Under Bush, Bin Laden gets his wish

[RunInRed 16,454]

I found this pretty interesting - let's flashback to October, 2001:

Fears, Again, of Oil Supplies at Risk

By NEELA BANERJEE

Published: October 14, 2001

THEY are the nightmares, the worst confluence of misguided decisions and startling violence, that politicians and oil executives ponder briefly and then shoo away:

That sympathizers of Osama bin Laden sink three oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and choke off the narrow, bow-shaped channel that funnels 14 million barrels a day from the Persian Gulf to the rest of the world. That the United States attacks Iraq, and Israel launches a huge strike against the Palestinians, driving them from their camps and staking out more land -- all of which spurs the Persian Gulf states to cut off oil for the West. Or perhaps that a popular uprising, led by sympathizers of Mr. bin Laden, topples the ruling Saud family in Saudi Arabia, by far the world's largest oil producer.

''If bin Laden takes over and becomes king of Saudi Arabia, he'd turn off the tap,'' said Roger Diwan, a managing director of the Petroleum Finance Company, a consulting firm in Washington. ''He said at one point that he wants oil to be $144 a barrel'' -- about six times what it sells for now.

The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the subsequent battering of the global economy have stretched the edges of imagination. Most Western politicians and oil industry experts say they believe assurances from the Middle East that oil supplies will stay stable as the American-led attacks on terrorist groups continue. But in such a profoundly changed world, they concede, anything is possible.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...753C1A9679C8B63

Was there a recent attack on the oil supply in the Middle East some time over the past year that I missed?

More proof that Bush's foreign and domestic policies have not made us any more safe and certainly not any more prosperous.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1

[TitanTiger 20,506]

Simplistic.

Bush's policies have nothing to do with the huge upticks in demand from the likes of China and India. Neither do they have anything to do with the crazy ass speculators.

I'm not saying Bush had a great energy policy. Then again, neither did Clinton. That's what $1 a gallon gas will do to people...make them believe it's not a critical problem.

[RunInRed 16,454]

So are you suggesting that the reason Oil increased 6 fold was because of Far East demand? Did the Chinese and their neighbors just all of sudden decide to start multiplying over night? And if today's price is strictly a demand driven issue (which I think it is) how come this administration nor the Clinton administration did anything to combat demand (i.e., mandate higher MPG standards in Detroit, mandate energy efficiency standards, etc.?)

If it's the speculators fault, why weren't they better regulated or prosecuted if they broke the laws?

The buck has to stop somewhere Titan. Over the past 20 years we've been housed by administrations that have not done jack about energy. Did you know when crafting his energy policy Bush/Cheney met with environmentalist and energy conservation groups 2 times and met with big oil 40+ times? I mean, come on...

Let's just call this train wreck of an adminstration what it is and quit defending Bush (or Clinton for that matter).

[au2004ece 30]

So are you suggesting that the reason Oil increased 6 fold was because of Far East demand? Did the Chinese and their neighbors just all of sudden decide to start multiplying over night? And if today's price is strictly a demand driven issue (which I think it is) how come this administration nor the Clinton administration did anything to combat demand (i.e., mandate higher MPG standards in Detroit, mandate energy efficiency standards, etc.?)

If it's the speculators fault, why weren't they better regulated or prosecuted if they broke the laws?

The buck has to stop somewhere Titan. Over the past 20 years we've been housed by administrations that have not done jack about energy. Did you know when crafting his energy policy Bush/Cheney met with environmentalist and energy conservation groups 2 times and met with big oil 40+ times? I mean, come on...

Let's just call this train wreck of an adminstration what it is and quit defending Bush (or Clinton for that matter).

The increase in price is a supply and demand issue. The far east increased its demand because of its massive economic growth in the last decade. They didn't just decide to multiply, their economies began growing very rapidly. Have you not been paying attention? Also, they are expected to continue that massive growth into the next decade which causes a future supply fear in the market.

On the supply side, the blocked US drilling in Alaska and the coastal areas for the last several decades lowered potential supply.

[TitanTiger 20,506]

So are you suggesting that the reason Oil increased 6 fold was because of Far East demand? Did the Chinese and their neighbors just all of sudden decide to start multiplying over night?

No, and if you read my post you'd know that. I mentioned China and India, which is a huge part of it as well as oil speculators. There are other factors but those are two huge reasons.

