New TV Ads: Vets Urge Clean Energy for National Security

by: Brandon Friedman

Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 12:14:11 PM EDT


We can debate all we want about the justification for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the troop levels, and how best to handle trans-national terrorism.  But in the end, those issues are still symptoms of a larger issue which is exacerbated by America's obscene dependence on foreign energy sources.

That's why VoteVets.org is supporting the American Clean Energy and Security Act with new ads this week.  As VetVoice front-pager Chris LeJeune says in one, "Our national security starts at home."  

Here's our press release:

IN NEW TELEVISION AD CAMPAIGN, WAR VETERANS JUMP INTO CLEAN ENERGY DEBATE

Iraq War Vets cite connection between Middle East Oil, Terrorists; Passing American Clean Energy and Security Act Can Help Protect America

WASHINGTON, DC  -- A new, week-long cable television ad campaign starting today shows veterans of the war in Iraq calling on Congress to support a bill that would support clean energy and efficiency.  The ad is sponsored by VoteVets.org, the nation's leading progressive group of veterans, and will start running today in the districts of Rep. John Barrow (D-GA) and Jim Matheson (D-UT), airing over 1,000 times, combined, on local cable.  The group plans to air the ad in more districts by the middle of the week.

You can view one of the ads here:

The ad features Iraq War Veterans from the state where the ads are airing, making the case that passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act is a matter of national security.

"It's crucial to our national security that we get off our dependence on foreign oil and towards clean energy," said Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org.  "Right now, billions in Middle East oil profits help fund terrorism.  Members of Congress have a chance to end that, and create jobs right here by voting for this comprehensive clean energy jobs bill.  For those who were sent to fight terrorists and insurgents, like me, this bill is a no brainer.  It has to pass."

The ad closes by urging constituents to call their Congressmen to ask that they support the bill.

The script for one of the ads is below.

Brandon Friedman :: New TV Ads: Vets Urge Clean Energy for National Security
VOTEVETS AD SCRIPT -- GEORGIA

(Note: The Utah version of the ad below uses Utah Iraq Veteran Chris LeJeune, and encourages people to call Rep. Matheson)

Iraq War veteran Zach Choate speaks to camera.  An image of an M-4 gun appears

Choate:  This kept me safe in Iraq
The gun disappears and is replaced by a gas hose nozzle

Choate:  But this makes us vulnerable here at home.  
The nozzle disappears.

Choate:  Billions in Middle East oil profits have helped fund the same terrorists we're fighting.  By building an American clean energy economy, we can lower energy costs, create thousands of jobs, cut our dependence on foreign oil, and keep America safe. You can help protect America.  
Congressman Barrow's DC office number appears

Choate:  Call Congressman Barrow, and tell him to support the American Clean Energy and Security Act.  Because, our national security starts at home.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

I look huge! (0.00 / 0)
Must run more, and eat much less!

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

tks :) (0.00 / 0)
And thanks for the opportunity as well.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

[ Parent ]
Here is something else we all need to get behind... (0.00 / 0)
Excellent work. (0.00 / 0)
This is a step in the right direction.  

Albeit (4.00 / 1)
I think we should do more domestic drilling too, as I just don't think we can be off Saudi crude fast enough.

A Carbon Tax (0.00 / 0)
of one sort or another will get us off Saudi crude real fast!

[ Parent ]
I was thinking more along the lines (4.00 / 1)
of tarriffs on foreign oil imports/exports. As long as we are dependent on medieval religious gangsters for imports, I just don't see where we can afford to be exporting our own oil. Albeit I like the idea of domestic drilling for the near future and wouldn't want us to discourage that.  

[ Parent ]
We can be completely (4.00 / 1)
independent of fossil fuel in less time than it would take to see the results of domestic drilling.

I'm on twitter.

[ Parent ]
I have heard that too, (0.00 / 0)
but I didn't come away 100 percent convinced. I still think we should do both. Besides, if we get off fossil fuels, we can always export them to people who are not off them yet.  

[ Parent ]
Well, (0.00 / 0)
the problem is that oil is priced on a global market, and the US does not have enough petroleum reserves to effect that price.  Essentially, we'd just be perpetuating world dependence on fossil fuels, which perpetuates world dependence on States that don't always have western interests at heart.

I'm on twitter.

[ Parent ]
Although who is to (0.00 / 0)
say that Saudi Arabia in its current state would still exist, were we no longer dependent on its crude oil.  

[ Parent ]
About Saudi Arabia (0.00 / 0)
...that Saudi Arabia in its current state would still exist, were we no longer dependent on its crude oil.  

Even more pertinent, it would be one large sand dune now if the USA hadn't initially offered the technological means with which to produce its oil.  They owe us a LOT for their current state, and they could give a damn -- about us.


