fact that we are helping to fund a source for Al-Qaeda revenues.

mlyonsd
06-21-2006, 02:08 PM
No, I wouldn't whine if he did what everyone knows needs to be done, which is have a serious effort to shift away from oil importation and secure alternative energy resources. I've heard Bush say on several occasions that he thinks these are good ideas, but so long as his friends are making money, then what he worry?



Ideally yes. For a variety of reasons, mostly sustainability, but also including the fact that we are helping to fund a source for Al-Qaeda revenues.

JMO but your simplistic approach would not only bankrupt a few million Americans it would destroy our economy.

China would love it though.

patteeu
06-21-2006, 02:21 PM
I think Bush is doing a fine job with the Saudis. They're still pumping oil as fast as they can and trying to do what they can to stay on our good side.

When we finish establishing our Germany on the Euphrates, then we can think about putting more pressure on the Saudis.

banyon
06-21-2006, 02:24 PM
JMO but your simplistic approach would not only bankrupt a few million Americans it would destroy our economy.

China would love it though.

The current approach is bankrupting a few million Americans too, just not the petroleum companies.

I think China loves more a short-term economic approach that leaves us at everyone else's mercy when the Petro runs out. Meanwhile they and the Saudis will continue to purchase our debt and assets.

Cochise
06-21-2006, 02:25 PM
The current approach is bankrupting a few million Americans too, just not the petroleum companies.

Millions bankrupt over gas prices, really.

mlyonsd
06-21-2006, 02:32 PM
The current approach is bankrupting a few million Americans too, just not the petroleum companies.

I think China loves more a short-term economic approach that leaves us at everyone else's mercy when the Petro runs out. Meanwhile they and the Saudis will continue to purchase our debt and assets.

I agree with your opinion we should get off of ME oil. I think you are a little bit lost on the roadmap to get there.

banyon
06-21-2006, 02:42 PM
Millions bankrupt over gas prices, really.

Of course not, but higher petroleum costs are passed onto business, which then has to make decisions about resources. Labor is typically the first and easiest area to make a cut. People pay the price and then when their unemployment checks run out, they are taken off of the government unemployment rolls and lost. But check personal bankruptcy filings over the last several years. Bankruptcy law business is booming.

Cochise
06-21-2006, 03:03 PM
Bankruptcy law business is booming.

Being a little simplistic are we? ROFL

WoodDraw
06-21-2006, 03:42 PM
Bush dedicated part of the State of the Union to admonishing America for their addiction to oil. Why now the shock and dismay at people for calling him out on not following up on it? Must be part of the grand "no accountability" strategy the Republicans are rolling out.

patteeu
06-21-2006, 04:26 PM
Bush dedicated part of the State of the Union to admonishing America for their addiction to oil. Why now the shock and dismay at people for calling him out on not following up on it? Must be part of the grand "no accountability" strategy the Republicans are rolling out.

Isn't this thread about how Bush is dealing with the Saudis? On the one hand, our political left thinks we were way too hard on Saddam Hussein's beligerent regime, but on the other hand they seem to want us to stick a pointy stick in the eyes of the Saudis despite the fact that the Saudis are pumping oil as fast as they can and providing significant (albeit not complete) cooperation in the GWoT.

banyon
06-21-2006, 04:28 PM
Isn't this thread about how Bush is dealing with the Saudis? On the one hand, our political left thinks we were way too hard on Saddam Hussein's beligerent regime, but on the other hand they seem to want us to stick a pointy stick in the eyes of the Saudis despite the fact that the Saudis are pumping oil as fast as they can and providing significant (albeit not complete) cooperation in the GWoT.

Maybe because the Saudis, unlike the Iraqis,actually were involved in 9-11.

patteeu
06-21-2006, 04:51 PM
Maybe because the Saudis, unlike the Iraqis,actually were involved in 9-11.

Which Saudi's? What kind of involvement? Do you have proof that implicates the ruling regime or are you talking about "elements" within the kingdom?

How much of your nose are you willing to cut off to spite your face?

