3 Apr. 2007

Politics, Oil Prices and Penitence

Well, here we go again, with petrol prices soaring on Easter's approach:
The president of the NRMA, Alan Evans, said people were baffled about why petrol prices rose before holidays, and could not understand why the Government did not do anything to stop it.

"It's always amazing how the price seems to increase prior to Easter and Christmas," Mr Evans said. "You can set your watches by it. I wouldn't be surprised if it creeps closer to $1.40 than $1.30."
Was it only yesterday that the Hon. Guardian Of The National Treasure Pedro Costello was issuing a stern warning to price-gouging petrol companies:
"I have asked them to continue to monitor sites and let me make it clear - if any service station proprietor wants to collude with anybody else, they're at risk of prosecution and conviction and heavy penalty."
Who is "them"? Them is the ACCC, which the Howard government long ago stripped of its independent powers to monitor petrol prices. Now they can only do so when the Hon. Guardian Of The National Treasure asks them to do so! For example, when we are six months out from an election.

Let's remember what Australian Prime Minister John Howard said on August 1st, 2006:
"I mean if anybody says there's some magical solution to the high price of petrol in Australia, will you please ring the Lodge and I'll spend an hour all-ears listening to them."
At the time, world oil prices were at all-time highs as the Bush-Cheney Oil Company Junta Inc (Int'l) guzzled down profits. Just three months later (on the exact date of the US mid-term elections, coincidentally), oil prices had falling a whopping twenty percent. If only John Howard had that kind of pulling power!!! [yes, I know all three of those URLs point to the same story: now go ahead and bloody read it!]

Cossie wasn't the only one getting quizzed about petrol prices this week. George W. Bush was also asked to explain the unusually high "gas" prices in the USA heading into Easter. And just to show you the kind of guy that I am, herewith follows a rather fullsome education for those who have no idea what the FCUK is going on in the world today. Read it, digest it if you can, and weep:
Q: Would the U.S. be willing to give up five Iranians held in Iraq if it would help persuade Iran to give up the 15 British sailors?

BUSH: I said the other day that, first of all, the seizure of the sailors is indefensible by the Iranians, and that I support the Blair government's attempts to solve this issue peacefully. So we're in close consultation with the British government.

I also strongly support the prime minister's declaration that there should be no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages.

Q: Sir, your administration evaluated all 93 U.S. attorneys in part on the basis of loyalty; that was one of the criteria that was used.

What role should loyalty to you play in the evaluation of those charged with administering justice and enforcing the law?

BUSH: I - obviously when you name a U.S. attorney, you want somebody who can do the job. That's the most important criterion: somebody who's qualified, somebody who can get a job done.

The president names the U.S. attorneys, and the president has the right to remove U.S. attorneys.

And on this particular issue, the one you're referring to - I believe it's the current issue, of the U.S. - eight U.S. attorneys, they serve at my pleasure. They have served four-year terms. And we have every right to replace them.


BUSH: Let me finish, please.

I am genuinely concerned about their reputations now that this has become a Washington, D.C., focus. I'm sorry it's come to this.

On the other hand, there had been no credible evidence of any wrongdoing.

And that's what the American people have got to understand.

We had a right to remove them. We did remove them. And there have been - there will be more hearings to determine what I've just said: no credible evidence of wrongdoing.


Q: Mr. President, a lot of the disagreement...

BUSH: Wrong Bill.

Q: Which one, him?

BUSH: No, you. The cute looking one.

Q: Thanks so much.

A lot of the disagreement, sir, over the way you're handling Iraq - disagreement from the public and Congress - stems from the belief that things are not working despite the surge. The Iraqis have met, if any, of the benchmarks that were laid down for them so far. Senator McCain walked in the Baghdad marketplace with air cover and a company of troops. But people don't believe that this can work, and they question the continued sacrifice of U.S. troops to help make it work.

BUSH: Yeah. Bill, I'm very aware that there are a group of people that don't think we should be there in the first place.

There are some who don't believe that this strategy will work.

I've listened carefully to their complaints. Obviously, I listened to these concerns prior to deciding to reinforce. This is precisely the debate we had inside the White House: Can we succeed?

