We also need clear thinking about this subject; we're not really "dependent on" Arab oil. We get a majority of our oil from Canada and South America. And it's not even "dependence" per se that is the issue, it's the fact that certain actors use their oil revenues, and stranglehold on the control of big proven oil reserves, to do nasty things. But even if we somehow didn't buy any more "Arab oil" starting tomorrow, the rest of the world still would (oil is sold on the world market, not just to the U.S.), and thus would still fund our enemies.
The lack of action in the face of growing public rage over gas prices shows how out of touch our “leaders” are...
Some would say there's no "lack of action" at all, given our ongoing attention to security issues in the Middle East.
Also, maybe it's not that the leaders are out of touch, but rather, that you've overestimated just how much "public rage" there really is over gasoline prices. I don't really see it, myself. The crossover point will occur when a sizable majority stops its fetishizing of things like ANWR, and its irrational fear of nuclear power; I don't think we're there yet. Many people seem perfectly happy to pay approaching $4/gallon for gas if it means their precious "pristine" ANWR will remain untouched. And so, maybe our leaders are simply responding to that.
I am perfectly aware that not all oil comes from Saudi Arabia. The fact remains however that the world economy is highly dependent on a commodity over which dangerous and unstable regimes have an undue influence. We are very capable of reducing our exposure to this risk by building large numbers of nuclear, coal, and other power plants in the US.
the rest of the world still would (oil is sold on the world market, not just to the U.S.), and thus would still fund our enemies.
If the US obviously had enough domestic energy assets to limp along without oil imports this would give us tremendous leverage not only over our enemies in the middle east but over Europe and China as well. Oil fields and refineries are big fixed targets. Notice the fit the Saudis threw when Bush mentioned reducing our oil usage in his state of the union address a couple of years ago? They know the score and don't want us to take away their "oil bomb."
maybe it's not that the leaders are out of touch, but rather, that you've overestimated just how much "public rage" there really is over gasoline prices.
People care about things that personally impact them like gas prices, far more than they care about the war in Iraq, ANWAR, and global warming. Unfortunately, the media and politicians within the "beltway bubble" are able to set the agenda in this country with little reference to what the actual man on the street cares about. A prime example of this was the shamnesty debacle. Why do both the President and Congress have historically low approval ratings if they are so in tune with people want?
Some would say there's no "lack of action" at all, given our ongoing attention to security issues in the Middle East.
Iraq is not about oil except in the fantasies of the moonbat left. The action that is needed today is the same that was needed during the oil crisis of the early '70s: More nukes, more coal, more hydro, more anything that is domestic or in friendly countries, more efficiency. Less regulations, taxes, and other roadblocks. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush #1, Clinton, and Bush #2 have all dropped that ball.
Now, yes we are. Like many other commodities, oil is fungible. However, if we were to ratchet up the production from shale, to produce sufficient quantities whereby world-wide oil production far exceeded the demand, prices would drop like a rock. At that point, the US should cut all purchases from ME countries.