02/13/2005: Two Foxes in The Oil Hen House
Today's NY Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, had this to say in his No Mullah Left Behind piece:
"This is a perfect example of the Bush energy policy at work, and the Bush energy policy is: "No Mullah Left Behind."
By adamantly refusing to do anything to improve energy conservation in America, or to phase in a $1-a-gallon gasoline tax on American drivers, or to demand increased mileage from Detroit's automakers, or to develop a crash program for renewable sources of energy, the Bush team is - as others have noted - financing both sides of the war on terrorism. We are financing the U.S. armed forces with our tax dollars, and, through our profligate use of energy, we are generating huge windfall profits for Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan, where the cash is used to insulate the regimes from any pressure to open up their economies, liberate their women or modernize their schools, and where it ends up instead financing madrassas, mosques and militants fundamentally opposed to the progressive, pluralistic agenda America is trying to promote. Now how smart is that?
The neocon strategy may have been necessary to trigger reform in Iraq and the wider Arab world, but it will not be sufficient unless it is followed up by what I call a "geo-green" strategy."
Back in my "pre-blogging" day of kevetching in letters to the editor I wrote a little ditty I called "Two Foxes in the Oil Henhouse." Click on the "more" button to read further.
How can there be any political will or public will to effect meaningful changes absent the encouragement of those in charge of our energy policy? We have what can only be labled "Two Foxes in the Oil hen House" in a Bush/Cheney re-election ticket.
The Bush/Cheney Big Oil company connections, the Halliburton contracts, the pipeline in Afghanistan and the personal relationship with the Saudi Royal family are no speculation. Further, it the reason there is no hope of any meaningful policies from a Bush/Cheney ticket to reduce out nations dependence on foreign oil or offer meaningful choices to consumers that don't include remaining hostage to these issues for the foreseeable future.
These rising oil prices, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan pipeline, Halliburton's contracts in rebuilding oil pipelines in Iraq…they all tie in to a point I'd like to make about whether anyone can really believe that "Oil Man" Bush and "Oil Man/Halliburton Man" Cheney have done anything since 9/11 to significantly reduce (not protect, coddle, rebuild, re-engineer, or kowtowing to Saudi Arabia and OPEC) our dependence, as a nation, on foreign imported oil.
Where, since it was clearly recognized at the time of 9/11 that much of our response to the OPEC producing nations and Saudi Arabia (where 15 of the highjackers were from) had to be tempered (hampered?) by the touchy relationships and this dependence on foreign oil, has the Bush Administration made any moves to fundamentally change that picture? It's been three years…yet I'm still not offered a suitable, cost effective vehicle that doesn't guzzle gasoline at ever increasing prices (and forget those small, expensive hybrids…I'm a soccer mom who needs a mini-van sized vehicle I can at least load my family into.)
Where are the government incentives for these changes? Alternative fuels? Mileage efficient cars? Effective hybrid vehicles? All the efforts of this administration reveals a commitment to protecting, coddling, rebuilding, re-engineering and continuing the fatal tango with Saudi Arabia and OPEC; not fundamentally changing the picture. And…here's the accountability part, who benefits long term from this failure to invest in changing this picture? And who can believe Bush and Cheney, both with ties to big oil companies and personal ties to Saudi Royals, have a whiff of an inclination to go against these personal interests to effect any meaningful change. At every push, shove and corner these men refuse to pursue any goals but those that enrich their friends and cohorts in this oil dependence business.
It would be one thing to acknowledge the need to maintain some consistent supplies of oil for our markets during a transition phase to making changes…but I can't point to one, even one area where the Bush administration has ever made even a hint at working on areas to transition out of this dependency.
Can you point to one? If they haven't done it in four years, if they haven't done it since 9/11, if they haven't done it since oil prices are going through the roof (and are predicted to increase seriously in the next 5-10 years depending on which analyst is believed) what makes anyone think they'd do it over the next four years? And who'd believe they'd do it given the money to be made for them and their cohorts and business associates
Karen on 02.13.05 @ 06:00 AM CST