I know there are some who have basically said it is impossible to succeed. I strongly disagree with those people. I believe, not only can we succeed; I know we must succeed.

And so I decided to - at the recommendation of military commanders, decided to send reinforcements.

As opposed to leaving Baghdad and watching the country go up in flames, I chose a different route, which is to send more troops into Baghdad.

And General Petraeus, who is a reasoned, sober man, says there is some progress being made. And he cites, you know, murders and, in other words, there's some calm coming to the capital.

But he also fully recognizes, as do I, it's still dangerous.

In other words, suiciders are willing to kill innocent life in order to send the projection that this is an impossible mission. The whole strategy is to give the Iraqi government time to reconcile, time to unify the country, time to respond to the demands of the 12 million people that voted.

You said the Iraqis haven't met any obligations. I would disagree with your characterization.

They have said that they will send Iraqi forces into Baghdad to take the lead, along with U.S. troops, to bring security to Baghdad. And they've done that.

They said they'd name a commander for Baghdad. They have done that.

They said they'd send up - you know, they'd send troop out into the neighborhoods to clear and hold and then build. They're doing that.

They said they would send a budget up that would spend a considerable amount of their money on reconstruction. They have done that.

They're working on an oil law that is in progress. As a matter of fact, I spoke to the prime minister yesterday about progress on the oil law.

He reminded me that sometimes the legislature doesn't do what the executive branch wants them to do. I reminded him I understand what he's talking about.

But nevertheless, I strongly agree that we've got to continue to make it clear to the Iraqi government that this is - the solution to Iraq, an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, is more than a military mission.

It's precisely the reason why I sent more troops into Baghdad: to be able to provide some breathing space for this democratically elected government to succeed. And it's hard work, and I understand it's hard work.

Secondly, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, there's only 40 percent of our troops that are there on the ground.

That's why I find it somewhat astounding that people in Congress would start calling for withdrawal even before all the troops have made it to Baghdad.

Q: Matthew Dowd, your chief campaign strategist in 2004, kind of issued a strong critique of you and your administration this weekend.

I'm wondering if you were personally stunned, and if you worry about losing support of people - of him and people like him.

BUSH: First of all, I respect Matthew. I've known him for awhile. And as you mentioned, he was an integral part of my 2004 campaign.

I have not talked to Matthew about his concerns. Nevertheless, I understand his anguish over war, understand that this is an emotional issue for Matthew as it is a lot of other people in our country.

Matthew's case, as I understand it, is obviously intensified because his son is deployable. In other words, he's got a son in the U.S. armed forces and - I mean, I can understand Matthew's concerns.

I would hope that people who share Matthew's point of view would understand my concern about what failure would mean to the security of the United States.

What I'm worried about is that we leave before the mission is done - and that is a country that is able to govern, sustain and defend itself - and that Iraq becomes a cauldron of chaos, which will embolden extremists, whether they be Shia or Sunni extremists, which would enable extremists to have safe haven from which to plot attacks on America, which could provide new resources for an enemy that wants to harm us.

And so, on the one hand, I do fully understand the anguish people go through about this war.

And it's not just Matthew. There's a lot of our citizens who are concerned about this war.

But I also hope that people will take a sober look at the consequences of failure in Iraq.

My main job is to protect the people. And I firmly believe that if we were to leave before the job is done the enemy would follow us here.

And what makes Iraq different from previous struggles is that September the 11th showed that chaos in another part of the world and/or safe haven for killers, for radicals, affects the security of the United States.

Q: Back to Iran, sir, ABC has been reporting that Iran will be capable of building a nuclear bomb within two years. Have you seen evidence that Iran is accelerating its nuclear program?

BUSH: I haven't seen the report that you just referred to.

I do share concerns about Iranian intention to have a nuclear weapon. I firmly believe that if Iran were to have a nuclear weapon, it would be a seriously destabilizing influence in the Middle East.

And therefore we have worked to build an international coalition to try to convince the Iranians to give up their weapon; to make it clear that they have choices to make, whether the choice be isolation or missed opportunity to grow their economies.

And so we take your - we take the - we take seriously the attempts of the Iranians to gain a nuclear weapon.

