Chu to Congress: We’re not interested in lowering gas prices

posted at 11:00 am on February 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Hey, at least Energy Secretary Stephen Chu gave an honest answer.  When asked by Rep. Alan Nunnelee whether the Obama administration wants to work to get gas prices to come back down, Chu replied that they’re not focusing on that — and that higher gas prices mean more of a push for the alternative energy sources the administration wants to push:

“We agree there is great suffering when the price of gasoline increases in the United States, and so we are very concerned about this,” said Chu, speaking to the House Appropriations energy and water subcommittee. “As I have repeatedly said, in the Department of Energy, what we’re trying to do is diversify our energy supply for transportation so that we have cost-effective means.”

Chu specifically cited a reported breakthrough announced Monday by Envia Systems, which received funding from DOE’s ARPA-E, that could help slash the price of electric vehicle batteries.

He also touted natural gas as “great” and said DOE is researching how to reduce the cost of compressed natural gas tanks for vehicles.

High gasoline prices will make research into such alternatives more urgent, Chu said.

“But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.

“No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,” Chu replied. “We think that if you consider all these energy policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and we’ll help the American economy and the American consumers.”

The Heritage Foundation jumped all over Chu’s comments:

As shocking as his remarks are, they shouldn’t come as a surprise. Chu has a long record of advocating for higher gas prices. In 2008, he stated, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Last March, he reiterated his point in an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, noting that his focus is to ease the pain felt by his energy policies by forcing automakers to make more fuel-efficient automobiles. “What I’m doing since I became Secretary of Energy has been quite clear. What I have been doing is developing methods to take the pain out of high gas prices.”

One of those methods is dumping taxpayer dollars into alternative energy projects like the Solyndra solar plant. Another is subsidizing the purchase of high-cost electric cars like the Chevy Volt to the tune of $7,500 per car (which the White House wants to increase to $10,000). In both cases, those methods aren’t working. Solyndra went bankrupt because its product couldn’t bear the weight of market pressures, and Chevy Volts aren’t selling, even with taxpayer-funded rebates. What’s the president’s next plan? Harvesting “a bunch of algae” as a replacement for oil.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is seemingly doing everything it can to make paying for energy even more painful by refusing to open access to the country’s oil and gas reserves and blocking new projects that would lead to the development of more energy in America. Case in point: the president’s decision to say “no” to the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would have delivered hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil from Canada to Texas refineries, while bringing thousands of jobs along with it.

And while Chu gave an honest answer that actually matches the actions taken by this administration, Heritage notes that Obama has offered nothing but double-talk on gas prices:

Sensing impending political fallout from the high cost of gas, President Obama last week spoke on the subject and attempted to deflect blame for the pain. He said that there is no quick fix to high gas prices and the nation cannot drill its way out of the problem, but as Heritage’s Nicolas Loris writes, the president ignored reality and dished out a series of half-truths. Among them, the president claimed oil production is its highest in eight years, that increasing oil production takes too long, and that oil is not enough. Loris writes that while production is up on private lands, unrealized production on federal lands and offshore could have yielded even more output, increasing supply and driving down costs. If the president had said “yes” to Keystone, oil could have reach the market quickly. And as for the president’s push for alternative energy, those sources simply cannot stand the test of the market.

Even before Chu spilled the beans, Democrats have begun pressing Obama to start taking gas prices seriously:

Congressional Democrats are ramping up pressure on President Obama to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to prevent rising gas prices from threatening the economy and their election-year prospects.

They are growing anxious that the price of fuel could reverse their political fortunes, which had been improving due to signs of growth in the economy.

Republicans have hammered Democrats on the price spike, repeatedly noting that gas prices — now at $3.72 per gallon for regular — have doubled since Obama won the White House.

I guess Democrats in Congress don’t see this as a feature rather than a bug in Obama’s energy policies.  The RNC came out with a video slamming Obama for high gas prices, but I suspect they’ll be rushing a new video to publication featuring Chu’s “who cares” attitude.  Otherwise, this is a pretty effective 1-minute spot, and it might start showing up on TV broadcasts soon:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

“As I have repeatedly said, in the Department of Energy, what we’re trying to do is diversify our energy supply for transportation so that we have cost-effective means.”

This makes zero sense…

If you have to force the price of one product up in order to make other products “cost effective” then all you have done is to destroy any cost effectiveness among all of the avialable products. Now NONE of them are cost effective. What good is that?

gravityman on February 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Yeah. If only, we had a candidate who wanted to eliminate the Dept. of Energy. Oh yeah, we had one, but everyone thought he was too stupid, so we went with the center-left, big government statist. I feel so much better.

besser tot als rot on February 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Since gas prices will only continue to rise regardless of the amount we add to the market, it makes a lot more sense for the government to push diversification rather then short term fixes like flooding the market for a few months.
Funny how the president pushing industry to find cheaper alternatives is somehow bad for the country when obama does it, but is sound policy when Bush jr did it with biofuels and hydrogen research.

Zekecorlain on February 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM

What should the federal government do in response to 99+% of the problems? Get out of the way. How much smarts or business experience does that take? Even a tooth root can get out of the way of a cavity.

besser tot als rot on February 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM

@besser tot als rot
FFS people we are the only industrial nation without a long term energy plan, and you all want to make us less competitive by eliminating over site and coordination on a national level.