WoodDraw
06-21-2006, 04:51 PM
Isn't this thread about how Bush is dealing with the Saudis? On the one hand, our political left thinks we were way too hard on Saddam Hussein's beligerent regime, but on the other hand they seem to want us to stick a pointy stick in the eyes of the Saudis despite the fact that the Saudis are pumping oil as fast as they can and providing significant (albeit not complete) cooperation in the GWoT.

Did you read the article? It was about Saudi Arabia in connection with the SotU speach. Did I read the wrong one?

And your strawman argument is crap. Bush wasn't too hard on Saddam; he just acted incompetently. And my feelings on Bush's relations with the Saudis are irrelavent. He announced the goal to reduce oil consumption by 75%, but has not acted on it in any meaningful way. Will you hold him accountable, or are empty political promises acceptable?

Donger
06-21-2006, 06:27 PM
Did you read the article? It was about Saudi Arabia in connection with the SotU speach. Did I read the wrong one?

And your strawman argument is crap. Bush wasn't too hard on Saddam; he just acted incompetently. And my feelings on Bush's relations with the Saudis are irrelavent. He announced the goal to reduce oil consumption by 75%, but has not acted on it in any meaningful way. Will you hold him accountable, or are empty political promises acceptable?

Have you read Bush's energy plan? If so, do you think it is a good plan? If not, what would you propose to meet the goal?

WoodDraw
06-21-2006, 07:54 PM
Have you read Bush's energy plan? If so, do you think it is a good plan? If not, what would you propose to meet the goal?

There has to be a proactive investment in transitioning from traditional energy sources to modern, renewable ones. It's not that I disagree with Bush's standard technology driven speel, but where is the follow up? Where is Part II of the addicted to oil speach? Does he think that by setting a goal of 75% reduction in imports and an increase in renewable fuels it will just happen?

We are dependant on oil right now; no other solution is available. Immediately decreasing imports from Saudi Arabia or any other country is impracticle. The decrease in imports will come naturally as investment produces results. It does take investment though, just like nearly every other major, international project does in its R&D stage.

Since you asked for specifics, I'll throw this plan out there as an alternative. It has some issues, mainly the lack of focus on nuclear engergy and a few questionable acts, but overall it's a solid effort considering the resources of those that put it together. Imagine what people could come up with if it was made a national priority.

http://www.ea2020.org/drupal/files/060518_EA_2020_v5_FINAL.pdf

patteeu
06-21-2006, 11:03 PM
Did you read the article? It was about Saudi Arabia in connection with the SotU speach. Did I read the wrong one?

And your strawman argument is crap. Bush wasn't too hard on Saddam; he just acted incompetently. And my feelings on Bush's relations with the Saudis are irrelavent. He announced the goal to reduce oil consumption by 75%, but has not acted on it in any meaningful way. Will you hold him accountable, or are empty political promises acceptable?

Did you understand the article and what Bush said in the SOTU speech? There is no inconsistency. The 75% reduction statement from the SOTU speech has a time horizon of nearly two DECADES. Well beyond the timeframe during which Bush actually has any control. It's a statement of vision but the country needs to embrace it to make it happen. The reassurance of the Saudis has to do with the much nearer term.

I'll be quite happy if Bush doesn't propose some big government, industrial policy mandating a particular alternative energy solution. I'm not confident in his ability to resist that temptation, but I'm hopeful. But I get the impression that that's about the only thing you will accept as fulfillment of this phantom political promise that you think you heard.

As for my "strawman," there are plenty of people on the left who either wanted us to leave Saddam alone from the beginning or who have changed their minds about the war and decided that it was a mistake all along. This is in addition to the people who think it was a war worth fighting that has been poorly executed. Surely you are aware of this.

WoodDraw
06-21-2006, 11:42 PM
Did you understand the article and what Bush said in the SOTU speech? There is no inconsistency. The 75% reduction statement from the SOTU speech has a time horizon of nearly two DECADES. Well beyond the timeframe during which Bush actually has any control. It's a statement of vision but the country needs to embrace it to make it happen. The reassurance of the Saudis has to do with the much nearer term.