Q: Have you seen evidence of acceleration, though?

BUSH: You know, I'm not going to talk about any intelligence that I've seen, one way or the other.

But I do want you to know how seriously we take the Iranian nuclear issue. As a matter of fact, it is the cornerstone of our Iranian policy. It is in this - why we spend a lot of time in working with friends, allies, concerned people to rally international support, to make it clear to the Iranian people that there is a better option for them.

Now, we have no problem, no beef with the Iranian people. We value their history. We value their traditions. But their government is making some choices that will continue to isolate them and deprive them of a better economic future. So we take the issue very seriously.

Q: Mr. President, are you aware of the current price of a gallon of gas?

Can you explain why it's gone up so sharply in recent weeks?

And is there anything in the near future indicating the prices might start coming down again before the heavy summer driving season?

BUSH: About $2.60-plus.


BUSH: Yes...

Nationwide average. The price of gasoline obviously varies from region to region, for a variety of reasons. Some has to do with the amount of taxation at the pump. Some of it has to do with the boutique fuels that have been mandated on a state-by-state basis.

But a lot of the price of gasoline depends on the price of crude oil. And the price of crude oil is on the rise. And the price of crude oil is on the rise because people get spooked, for example, when it comes - when it looks like there may be a crisis with a crude-oil- producing nation, like Iran.

But the whole point about rising crude oil prices and rising gasoline prices is that this country ought to work hard to get off our addiction to oil.

All the more reason why Congress ought to pass the mandatory fuel standards that I set forth, which will reduce our use of gasoline by 20 percent over the next 10 years.

There's two reasons why: one is for national security concerns, and two is for environmental concerns. And I hope that we can get this done with the Congress, get it out of the Congress to my desk as quickly as possible.

Dancer. Dancing man.

That would be David Gregory. For those of you not aware, Gregory put on a show the other...

Q: Everybody's aware, Mr. President. Thank you.

BUSH: Well, maybe the listeners aren't.

Q: Yes, that's all right.

BUSH: That was a beautiful performance, seriously.

Q: Thank you. Thank you very much.


Q: Mr. President, you say the Democrats are undercutting troops the way they have voted. They're obviously trying to assert more concern over foreign policy.

Isn't that what the voters elected them to do in November?

BUSH: I think the voters in America want Congress to support our troops in harm - who are in harm's way. They want money to the troops.

And they don't want politicians in Washington telling our generals how to fight a war.

It's one thing to object to the policy but it's another thing, when you have troops in harm's way, not to give them the funds they need.

And no question, there's been a political dance going on here in Washington. You follow this closely; you know what I'm talking about.

Not only was there a political dance going on - in other words, people trying to appeal to one side of their party or another. But they then had to bring out new funding streams in order to attract votes to an emergency war supplemental.

And my concern is several.

One, Congress shouldn't tell generals how to run the war, Congress should not shortchange our military, Congress should not use an emergency war spending measure as a vehicle to put pet spending projects on that have nothing to do with the war.

Secondly, as I mentioned in these remarks, delays beyond mid- April and then into May will affect the readiness of the U.S. military.

So my attitude is, enough politics. They need to come back, pass a bill - if they want to play politics, fine, they continue to do that, I will veto it. But they ought to do it quickly. They ought to get to the bill to my desk as quickly as possible, and I'll veto it. And then we can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and without withdrawal dates.

It is amazing to me that, one, the United States Senate passed a - confirmed General Petraeus overwhelmingly after he testified as to what he thinks is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and then won't fund him.

Secondly, I - we have put 40 percent of the reinforcements in place. And yet people already want to start withdrawing before the mission has had a chance to succeed.

And they need to come off their vacation, get a bill to my desk. And if it's got strings and mandates and withdrawals and pork, I'll veto it and then we can get down to business of getting this thing done.

And we can do it quickly. It doesn't have to take a lot of time. And we get the bill, get the troops funded and we go about our business of winning this war.

Q: On climate change and the decision that was issued yesterday by the U.S. Supreme Court, what's your reaction to that decision?

And don't you think that this makes some kind of broad caps on greenhouse gas emissions more or less inevitable?

