"He's done a couple things right, but that doesn't cut it as far as presidents go. Four years and not one inch closer to energy self-sufficiency."

So, Clinton failed too, right. He had 8 years, Bush has had 3 1/2 years.
You can't imagine that this problem only became apparent when Bush was elected. Perhaps, what you are thinking is that Bush would "used" 9/11 as an excuse, to change energy policy. Now, Gore might have attempted to do just this. There are serious problems with this "Gore approach".
Lets review the facts- we might be dependent on 1/2 of crude oil need from foreign sources. But other countries are even more dependent of oil imports. And we are importing a lot of our oil needs from local countries- such as Canada and Mexico. [And in terms of electrical power, Canada exports a lot electrical power to US.]

The importance of crude oil is that it provides a cheap form of energy, and means to make cheap plastic type products. The price of crude oil is presently fairly high [around $50 per 50 gallon barrel], but it could even be higher and still be considered a cheap form of energy. Now, in the US, gasoline is taxed higher than other products, and at same time any "substitute" wouldn't be taxed, but in many case subsidied by govt.
In Europe, Canada, and Japan the goverments tax gasoline much higher than does the US, resulting in consumers paying twice or more for their gasoline. This higher taxation in Europe provide additional means to fund various govt programs. If the price of crude oil rises to $100 per barrel it will still be a cheap source of energy- we in the US will be paying about the same as Canadian pay for gasoline. And may Canada might lower it's taxes on gasoline and reach parity with US- but any case it will not be affected much, and Mexico will have increasing revenue. Europe, Japan, and China would be severely affected- more money flowing out and less govt revenue.
If oil get to $100 per barrel, other alternatives to gasoline, at least would require less subsidy and be nearing the possiblity of not needing govt funding to compete in the market.