Bush says you depend too much on Mideast Oil..here are the facts.

[RRocket]

In Bush's State of the Union address, he stated that Americans are overly dependant on Middle Eastern Oil. Why would he say this, since it's an absolute lie? Coming from an oil family, it's even more perplexing he'd say such a thing, since he must know better. Does anyone have any ideas? Is this fear mongering against the Middle East? The US dependance on Middle Eastern oil is always around 20-25%, and of that total, a full 90% of that comes from a single country...Saudi Arabia. Here is the order of where your exports come from. These 10 countries provide 87% of your oil. Here's the latest data for monthly imports in barrels per day.


1) CANADA 1.776 million
2) MEXICO 1.658 million
3) SAUDI ARABIA 1.267 million
4) NIGERIA 1.163 million
5) VENEZUELA 1.009 million
6) ANGOLA 641 thousand
7) IRAQ 572 thousand
8) COLOMBIA 281 thousand
9) KUWAIT 273 thousand
10) ALGERIA 265 thousand

It's interesting to note that the 3 African countries provide nearly identical amounts of oil as the 3 Middle Eastern countries. So why doesn't he say you're dependant on African oil? The bulk of your oil comes from the "Americas". I'm not hating on Bush. I thought his state of the union addy was pretty good with many positives....as long as he follows through on what he said he would do. So why is the Middle East demonized? Is this to try to get Americans to think of the Middle East as "bad" so he has an easier time with his plans for Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc?? Anybody have thoughts on this??

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

In Bush's State of the Union address, he stated that Americans are overly dependant on Middle Eastern Oil. Why would he say this, since it's an absolute lie? Coming from an oil family, it's even more perplexing he'd say such a thing, since he must know better. Does anyone have any ideas? Is this fear mongering against the Middle East?

Nah, can't possibly be THAT. Republicans NEVER fear monger.

 

[barry2952]

Dictators always do.

 

[RRocket]

No seriously...anyone have a reasonable explanation?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

No seriously...anyone have a reasonable explanation?

Well, in all honesty, he didn't *technically* like, he used the words "foreign oil, much of which comes from unstable countires" (or something to that effect). Lie or no lie, this was a clear reference to the Middle East.

Smoke and mirrors.

 

[br94mk8]

i WOULD HAVE TO AGREE,HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE 'MIDDLE EAST'

 

[FreeFaller]

He stated that we were overly dependent on ME oil. Not that we were solely dependent on ME oil. Quit grasping for straws.

 

[FreeFaller]

Dictators always do.

How many dictatorships do you have experience with? Ever been to one? Ever seen firsthand what happens to people who live under a totalitarian government?

 

[MonsterMark]

IF we don't need the Middle East's oil, why are we over there fighting for it?

I guess I'll just sit back and watch all your heads spin round and round. Keep sipping the koolaid. We'll make more.

 

[FreeFaller]

IF we don't need the Middle East's oil, why are we over there fighting for it?

I guess I'll just sit back and watch all your heads spin round and round. Keep sipping the koolaid. We'll make more.

 

[MonsterMark]

Here is Bushs' actual quote for those who didn't have their hearing aid turned up last night.

"America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world," Bush said.

Not a lie, not a half-truth, just a fact. Live with it or do something about it.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

He stated that we were overly dependent on ME oil. Not that we were solely dependent on ME oil. Quit grasping for straws.

Uh, RRocket used the word "overly", not "solely". Who's grasping for straws now?

So the next question is, how does BuSh define "overly" <edit: "addicted" / "often">?? This is a very subjective term to use, which at face value, most people get the impression that "overly" <edit: "often"> means >50%. But since that is NOT the case (as RRocket was pointing out), what could BuSh possibly mean?

Like I said, smoke and mirrors. Vague half-truths intent on misleading people. The man is incapable of precise, specific, concrete terminology in his speech.

IF we don't need the Middle East's oil, why are we over there fighting for it?

Good question. Ask your fear-mongering leader.

 

[MonsterMark]

Steve, not to worry. I am being facetious.

It has always been the Lefty's contention that this is a war for oil, and now they want to spin it in another direction. Such entertainers are the Left Wing Wackos.

 

[MonsterMark]

Good question. Ask your fear-mongering leader.

The hook has been set, time to pull in the lunker.