BUSH: I - first of all, the decision the Supreme Court is - we take very seriously. It's the new law of the land.

And secondly, we're taking some time to fully understand the details of the decision.

As you know, this decision was focused on emissions that come from automobiles. My attitude is that we have laid out a plan that will affect greenhouse gases that come from automobiles by having a mandatory fuel standard that insists on 35 - using 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2017, which will reduce our gasoline uses by 20 percent and halt the growth in greenhouse gases that emanate from automobiles.

In other words, there is a remedy available for Congress. And I strongly hope that they pass this remedy quickly.

In terms of the broader issue, I - first of all, I've taken this issue very seriously. You know, I have said that it is a serious problem. I recognize that man is contributing greenhouse gases, that - but here are the principles by which I think we can get a good deal.

One, anything that happens cannot hurt economic growth. It's - and I say that because, one, I care about the working people of the country, but also because in order to solve greenhouse gas - the greenhouse gas issue over a longer period of time, it's going to require new technologies, which tend to be expensive. And it's easier to afford expensive technologies if you're prosperous.

BUSH: Secondly, whatever we do, must be in concert what happens - with what happens internationally. Because we can pass any number of measures that are now being discussed in the Congress, but unless there is an accord with China, China will produce greenhouse gases that will offset anything we do in a brief period of time.

And so those are the principles that will guide our decision-making: How do you encourage new technology? How do you grow the economy? And how do you make sure that China is - and India - are a part of a - you know, a rational solution?

Q: Since General Pace made his comments - they got a lot of attention - about homosexuality, we haven't heard from you on that issue.

Do you, sir, believe that homosexuality is immoral?

BUSH: I - I - I will not be rendering judgment about individual orientation.

I do believe the don't ask/don't tell policy is good policy.

Sammon, yes.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President.

BUSH: You're standing out there. I can see you.

Q: When Congress has linked war funding with a timetable, you have argued micromanagement. When they've linked it to unrelated spending, you've argued pork barrel.

But now there's talk from Harry Reid and others that if you veto this bill, they might come back and just simply cut off funding.

Wouldn't that be a legitimate exercise of a congressional authority, which is the power of the purse?

BUSH: The - the Congress is exercising its legitimate authority as it sees fit right now. I just disagree with their decisions. I think setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal is a significant mistake. It is - it sends mixed signals and bad signals to the region and to the Iraqi citizens.

Listen, the Iraqis are wondering whether or not we're going to stay to help. People in America wonder whether or not they've got the political will to do the hard work. That's what Plante was asking about. In my conversations with President Maliki, he seems dedicated to doing that.

And we will continue to work with him to achieve those objectives.

But they're wondering whether or not, you know, America is going to keep commitments. So when they hear withdrawal and timetables and, you know, it, rightly so, sends different kinds of signals.

The - it's interesting that Harry Reid - Leader Reid spoke out with a different option.

Whatever option they choose, I would hope they'd get home, get a bill and get it to my desk. And if it has artificial timetables of withdrawal or if it cuts off funding for troops or if it tells our generals how to run a war, I'll veto it.

And then we can get about the business of giving our troops what they need, what the - what our generals want them to have, and give our generals the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives that we set out by reinforcing troops in Iraq.

You know, what's interesting is, you don't hear a lot of debate about Washington as to what will happen if there is failure. Again, Plante mentioned that people don't think we can succeed. You know, in other words, there's no chance of succeeding. That's a part of the debate.

But what people also have got to understand is what will happen if we fail. And the way you fail is to leave before the job is done; in other words, just abandon this young democracy, say we're tired, that we'll withdraw from Baghdad and hope there's not chaos.

I believe that if this capital city were to fall into chaos - which is where it was headed prior to reinforcing - that there'd be no chance for this young democracy to survive. That's why I made the decision I made.

And the reason why I believe it's important to help this young democracy survive is so that the country has a chance to become a stabilizing influence in a dangerous part of the world.

I also understand that if the country - if the experience were to fail, radicals would be emboldened, people that had been - that can't stand America would find, you know, new ways to recruit, there would be, potentially, additional resources for them to use at their disposal.