Zekecorlain on February 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM

It has nothing to do with “greenhouse gases” or dependence on foreign oil. It has everything to do with control.

darwin on February 29, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Agreed. The whole point of AGW is and has always been about governmental control of the energy industry, which the government has, for all intents and purposes, achieved. The same is true for ObamaCare, which–ironically enough–has never been about healthcare. It’s about power, incrementally increasing control over every aspect of lives. We’re the frog in the kettle, cooking too slowly to notice until dinner is served.

It’s been a big mistake to portray President Obama as a failure. Viewed from a certain perspective, he’s been successful at every turn. Show me where, throughout the course of his entire administration, the GOP has handed him a decisive defeat. And the reason why Republican leadership can’t seem to beat him? They’re working under the assumption the President of the United States is working in the interests of the country, as they are. He isn’t.

troyriser_gopftw on February 29, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Why do the Democrats say it’s crazy that drill,drill,drill will lower the price of fuel…but releasing a little from the strategic reserve drives down the price? They are not a cogent people, these Democrats.

Buddahpundit on February 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Funny how the president pushing industry to find cheaper alternatives is somehow bad for the country when obama does it, but is sound policy when Bush jr did it with biofuels and hydrogen research.

Zekecorlain on February 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM

No. It was stupid when both did it. And cheaper relative to what? To the ridiculously overpriced “alternatives” currently available or relative to gas? Chu just said that he doesn’t want cheaper gas. And the problem is that Obama isn’t “pushing industry to find cheaper alternatives,” he is “pushing industry to find cheaper alternatives that he likes.”

besser tot als rot on February 29, 2012 at 11:51 AM

The fix is in.

The oil companies are being allowed to gouge now,
for a short period, not enough to severely damage the economy.

Gas prices will be around $3.00 a gallon by Labor Day, just in time to help get President 10-289 re-elected.

After the election in November, gas prices will go up to $5.00 a gallon.

Permanently.

MichaelGabriel on February 29, 2012 at 11:52 AM

It is sad really. The one semi-honest bastard in the Obama administration and he essentially tells America that they are going to have high gas prices so they better just thank Obama and go about their hum-drum lives. In the meantime, I want Chu under oath to explain his role in the Solyndra scandal and just how much he made off the deal.

Happy Nomad on February 29, 2012 at 11:53 AM

we are the only industrial nation without a long term energy plan, and you all want to make us less competitive by eliminating over site and coordination on a national level.

Zekecorlain on February 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM

You want to have an energy plan based on fairy tales? Making a plan predicting what technology is going to develop before it develops is a fantasy (putting the cart before the horse, if you will).

besser tot als rot on February 29, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Chu to Congress: We’re not interested in lowering gas prices

This infuriates me beyond words.

*spit*

petefrt on February 29, 2012 at 11:54 AM

It will take decades to undo what Dear Leader and his minions have done…

d1carter on February 29, 2012 at 11:54 AM

If only they can get gasoline to $10 / gal will alternatives work… unfortunately what are the alternatives?

Q: How many wind turbines would it take to charge 1,000,000 EVs?
A: An infinite number if the wind is not blowing.

Q: How many solar panels will it take to charge 1,000,000 EV’s?
A: An infinite number at night, when most charging will occur.

Q: How soon will algae be able to produce bio-fuel in quantity?
A: Maybe 20 years. I bet on Kudzu being a better alternative.

Dasher on February 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I applaud Chu’ honesty and look forward to more such comments over the next half a year or so.

Physics Geek on February 29, 2012 at 11:59 AM

It has nothing to do with “greenhouse gases” or dependence on foreign oil. It has everything to do with control.

darwin on February 29, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Agreed. The whole point of AGW is and has always been about governmental control of the energy industry, which the government has, for all intents and purposes, achieved. The same is true for ObamaCare, which–ironically enough–has never been about healthcare. It’s about power, incrementally increasing control over every aspect of lives.

troyriser_gopftw on February 29, 2012 at 11:49 AM

+2!

When you see the bigger picture and understand that it is all about POWER and CONTROL, do you feel like you’re living in The Matrix?

ITguy on February 29, 2012 at 12:01 PM

what kind of green vehicle does chu drive?

Mr. Sun on February 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM

You think he drives himself? He’s driven in a gas-guzzling limo, just like the rest of our socialist overlords.

theCork on February 29, 2012 at 12:02 PM

How well is Chu’s strategy working elsewhere? Spain, which went for green energy on steroids, has the highest level of unemployment in Europe. Germany is now admitting that its “investments” in green energy were a waste of money. So why are we still pushing this? I guess it’s another example of Obama “leading from behind.” That would be more aptly phrased “our leader is an ass.”

natasha333 on February 29, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Chu takes Metro to work, he likes to rub elbows with the proletariat.

NoDonkey on February 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Which is rather funny… I grew up in DC, and lived there until this past year. The Metro is no cheaper than driving really by the time you drive to the nearest Metro station, pay for parking, and then pay nearly $10 for a round trip during morning and evening rush hours. And depending where you live in DC (especially out towards Loudoun County, western Fairfax County, or up near Frederick, MD) you may have an hour drive just to get to the nearest Metro station anyways.

gravityman on February 29, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Are we allowed to say that Chu is the chink in the Democrats armor?

Special Forces Grunt on February 29, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I suspect it will be a while before Ben and Jerry release a new fortune cookie ice cream that tastes like BS.

Roy Rogers on February 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Well that is change!
previous administrations were instested in lowering the price of gas. This one isnt! that is change.
be careful what you wish for.

ColdWarrior57 on February 29, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Are we allowed to say that Chu is the chink in the Democrats armor?

