By Jena Ardell
By Jon Campbell
By Alan Scherstuhl
By Tessa Stuart
By Roy Edroso
By Jon Campbell
By Albert Samaha
By Zachary D. Roberts
It is sometimes hard to understand what George Bush means when he talks, and grappling with his thought processes was made more complicated whenever chief communicator Karen Hughes tried to translate. But on April 23, Hughes finally sent a clear message. She announced that she intended to resign and go back to Texas with her family this summer, thus ending one of Washington's more public displays of rank ignorance.
Last week, Roll Callrelates, she was on Capitol Hill reportedly telling a closed-door meeting a "divine plan" had enabled the Bush team to get through the September 11 catastrophe. One staffer said Hughes likened the presidency thus far to a marathon that began with the Florida balloting controversy. Krista Ritacco, an assistant authorized to speak for Hughes, told Roll Callher boss was merely saying "the experience of Florida definitely gave everyone the patience to deal with 9-11 and the aftermath."
Hughes has been in quite a muddle to explain Dubya's thinking ever since he became president. When the Chinese forced down the American spy plane last year, Hughes told Reuters the prez was all ears for updates. "He really does seek information," she said. "He's very curious, and so he asked a lot of questions. He asked some detailed questions. Several times he asked, 'Do the members of the crew have Bibles?' 'Why don't they have Bibles?' 'Can we get them Bibles?' 'Would they like Bibles?' "
In a New York Times Magazinestory about the making of the president's key address to Congress last fall, her ignorance on the subject of Afghanistan ought to have been an embarrassment to all concerned. The reporter, D.T. Max, said Hughes sat with a native Afghan serving on the National Security Councila meeting in which she was amazed, just shocked, to learn the Taliban barred women from schools and outlawed movies.
But Hughes wasn't done flaunting her naïveté. After the latest State of the Union speech, she made everyone wince by declaring, "What we've learned is that up to 100,000 people have been trained, trained killers in the camps of Afghanistan, and they're now spread throughout the world in more than 60 different countries."
In the myopic view on Capitol Hill, last week's Senate vote to block the drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was a signal victory for the Democrats, who are nominally fighting off Bush's pro-oil approach. Meanwhile, the present U.S. energy policyendorsed by both partiesis carried out worldwide in any number of ways.
The White House has denied offering any support for this month's botched coup in oil-rich Venezuela. But last week, global speculation about CIA backing for the ouster of President Hugo Chávez forced a Bush spokesman to admit that administration officials had met with the business leader who briefly took Chávez's place. The Pentagon also confirmed that in December, a top official held a confab with the Venezuelan army's chief of staff. A likely target, the uncooperative Chávez had been a force for putting a little spine into OPEC's posturing. While the Arab states quarreled over quotas and pricing, he recognized that the world depended on his country's supply of fossil fueland he wasn't shy about exploiting that advantage. No wonder the rest of the world viewed the startling events as just more machinations by the CIA, the latest in a long list of U.S. interventions.
The speculation is warranted. We're preparing to invade Iraq's oil fields in the name of overthrowing the barbarian Saddam Hussein. That will put an end to Saddam's bluster about an OPEC embargo and liberate our fifth largest source of crude.
Further, as part of Bush's energy independence policy, we are in the midst of a campaign to make Central Asia safe for our oil companies so that in addition to supplying us, they can also provide oiland more notably gasto Europe, India, and China.
If left alone, OPEC countries will play an ever increasing role in the economic well-being (or distress) of the West. A recent report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that by 2020, total energy use will increase by 35 percent in industrialized regions and 51 percent elsewhere. Oil will remain the major fuel, and the share supplied by OPEC will increase from 54 percent today to 74 percent. Only 6 percent of all power will come from renewable resources, i.e., solar and wind power, etc. So much for Bush's energy independence.
It should also be remembered that our current "energy crisis" grew out of the 2000 presidential campaign, becoming a political issue because of the blackouts in California. It now turns out the scare was at least partially manufactured by the natural gas suppliers, including among others Bush's major campaign backers, the folks at Enronwho apparently were trying to pump up the price of their stock on nonexistent earnings. Many people will always doubt there ever was a real energy crisis in California, just as many people in the East are going to wonder if there is a real energy crisis when the predicted brownouts start cascading across this coast. Instead, they'll look to see which of Bush's oil and gas cronies stands to make the biggest profits.