Sometimes You Need Somebody Else To Reinforce Your Point!

Bush took the easy way out. From left field, he talked about
removing ourselves from the burden of being dependent on imported oil.

What he didn't say was that much of that oil money was recirculating back to
the terrorist movement so that on the one hand we were fighting terrorism
and on the other hand, we were supporting terrorism! --an untenable position.

Beyond that, after listening to Bush, one has to ask why didn't we do anything before...
Why didn't we go after those who contributed to rising prices.
Why didn't we encourage conservation...
Why didn't we ask the big Three to phase out their gas-guzzlers
Why didn't we ask Detroit to work for more fuel economy...
Why did we allow the oil industry to decide policy in secret
Why did we provide funding for exploration in the last energy bill...

Clearly, his remarks last night were totally insincere...

He needed a magic bullet; and this was the quick solution that he could proceed to ignore two months out of the gate...

Why did he do it?

He had nothing else to say that could be deemed as positive! End of story...

Don't believe that we are going to do anything about alternative fuels...
Don't place your trust in a government that speaks out of both sides of its mouth...

If you don't accept my argument, read what Campaign for America's Future had to say:



Campaign for America's Future www.ourfuture.org
Bush Running on Empty Promises

Last night, the President stepped into the spotlight claiming -- yet again -- an intention to drive bold energy reform. For the remainder of this week, the news media will be focused on dissecting and editorializing on the President's State of the Union address. Please write a letter to the editor today, and urge them focus coverage on whether the President will turn his latest cheap talk on energy reform into real action. GO! »
Dear Les,
Faced with sagging poll numbers, rampant corruption in his party and the failure of his Social Security privatization scheme, President Bush used last night's State of the Union address to rhetorically hijack a progressive platform. From yet another plan for energy independence, to high quality math and science education for every child, to a healthcare system that takes care of Americans -- last night, the President embraced progressive ideas in lofty rhetoric. The jury's out on the reality that will follow -- and, judging by history, we're not optimistic.
Of all his progressive rhetoric, President Bush saved his most ambitious proposal for energy reform. He boldly declared what we progressives have known for years -- that "America is addicted to oil." To solve this problem, the President called for America to "replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."
While this is a laudable goal, the President has -- time and time again -- made himself the greatest real-world obstacle to realizing it. In last year’s State of the Union, the President claimed that his "budget provided strong funding for leading-edge technologies –- from hydrogen-fueled cars, to clean coal, to renewable sources (of energy)." Ironically, just days after his address, the President recommended cutting energy efficiency programs. [1] In June 2005, the President said that "our dependence on foreign oil is like a foreign tax on the American Dream." Later that summer, the White House threatened to veto the Energy Bill if it included a provision to reduce oil consumption by 1 million barrels per day over ten years. [2] Time and again, President Bush's real-world actions stand in stark contrast to his rhetoric.
Last night, the President stepped into the spotlight claiming -- yet again -- an intention to drive bold energy reform. Let's keep that spotlight trained on him. For the remainder of this week, the news media will be focused on dissecting and editorializing on the President's State of the Union address. Please write a letter to the editor today, and urge them focus coverage on whether the President will turn his latest cheap talk on energy reform into real action.
http://www.ourfuture.org/No_Empty_Promises.cfm
To date, President Bush's energy policy has been a grab bag of subsidies for White House allies in the gas and oil industry. Clean, new energy sources such as wind, solar and bio-fuels are given scraps from the table -- and broken promises. Last year's energy bill represented a stunning failure of leadership. It did nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil or lower energy prices. It's amazing that the President who helped produce a big oil energy bill cobbled together in secret meetings with oil lobbyists is now calling for a crash energy independence program.
If President Bush is serious about reform, there's a progressive solution that he should embrace and enact. Taking inspiration from President Kennedy’s call to put a man on the moon, the Apollo Alliance -- a three year old coalition of business, labor, conservationists, and community leaders -- has called for a new "Apollo Project" to achieve freedom from foreign oil while creating 3 million new jobs in just ten years. Instead of handing out billions in subsidies to older energy industries like oil and gas, America needs a post-Katrina, post-Iraq energy strategy to replace imported oil and gas with newer, cleaner home grown fuels.
While we would welcome President Bush to join our drive for energy independence, we can't let the media blindly accept his empty promises. The President has yet to prove to the American people that he is committed to energy reform. We need to hold his feet to the fire. Please write to news editors today to remind them of President Bush’s history of broken promises, and urge them to scrutinize his newest energy independence rhetoric.
http://www.ourfuture.org/No_Empty_Promises.cfm
To garner credibility on this issue, the President should start by reversing the actions he's taken to obstruct real reform. He should honor his 2004 State of the Union promise to "modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy." A start here would correct the fact that Bush's 2005 budget request cut core renewable energy and energy efficiency programs -- including a 16% cut to biomass programs. [3] Then, the President should act on past rhetoric where he acknowledged that "increasing energy efficiency will help reduce our energy consumption, and [make] America less dependent on foreign sources of energy." This would involve correcting the unfortunate reality that since 2002, the President has allowed energy efficiency research and development spending to decline by 15%. [4]
Time and again, President Bush has talked the energy independence talk –- but, failed miserably to walk the walk. Let's challenge the media to scrutinize his historic hypocrisy on energy reform. Write today and urge the news editors to keep their coverage focused on whether the President's newest crusade for energy independence is backed by a full tank of gas or whether -- once again -- George W. Bush is running on empty.
http://www.ourfuture.org/No_Empty_Promises.cfm
Thanks so much for your support.
Sincerely,
Robert Borosage, Co-DirectorCampaign for America's Future
Jerome Ringo, PresidentApollo Alliance
[1] Renewable Energy Access, "Proposed Budget Cuts Key Energy Efficiency," Renewable Energy, 8 February 2005.[2] Congressional Record, Senate, 16 June 2005. S. 6672[3] The Bush Administration's FY2005 Budget for the Environment: Putting Our Future at Risk. February 24, 2004. http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/special_report/archive/000043.php[4] Ben Geman. Bush vows 'big time' energy address in State of Union. Green Wire. January 30, 2006.