Special Forces Grunt on February 29, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I suspect it will be a while before Ben and Jerry release a new fortune cookie ice cream that tastes like BS.

Roy Rogers on February 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM

heh!! LOLz

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 12:10 PM

The Democrats are absolutely brilliant and once again school the Republicans (are U watching SoCons?) in how to achieve ideological objectives while publicly claiming to deny doing it.

The progressives are full speed ahead in subsidizing alt fuels while privately trying to force prices up, while their political front men are giving them cover by claiming not to want high gas prices.

Someday the Republicans will learn this two faced game, until then the Dems will own them and progressivism will continue to be unstoppable.

rickyricardo on February 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM

I applaud Chu’ honesty and look forward to more such comments over the next half a year or so.

Physics Geek on February 29, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Interesting observation. Why is the rest of the demonrat party stating “all of the above” “drilling EVERYWHERE” “record number of drilling leases” “importing less oil from oversea’s” and the rest of their BS? I look forward to the American people getting their heads out of their a$$es long enough to get the socialist in chief sent on his way.

VegasRick on February 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Funny how the president pushing industry to find cheaper alternatives is somehow bad for the country when obama does it, but is sound policy when Bush jr did it with biofuels and hydrogen research.

Zekecorlain on February 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM

It is sound policy to explore and develop alternatives, always. It is criminal when you artificially block oil in an attempt to drive people to the far more expensive failing alternatives. It’s not just criminal to do this, it’s economic suicide.

The total price of alternatives to oil and the lack of capacity are the issue. If it was a matter of a 10-20% more expensive to run industry and transportation on alternatives that would be one thing. But we’re talking 150 – 200% increases to only run a small fraction of the economy based on total capacity of solar, wind (insert next stupid uneconomical idea here) etc., available. What the rest of the economy supposed to do? Just shut down?

What one single person has said that research into alternatives was bad?

oldroy on February 29, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Someday the Republicans will learn this two faced game, until then the Dems will own them and progressivism will continue to be unstoppable.

rickyricardo on February 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM

With a$$holes like you rooting for them every step of the way.

VegasRick on February 29, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Man, the ads just write themselves.

Republicans need to start demanding that this clown be fired. Every GOP Senate candidate should ask their opponent if he/she will have Chu campaigning for them, and if not, why not?

rockmom on February 29, 2012 at 12:15 PM

I look forward to the American people getting their heads out of their a$$es long enough to get the socialist in chief sent on his way.

VegasRick on February 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Unfortunately you be waiting long time for that to happen.
I do not know how these congressmen don’t blow a gasket when these clowns—Chu, Holder, etc spout their crap at these hearings.

arnold ziffel on February 29, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Prices will peak this week at $4.50 gallon.

By June $3.50

By Democratic Convention: $3.00

MichaelGabriel on February 29, 2012 at 12:22 PM

“We agree there is great suffering when the price of gasoline increases in the United States, and so we are very concerned about this…”

“But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.

“No,” Chu replied

How touching is the concern of our Glorious Overlords. They do EVERYTHING.

They feel our pain for us. And, as if that weren’t already too much to ask, they even cause it too. Our burdens are nothing compared to theirs.

logis on February 29, 2012 at 12:23 PM

They are growing anxious that the price of fuel could reverse their political fortunes, which had been improving due to signs of growth in the economy.

I must be blind. What signs of growth?

goflyers on February 29, 2012 at 12:27 PM

what we’re trying to do is diversify our energy supply for transportation so that we have cost-effective means.”

You have 4 means of fueling transportation. Gas, Diesel, Liquified Natural Gases and Electric. How much more diversification do you want? Electric is for greens to tool about in and look like they care. The rest you don’t seem to care about. In the area I live gas has gone up the better part of $.50/gallon since Christmas. Electric has increased about 33%. Where is the cost effectiveness in that?

chemman on February 29, 2012 at 12:28 PM

“We agree there is great suffering when the price of gasoline increases in the United States, and so we are very concerned about this…”
“But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.

“No,” Chu replied

I have a solution for that. Cut the decision makers wages until they feel the pain also.

chemman on February 29, 2012 at 12:30 PM

If not for all the government’s help, gasoline would be 1.19 / gallon

esnap on February 29, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Since gas prices will only continue to rise regardless of the amount we add to the market, it makes a lot more sense for the government to push diversification rather then short term fixes like flooding the market for a few months.
Funny how the president pushing industry to find cheaper alternatives is somehow bad for the country when obama does it, but is sound policy when Bush jr did it with biofuels and hydrogen research.

Zekecorlain on February 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Bush allowed drilling AND funded alternative research. Obama’s just fine with poorest freezing to death in winter or dying of heat stroke in summer because his plan calls for energy prices to skyrocket… as he said during the campaign.

theCork on February 29, 2012 at 12:31 PM

How long will it take before El Presidente Downgrade dictates that the evil oil companies give away gas for free?

Chip on February 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM

If not for all the government’s help, gasoline would be 1.19 / gallon

I think not

LOL

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM

ROMNEY with a SIDE of PAUL!

Mutnodjmet on February 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM

How long will it take before El Presidente Downgrade dictates that the evil oil companies give away gas for free?

Chip on February 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM

October 1, 2012.

November 30, 2012 – charge whatever you want as long as it is over $5 a gallon.

VegasRick on February 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Since gas prices will only continue to rise regardless of the amount we add to the market

Zekecorlain on February 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM

So which program of Political Science did you learn about the Inverted Law of Supply and Demand? Harvard? Columbia?