The failure in Iraq would endanger American security.

I have told the American people often, it is best to defeat them there so we don't have to face them here, fully recognizing that what happens over there can affect the security here. And that's one of the major lessons of September the 11th.

In that case, there was safe haven found in a failed state, where killers plotted and planted - planned and trained, and came and killed 3,000 of our citizens. And I vowed we weren't going to let that happen again.

Secondly, the way to defeat the ideology that these people believe is through a competing ideology, one based upon liberty and human rights and human dignity.

And there are some who, I guess, say that's impossible to happen in the Middle East.

I strongly disagree.

I know it is hard work. I believe it is necessary work to secure this country in the long run.

Q: The conservative newspaper columnist Robert Novak recently wrote that, in 50 years of covering Washington, he's never seen a president more isolated than you are right now.

What do you say to critics like Novak who say that you are more isolated now than Richard Nixon was during Watergate?

BUSH: How did he define isolated ?

Q: He said you were isolated, primarily, from your own party; that Republican leaders on the Hill were privately telling him that on the Gonzales matter in particular you're very isolated.

BUSH: I think you're going to find that the White House and the Hill are going to work in close collaboration, starting with this supplemental.

When I announced that I will veto a bill with - that withdrew our troops, that set artificial timetables for withdrawal or micromanaged the war, the Republicans strongly supported that message.

I think you'll find us working together on energy. They know what I know: that dependence on oil will affect the long-term national security of the country.

We'll work together on No Child Left Behind.

We'll work together on immigration reform.

We will work together, most importantly, on budget to make sure this budget gets balanced without raising taxes.

The other day the Democrats submitted budgets that raise taxes on the working people in order to increase the amount of money they have available for spending. That is a place where the Republicans and this president are going to work very closely together. I adamantly oppose tax increases, and so do the majority of members in the United States Congress.

Q: Mr. President, good morning. You've talked about...

BUSH: Good morning. Good morning. That's a good way to start.

Q: You've talked about the consequences of failure in Iraq. And you've said that the enemies would follow us home.

I wonder, given that it seems like that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of people who are charged with the responsibility of keeping America safe, so...

BUSH: What was that again?

Q: Well, you say that the enemies would follow us home. If...

BUSH: I will. That's what they did. Just like September the 11th. They plotted, planned and attacked.

Q: But I wonder in your own mind, how does that vision play out? How do they follow us home? Because we've spent so much money and put so much resource into making this country safe.

BUSH: They - I'm not going to predict to you the methodology they'll use. Just you need to know they want to hit us again.

And we - we do everything we can here at the homeland to protect us.

That's why I've got a Homeland Security Department. That's why we are, you know, inconveniencing air traffickers, to make sure nobody is carrying weapons on airplanes.

That's why we need border enforcement, with a comprehensive immigration bill, by the way, to make sure it's easier to enforce the border.

I mean, we're doing a lot. That's why we need to make sure our intelligence services coordinate information together better.

So we spend a lot of time trying to protect this country. But if they were ever to have safe haven, it would make the efforts much harder. That's my point.

We cannot let them have safe haven again. The lesson of September 11th is, if these killers are able to find safe haven from which to plot, plan and attack, they will do so.

So I don't know what methodology they'll use. We're - we're - we're planning for the worst. We cover all fronts. And it's hard to protect a big country like this.

And I applaud those who are - who have done a fantastic job of protecting us since September the 11th.

But make no mistake about it: There's still an enemy that would like to do us harm. And I believe, whether it be in Afghanistan or in Iraq or anywhere else, if these enemies are able to find safe haven, it will endanger the lives of our fellow citizens.

I also understand that - that the best way to defeat them in the long run is to show people in the Middle East, for example, that there is a better alternative to tyrannical societies, to societies that don't meet the hopes and aspirations of the average people. And that is through a society that is based upon the universal concept of liberty.

Iraq is a very important part of securing the homeland. And it's a very important part of helping change the Middle East into a part of the world that will not serve as a threat to the civilized world, to people like - or to the developed world, to people like in the United States.

So thank you all very much for your interest. I hope you have a nice holiday. Appreciate it.