Reporting on Bush's renewable energy tour, Wash. Post soft-pedaled White House retreat from SOTU pledge
SUMMARY: In an article about President Bush's renewable energy tour, The Washington Post overlooked the White House's retreat from Bush's pledge to "replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025." The article also reported on Bush's planned visit to the National Renewal Energy Laboratory without mentioning that just before his visit, the federal government had reallocated $5 million to restore the jobs of 32 employees who had been laid off as a result of administration budget cuts.
In a February 21 article on President Bush's multi-state tour this week to promote his latest energy proposals, Washington Post staff writer Jim VandeHei overlooked the White House's retreat from Bush's State of the Union (SOTU) pledge to "replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025." While Samuel W. Bodman, Bush's secretary of energy, disavowed the promise the day after the speech, VandeHei noted only: "Since the [SOTU] speech, US officials have cautioned that reducing Middle East imports will be determined more by market conditions than government directives." The Post also reported that Bush planned to visit the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, but did not mention that just prior to Bush's visit, the federal government had reallocated $5 million to restore the jobs of 32 of the laboratory's employees who had been laid off as a result of the administration's budget cuts.
In contrast to VandeHei's report, a February 21 New York Times report by staff writer Elisabeth Bumiller noted that Bodman backed away from Bush's pledge just one day after the January 31 SOTU address, saying that Bush's stated goal was "merely an example" of possible efforts to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Bumiller also noted that during a February 20 speech on his multi-state tour, Bush "did not repeat [the] promise to cut back on Middle East oil imports that drew complaints from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Counties."
VandeHei also omitted from his article the fact that the government reallocated $5 million to restore jobs for 32 people who were laid off from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory shortly after Bush's SOTU speech, in which he pledged to focus on increasing renewable energy. By contrast, the Times elaborated on the backstory, noting that Bodman approved the $5 million transfer over the weekend -- just before the President's arrival there:
A statement released Monday by the Energy Department said that Samuel W. Bodman, the energy secretary, ordered the transfer of $5 million over the weekend to immediately restore the jobs, which had been eliminated because of past budget cuts, thereby avoiding a political embarrassment for the president. Mr. Bush is to visit the laboratory, in Golden, Colo., on Tuesday morning.
From the February 21 Post report:
In his State of the Union speech, Bush called for efforts to "replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025." Short of imposing bans or outright embargoes, Bush's goal will be very difficult if not impossible to meet because there is little the government can do to prevent companies from buying oil from any nation they choose, say energy experts. Since the speech, U.S. officials have cautioned that reducing Middle East imports will be determined more by market conditions than government directives.
[...]
Later in the day, Bush toured a solar energy plant in Auburn Hills, Mich., before spending the night in Colorado, where he planned to speak about energy Tuesday at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
... but if it's BUSH talking, then what he says is almost certainly a LIE.
Bush comes out and says, flat-out in the SOTU: "[b]reakthroughs on this [ethanol production] 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." Wow, that's awesome! The president has described in clear language a goal that actually has some hard numbers attached (more than 75%; by 2025), a goal that might even get some liberals on his side because it's good for the country as a whole, and his energy secretary shuffles out the next day and declares that the boss was not to be taken literally. The first time I heard that I just about plotzed laughing.
So much for the president who "says what he means and means what he says."
I believe there was a two-word hyphenate that describes this kind of behavior, which was popularized in 2004 and often bellowed at Kerry by Repubs. What was it again?
Has anyone else noticed that Bush seems to have taken the whole idea of energy independence straight out of the decade old Earth in the Balance by Al Gore?
Gore introduced an even more ambitious plan in the book. He wanted to faze out the internal combustion engine over 25 years or so in favor of more efficient engines.
Of course, Republicans completely mischaracterized Gore's comments apparently due to massive reading comprehension problems.
"I was criticized for suggesting in this book that we should move away from the internal combustion engine over the next quarter-century. The attack was never more than smoke and fumes; I was calling not for an end to the car industry but for new types of cars. Now the automakers themselves are investing heavily in alternatives to internal combustion; they are acknowledging that fuel cells and other environmentally preferable alternatives are key to future competitive success, at home and overseas.
For those who want to attack my view, let me save you the trouble of reading the entire book. On pages 325-6, I wrote, “It ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a 25-year period.” It is possible; it needs to be done; it will create more jobs, not destroy jobs. I’m proud that I wrote those words in 1992, and I reaffirm them today."
Source
Well, they must have heard you. They just put this AP article on their web site, detailing everything you just said, though it's not on their front page.
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
SORRY, no specific comment at all on the item, but instead on the Front Page of MMFA (specifically, the photos used):
At this time, a most amusing collection of 'Portraits In Corruption', we have...
1. Britt Hume's pock-marked advocacy of a guy who shot his pal's face full of birdshot.
2. A President's dumb visage, wearing a Shiny Blue hard-hat, gesturing like a man who doesn't know enough to wear a less expensive suit to the Job Site.
3. The pinched and anguished face of a U.S. Senator, too dumb to understand the Constitution, or even how short his time is.