[ Parent ]
Oh, the US can influence the price, alright... (0.00 / 0)
The best and fastest way to get off of Middle East oil is to start by implementing a policy that will prevent the price of oil from going below a certain threshold.

It's called a carbon tax and anyone who is against terrorism of the radical Islamist extremism variety should be all for it!


[ Parent ]
How? (0.00 / 0)
I honestly can't see how a carbon tax would influence the world price of oil (or to get off ME oil).  This tax, as I see it, would only raise the price of oil products for Americans and mostly the poorer would be affected.  The "threshold" you mention seems nothing more than an artificial increase to prevent consumption.  Now if you're saying that a tax would decrease the USE of petroleum products, you're correct; but still, that would affect the poor and middle class a LOT more.  

Please, help me out here.  Maybe I'm missing a bigger picture.


[ Parent ]
Good Show.... (0.00 / 0)
....And a good message.  As a result, I'm ordering my wife to hang all washed laundry outside -- instead of using the dryer.  My fair share!

Anyway, I agree that the USA should become greener and more carbon conscious.  However, I also feel that we are wasting the opportunity of billions of barrels of our own oil and trillions of cu/ft of natural gas simply because some cream-puff politicians say NO for whatever lame reasons they conjure up that particular day.  That goes for nuclear energy too.  Kennedy doesn't want wind turbines near his Massachusetts coast lines because it will impair the view.

But again, let's use our own oil and gas resources while we proceed to get green and energy efficient.  That means more drilling along the coasts and Alaskan hinterlands.  Not doing BOTH would be ridiculous.


Yeah, I've wanted nuclear in Utah forever (0.00 / 0)
But our governor (Huntsman) made that the focus of his campaign - keeping nuclear out of Utah.  Also, I don't understand why the oil companies refuse to drill more domestically.  They have tens of thousands of acres that has been granted to them for that purpose, but they refuse to use it.  That, and the extra refineries would also mean more jobs - something we desperately need right now.  Also, if we drilled more domestically, we could export even more oil than we already do.  We already export a huge ton of oil from the US every month, but in this economy we could use all of the influx of money we can get.  Then again, if we could get the oil companies to stop shipping large amounts of our oil to Europe, maybe that alone could keep us from having to buy so much foreign oil.  We could use the stuff we normally export.  But we can't exactly be telling private businesses what they can do with their product.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

[ Parent ]
Energy Independence (0.00 / 0)
I don't understand why the oil companies refuse to drill more domestically.  They have tens of thousands of acres that has been granted to them for that purpose, but they refuse to use it.

As reported by our regional oil producers, the tens of thousands of acres of "in-house" oil resources are extremely difficult to access and work.  The coastal areas and Alaska are much more feasible logistically.  And the nuclear plant issue you mention is another debacle.  Hell, it's even OK with France, why not us?

Some ridiculous commentators say that the effects of coastal and Alaskan oil wouldn't be realized for almost ten years.  Well, ten years ago, the same was said, and here we are!  Most likely in ten years, some will use the same argument.

All the while, to say again, we should press hard simultaneously to become more energy efficient.  The best of both worlds.


[ Parent ]
Everything must be on the table (0.00 / 0)
Let me quote a minister from the UK who is a member of the Labor Party.

Wind, sea, coal and nuclear power. Yes please

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...

IF national security is the concern, then everything is on the table.

IF climate change from CO2 is the concern, then everything is on the table.

And like FredUSMC stated, drilling needs to be on the table.

The Republicans do not want to give on wind, sea and solar so guess what, they are f'd.

The Democrats do not want to give on nuclear and drilling, guess what, they are f'd.

The job needs to get done now and the bickering needs to get done. The way to do that is a comprehensive plan where the easy technology is first and then phasing in the harder stuff as quickly as possible.


While I support this bill, I wish that included more of an emphasis (0.00 / 0)
on renewable energy sources: Solar and Wind. This is an excellent ad. Great Job.

The problem with nuclear and coal is that they produce waste that long term creates substantial problems. They also require the use of water which is becoming a scarce commodity. They also pollute and create toxic waste. The next war will be fought over water rights and that battle has already started.

We need to get going on limiting CONSUMPTION beyond plug-in cars, including high speed rail. While we are waiting for the long term results of changing energy sources, we can do a home energy audit. Leaving your cell phone charger plugged uses approximately $120 of electricity per year. My big bad is having 2 computers on 24/7 and almost continuously using a coffee pot.

Limit the use of bottled water, chose tap water:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21...

Join Sandrat and the First Lady: plant a garden. Great food that doesn't require transportation with the side benefit that gardening lowers anxiety.

Oh, and get reusable cloth grocery/shopping bags. Even WalMart sells them.