And yes, China and India have grown tremendously in the amount of fuel they use the last eight years. It's not that they multiplied overnight. It's that they already had massive populations, but due to globalization and the opening up of the Chinese economy, millions more people in both countries can afford cars that couldn't before. You had two huge population centers that had very few people driving and using fuel. On top of that, China was subsidizing the cost of fuel so the people there weren't paying market price on fuel. So they were using even more than they would have.

And if today's price is strictly a demand driven issue (which I think it is) how come this administration nor the Clinton administration did anything to combat demand (i.e., mandate higher MPG standards in Detroit, mandate energy efficiency standards, etc.?)

Again, the "strictly" argument is yours, not mine.

However, I acknowledged that neither administration did a lot to get ahead of the curve on this issue. Given that gas prices were around $1 a gallon for much of the time, it was unfortunately not seen as a pressing issue and thus not something you could get a lot of people to rally behind.

If it's the speculators fault, why weren't they better regulated or prosecuted if they broke the laws?

Allow me to introduce a concept to you. The concept is one of a problem having multiple and sometimes interconnected causes. I mentioned two...demand that has gone up dramatically this decade and speculation based on that demand and other factors. There are others but those are the major drivers.

No one said they broke the law. They are just acting irrationally and taking advantage of the situation in some cases.

You need to employ better critical thinking skills.

The buck has to stop somewhere Titan. Over the past 20 years we've been housed by administrations that have not done jack about energy. Did you know when crafting his energy policy Bush/Cheney met with environmentalist and energy conservation groups 2 times and met with big oil 40+ times? I mean, come on...

Let's just call this train wreck of an adminstration what it is and quit defending Bush (or Clinton for that matter).

I'm not defending anyone. I'm just pointing out that the situation is more complex than your thread title allowed for. This country as a whole has not handled energy policy very well across many administrations. We don't use the resources we have or expand refining capacity because of overzealous enviromentalists and NIMBY types. We don't conserve by using the advances in technology to increase fuel mileage because of lack of political will, auto industry lobbying and people irrationally wanting to drive big ass vehicles they have no real need for and being wasteful. When you add that to the increase in demand, the rise of terrorism in the Middle East over the last 15 years and oil speculation, you leave yourself vulnerable to this kind of situation.

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

Let's just call this train wreck of an adminstration what it is and quit defending Bush (or Clinton for that matter).

Not that you will understand, but this administration wasn't terrible. They made some mistakes, but you think it was so bad because you will buy any and everything the media sells you. Bush just didn't realize the importance of convincing America that decisions were right. He felt no need to defend them and the media hates that, thus dims are told to also.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Except the taps weren't shut off, and oil is still @ $144 a barrel. Bush's fault too?

[au2004ece 30]

Under Obama, Bin Laden will get another one of his wishes.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Simplistic.

Bush's policies have nothing to do with the huge upticks in demand from the likes of China and India. Neither do they have anything to do with the crazy ass speculators.

I'm not saying Bush had a great energy policy. Then again, neither did Clinton. That's what $1 a gallon gas will do to people...make them believe it's not a critical problem.

Who are these speculators. I'd like to get their names.

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

Under Obama, Bin Laden will get another one of his wishes.

More free-bees like Clinton gave him? Or that the US will be a laughing stock and give up much of her power?

[BamaGrad03 0]

$144 oil is Bush's fault, yet it's a GLOBAL commodity market.

again the lack of fundamental knowledge some of you have in regards to how the markets work...continues to astound me.

Bush has been saying for the last 3 years (said it again today) that "this is a strong dollar administration, we put low inflation and strong dollar at a priority"...yet Bernanke and crew keep doing nothing about the interest rates.

Make no mistake, along with supply concerns and speculative hedging, the weak dollar is a major player in this. Bush and his administration are trying to get the rate raised, but it's not up to them. And every day the dollar loses against international currency is another day that traders are going to dump their money in oil.

It's an easy hedge against a weak dollar that's been working for a while now.

It's not Bush's fault, it's not Clinton's fault. Like Titan said, when you have $1 gas at the pump...far reaching energy plan overhauls are low on the list.

It's how we handle it moving forward that will matter.

[RunInRed 16,454]

However, I acknowledged that neither administration did a lot to get ahead of the curve on this issue. Given that gas prices were around $1 a gallon for much of the time, it was unfortunately not seen as a pressing issue and thus not something you could get a lot of people to rally behind.

I'm not convinced they did anything.

