Manx

The George Bush administration is being given credit for long term thinking. In the Middle East, his policies which were rightly questionable are being championed as demonstrably effective once the long term goals are visualized. His (failing) efforts to significantly alter Social Security are, again, intended to address problems that will not manifest themselves for decades and decades.

I don't agree that his tactics are beneficial long term, but many people do. In the case of his tactics in the Middle East, even many Democrats are stating that they believe his long term vision seems to be working.

So where is the long term thinking when it comes to oil?

In the long term, oil prices will continue to rise, assuming oil is even perpetually available. The extraction and processing methods will continue to become more costly, the military costs in securing access will continue to rise and the environmental impact costs are unquantifiable, though hardly deniable. The long term solution to these issues is to ween the U.S. from oil dependence.

Yet there is no leadership from Bush down this path which is ultimately beneficial in the long term.

We have a stated quest by Bush to put humans on Mars. That's about as long term as it gets. Why do you think there is no desire to seek the most beneficial long term solution to the multiple and massive problems associated with oil?