MNHawk on February 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM

A wind “plant” would have to be a square 25 miles on a side to equal the output of the Palo Verde nuclear plant outside Phoenix. That plant sits on about 400 acres.

These people are insane and dangerous to all Americans.

Charlemagne on February 29, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Goodness! Can you imagine the environmental impact? The EPA would never allow such a project.
/s

What kind of mental gymnastics would they have to perform to justify this?

freedomfirst on February 29, 2012 at 12:38 PM

I hate these people. They work every day to destroy liberty and opportunity. They are the enemy.

tom daschle concerned on February 29, 2012 at 12:43 PM

If not for all the government’s help, gasoline would be 1.19 / gallon

I think not

LOL

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Are you actually trying to claim the government doesn’t have any effect on gas prices?

Is that the Keystone of your argument?

Chip on February 29, 2012 at 12:43 PM

How long will it take before El Presidente Downgrade dictates that the evil oil companies give away gas for free?

Chip on February 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Just as soon as Moonbat Maxine gets her wish.

Flora Duh on February 29, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Someday the Republicans will learn this two faced game, until then the Dems will own them and progressivism will continue to be unstoppable.

rickyricardo on February 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Interesting how you call this a game. These statists are waging open political and economic war on the citizenry. Half are clueless and the other half are speechless but awaking from the nightmare with a realization that it’s not a dream.

This regime must be replaced in the next election!

freedomfirst on February 29, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Since we got the Dept. of Energy, which was supposed to help forestall energy problems, we have had multiple oil shocks, swings in the energy market that have been going from mild to catastrophic, and, btw, not one, single new energy development that can be traced TO the Dept. of Energy that has had a greater than 1% impact on our energy production in a positive direction.

Up until the first Arab Oil Embargo we had NO national energy policy and it worked: gas prices fluctuated slowly, energy was sought after robustly, and new means of generating energy were sought with vigor and without government help or direction. That is how we not only became an industrialized Nation but a superpower.

The USSR had wonderful centralized plans for their economy and energy production… which ravaged their environment, left people sick with pollution, and, in the end, left an infrastructure that was decaying behind it. Centralized ‘plans’ for an economy for energy don’t work just as centralized ‘plans’ for energy don’t work: because any economy that takes up more space than, say, Sweden, will be too diverse in territory and have distributed needs that can’t be planned for in a centralized way. And even the Eurozone Nations are starting to realize that a centralized energy plan is working out just as well as the centralized currency and market are. How is Europe doing these days, anyway?

Get rid of the Dept. of Energy and hand any nuclear research back to the DoD where it belongs. The rest of it can go. And the EPA, too, come to that as they have been no help, at all, on this. Plus those parts of Interior that continue to stifle energy research, extraction and use. Give the land held by the feds back to the States… or lobby your State to rescind any permissions they have given for the federal government to hold land so it can be freed from centralized control which is destroying this Nation.

ajacksonian on February 29, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Are we allowed to say that Chu is the chink in the Democrats armor?

Special Forces Grunt on February 29, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I suspect it will be a while before Ben and Jerry release a new fortune cookie ice cream that tastes like BS.

Roy Rogers on February 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM

We have a double winner!

College Prof on February 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM

If I was running for President of the United States and new what it was like to pay for my own gas…

…. THIS would make one heck of a campaign commercial.

But we can’t have THAT now…

… can we?

Seven Percent Solution on February 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Since gas prices will only continue to rise regardless of the amount we add to the market

Zekecorlain on February 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM

So which program of Political Science did you learn about the Inverted Law of Supply and Demand? Harvard? Columbia?

MNHawk on February 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM

My guess is Zeke took classes with Professor Krugman at Princeton.

Del Dolemonte on February 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM

The destruction of our nation continues apace. When are the vast majority going to wake up?

As an aside, for the past couple years, I’ve been praying for “hidden things be revealed”. You’d be surprised what happens. I hope many will join me in praying that for the current administration.

Angineer on February 29, 2012 at 12:51 PM

“As I have repeatedly said, in the Department of Energy, what we’re trying to do is diversify our energy supply for transportation so that we have cost-effective means.”…… the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,”…. we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and we’ll help the American economy and the American consumers.”…..

Chu has a long record of advocating for higher gas prices. In 2008, he stated, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

Some of us may recall that a few years back when gas prices were rising that a Democrat senator said democrats did not care if the cost of gasoline rose to five dollars a gallon, or ten or twenty dollars a gallon.

Why would they make such statements and pursue actions that support them? The Communist Party USA had on their web site in the late 90’s the answer to that question.

CPUSA stated in their political objectives they intended to use the anti-pollution laws to force the large corporations to first install anti pollution devices, and then force them to clean up past pollution. What American was going to disagree ? They banked on that in the same way they have banked on knowing Americans could not deny healthcare to those that need it, as stated in 1949. Today the anti-pollution laws are called “green laws” and they have the EPA working for them. The communist anticipated that the anti pollution laws would bankrupt the large corporations. Once that was accomplished they saw local factories and production as replacing them.

I remember laughing at those goals, and wondering if they had a clue how our country works.

Have you heard many Democrats being concerned with the short range of the electric vehicles? Maybe it is because if you live and work in one community, and don’t travel, you really don’t need a lot of range. Goes right along with old plan.

Papers and permit to travel required by President for life decree.

