Why do you have to take everything so literally?
By on Feb 1st, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Why do you have to take everything so literally?
“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.” (Via Kos)
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
50 Responses to “Why do you have to take everything so literally?”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
Once again we see the relevence of the scientific logic known as Opies Razor.
Opies Razor teaches us that whatever Dubya says, the opposite must be true.
When in doubt, turn to science.
February 1st, 2006 at 8:40 pmOMFG,
No they didn’t.
It couldn’t be because of all of the articles coming out today stating that Bush pissed off OPEC.
It’s not good for an addict to piss off his dealer.
February 1st, 2006 at 8:45 pmGee, that’s a shock, and here I thought that this was one guy that I could bet the farm on.
February 1st, 2006 at 8:46 pm“more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.” The new 16 words. Well close anyway. Well yellowcake could be going to Saddam if, well it’s more like an exapmle of what could be - well he meant that but he really didn’t mean - well exactly that.
-jim
February 1st, 2006 at 8:47 pm70%, maybe, if he’s not counting Iraqi oil as imported?
February 1st, 2006 at 8:50 pmhttp://subject2discussion.vitalpodcasts.com
Thank you to everyone who heard my review of the speech last night on my Tuesday night webcast and podcast.
I am so geared up to elect a Democrat in 08, as much as I was when I was on the Clinton.Gore 96 National Steering Committee.
Please go to the above address if you missed the program and want to either grab the podcast or listen right off the computer.
THANK YOU ALL again.
February 1st, 2006 at 8:50 pmDid you mean Oprah’s razor?
February 1st, 2006 at 8:51 pmOpie’s razor? He-he. I don’t think they let either Bush or his poppy handle the real thing. Opie’s Electric Shaver.
February 1st, 2006 at 8:55 pmYes, we are addicted to oil, but Bush is not making us go to Oil Guzzlers Anonymous, he’s not making us pay more for our drug, he’s not forcing those who make the chief drug-dispensing devices, cars and SUVS, to stop loading their products with engines that abuse this drug.
And that’s the biggest hypocrisy of all.
His energy bill last year did nothing to raise the fuel-efficiency standards on Detroit. Amazingly, our fuel standards are now lower than China’s! Our fuel economy standards in 2005 are 21 miles a gallon for all cars and SUVs. In 1987, they were 22.1 miles a gallon. We’ve been going in reverse. And when the energy bill was up last year, Republicans in Congress not only voted down Democratic amendments to increase fuel-efficiency standards, they actually made it more difficult to raise those standards in the future.
February 1st, 2006 at 9:13 pmOPEC ISSUES WARNING OM BUSH OIL PLEDGE
The Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries on Wednesday warned that President George W. Bush’s proposal to reduce US dependence on Middle Eastern oil could badly jeopardise needed investment in Gulf oil production and refining capacity.
Opec delegates and officials said the group planned to make this point in its as yet unpublished commentary in the cartel’s January bulletin next week.
Speaking after Mr Bush’s Tuesday night State of the Union address, Edmund Daukoru, Nigeria’s energy minister and president of Opec, said: “We do believe that energy issues cannot be handled in a unilateral way; we all have to work together towards global energy security.”
Privately, Opec officials were more direct in warnings about Mr Bush’s declared intention to reduce America’s dependence on Middle East oil by 75 per cent by 2025. But they emphasised Opec would avoid a confrontational tone in its commentary.
An Opec delegate said: “Comments like that are unrealistic. Everyone knows the world will continue to depend on Middle East imports.” The organisation would raise concerns about such statements damping investment at meetings with the European Union and other organisations ‘more aligned with Opec’s view’.
Opec’s concern was shared widely across the industry. John Felmy, chief economist of the American Petroleum Institute, which represents the US oil and gas industry, said: “If one of your big customers tells you they do not want to buy from you in the future, then of course this will impact how much you invest.”
http://news.ft.com/ cms/ s/ 8d5c9580-9368-11da-a978-0000779e2340.html
February 1st, 2006 at 9:17 pmBush is illiterate, how could he mean anything literally?