Allow me to introduce a concept to you. The concept is one of a problem having multiple and sometimes interconnected causes. I mentioned two...demand that has gone up dramatically this decade and speculation based on that demand and other factors. There are others but those are the major drivers.

No one said they broke the law. They are just acting irrationally and taking advantage of the situation in some cases.

You need to employ better critical thinking skills.

Listen smart ass, I fully understand the complexity of this issue. And I'll go toe to toe with you or any one else on this board on the topic. "Drill drill drill and it's all the Democrats fault" - I got the talking points. But the bottom line is, NOTHING has been done throughout multiple administrations to address this problem. Ironically, a situation that many "liberal loonies," "tree huggers," and other "global warming nuts" have been talking about for quite some time.

As for your rant about speculators, what's your point? Mine is, if some on is acting so irrationally and taking advantage of the situation and as a result, the whole country is getting hurt, why is it asking too much to suggest our Government should potentially intervene? What - all of a sudden Bush is afraid of a conflict?

I'm not defending anyone. I'm just pointing out that the situation is more complex than your thread title allowed for. This country as a whole has not handled energy policy very well across many administrations. We don't use the resources we have or expand refining capacity because of overzealous enviromentalists and NIMBY types. We don't conserve by using the advances in technology to increase fuel mileage because of lack of political will, auto industry lobbying and people irrationally wanting to drive big ass vehicles they have no real need for and being wasteful. When you add that to the increase in demand, the rise of terrorism in the Middle East over the last 15 years and oil speculation, you leave yourself vulnerable to this kind of situation.

With all due respect, I think you missed the entire point of the thread - it was not meant as a comprehensive thread to discuss the energy crisis - lord knows we've had enough of those. The thread was started to share an intersting article I ran across from 7 years ago where Bin Laden was suggesting $144/barrell oil - which, is where we are today. However, the article suggested that it would take Mid East conflict to cause such a price increase - which is obviously not the reasons behind the recent price movements. The irony of it all? - Bush has spent his entire Presidency and crap ton of treasure focusing on the Middle East yet in regards to Oil, we certainly aren't any better off than we were 8 years ago.

Now, is that simplistic and does that discount supply, demand, China, speculators, etc.? Yes. But it also puts an interesting macro perspective on his Presidency.

[TitanTiger 20,506]

I'm not convinced they did anything.

I'm not either. But when you title a thread "Under Bush, Bin Ladin gets his wish", you're being disingenuous.

Listen smart ass, I fully understand the complexity of this issue. And I'll go toe to toe with you or any one else on this board on the topic. "Drill drill drill and it's all the Democrats fault" - I got the talking points.

Then if you go toe to toe with me you will lose. Embarrassingly when you consider that your summary of the talking points and my actual talking points bear little resemblance. Now, you may very well have a more in depth knowledge of this issue than you've demonstrated with this thread and outstrip my knowledge on the subject once you get into it. But then you'd just undermining this thread's premise by showing that in the end, Bush's policies were only a small part of a much bigger equation.

But the bottom line is, NOTHING has been done throughout multiple administrations to address this problem. Ironically, a situation that many "liberal loonies," "tree huggers," and other "global warming nuts" have been talking about for quite some time.

You only acknowledged the "multiple administrations" part after I pointed out the prior administration's culpability. And more irony...this situation was also talked about for a long time by those who wanted more domestic drilling. Complexity abounds!

As for your rant about speculators, what's your point? Mine is, if some on is acting so irrationally and taking advantage of the situation and as a result, the whole country is getting hurt, why is it asking too much to suggest our Government should potentially intervene? What - all of a sudden Bush is afraid of a conflict?

People act irrationally in the stock market all the time. People, within the rules, take advantage of runups in prices, take some profits on a sell off, then buy it right back. The government has talked about intervening but you can't just come in on a global commodity and enforce anything that will have some teeth when the entire rest of the world will just keep right on speculating on the price of oil.

It does need to be looked at, but it's not an easy fix. And it's certainly not something you can just lay at Bush's feet as if it's his fault. Which is my point since you asked.

With all due respect, I think you missed the entire point of the thread - it was not meant as a comprehensive thread to discuss the energy crisis - lord knows we've had enough of those. The thread was started to share an intersting article I ran across from 7 years ago where Bin Laden was suggesting $144/barrell oil - which, is where we are today. However, the article suggested that it would take Mid East conflict to cause such a price increase - which is obviously not the reasons behind the recent price movements. The irony of it all? - Bush has spent his entire Presidency and crap ton of treasure focusing on the Middle East yet in regards to Oil, we certainly aren't any better off than we were 8 years ago.

