Why is Bush to blame for being friendly with oil producing nations?

Question

Face it people, we NEED oil. Our economy is dependant on it and that isnt George W Bush's fault. What do you want Bush to do. Go to war with Saudi Arabia and every other opec nation. Perhaps he should just alienate them all and stop doing business with them. Then instead of calling him a murderer or the antichrist or a hyppocrite you will just blame him for the worst economy in US history and call him evil for massive layoffs, poverty and suicides when the stock market crashes. You can't blame Bush for the oil dependant nation we have become. He has to play politics with these people. He didn't create the economic world we live in but he has to play in it. Every single person on here benefits from Bush being friendly with the Saudis. Yet you don't want to admit it because then you will be siding with evil big business. You all say you would be willing to pay more for oil, but its not just about your gas for your car, it's about the entire US economy.

Answer 1

Oh, so NOW he's got to play politics with the other nations? Nations like Iraq and Iran? How about the entire U.N.? We start capturing Iranian Oil tankers, and they'll start playing much nicer.

He is to blame for being friendly with the ONLY oil producing nation with direct ties to 9/11- the Bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia. No, he isn't responsible for the oil-dependent economy, but he's been very irresponsibile with it, and his friends have made more money than ever before off the backs of Americans. If he was any good at all at "playing politics" he'd negotiate lower prices from these people.

No, I'm not willing to pay more for oil- we've got plenty of our own, and we pay too much for what we do import. An important piece of Capitalism that gets overlooked is responsible Consumerism. Comsumers can actually set market prices if they buy discriminately.

Answer 2

I think he (and most of the rest of our political establishment as well) is very much to blame for being unwilling to actually do something obvious, simple and extremely effective in the wake of 9/11 to reign in Saudi-funded terror-inciting Wahabist propaganda and Saudi-funded terror. Note, I said obvious, simple, and extremely effective, but I did not say "painless" or "free of cost." That obvious, simple, effective measure would be an immediate, high, and ever-increasing tariff on imported oil. That and that alone would "end our dependence on foreign oil" as both Bush and the Democrats claim they want to; but neither party is willing to do what it takes. We need energy, not imported oil per se. We use a lot of Saudi oil because right now that is in the most economical mix available to us, which is what the free market determines and implements. If the government changes the rules by making Saudi oil artificially expensive, the market will fairly quickly adapt, and our consumption patterns will change. Over time, all sorts of alternatives to Saudi oil will be developed and will come on-line. This process will not be free of costs, but after all we SHOULD be in a real war, and who expects it to be painless or free of costs? The problem with George Bush's disingenuously named "war on terror" is that it is not a REAL war with a REAL ENEMY. By the way, even though there are real world costs to ending our dependence on Saudi and Middle Eastern oil, they do not have to be as great as you might think. Certainly the costs would be nowhere near as great as the cost of World War II, which Roosevelt had the courage to launch when the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, killing about the same number of Americans as died on 9/11. There are ways to minimize the cost of a high tariff on foreign oil, and those ways are these:
1. Repeal the federal gas tax immediately and let the imported oil tariff start out at the revenue-neutral equivalent of the amount of money the 42 cent a gallon gas tax brings in today. Today we are taxing gasoline at the federal level, but it is best to tax something you want LESS of and not to tax something you want the market to bring forth MORE of. Therefore, if we taxed FOREIGN OIL at a high rate and did not tax MOTOR FUEL, the free market would bring forth a maximum amount of MOTOR FUEL using a minimum amount of FOREIGN OIL, which is what we want.
2. Have an exemption from the imported oil tariff for friendly countries that are net exporters of oil. This would exempt Canada and Great Britain.
3. Starting from the revenue-neutral level where the foreign oil tariff simply replaces the revenue now raised by the gasoline tax, increase the tariff on foreign oil by 2.5% or some such level quarterly in perpetuity.
4. Increase domestic drilling permits and open up ANWAR.

If ALL of these measures were adopted, I guarantee you we would be independent of Middle Eastern oil in a very few years. Moreover MARKET FORCES are the only thing that can bring this about. Massive government boondoggles with the government trying to pick winning technologies and subsidize them to profitability, which both Bush and the Democrats have proposed, will never get you there. Carter tried that back in the seventies. It failed then, and it will fail again. But it is a good way to BUY VOTES WITH TAXPAYER MONEY, and that, rather than fighting a REAL WAR ON ISLAMIC FASCISM is what both Bush and the Democrats prefer. That is why they ARE BOTH EVIL. Does that answer your question?

Answer 3

Food for thought. Oil in Venezuela and Africa will cause more US involvement and a bee's hive of troubles. I agree but feel that we will be blind sighted by this due to the election and dirty politics.
Big issue is payment. China is paying in Euro's worth more than our US dollar. Now the standard. Iran after years and Clintons messing around being nice and OH I sell u a fake nuc...
Iran has the money now to extract and produce oil off their sandbox. The pals in the hood want to regulate the Persian Gulf on their own? No US about it.
Bush isn't to blame he's the fall guy.
Wait until u hear Hill's plans for South America. U think she can invade Africa , Iran or will send Bill to Darfur for some time outs!!! And flip flop I didn't really say that.
Research and keep writing on. This question is one we all need ask. Few have the valour. I applaud you.

Answer 4

His name is "Bush" and he is a Republican. That is all that is needed for many to HATE him, not necessarily the job he is doing but it is a personal hatred. I can't figure it out. The same was true with a lot of right wingers and Clinton. I didn't like him for a lot of reasons, but I didn't know him well enough personally to hate him.

BTW, I don't have a dog in this fight, I am registered to vote but with no political affiliation. I think politicians are like diapers, they should be changed frequently and for the same reason. Being an incumbent is very often the only reason I need to vote for someone else. If an incumbent wants my vote they had better really impress me and in a positive way.

Answer 5

You make an excellent point with which I agree. The fact is that we need oil. And, big business is good for America. It the foundation of our economy. Without big business most Americans would live in poverty.

Answer 6

Watch the video- "loose change". Greed is one sin, murder is another.

Answer 7

WE DONT NEED OIL