February 1st, 2006 at 9:19 pmThe ink on the SOTU speech didn’t even have a chance to dry and the administration is backpedaling from the most hopeful, progressive “initiative” it introduced.
Surprising? Not one bit.
Check out Murtha’s letter to the President (dated 2/1/06) over at Huffpo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2006/ 02/ 01/ murthas-letter-to-the-pr_n_14939.html
February 1st, 2006 at 9:22 pmThe only thing smart bush talked about was making ethanol from switch grass and biomass. The in/out ratio is as much as 1 (in) for 4 (out). And an acre of land would produce over 1000 gallons of ethanol. Even if this could only be sold for 1.50 a gallon, it would mean land would produce $1500 per acre - an astoundingly high return on yield.
So we need 150bln gallons of gasoline a year. If an acre of land can produce 1000 gallons, we would need to use about 150 million acres of land in the production of fuel. We currently use 350 million acres in food production. We use another 800-950 million acres in farm grazing, and another 750 million acres in forests - some percent being tree farms. This means that 10-15% of the land we currently use for grazing and agriculture could be used to produce all of the gasoline required in the country. And that’s with CURRENT technology.
Improve the efficiency with hybrids and better car design and that could readily be cut in half.
See partisan republican folks, it’s not hard, it just requires people to ‘think’ instead of believing that 2 trillion dollars to secure oil that in reality we don’t need is a good thing. And it only took bush 5 years as president to figure out he was wrong on this issue, there’s hope for the poor thing - even if it’s small!
February 1st, 2006 at 9:29 pmWhat Bush meant was that he plans to OWN the Middle East by 2025.
Why worry about conservation or alternative energy sources when the US is going to spend trillions of dollars to STEAL all the oil?
February 1st, 2006 at 9:34 pmRunning Dog Lacket google peak oil or M. King Hubbert and you’ll realise that we are going to cut our dependance on oil whether we want to or not.
February 1st, 2006 at 9:44 pmThe president’s State of the Union reference to Mideast oil made headlines nationwide Wednesday because of his assertion that “America is addicted to oil” and his call to “break this addiction.”
Well George, that ol Jet of yours burns alot of Fuel going to all them there Photo-toonity things. Exxon had Record profits, I think they are Addicted to Money. Maybe George you should break their addiction and them paying lobbyists,
Hows that for an Idea George?
Read My lips -Sr
February 1st, 2006 at 9:45 pmBut Not Literally -Jr
Read My Lips unliterally -Georgie
February 1st, 2006 at 9:48 pmAnother great resource for peak oil info and the coming crisis is:
energybulletin.net
This site covers all the bases.
February 1st, 2006 at 9:57 pmNo real surprises there. Does *anyone* really believe that Bush genuinely meant half of what he said last night?
February 1st, 2006 at 9:59 pmIt’s much better not to take Bush literally. The results otherwise are far too disturbing:
Too many OB/GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.
- President Bush, September 2004.
Here’s more on the “four ways to interpret Bush-speak.
February 1st, 2006 at 9:59 pmJay the Petroconsultants firm of Switzerland did a study in 1996, and the oil industry that paid $32,000 each for the report knew about this back then, one of the oil industry firms paying for the report was Haliburton who was chaired by Mr. Cheney, that is probably why the energy task force is so secret, they don’t want to let on that they are manipulating the market for maximum short term profit. The reason the industry never really tries to build a new refinery why build a plant that they won’t need in a decade or so.
February 1st, 2006 at 10:11 pmOff topic, but:
CNN
February 1, 2006
Mine deaths spur call for ’stand-down’
Good thing Bush didn’t cut funding for MSHA!
Oh wait, yes he did.