I'll be quite happy if Bush doesn't propose some big government, industrial policy mandating a particular alternative energy solution. I'm not confident in his ability to resist that temptation, but I'm hopeful. But I get the impression that that's about the only thing you will accept as fulfillment of this phantom political promise that you think you heard.

Not that I want to argue with you - I'd love to see Bush's job limited to sharing his visions - but his job unfortunately does extend into the leadership area. When he devotes time in the most important speach in American politics to an issue, actions should follow. Especially when he says that, well, actions will follow.

Bush's energy plan conists of tax breaks for his pet interests while paying lip service to the few libertarian principles that the Republican party still pretends to believe in. Uh, we're going to go ahead and subsidize oil, nuclear energy, and ethanol, but yeah, government interference is wrong so that's just about all.

I in no way advocate any mandated alternative fuel. I simply want government investment that encourages research of future energy sources, as well as incentives for the public to move towards a more responsible use of energy. That beats the hell out of what we have now, with tax breaks to oil companies with no interest in progressive energy sources and ethanol producers who couldn't dream of producing enough to put a crack in our oil imports. If only the Republicans were in control so they could stop this wasteful spending...


As for my "strawman," there are plenty of people on the left who either wanted us to leave Saddam alone from the beginning or who have changed their minds about the war and decided that it was a mistake all along. This is in addition to the people who think it was a war worth fighting that has been poorly executed. Surely you are aware of this.

Let us go back to the original statement: "On the one hand, our political left thinks we were way too hard on Saddam Hussein's beligerent regime".

Now if you had said, "On the one hand, our political left who wanted us to leave Saddam alone from the beginning or who have changed their minds about the war and decided that it was a mistake all along, in addition to the people who think it was a war worth fighting that has been poorly executed.." than you would have avoided the strawman fallacy. Alas, you did not.

Rausch
06-22-2006, 01:15 AM
You should have just labeled this thread "Bush has no testicles" and called it a day...

patteeu
06-22-2006, 06:21 AM
Let us go back to the original statement: "On the one hand, our political left thinks we were way too hard on Saddam Hussein's beligerent regime".

Now if you had said, "On the one hand, our political left who wanted us to leave Saddam alone from the beginning or who have changed their minds about the war and decided that it was a mistake all along, in addition to the people who think it was a war worth fighting that has been poorly executed.." than you would have avoided the strawman fallacy. Alas, you did not.

Nonsense. Those who would rather have left Saddam's regime alone than have us attack it and drive it from power think we were way too hard on it.

banyon
06-22-2006, 07:53 AM
Nonsense. Those who would rather have left Saddam's regime alone than have us attack it and drive it from power think we were way too hard on it.

No. They (or at least me) think it was entirely irrelevant to what should have been our foreign policy objectives.

Radar Chief
06-22-2006, 08:06 AM
Nonsense. Those who would rather have left Saddam's regime alone than have us attack it and drive it from power think we were way too hard on it.

Uh, hu-huh, huh. He said “hard on”. :Elvis:

Iowanian
06-22-2006, 08:59 AM
Some asswipes will never get it.

What do you realistically expect? "break addiction to oil"....are you ready to go cold turkey?

What I see personally....all across my state are large wind generation facilities going up to produce electricity, Ethynol and BioDiesel plants are popping up everywhere and coming into production, and Biomass is being tested for electric generation. The Govt has been very supportive of those ventures and has given tax incentives to encourage them.

It seems to me, that the responsible thing to do, is to keep momentum in the direction of alternative energies, while at the same time, trying to secure petroleum to keep the economy churning in the interum.

I fail to see why this is even necessary to explain, unless someone has a politically motivated gripe.


As for the bankrupt issue.....I think more of that has to do with people living beyond their means than $2.50 gas.



Bush dedicated part of the State of the Union to admonishing America for their addiction to oil. Why now the shock and dismay at people for calling him out on not following up on it? Must be part of the grand "no accountability" strategy the Republicans are rolling out.

Iowanian
06-22-2006, 09:01 AM
Maybe because the Saudis, unlike the Iraqis,actually were involved in 9-11.