Franklyn on February 29, 2012 at 12:52 PM

And yet no mention that it would take decades to replace all our gasoline powered vehicles with battery-powered vehicles. And, there would simply be a shift from one scarce resource (oil) to another (rare metals). China and Brazil would be the new beneficiaries of the increased demand for the rare metals needed to produce all the electric batteries.

HoosierStateofMind on February 29, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Is anyone talking about this?Ok,

WND EXCLUSIVE
Afghans: Quran-burning soldiers to face trial
Says NATO agreed to bring to justice ‘those responsible for incident’
Published: 16 hours ago

By Jack Minor

In a development that could chill the dedication of every soldier in the field, the U.S. government has refused to deny reports by the government of Afghanistan that NATO has agreed to have the soldiers who burned copies of the Quran face trial.

Last week, Afghan president Hamid Karzai demanded NATO turn over the U.S. troops to be tried in Afghanistan. President Obama subsequently sent a letter to Karzai reassuring him that the troops involved would be punished for their actions.

Part of the three-page letter to Karzai said, “I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies. We will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible.”

It is unclear exactly what Obama meant by that statement as the White House has not released the full text of the letter. However, the Afghan government may have provided insight into its contents.

Over the weekend, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan government media and information center website posted a joint statement by the delegations assigned to probe the Quran burning incident.

The statement says that two delegations were created to “investigate the circumstances and causes that have led to the inhumane incident.”

The statement listed several items, including a demand that the U.S. turn over the authority of the prison in Bagram to the Afghan government to ensure similar incidents do not recur and “calls on the U.S. government to fully and comprehensively cooperate to this end.”

However, the statement used vastly different language when discussing the fate of the U.S. soldiers involved in the incident.

“NATO officials promised to meet Afghan nation’s demand of bringing to justice, through an open trial, those responsible for the incident and it was agreed that the perpetrators of the crime be brought to justice as soon as possible,” the statement said.

The wording suggests members of the military could be handed over to an Afghan system that imposes Shariah-related penalties.

WND requests to both NATO and the Pentagon asking for confirmation of the statement by Afghan authorities were not returned.

Although the statements apparently were made by the Afghan government Feb. 25, they have received no mention in the mainstream media.

Clare Lopez, a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy, said if the statement by the Afghan government turns out to be true, it would be an unprecedented betrayal of our men and women in uniform.

“I can’t imagine we would ever do this, what would we charge them with? Are we going to try Americans for crimes committed under Shariah law? I cannot believe our government would go that far,” she said.

Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch, said it was fascinating that the U.S. government has not gotten out in front of this issue and denied the statement.

“The administration needs to clarify their stance on this. The longer they wait to deny this the more it has the opportunity to further inflame the Muslim in Afghanistan.”

Spencer said that whether the soldiers end up being turned over to the Afghan government or face court-martial, either decision would set a dangerous precedent.

“It would be unconscionable either way,” he said. “If they turn them over to the Afghan government for trial then we are endorsing the applicability of Shariah law to non-Muslims in the U.S. military. If they court-martial them then they are adopting those norms as part of the UCMJ. Either way it’s frightening.”

Lopez said that while U.S. officials have made large concessions to appease Muslims, turning the soldiers over to face trial would be over the line.

“If they were to allow our soldiers to be tried under a legal system that calls for the death penalty for destroying a Quran, that would be unthinkable,” she said.

She said that the silence on the part of U.S. officials has the potential to cause real damage to the morale of troops.

“When the government will not come out with a strong denial of this statement by the Afghan government it has the potential to cause our troops to wonder if the U.S. will truly stand behind and protect them when they are simply trying to do their job,” she said.

It appears that the soldiers may not have violated Islamic law at all by their burning of the Qurans.

In a PBS interview, Imam Jihad Turk, director of religious affairs at the Islamic Center of Southern California, said it was acceptable to burn the Quran if it was in a state of “disrepair.”

“When Muslims want to respectfully dispose of a text of the Quran that is no longer usable, we will burn it. So if someone, for example, in their own private collection or library had a text of the Quran that was damaged or that was in disrepair, so the binding was ruined, etc., or it got torn, they might bring it by to the Islamic Center and ask that someone here dispose of it properly if they were unsure how to do that,” Turk said. “And what I’ll do is I’ll take it to my fireplace at home and burn it there in the fireplace. So I sort of take the pages out and then burn it to make sure that it gets thoroughly charred and is no longer recognizable as script.”

Spencer added, “You are supposed to burn a Quran that is worn out and you are not to write in it. Do they have a problem with the burning of the Quran? No, they do it all the time.”

Bambi on February 29, 2012 at 12:53 PM

@besser tot als rot
FFS people we are the only industrial nation without a long term energy plan, and you all want to make us less competitive by eliminating over site and coordination on a national level.
Zekecorlain on February 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM

I differ with that- currently there is a long term energy plan: ignore the vast, efficient, reliable, and cost effective energy sources that the US alone has. Let’s consume less, produce less, go back in time 60 years, and pretend we have the same population and everything is a-ok.

You don’t force a product out of the market on a whim, specially the ones related to energy that are involved in EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE. With vast oil, gas, coal, and nuclear (if more plants are approved), the US alone has more than enough resources for this century. In the meantime new technologies will pop up, but real ideas that don’t need constant subsidies to stay alive.

The so called “diverse sources” right now are not even efficient. Not only they have been around for over 50 years and have evolved little to none in that time (hint- electric cars existed at the beginning of the 20th century and went nowhere, while solar panels still only catch a tiny portion of the light spectrum and miss about 99% of the rest, and windmills not only have proven to be worse for the environment than the sources they are intended to replace, but are also need to be backed up with coal, gas, or oil to work).