Now, is that simplistic and does that discount supply, demand, China, speculators, etc.? Yes. But it also puts an interesting macro perspective on his Presidency.

No, it oversimplifies a complex situation so you can take a swipe at an administration you don't like. The point of your thread was to extract one quote from a terrorist, show where the price is now, point to who's in the White House and insinuate a causal relationship. My answer to you wasn't comprehensive, it was just barely another step below the surface level skim job you did, yet in just touching on some of the complex factors involved, it still kneecapped your whole premise.

And I'm not even a huge fan of this administration any longer. I just get tired of the same old rhetoric.

[BamaGrad03 0]

No, it oversimplifies a complex situation so you can take a swipe at an administration you don't like

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnd ball game.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Actually the BUSH Administration has been very active helping us solve the oil crisis.

http://www.netnewspublisher.com/bush-admin...itical-opinion/

[RunInRed 16,454]

Titan - In summary: in your world, Bush can't be blamed for any thing, in mine, I will hold elected officials accountable (just like I will when Obama is elected). Also, if you are suggesting the only reason I threw other administrations into the convo is because you brought it up, then you obviously have not been following my posts over the past few years - since when have I ever defended Clinton?! Should we talk about Bush I, Reagan as well as it relates to energy? :::Sigh:::

Bottom line: the article was interesting. You thought it was a shameless hit job on Bush - fine. But really, the real story is how oil records have been shattered and it has had very little to do with Mid East violence - and guess what, no one saw it coming (at least to the extent they were able to do some thing about it).

[TitanTiger 20,506]

Titan - In summary: in your world, Bush can't be blamed for any thing, in mine, I will hold elected officials accountable.

I seriously question whether you've actually paid attention to one word I've typed in this thread.

Also, if you are suggesting the only reason I threw other administrations into the convo is because you brought it up, then you obviously have not been following my posts over the past few years - since when have I ever defended Clinton?! Should we talk about Bush I, Reagan as well as it relates to energy? :::Sigh:::

Again, reading comprehension. I never said you defended Clinton. I simply pointed out the simplistic argument you were making by tying this only to Bush.

Bottom line: the article was interesting. You thought it was a shameless hit job on Bush - fine. But really, the real story is how oil records have been shattered and it has had had very little to do with Mid East violence - and guess what, no one saw it coming (at least to the extent they were able to do some thing about it).

No, I thought your characterization of it was a myopic, simplistic take on the reasons for high oil prices...which again, if you actually paid attention to the words on the screen, you would realize.

[au2004ece 30]

again the lack of fundamental knowledge some of you have in regards to how the markets work...continues to astound me.

No lack of knowledge astounds me. Like I have said, the idiot majority decides elections and knows nothing about what it is basing its decision on.

[au2004ece 30]

Listen smart ass, I fully understand the complexity of this issue. And I'll go toe to toe with you or any one else on this board on the topic. "Drill drill drill and it's all the Democrats fault" - I got the talking points. But the bottom line is, NOTHING has been done throughout multiple administrations to address this problem. Ironically, a situation that many "liberal loonies," "tree huggers," and other "global warming nuts" have been talking about for quite some time.

What would you have done about the situation that the past administrations did not do? You have 20/20 hindsight, so I expect a great answer!

I'll help you out. I assume you would go back to the early part of the Bush administration and allow drilling in ANWR since the rejection of that is easily seen as a mistake at this point. I assume you would not fund ethanol subsidies, since ethanol costs more to produce that oil based gasoline and contributes to higher food prices, and instead invest in other alternative forms of energy. I assume you would have built more nuclear power plants so that less of our electrical power would be coming from fossil fuels.

These are the easy, no-brainer answers that have been pushed by previous administrations but rejected by congress or the public, so what else would you have done?

If any of my assumptions are wrong let me know.

[RunInRed 16,454]

It's not Bush's fault, it's not Clinton's fault. Like Titan said, when you have $1 gas at the pump...far reaching energy plan overhauls are low on the list.

It's how we handle it moving forward that will matter.

I disagree, I think they are both very at fault for doing nothing. I'm pretty sure both talked about energy on the campaign stump...what did they do? To put it another way, would you continue to let some one run your company who didn't have the fore sight to see a crisis coming - who sat back and ignored all the signals, all commmon sense, and set back and essentially watched for 8 years? Or would you hide under your desk and suppport the exuceses about the "global market." This is a country that stormed the beaches of Normandy and saved the world, guaranteed civil rights, put a man on the moon, we CAN and should have solved this problem but it takes leadership. Of which, we have gotten ZERO of from this administration. Period.