 

[MonsterMark]

3) SAUDI ARABIA 1.267 million

7) IRAQ 572 thousand

9) KUWAIT 273 thousand

Anwar oil can be recovered at a cost of $25 barrel. Anwar's volumes can replace that of Saudi Arabia at 1.35 million barrels/day.

The California coastline replaces Iraq and Kuwait with some left over.

Am I missing something. If the Lefties would get their heads out of their rectums, the answers to our problems would hit them right in their faces.

 

[FreeFaller]

Uh, RRocket used the word "overly", not "solely". Who's grasping for straws now?

What?!?!

So the next question is, how does BuSh define "overly" <edit: "addicted" / "often">?? This is a very subjective term to use, which at face value, most people get the impression that "overly" <edit: "often"> means >50%. But since that is NOT the case (as RRocket was pointing out), what could BuSh possibly mean?

Overly means more than is necessary...more than required...more than usual...to an excessive degree. In other words...we don't need as much as we use.

Like I said, smoke and mirrors. Vague half-truths intent on misleading people. The man is incapable of precise, specific, concrete terminology in his speech.

When you choose to only hear what you want to hear it is easy to feel misled. Just keep covering your ears. That train whistle doesn't mean a thing...

 

[RB3]

No seriously...anyone have a reasonable explanation?

Yes.

By your own statistics, 20-25% of our oil comes from the Middle East. Think we could sustain our economy if 20-25% of our oil was suddenly cut off? Know what that would do to gas prices?

That makes "we are too dependent on Middle Eastern oil" a true statement. We could not presently make up the difference from other sources if Middle East oil was cut off.

If we got 100% of our oil from friendly, less unstable countries, or from our own internal sources, instead of 75%, we'd be better off. And I fail to see how stating this obvious fact is "demonizing the Middle East."

 

[pbslmo]

Funny, how I hear all of this from a Democratic President 30 years ago.

 

[97silverlsc]

Anwar oil can be recovered at a cost of $25 barrel. Anwar's volumes can replace that of Saudi Arabia at 1.35 million barrels/day.

The California coastline replaces Iraq and Kuwait with some left over.

Am I missing something. If the Lefties would get their heads out of their rectums, the answers to our problems would hit them right in their faces.

And when that oil is gone, then what? Shrub and the Repugs are the rectum heads here, touting their latest energy bill as a great work, but giving 10-15 billion to the oil companies is not going to help our energy needs. That money and more needs to go to developing alternative energy sources. Raising CAFE standards would be a step in the right direction, but they didn't do that either. More patting themselves on the back for doing a (nonexistant) great job. Stinks as bad as the prescription plan.

 

[pbslmo]

And when that oil is gone, then what? Shrub and the Repugs are the rectum heads here, touting their latest energy bill as a great work, but giving 10-15 billion to the oil companies is not going to help our energy needs. That money and more needs to go to developing alternative energy sources. Raising CAFE standards would be a step in the right direction, but they didn't do that either. More patting themselves on the back for doing a (nonexistant) great job. Stinks as bad as the prescription plan.

I like this guy!!!

 

[fossten]

And when that oil is gone, then what? Shrub and the Repugs are the rectum heads here, touting their latest energy bill as a great work, but giving 10-15 billion to the oil companies is not going to help our energy needs. That money and more needs to go to developing alternative energy sources. Raising CAFE standards would be a step in the right direction, but they didn't do that either. More patting themselves on the back for doing a (nonexistant) great job. Stinks as bad as the prescription plan.

I could ask you a similar question.

"What are we saving the oil for?"

Why shouldn't we use it while it's there?

Duh.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

I could ask you a similar question.

"What are we saving the oil for?"

Why shouldn't we use it while it's there?

Duh.

One of Car&Driver's editors wrote a good column this month, where he stated that the US does in fact have an "energy policy". Although it's not stated explicitly, it's "We have the right to cheap energy as long as possible".

I've long contended that the US's real energy policy, is (or should be) in fact along those lines. In short, its "The last country with oil under their feet wins". It also all comes down to money, where can we suck it from cheaply? I see no fault in draining the beach in the middle east of their oil reserves first and keeping whatever oil is under our soil "in the bank" as long a possible.