There is an energy policy in this country which is trying to follow that of countries who are now re- thinking their own as they have seen the damaging effects in productivity the “alternatives”.

ptcamn on February 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM

It appears that the soldiers may not have violated Islamic law at all by their burning of the Qurans.

That’s nice, but completely irrelevant.

What part of the UCMJ did they violate?

freedomfirst on February 29, 2012 at 12:59 PM

What one single person has said that research into alternatives was bad?

oldroy on February 29, 2012 at 12:14 PM

It’s actually worse than that. We aren’t doing research into alternatives, we’re attempting to push people into using immature alternatives through a combination of subsidies and increasing the price of fossil fuels. If we were actually funding research instead of pumping money into non-viable businesses like Solyndra it wouldn’t be a problem.

Instead all we’re doing is pissing money away to support the new face of a failed ideology.

PetecminMd on February 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

And as for the president’s push for alternative energy, those sources simply cannot stand the test of the market.

If Obama gets another four years, you can be sure that the Obama Administration will force you to buy Volt cars and solar cells to
make electrical energy for your homes under the penalty of heavy fines and imprisonment.

Thy will be done, Oh Great Jugears.

timberline on February 29, 2012 at 1:01 PM

All this talk about gas prices?……really? This just sounds like a distraction from the real issue of Santorum’s PAC guy wanting women to use aspirin for birth control.

Get with the program news media we want to find out why Santorum hates women and wants to drag them back into the caves, cotton fields and kitchens.

PappyD61 on February 29, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Obama philosophy–Suffering for thee but not for me. We’re paying for your gas too Barry–you are not.

jeanie on February 29, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Lower prices are impossible. Even the most generous estimates of possible unknown reserves will only last us so long – we can’t magically move our way back up to the hubble peak. Thanks to the steady growth of global demand for oil, and the fact that such steady growth creates an effective doubling of that demand every decade, we must pay more for oil. You could tap every well on earth, and at current levels of growth in the demand for oil, we will still run out in a relatively short amount of time.

There is no turning back the clock. At best, new reserves will allow the price to hover for a short time – they can do no better than that.

ernesto on February 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Instead all we’re doing is pissing money away to support the new face of a failed ideology.

PetecminMd on February 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Agreed….

oldroy on February 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM

A wind “plant” would have to be a square 25 miles on a side to equal the output of the Palo Verde nuclear plant outside Phoenix. That plant sits on about 400 acres.

These people are insane and dangerous to all Americans.

Charlemagne on February 29, 2012 at 11:23 AM

In other words: even if the nuclear plant DID have a complete meltdown, the exclusion zone would be nowhere near the 400,000 acres a wind plant would take away from human habitation — even if everything worked perfectly from day one.

And a solar plant would be a hundred times worse. To replace the power America uses today (and assuming we use fossil fuels 12 hours a day and whenever a cloud passes by) would mean blocking all sunlight to 1/3rd of the nation. That wouldn’t just disrupt migration routes; it would COMPLETELY DESTROY the ecology.

logis on February 29, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Buy a Chevy Volt…or else.

Dack Thrombosis on February 29, 2012 at 1:11 PM

ernesto on February 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM

It doesn’t help that the Administration keeps on trying to Downgrade our supply of oil, does it?

If fact, it almost seems like they want higher prices so the can push Green (algae) energy projects.

They just don’t like them when they stand in the way of El Presidente Downgrade buying his way back into the WH.

Chip on February 29, 2012 at 1:11 PM

I guess we know that Chu would prefer to please his environmentalist masters in Aspen rather than be in touch with what is going on in flyover country. Y’know, the ones that keep on calling for people to drive alternatively fueled compacts but don’t do so themselves unless politically prompted? If he wants to advocate this kind of stuff, there are plenty of places outside the US where he will find friends.

I like what I drive (a 2 ton, large body, V6 powered car with a 17 gallon gas tank) and resent having Chu do everything to make it too expensive to drive it. If I wanted to drive some small golfcart, I would have bought one.

As for others – there wouldn’t be a need to push people (who want a US-sized and powered vehicle) with high gas prices if people really wanted alternatively fueled cars.

sethstorm on February 29, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Buy a Chevy Volt…or else.

Dack Thrombosis on February 29, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Yeah, wait until they mandate that you do that.

Chip on February 29, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Monkees Singer Davy Jones Dead at 66 From Heart Attack

Mutnodjmet on February 29, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Marsha Brady hardest hit.

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

Dack Thrombosis on February 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Chip on February 29, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Why throw good money after bad? It would just be more effort directed towards an ultimately futile goal. Again, drilling every well on earth couldn’t even keep prices stable, given the fact that our demand for oil still grows every year. There is no running from the arithmetic.

ernesto on February 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I saw Newt on BOR last night, trying to school Professor of Economics O’Reilly. Newt was dealing with him like you do with a small child that asks why the sky is blue. He informed Bill that (the horrors) we are also exporting wheat and corn. Bill replied that those are not essential products.

Ted is like a brick wall when it comes to learning.

slickwillie2001 on February 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Yeah, wait until they mandate that you do that.

Chip on February 29, 2012 at 1:12 PM

They can mandate all they want. Unless they provide me a 100% subsidy I can’t afford the stupid thing. Or the electricity costs, since those are “necessarily skyrocketing”. Freedom, we hardly knew ye.

totherightofthem on February 29, 2012 at 1:15 PM

ernesto on February 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM

We’re all going to die too. So while we’re alive, DRILL, BABY, DRILL!

timberline on February 29, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Who’s the 1%; i’m confused.

