It seems like the term "foreign" oil is helpoing to frame a push towards energy independence.  Now granted, this is a rationalization for building more refineries, drilling the Arctic Refuge, and continuing our reliance on oil, be it foreign or domestic. But, if we can convince the public that we need to reduce our reliance on "foreign" oil by promoting energy independence, that shift in thinking is a step in the right direction, IMO.  

If the public is convinced that we need to produce energy domestically, then renewable alternatives will look better each day. You'll get a lot more from the right supporting domestically produced energy and when that becomes the public ideal, then renewable, sustainable energy production will be much easier to promote than it is now.  

Look the phrase just reminds us of two things: it's oil, and it comes from foreign lands.

That means "foreign oil" has the environmental impacts we are all well versed in, as well as economic and national security impacts that don't ususally share these pages.

It would be "incomplete" for a national securty type to insist that the only problem with "foreign oil" is in the first word ... just as it would be "incomplete" for an environmentalist to say that the only problem with "foreign oil" is in the second word.

These are all real problems that compete for our attention.

Oh, and as greenstork says, there is no reason to complain about a term when you can happily announce you have a solution.  Green energy sources within the US solve both the "foreign" and the "oil" parts of "foreign oil."

The fact that the US depends on foreign oil means two things: 1) the US has a much larger trade deficit (which creates a host of problems, not least that eventually the bill will come due on the T-bills we're selling to pay for it), and 2) the US is vulnerable to supply disruptions.

The 2nd is the worst.  Because of the lessons of oil dependence in WWII (for Japan and Germany), and of oil-shock induced recessions, the US is determined to control it's suppliers in the Middle East.  This has led to 1) the US-led replacement of a freely elected government with a king, in Iran in 1954, which led to the 1979 overthrow, another oil shock, and a xenophobic authoritarian government much worse than the 1954 government;  2) support of a highly authoritarian government in Saudi Arabia, which created a rebellious Osama Bin Laden; 3) support of the Afghan resistance to a Soviet government, which led to chaos in Afghanistan and a Osama Bin Laden/Al Quaeda now well trained in guerilla tactics; 4) the first gulf war to protect Kuwait and Saudi Arabia 5) posting of troops in Saudia Arabia which led to 9-11; and 6) the invasion of Iraq.  We should also include 7) an authoritarian government in Egypt, which breeds radicalism and anger towards the US in the same way.

You can argue about some of the details above, but it's clear that the US would not be involved in the Middle East in anything like this manner if it were not dependent on Middle East oil.  So, "foreign" does mean something, if only because the US has always believed that it does.