What is really disturbing to me though is, at a time when our country faces many crisis, rising energy costs being one of the major ones, profits that the big oil companies are raking in are growing disproportionately w/ the price of crude and have hit all time record highs. This stinks of corruption. Is it just a coincidence that a "oil-man" is sitting in the oval office while this happens? I think not.

BuSh and his oil buddies are nothing but WAR PROFITEERS. People have been lynched for less.

 

[RB3]

One of Car&Driver's editors wrote a good column this month, where he stated that the US does in fact have an "energy policy". Although it's not stated explicitly, it's "We have the right to cheap energy as long as possible".

I've long contended that the US's real energy policy, is (or should be) in fact along those lines. In short, its "The last country with oil under their feet wins". It also all comes down to money, where can we suck it from cheaply? I see no fault in draining the beach in the middle east of their oil reserves first and keeping whatever oil is under our soil "in the bank" as long a possible.

What is really disturbing to me though is, at a time when our country faces many crisis, rising energy costs being one of the major ones, profits that the big oil companies are raking in are growing disproportionately w/ the price of crude and have hit all time record highs. This stinks of corruption. Is it just a coincidence that a "oil-man" is sitting in the oval office while this happens? I think not.

BuSh and his oil buddies are nothing but WAR PROFITEERS. People have been lynched for less.

Man, this is scary, because I agree with your first two paragraphs. I would add as a qualifier though, that we need to have drilling begun on our own reserves, in case the Middle East oil gets shut off abruptly.

Oil is a fuel, it serves no other purpose.

But then in paragraph 3, you lose me. Profits are not at record highs. You need to look at the profit margins. And of course, all your posts have to find a vast conspiracy with Bush at the center....how does someone you fancy is so stupid manage to run all these conspiracies??

Ben Stein, of all people, had a great take on oil company profits...


Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2006 4:48 p.m. EST
Ben Stein: Pelosi's Hot Air Can't Power My Car


"I don't blame Exxon for making the profits ... it's a business; it's owned by pensioners and widows and retirees. It's fine if they get the money because it's going back to the American stockholders."

So said Ben Stein, Economist, author of "Yes, You Can Become a Successful Income Investor! Reaching for Yield in Today's Market," actor and former Nixon speechwriter on "Your World with Neil Cavuto."

"The amount of profit on each gallon of gasoline is between six and eight cents. If you cut out all the profit so that Exxon/Mobil went out of business, and Conoco went out of business next year, you'd only save a few cents per gallon.

"It's just nonsense that they're bleeding America white. They don't set the price - the price is set on world markets. It's good if they make a profit becuase then they can have more money to explore for more oil and more energy sources.

"I just am sick of people knocking the oil companies," Stein said.

For good measure, he added, "I've never been able to power my car with envy, or with the hot air out of Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid."

Stein also had an observation about President Bush's State of the Union speech last night: "I'll tell you something that struck me as very interesting. Almost everything in the president's speech about alternative energy sources, I wrote about in a speech for Richard Nixon in 1973.

"Every pitch, every single thing and a great, great deal more, and that was 32 or 33 years ago!"

Cavuto said that the special interest groups are saying oil companies "should give some of it back; what do you say?"


"Absolutely not!" Stein insisted. "It's already been given back ... they're paying something like 40 percent of their profits in taxes ... the next biggest chunk [of profits] goes back in dividends and the rest of it goes for exploring more oil."


Cavuto said that Bill O'Reilly and others say the oil companies are gouging. Stein said there is no evidence of that. "There has not been a successful price-fixing case against an oil company in a hundred years. It's just total nonsense."

Stein added that the price is set on the "world market by young traders who drive Ferraris. Exxon, Conoco Philips, Chevron ... they are not fixing the price. That's just total nonsense."

 

[Frogman]

How many dictatorships do you have experience with? Ever been to one? Ever seen firsthand what happens to people who live under a totalitarian government?

FF, while I know this was directed at Barry, I've had some experience with Dictatorships. I grew up in such an environemnt.

I refer you to a little out of the way country called Romania, under a Dictator by the name or Nicolae Causescu.

Our rights were SLOWLY taken away one by one there by all sorts or fears being instilled on the people... Something similar I fear is happening in the States.

 

[barry2952]

Well stated with first-hand knowledge and astute observation. Here's someone that has experienced a BuSh-like power grab.