Fuquay Steve on February 29, 2012 at 1:17 PM

timberline on February 29, 2012 at 1:16 PM

What for? Prices will still rise, they have to. Demand for oil grows every year.

ernesto on February 29, 2012 at 1:19 PM

ernesto on February 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Apparently you forgot about the last time oil and gas dropped like rocks in price in the last 3 years.

sethstorm on February 29, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Chip on February 29, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Why throw good money after bad? It would just be more effort directed towards an ultimately futile goal. Again, drilling every well on earth couldn’t even keep prices stable, given the fact that our demand for oil still grows every year. There is no running from the arithmetic.

ernesto on February 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM

So you’re Okay with the Downgrade Administration inflicting this pain on the people since it’s for the common good?

Chip on February 29, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Apparently you forgot about the last time oil and gas dropped like rocks in price in the last 3 years.

sethstorm on February 29, 2012 at 1:19 PM

And they went right back up, didn’t they? The minute fluctuations you’re talking about don’t change the fact that this decade will see more oil consumed than the sum total of all oil production prior, and that the next decade will see the same exponential increase. The absolute very best we can do is drill every well now, stabilize prices for maybe 10 years, and then watch as our reserves dwindle to a 10 year world supply. Then 9, 8, 7…until there’s absolutely nothing left.

ernesto on February 29, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Funny things is that I’m looking at building out a set of solar panels to run my house on. I’m figuring about 6 grand for my 3/2 1660 sf house. 14,000 KW per year or so. I get a return in about 4 or 5 years – with the big “if” of my solar panels lasting just a few years more.

In exploring the possibility of doing this project I have had to do mathematics. Mathematics is hard. Here is the trouble. The 6 grand is the cost for me to build it myself. I can’t get the tax rebates I could get if I bought retail……add about 200%…..then, and only then, I get the tax rebates. So drive my cost to nearly triple so you can give me back 30 or 40% of my original cost.

You also come find out the the power company has the create more than double the amount of power I need by the time they transmit it to me. So, in order for them to send me power from solar, they would have to more than double my array size and still have a backup……so the cost to collect the solar energy has doubled just on the array size, and it doubles again on the original price per KW compared to conventional generation.

But all of that wouldn’t matter even if I was dumb enough to sign an agreement with the power company to use only solar generated power. Why? Because they can’t provide enough solar power for even a fraction of their customers….So by doing some maths, you find out that there is not one sliver of hope that these alternatives will do anything but supplement our energy supply. Supplements are good at the retail level…like my roof-top. But they are not good at all at the wholesale level.

And this doesn’t even get into the stupidity of wind-power

Math is hard….

oldroy on February 29, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I must be blind. What signs of growth?

goflyers on February 29, 2012 at 12:27 PM

They are referring of course to the fake stats put out by the regime showing how great unemployment and the GDP are.

Of course reality is abandoned shopping malls (called ghost malls) and streets filled with abandoned, boarded up homes. (Except for the squatters and metal thieves)

In reality we have thirty million people out of work, but hey the economy is Booming!

dogsoldier on February 29, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Lower prices are impossible. Even the most generous estimates of possible unknown reserves will only last us so long – we can’t magically move our way back up to the hubble peak. Thanks to the steady growth of global demand for oil, and the fact that such steady growth creates an effective doubling of that demand every decade, we must pay more for oil. You could tap every well on earth, and at current levels of growth in the demand for oil, we will still run out in a relatively short amount of time.

There is no turning back the clock. At best, new reserves will allow the price to hover for a short time – they can do no better than that.

ernesto on February 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM

We have 300 years of oil in the US at our present levels.

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html

Our current oil usage is less than it was in 1974.

http://casafoodshed.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Auto-sales-3-2011.jpg

Those are some very old fake factoids, Ernesto.

theCork on February 29, 2012 at 1:24 PM

meant to add… “that you’re using Ernesto.”

theCork on February 29, 2012 at 1:25 PM

The absolute very best we can do is drill every well now, stabilize prices for maybe 10 years, and then watch as our reserves dwindle to a 10 year world supply. Then 9, 8, 7…until there’s absolutely nothing left.

ernesto on February 29, 2012 at 1:21 PM

I notice you leave one key element out.

“The absolute very best we can do” must also include increasing exploration for sources we haven’t discovered yet.

Del Dolemonte on February 29, 2012 at 1:26 PM

And they went right back up, didn’t they? The minute fluctuations you’re talking about don’t change the fact that this decade will see more oil consumed than the sum total of all oil production prior, and that the next decade will see the same exponential increase. The absolute very best we can do is drill every well now, stabilize prices for maybe 10 years, and then watch as our reserves dwindle to a 10 year world supply. Then 9, 8, 7…until there’s absolutely nothing left.

ernesto on February 29, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Peak oil huh?

What are you basing that assessment on?

And Perhaps you can explain what our Mega genius intellectual president – the esteemed Barack [Downgrade] Obama has done to keep the supply of oil flowing until alternate energy sources can be developed?

Chip on February 29, 2012 at 1:27 PM

And they went right back up, didn’t they? ernesto on February 29, 2012 at 1:21 PM

No actually they didn’t. Until after Zero took office. After Bush opened up offshore drilling the priced dropped from close to $4 to 1.89 and stayed there. He wanted to open ANWR and that would have forced it down further, but the moron dems blocked that.