[au2004ece 30]

It's not Bush's fault, it's not Clinton's fault. Like Titan said, when you have $1 gas at the pump...far reaching energy plan overhauls are low on the list.

It's how we handle it moving forward that will matter.

I disagree, I think they are both very at fault for doing nothing. I'm pretty sure both talked about energy on the campaign stump...what have they done. To put it another way, would you continue to let some one run your company who didn't have the fore sight to see crisis coming - who sat back and ignored all the signals, all commmon sense, and set back and essentially watched for 8 years? Or would you hide under your desk and suppport the exuceses about the "global market." This is a country that stormed the beaches of Normandy and saved the world, guaranteed civil rights, put a man on the moon, we CAN and should have solved this problem but it takes leadership. Of which, we have gotten ZERO of from this administration. Period.

Yet you can't say what should have been done? Just like a good democrat for that last 8 years: blame Bush blame Bush with no answers. I thought you could go toe to toe on this issue.

[RunInRed 16,454]

It's not Bush's fault, it's not Clinton's fault. Like Titan said, when you have $1 gas at the pump...far reaching energy plan overhauls are low on the list.

It's how we handle it moving forward that will matter.

I disagree, I think they are both very at fault for doing nothing. I'm pretty sure both talked about energy on the campaign stump...what have they done. To put it another way, would you continue to let some one run your company who didn't have the fore sight to see crisis coming - who sat back and ignored all the signals, all commmon sense, and set back and essentially watched for 8 years? Or would you hide under your desk and suppport the exuceses about the "global market." This is a country that stormed the beaches of Normandy and saved the world, guaranteed civil rights, put a man on the moon, we CAN and should have solved this problem but it takes leadership. Of which, we have gotten ZERO of from this administration. Period.

Yet you can't say what should have been done? Just like a good democrat for that last 8 years: blame Bush blame Bush with no answers. I thought you could go toe to toe on this issue.

What are you talking about? He's been in charge the past 8 years, so yes, this is on his watch. If Obama doesn't do anything in 8 years, you can bet your ass I'll be all over him too.

[au2004ece 30]

It's not Bush's fault, it's not Clinton's fault. Like Titan said, when you have $1 gas at the pump...far reaching energy plan overhauls are low on the list.

It's how we handle it moving forward that will matter.

I disagree, I think they are both very at fault for doing nothing. I'm pretty sure both talked about energy on the campaign stump...what have they done. To put it another way, would you continue to let some one run your company who didn't have the fore sight to see crisis coming - who sat back and ignored all the signals, all commmon sense, and set back and essentially watched for 8 years? Or would you hide under your desk and suppport the exuceses about the "global market." This is a country that stormed the beaches of Normandy and saved the world, guaranteed civil rights, put a man on the moon, we CAN and should have solved this problem but it takes leadership. Of which, we have gotten ZERO of from this administration. Period.

Yet you can't say what should have been done? Just like a good democrat for that last 8 years: blame Bush blame Bush with no answers. I thought you could go toe to toe on this issue.

What are you talking about? He's been in charge the past 8 years, so yes, this is on his watch. If Obama doesn't do anything in 8 years, you can bet your ass I'll be all over him too.

THEN RESPOND TO MY QUESTION ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE DONE! Post #19.

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

Don't hold your breath. Dims only repeat talking points. They can't argue reason or come up with their own answers. You backed him into a corner. What a meany! Why did he say he would be all over Obama in 8 years? 4 year off limits time after he is president IF he wins? There is zero chance he would get a second term, so runsinpants must be confused.

[RunInRed 16,454]

What should have been done in the past 8 years, which obviously was not, is pretty straight forward:

1) Pass legislation that mandates higher fuel economy standards

2) Set building efficiency goals

3) Require renewable energy levels

4) Invest in clean energy technology and energy R&D (biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerating the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promoting development of commercial-scale renewable energy, investing in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid). This investment could further be assisted by developing clean technology venture capital funds supported by the Governement

5) Devote resources to develop clean coal technology

6) Establish a national low carbon fuel standard

7) Establish grant programs and offer tax credits for early adopters of new technologies

That's a start and what should have been going on over the alst 20 years. But again, it takes leadership.