February 1st, 2006 at 11:04 pmNow it all makes sense:
When Pres Bush said “Iraq is a present and gathering threat”, that was purely an example.
When he said “Hussein is reconstituting Iraq’s nuclear program”, he was only dramatising.
When he said that he would “to the best of [his] ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” he didn’t mean that, you know, literally.
February 1st, 2006 at 11:44 pmNow even they are telling us not to believe the president –
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:52 ambecause he doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
Three more years of this?!
but he was being literal about the animal-human hybrids though, right? i’m already on the waiting list. i heard santorum signed up for man-dog hybrid.
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:57 amGregor,
You forgot my favorite. When he said “Mission Accomplished.” He didn’t mean that literally either.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:09 amGeorge Is Great, Him and His Cabal go around dropping all Kinds of Lies;
to wit;
most on the right (IRI) were encouraged when George W. Bush and his senior foreign policy advisor Condoleezza Rice came out strongly against such missions. Rice famously declared in 2000 that “we don’t need to have the 82nd Airborne escorting kids to kindergarten.”
Bush was equally blunt: during one of the presidential debates with Al Gore, Bush said “I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation building. … I mean, we’re going to have some kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.”
Read My Lips
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:30 amYou Want me to What
Trust Mr Bush and Dick Cheney with My Pet?
And Social Security?
Wah?….
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:36 amTP and the linked article misrepresent what Bodman and Hubbard said in the press briefing. Actually
there was no backing away from the goal of developing new technologies that will help cut oil imports
from the Middle East by 75% by 2025:
BODMAN: “And just to expand on that, the goal is energy independence. And what the President is saying is by — we believe there’s a very good chance that with these new technologies we will be able to reduce the imports of our oil enough to the equivalent to what we currently project to be 75 percent of what we would have imported from the Middle East. But the goal is to — you know, beyond 2025, is to continue to achieve more and more energy independence, and this will occur through new
technologies.”
Bodman explains that the DOE projects the U.S. will be importing 6 million barrels/day in 2025. But with the president’s plan to develop new technologies - cellulosic ethanol, the new hybrid, the new battery technology and the hydrogen car- we will reduce our demand by 5.26 million barrels/day, a 90% reduction in total imports. The estimate of Persion Gulf oil would be %75 of the 5.26 million barrel/day reduction.
We currently import a little over 2 million barrels/day from the Persian Gulf.
TP makes up this:
“The president didn’t mean it literally” and falsely attribute this section of the Knight Ridder article to Hubbard and Bodman:
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.
The president didn’t really mean it when he said we would reduce our dependence of Persian Gulf oil?
Kevin Hall of KR asks a leading question that shows he wasn’t paying attention at the press briefing.
Neither was his anonymous source.
Of course the president meant it and so did the Secretary of Energy and the Director of the National Economic Council as they stated in the press briefing. Nowhere in the press briefing did Hubbard or Bodman back away from the president’s stated goal. Nowhere did they say the president didn’t mean it. They did say that some oil would continue to be imported from the Persian Gulf. Maybe that’s where Kevin gets confused. Somehow in his mind cutting the DOE’s projected 2025 imports by %90 and importing less Persian Gulf oil than what we are importing today equates to no reduction and continued dependence. Good enough to fool the lefties with his article.
The president, Sec of Energy and the Director of the National Economic Council clearly explained how
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:34 amwe can reduce our demand for oil by 2025, thereby reducing imported oil. TP once again distorts and lies to create a new meaning to something that wasn’t said.
Justice Alito casts his first vote
First day includes death row appeal, swearing-in ceremony
From Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Thursday, February 2, 2006; Posted: 7:53 a.m. EST (12:53 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) — In his first day on the job, Justice Samuel Alito broke ranks Wednesday night with the Supreme Court’s conservatives by refusing to allow Missouri to execute death-row inmate Michael Taylor.