Zero has personally driven up the price of gas, which will in effect drive the economy even further into a QUAGMIRE. He is sealing the fate of the entire democrat party.

dogsoldier on February 29, 2012 at 1:28 PM

What a mastermind! – Nobel Prize Winner Chu, follows the Cass Sunstein method of altering the behavior of 330 Million Americans.

“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand”

Milton Friedman

VengeanceIsMine on February 29, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Those are some very old fake factoids, Ernesto.

theCork on February 29, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Great post with excellent information.

dogsoldier on February 29, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Why throw good money after bad? It would just be more effort directed towards an ultimately futile goal. Again, drilling every well on earth couldn’t even keep prices stable, given the fact that our demand for oil still grows every year. There is no running from the arithmetic.
ernesto on February 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM

You sure are

Sonosam on February 29, 2012 at 1:32 PM

The fix is in.

The oil companies are being allowed to gouge now,
for a short period, not enough to severely damage the economy.

Gas prices will be around $3.00 a gallon by Labor Day, just in time to help get President 10-289 re-elected.

After the election in November, gas prices will go up to $5.00 a gallon.

Permanently.

MichaelGabriel on February 29, 2012 at 11:52 AM

They aren’t gouging. The Federal Reserve is goosing inflation. Inflation, and in turn prices, will probably fall before the election. And then, as you say, go back up after the election – even if Romney is president.

rickv404 on February 29, 2012 at 1:33 PM

I don’t know why we’re still giving these morons ink. We should put caution tape around the Whitehouse and just ignore them for 9 months.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5245/5349285669_44a069020a.jpg

PorchDawg on February 29, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Ah… he’s the Secretary of the Department of Green Energy. I didn’t know we had one.

Anyone who’s followed chu’s history knows he’s a complete shill. He was tied to BP with an anchor chain. His nobel is in optics which is pretty useless in most cases.

aniptofar on February 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Another batter up…

The absolute very best we can do is drill every well now, stabilize prices for maybe 10 years, and then watch as our reserves dwindle to a 10 year world supply. Then 9, 8, 7…until there’s absolutely nothing left.

ernesto on February 29, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Strike 3, yer out.

But bonus points just dishing out some old fashioned doom and gloom, and not going Full Retard by inverting the laws of supply and demand.

MNHawk on February 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Chu is going to lose the election for Obama. Awesome!

dczombie on February 29, 2012 at 1:47 PM

What for? Prices will still rise, they have to. Demand for oil grows every year.

ernesto on February 29, 2012 at 1:19 PM

So your reason for not looking to increase supply is because demand is increasing?

BlueCollarAstronaut on February 29, 2012 at 1:50 PM

High gas prices don’t do much to the rich. But they do hurt the poor. And Sec. Chu says they are doing nothing to lower the price of gas. My question is “Why Does Obama Hate The Poor?”

multiuseless on February 29, 2012 at 1:59 PM

The absolute very best we can do is drill every well now, stabilize prices for maybe 10 years, and then watch as our reserves dwindle to a 10 year world supply. Then 9, 8, 7…until there’s absolutely nothing left.
ernesto on February 29, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Ernie is trying to corner the market of stupid

Doing well too

Sonosam on February 29, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Chu has a long record of advocating for higher gas prices. In 2008, he stated, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

Obvious Chu has a geography problem in that he assumes that Europe is about the same size as the United States.

Europe is much smaller. Spain, France or Germany, easily fit within the borders of Texas. Great Britain is about the same size as the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolis. A road trip to the next village is a run to Wal-Mart for most of us. Ten dollar a gallon of gas is not going to have the same impact on someone living in Europe that it would have on us and our economy.

A good example of how that would impact us was shown in the 70’s when we had the so called gas shortages. We owned a small family gas station; that just happen to pump a high volume of gas which was all that saved us. With no warning, we were told we could only buy 10% of what we had purchased on the last delivery. We had to ration the gas, and it did get ugly. There is not much difference between not having the money to buy a gallon of gas and not being able to buy a gallon of gas.

It was difficult to find gas to buy at a time you were not required to be at work. The biggest difficulty was having enough gas, or today being able to afford enough gas, to get to work and back each day. It was a much simpler time then with shorter communtes but people were franically trying to figure out how they were goign to get to work each day when they did not have enough gas to do it. The usual alotment of ten gallons was enough for the average driver at that time to go about 100 to 150 miles.

Some were lucky enough to get to and from work on what they could get, others tried car pooling, mainly so someone had the car to go find gas, slept in their cars or offices, or lost thier jobs.

Our customers had it better than most since the major gas company we sold for did cash only, no record, deliveries in the middle of the night.

Chu’s America is not ours. It is Obama’s and Michelle’s where Socialism has replaced Capitalism, and of course, our American way of life for one where the government solves it problems by removing our choices that get in its way, like where we live and work.

Franklyn on February 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM

My guess is Zeke took classes with Professor Krugman at Princeton.

Del Dolemonte on February 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Ah, yes, Krugmanomics with the amazing, magically vanishing (we’d be just fine if we would just borrow a lot more money)$16,000,000,000,000 deficit.

talkingpoints on February 29, 2012 at 2:01 PM

I wonder if it will be an electric bus or CNG bus that Energy Secretary Stephen Chu gets thrown under sometime in the coming weeks. Nah. It’ll be a good ol’ gasoline bus.

FlatFoot on February 29, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3