All balanced by...
4. The Dowager Empress of the Washington Post, whose waxen lifeless features would scare any child into the field, but no crow from it.
Back in 1988, Bush elder, "Read my lips, no new taxes..." I knew when he said it back then it was an empty promise.
Now Bush younger made yet another empty promise I knew when he said it, he's never keep it.
Another Bush, another big lie.
The SOTU is 'merely an example to show that Bush can get through a speech without stuttering too much', and it is 'merely an example of the president SAYING things that he and the administration will NOT do'.
And let's focus on how the media and the Decoycrats are his enablers. THAT'S the real problem.
You got it. We know Bush and his crew spew nothing but lies. Why does the press support/perpetuate the lies? Why aren't the Democrats screaming in unison at this pitiful display?
the beginning of Farienhiet 9/11 where the voters in Florida are trying to get just ONE senator(?- I think) to sign a petition to get their grievances addressed on the floor and not one, republican or democrat, would sign it.. It was disgraceful and, to me at least, a sign that the power concentration in Washington has much more to do than just being in one party or another. Not that it would excuse the Democrats from staying in their crib waiting for story time, but, that real life scene speaks volumes about how stuff is run down there (I'm up here, in Ak).
What’s the matter…It’s only a teensy shot, it won’t hurt….much.
That’s cuz it’s a big, hairy ’ol needle that’s gonna get y’all stuck with…and it’s a whole–lot bent tooo! So where’s the candy [that] he’s been promising to us? He sure didn’t really offer any in New Orleans nor its environs lately. And to think how proud he is at “his veep’s” gunplay scenario. That sure does give a new meaning to the word “lothario”.
And what about his little cuts to student loans as well as to MediCare? Gee, do you suppose he’s really got any real friends in Dubai? He sure has a whole bunch of pop-up bobble heads here, a-yammering for him at FEMA & at that Homeland Security Fiasco Department of his. Them’s are two real oxymorons. And to think…they’re run by, under the auspices of and for the use of…the same! And all this, while Americans still stuffer under someone else’s banner’s waves. No, he never was an honest person…ever.
Now what was it he was trying to pledge, soft-pedal or just plain attempt to vocalize to us about energy imports, self-sufficiency and saving those 32 laid-off employees who got axed, for only $5 million, due to his administration budget cuts? As taxing as all this is, you still can’t tax smoke & mirrors but you sure can those gawkers! They’ll stand by& listen. Hell, they don’t even have to roll up their sleeves, you got it all figured out and you ain’t telling no one, no where’s, no how…not ever.
bush makes some announcment in front of all these phony prop settings to act like he's really doing something and then he turns around and does the opposite. we saw it after the state of the union, with the media praising bush for his bold new step. he doesn't support reducing oil use. he doesn't support meaningful standards for cars. his corporate masters won't allow that. hell with what's good for the country. the important thing is that exxon's record profits aren't big enough. more more more. and who cares if we keep sending money to countries that give it to people who try to kill us. we should all care, but bush and all the people who follow him and his propaganda don't.
I still am scratching my head over a few questions.
Maybe someone in the Press Corps will muster up the courage to call the White House's bluff:
1~ Studies show that oil from the Middle-East accounts for about 1/5 of our oil consumption. Mr. Bush, how do you propose to address the other 4/5, or is it irrelevant?
2~ How is our oil dependency/gluttony a National Security risk in and of its self, or is it more accurate to assess our National Security risks by which oil producing countries we wage on?
3~ How does limiting and restricting Higher Education Student Loans contribute to the future investment of R&D into alternate energy, as well educated students would be required to perform such R&D without pressure to outsource for competent technicians?
4~(a) Being that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory first didn't have your confidence to maintain the 30+ technicians that were summarily fired before being rehired just prior to your arrival, and Congress's hastily reallocation of $5 million dollars and the low budget proposal for current and future investment into R&D, how can America feel confident in the direction that your idea of "alternate fuel on the horizon" is an actual conception that is going to survive?
4~(b) Can you reassure the American public without asserting "Trust Me"?
5~ And what about Big Oil companies major profits, how are they playing into the picture?
2~ How is our oil dependency/gluttony a National Security risk in and of its self, or is it more accurate to assess our National Security risks by which oil producing countries we wage WAR on?
Why they’re just gutless toadies who’ve deprived themselves of any substantive backbone—either individually or collectively—in order to obtain their position. This noticeable trait is the sine qua non of pre-existing occupational requirements. Then they’re OK’d as to their investigatory reportage abilities, based upon the bona fide, job-related question/requirement: “You will regurgitate the pablum you’re given, without so much as a peep of queasiness?” Any response, construed as an affirmative utterance, however willy-nilly, concludes their initiation. To which these readers intone & bemoan, “There they’re, their…tsk-tsk.”
Why do I feel that in a month or so, a small article will report that the emergency $5 million that Congress (re)allocated for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory will be pulled and the 30 or so employees will be layed off (again), and this 'news' will be buried on page A26 or so, ignored by television and radio 'news' and never mentioned again by the 'liberal' media?