I'm no fan of the Saudi's, particularly the population, but the fact is that the Saudi Govt is kicking the beans out of terrorist groups on their own soil.....something Iraq was Not doing. Their govt hates the wahabi nutballs as much as we do.

jspchief
06-22-2006, 09:34 AM
You should have just labeled this thread "it doesn't matter which side Bush takes, he'll still be wrong in the eyes of whiny libs" and called it a day...

FYP

banyon
06-22-2006, 10:00 AM
FYP

You should have just labeled this thread "it doesn't matter which side Bush takes, he'll still be right in the eyes of CONS regardless of the facts" and called it a day...



FYFYP

jspchief
06-22-2006, 10:09 AM
FYFYPA con didn't start this thread.

this thread is a textbook example of the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation that Bush faces from Libs.

banyon
06-22-2006, 10:12 AM
A con didn't start this thread.

this thread is a textbook example of the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation that Bush faces from Libs.

I didn't say that a con did start this thread. I started it.Does that somehow prevent me from "FYFYP'ing"?

I already said that if Bush did the right thing here, I would be the first to give him credit and stated what would be acceptable to me. But Bush's policies on this issue (many of which we don't even know since the meetings were held in secret) have gotten us exactly nowhere while lining the pockets of people I don't really care to.

jspchief
06-22-2006, 10:18 AM
I didn't say that a con did start this thread. I started it.Does that somehow prevent me from "FYFYP'ing"?

I already said that if Bush did the right thing here, I would be the first to give him credit and stated what would be acceptable to me. But Bush's policies on this issue (many of which we don't even know since the meetings were held in secret) have gotten us exactly nowhere while lining the pockets of people I don't really care to.Bush sets a goal for 20 years from now, and you're pissed because you can't see tangible results 6 months into it.

Besides it being completely unrealistic to just cast aside SA in terms of oil, we also are in the middle of a war that necessitates a diplomatic/strategical relationship with them.

It's called diplomacy. Bush may not be particularly good at it, but I don't think this is the time to be thumbing our nose at the one ME country that appears to be on our side in regards to both oil and Iraq.

banyon
06-22-2006, 10:21 AM
Bush sets a goal for 20 years from now, and you're pissed because you can't see tangible results 6 months into it.

Besides it being completely unrealistic to just cast aside SA in terms of oil, we also are in the middle of a war that necessitates a diplomatic/strategical relationship with them.

It's called diplomacy. Bush may not be particularly good at it, but I don't think this is the time to be thumbing our nose at the one ME country that appears to be on our side in regards to both oil and Iraq.

Plenty of other countries have attained a measure of oil independence and it has not taken them 20 years. This country has the resources and ability to get this job done in a much shorter time if we simply had the will to do it. Of course, when the Administration is comprised of over 30% former petroleum/energy excecutives (or at least in his first term), then we really shouldn't expect anything different besides stalling and maintaining the status quo at all costs.

stevieray
06-22-2006, 10:22 AM
shoulda coulda woulda, the counterculture mantra.

Radar Chief
06-22-2006, 10:28 AM
Plenty of other countries have attained a measure of oil independence and it has not taken them 20 years.

And none of these “other countries” have the area that has to be traveled in order to maintain their economy.

jspchief
06-22-2006, 10:32 AM
Plenty of other countries have attained a measure of oil independence and it has not taken them 20 years. This country has the resources and ability to get this job done in a much shorter time if we simply had the will to do it. Of course, when the Administration is comprised of over 30% former petroleum/energy excecutives (or at least in his first term), then we really shouldn't expect anything different besides stalling and maintaining the status quo at all costs.How many of those countries have done it in 6 months? And how many of them have the reliance on oil that we do? None.

Logistically, this can't be a fast transition in this country, and that's assuming that there's even a reasonable alternative available at this very moment. It's going to take time, and it's going to take an effort from multiple administrations.

Forgive me if I think this thread is more than a little unrealistic in the expectations being displayed.