Alito sided with five other liberal and moderate justices in rejecting a second request to allow the state of Missouri to execute Taylor.
http://www.cnn.com/ 2006/ POLITICS/ 02/ 01/ alito/ index.html
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:12 amJapan will begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in March and complete the pullout by May, ending its largest military mission since World War II, a news report said Tuesday.
AP
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:19 amThe End of the Internet?
Jeff Chester
The nation’s largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:21 amNot looking so good for Peeping George in many other areas either. Scalito snubbing the pro-death Repug base with his first vote against the neocons. Japan and Australia taking their toys and going home. And perhaps aiding the fatal blow to our First Amendment rights…
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:25 am[…] Once again, thanks to Think Progress for the original link. Tags: No Tags. […]
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:54 amWell, Bush said a truth: “America is addicted to oil” means that he wants to make New Borns from every american, so they will join Pat Roberson’s faithfull Bush voters…
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:03 amUps, meant “Born Agains”
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:04 amwhat hes getting at he wants to drill alaska and other places …come on
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:26 amWhat a joke he is now.
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:30 amLooks like a fish out of water.
I think him and his are the only people whose hardships I have ever actually enjoyed and celebrated.
Anyone who believes a thing that lying, thieving pinhead says is an imbecile. Plain and simple.
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:35 amI love Murtha’s letter to Dubya. Factual and concise. That means Dubya won’t understand most of it. After reading the letter, I really wish that Murtha had given the Dem response to the SOTU. Great job Murtha. Keep speaking the truth. Thanks for the link Jay.
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:39 amSteed: “TP makes up this:
“The president didn’t mean it literally†and falsely attribute this section of the Knight Ridder article to Hubbard and Bodman:”
Did you bother to go to the link? Obviously not. If you did you’d know that TP didn’t make this up at all and further more, TP did attritbute this section to anyone. Your reading skills are lacking.
“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.”
Now what does that really mean Steed? It means “He didn’t mean it literally.” Which is simply appalling. That is the state of the union.
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:42 amWhy do the wingers keep trying to promote AWOL Bush as some kind of hero? The guy skipped out on service to the country while Murtha saw a good deal of combat. Of course, the Chimp in Chief did prance around on an aircraft carrier with a sock stuffed into his crotch; I guess that qualifies him as a hero in the mind of a winger.
I’d better stop by the Dollar Store and grab another one of those “Support China’s Magnetic Ribbon Industry” ribbons and paste it on the back of my Hummer.
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:43 amFirst clue that this part of the speech was just “filler”. Cut by 75%? The Republican’s main revenue source? MmmmmHmmmm. Like THAT would ever happen. But I do wonder why they didn’t tell their Saudi patrons what they were going to say, and to just ignore it. So after George got back to the WH, a Saudi must have paid a visit,and knocked his dick (not Cheney) into the dirt. But clearly, everything said in the SOTU must now not be taken literally. Good to know!
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:51 amwhy didn’t you tell us this during SOTU, dude? I’ll tell you why - because it’s all about talking and not action… pacify your people…
PS: poor Barney!
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:55 amPete, Barney is the brains of the family. Karl is merely held up as a diversion.
February 2nd, 2006 at 10:30 amOn this issue, Democrats ought to be speaking in one loud voice. Democrats need to be making energy independence our Party’s constrasting vision the Republican/Big Oil Syndicate.
Republicans = ME Oil dependence = wars without end = dead end
Democrats = Alternative / renewable energy economy = jobs = a real future for our kids.
Because Republicans are dependent on Big Oil, we are paying the price.
February 2nd, 2006 at 10:37 amThe movie Syriana is oh so true. The government must create the APPEARANCE that they are doing something about the oil issue, while in fact really doing nothing at all.
February 2nd, 2006 at 1:49 pmSaying what you mean…
Update on where the Bush administration stands on various issues of national import……
February 2nd, 2006 at 11:52 pmThe Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.
A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:46 pmglobal oil refining & petroleum
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !
March 19th, 2008 at 1:42 am