| Page 2 of 5 < > |
Bush's Oily Embrace
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
"The McCain camp, the White House and top Republicans began discussing their energy plans more than a month ago, and quickly decided to emphasize domestic supply. . . .
"Administration officials emphasized the decision's economic importance for ordinary Americans, but it also has the backing of oil producers. Last month, Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Rex Tillerson said it was 'terribly upside down' that Mr. Bush would lobby Saudi Arabia to boost production even as much of the U.S. remains off limits to domestic drilling."
Ben Casselman writes in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required): "As politicians debate whether to open federal offshore waters to oil and natural-gas drilling, there is agreement on at least one point: It isn't a short-term fix.
"If the bans were lifted tomorrow, it would be at least seven years -- and likely as long as a decade -- before the first oil began to flow off the coasts of Florida, California and the eastern seaboard. . . .
"Nonetheless, the industry has for years coveted the potential energy reservoirs hidden beneath federal waters."
Bush's remarks also came off as a fairly desperate attempt at blame-shifting.
H. Josef Hebert writes for the Associated Press: "With the presidential election just months away, Bush made a pointed attack on Democrats, accusing them of obstructing his energy proposals and blaming them for high gasoline costs. . . .
"With Americans deeply pessimistic about the economy, Bush tried to put on the onus on Congress."
Mark Silva writes in the Chicago Tribune: "Just a few months ago, President George W. Bush said he 'hadn't heard' that gas might reach $4 per gallon."
Now, "the president is accusing the Democrats of simply not getting it."
Opinion Watch
The New York Times editorial board writes: "It was almost inevitable that a combination of $4-a-gallon gas, public anxiety and politicians eager to win votes or repair legacies would produce political pandering on an epic scale. So it has, the latest instance being President Bush's decision to ask Congress to end the federal ban on offshore oil and gas drilling along much of America's continental shelf.
"This is worse than a dumb idea. It is cruelly misleading. It will make only a modest difference, at best, to prices at the pump, and even then the benefits will be years away. It greatly exaggerates America's leverage over world oil prices. It is based on dubious statistics. It diverts the public from the tough decisions that need to be made about conservation. . . .