WoodDraw
06-22-2006, 10:39 AM
Nonsense. Those who would rather have left Saddam's regime alone than have us attack it and drive it from power think we were way too hard on it.

Well no, that's still wrong. You're using the Bush method of applying a ridiculous, irrelevant belief to the entire opposition and then taking a big swing at it. It's easy to avoid debate when you apply an undefendable position to the opposing side.

[edited for horrible spelling]

banyon
06-22-2006, 12:14 PM
And none of these “other countries” have the area that has to be traveled in order to maintain their economy.

Oh, I don't know, France is pretty good sized, for their relative population. Of course they did it with nuclear and hydro, but that's still preferable to petro in the current climate.

Radar Chief
06-22-2006, 12:19 PM
Oh, I don't know, France is pretty good sized, for their relative population. Of course they did it with nuclear and hydro, but that's still preferable to petro in the current climate.

Not even comparable.
When I was stationed in Germany I thought it was pretty big, ‘till I found out three of’em would fit inside Texas.
I see you’re from Lawrence, how far do you commute to work? Is it less than 20 miles round trip?

banyon
06-22-2006, 12:20 PM
Not even comparable.
When I was stationed in Germany I thought it was pretty big, ‘till I found out three of’em would fit inside Texas.
I see you’re from Lawrence, how far do you commute to work? Is it less than 20 miles round trip?

I walk.

Radar Chief
06-22-2006, 12:23 PM
I walk.

Good for you, seriously, but many don’t have that option.
I probably could, but don’t.

banyon
06-22-2006, 01:08 PM
Good for you, seriously, but many don’t have that option.
I probably could, but don’t.

BTW, were ya hopin' I was gonna say I drove an H-1 to work? ;)

Radar Chief
06-22-2006, 01:15 PM
BTW, were ya hopin' I was gonna say I drove an H-1 to work? ;)

Naw, I had’ya figured for a Toyota Tercel type. :p

banyon
06-22-2006, 01:16 PM
Naw, I had’ya figured for a Toyota Tercel type. :p

ROFL

Iowanian
06-22-2006, 01:30 PM
Plenty of other countries have attained a measure of oil independence and it has not taken them 20 years. then we really shouldn't expect anything different besides stalling and maintaining the status quo at all costs.

"Plenty"
Which ones? Brazil functions from Ethynol, Norway uses glacial runnoff for electricity.

Which 1st world countries are energy independent of oil?

Would you be willing to trade landmass, military, economy or freedom of movement with ANY of them?

banyon
06-22-2006, 01:47 PM
"Plenty"
Which ones? Brazil functions from Ethynol, Norway uses glacial runnoff for electricity.

Which 1st world countries are energy independent of oil?

Would you be willing to trade landmass, military, economy or freedom of movement with ANY of them?

I think there's some things I would trade with Norway. Their school system yields much better results for example. Health care is nice too.
I wouldn't call them "Third World". Their quality of life index measurables are always very high. Certainly their military and land is inferior, whose isn't?

As for Brazil, I think I'd trade soccer teams with them.

patteeu
06-22-2006, 01:51 PM
No. They (or at least me) think it was entirely irrelevant to what should have been our foreign policy objectives.

Your reasons for thinking we've been too hard on Saddam's regime are irrelevant to my contention.

patteeu
06-22-2006, 01:57 PM
Well no, that's still wrong. You're using the Bush method of applying a ridiculous, irrelevant belief to the entire opposition and then taking a big swing at it. It's easy to avoid debate when you apply an undefendable position to the opposing side.

[edited for horrible spelling]

Entire opposition? Let me amend my statement if it was at all unclear. I'm not talking about the entire opposition, I'm talking about the members of the opposition who fit my description (dovish on Saddam, hawkish on the Saudis). There are more than a few of them though.

banyon
06-22-2006, 02:16 PM
Your reasons for thinking we've been too hard on Saddam's regime are irrelevant to my contention.

I don't know why you insist on this "too hard" language to make it seem as if we are dealing with parenting issues and children or something, but the point is we shouldn't have been too anything with Saddam one way or the other. It was not a place where we should've acted given the foreign policy issues that we face.