More controversial is the subject of population control. The "Population Bomb" predicted what is happening. Invention and hybrid agriculture has slowed the results of a population greater than the Earth can support but some scientists are saying that we are reaching or have passed the tipping point.


Fine ideas... (0.00 / 0)
Other than controlling the Population Bomb you mentioned, all your other ideas are quite feasible, but are we in the USA willing to go full throttle ahead?  I think not.  Switching paradigms from our love of cars, technology, and monster houses will be like turning a WW II aircraft carrier.  That's why I think Rock is dead wrong: we absolutely need to maximize our domestic oil production (heavy drilling) while simultaneously demanding (through governmental mandates) greener solutions.  Wouldn't it be great to have a domestic oil surplus after all is done!  And it would take a lot more than the magic "ten years" that Rock hinted at.  (Note to self: why didn't I just reply to Rock?)

To reiterate, the no-drill crowd is SO wrong because Americans will NOT give up their cars.  It's a "thing."  Even the production of hybrids leaves deep carbon footprints.  We could, however, cut that footprint if we were to forge strongly ahead with major wind, solar, and nuclear energy; but that too won't fly with many Americans because of the NIMBY factor.


[ Parent ]
Tend to think that the OPEC nations are actually looking far ahead (0.00 / 0)
believing in peak oil and population. For example they are buying into nuclear energy to conserve their oil for export. Building rail transportation. And after years of importing cheap labor they are adopting tougher  immigration policies.

Dubai of course wants to be the new 'Swiss Bank' nation and an international financial center.

Our economy will force some changes. Some life style changes would also help with the health of our general population. Ex.: My school district needed to build more classrooms. Instead of expanding the 'central campus' they built two grade schools out in neighborhoods and converted some grade school space to middle-high school. The bus that used to come down my street no longer does. The kids have to walk to a bus stop on the arterial road.

I agree with Rock. You can add to that the time factor and cost of drilling in some areas. We can do more to convert such byproducts as methane to usable energy sources.



[ Parent ]
VetVoice on Social Media
Follow rockrichard on Twitter

VoteVets.org on Facebook
  • VetVoice Recommends

    "The War I Always Wanted,"
    By Brandon Friedman

    "The welcome mat for memoirs by veterans of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom might never wear out so long as they write with the savvy of Brandon Friedman . . . Friedman's take is vivid, frank, precise and dramatic." --Military Times

    "Add Brandon Friedman's The War I Always Wanted to the ranks of outstanding non-fiction produced by officers from elite combat units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Always truthful, often excruciatingly so, The War I Always Wanted rises at numerous points to the level of literature." --Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire

    Buy The War I Always Wanted here.

    "A Time To Lead,"
    By General (Ret.) Wesley K. Clark

    "A Time To Lead confirms the rewarding benefits of military service at a time when such service is experiencing considerable strain. It also includes a comprehensive description of America's current national imperatives, which deserve serious consideration." --General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., former Secretary of State

    "This is a primer on leadership forged in battle and by decades of experience. . .This isn't just a book; it's a manual for leading people and living a good life." --Barry McCaffrey, General, USA (ret.)

    Buy A Time to Lead here.

    "Love My Rifle More Than You,"
    By Kayla Williams

    "Whip smart, sassy, with a mouth as foul as a sailor's, 28-year-old Sergeant Kayla Williams. . .tells what it's like to be a female soldier in Iraq." --Booklist

    ". . .echoes military memoirists from Julius Caesar to Ernie Pyle." --Publishers Weekly

    ". . .a shocking, on-the-ground view of one military woman's experience in Iraq." --Bookmarks Magazine

    Buy Love My Rifle More Than You here.

    "How to Break a Terrorist,"
    By Matthew Alexander

    "...a riveting, fast-paced account that reads like a first-rate thriller." --Publisher's Weekly

    " ...an absorbing behind-the-scenes look at the secret intelligence war within a war." --Military.com

    Buy How to Break a Terrorist here.

    Search

    Advanced Search

    RSS Feed Links

    Subscribe to VetVoice in a feed reader!

    Subscribe to VetVoice by Email!

    Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. VetVoice will strive to remove any illegal material as soon as it is flagged. Similarly, VetVoice will use its discretion in determining whether to remove exceedingly offensive material. However, between posting and removal, any offensive or illegal material does not reflect the condoning or endorsing of said material by VoteVets.org or VetVoice.
    Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
    Menu

    Front Page Writers
    PTSD Resources
    TBI Resources
    IRR Information
    Casualty Reports
    VA Information
    Support the Troops
    Veteran Candidates We Support
    Congressional Committees
    Contact Your Elected Leaders
    Sites We Like

    Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families. VoteVets Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps elect Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran candidates and educates about veterans and military issues aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.

    Site Design: Articulated Man

    VoteVets Political Action and Vote Vets Action Fund are separate organizations.

    Powered by: SoapBlox