Support Terrorism: Call Obama's Fuel Plan a "$1,300 Car Tax"

by: Brandon Friedman

Wed May 20, 2009 at 01:09:41 AM EDT


This is Osama bin Laden:

Osama bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia.  Osama's family has lots of money--money they earned mainly by helping Saudi Arabia sell oil to Americans like you and me.  At some point, his family gave lots of that money to Osama.  Osama then became a terrorist.  He used a good deal of his family's Saudi oil money to recruit, train, and enable other terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  They killed lots of Americans with the money Osama's family gave him.

Of course, this is simplified, but there's no denying the root of threat.  In 2007, Thomas Friedman, writing for the New York Times, explained:

Sometime after 9/11 -- an unprovoked mass murder perpetrated by 19 men, 15 of whom were Saudis -- green went geostrategic, as Americans started to realize we were financing both sides in the war on terrorism. We were financing the U.S. military with our tax dollars; and we were financing a transformation of Islam, in favor of its most intolerant strand, with our gasoline purchases.

It's no secret that our dependence on foreign oil is a huge threat to national security in that it both enables extremism and fuels global terrorism.  On top of the fact that an unhealthy, smog-filled environment is bad in general, the vulnerability our thirst for oil creates at home is one of the chief reasons for the new fuel efficiency standards unveiled yesterday at the White House by President Obama.  Said the President:

And that's why, in the next five years, we're seeking to raise fuel-economy standards to an industry average of 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016, an increase of more than eight miles per gallon per vehicle.  That's an unprecedented change, exceeding the demands of Congress and meeting the most stringent requirements sought by many of the environmental advocates represented here today.

As a result, we will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the next five years.  Just to give you a sense of magnitude, that's more oil than we imported last year from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Libya, and Nigeria combined.

Sounds good, right?  Not to some.  For reasons that elude me, self-designated troop supporters like Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck can't get it through their skulls that our reliance on foreign oil funds terrorism.  Malkin complained:

Nobody in the White House is going to call the president's "mileage and pollution" plan what it is.

It's a $1,300 car tax. On the working class. On the middle class.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that over the course of a standard five-year car loan period, a person would save $2,800 in fuel costs, I'm continually blown away by the inability of these warmongering chickenhawks to sacrifice any little thing in the service of their country while the nation is at war--even when it's not really much of a sacrifice at all.  But they can't do it.  Our troops are fighting tooth and nail, every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all these whiners can do--with their overdeveloped senses of entitlement--is cry about not having access to cheap fuel for their gas guzzlers.

They'd rather keep sending America's troops on year-long tours to fight groups of Saudi-funded extremists instead of making any effort to cut the habit at home.  And they're like this because it doesn't cost them anything.  They've never been on the receiving end of where their gas money goes--like some of us have been--so they're not concerned with the consequences.  This is a national security issue, and anyone who opposes an effort to cut back on the consumption of foreign oil is hindering American's fighting men and women.

For all his bawling on TV about how much he loves his country, you'd think a guy like Glenn Beck would be eager to do whatever is necessary to combat terrorism.  Same for Malkin.  But I guess they'd rather tell us we can have the money up front--money they'd eventually double--if we pry it from their cold dead hands.  These are some real patriots, these two.  And the troops surely appreciate it.  Go slap another sticker on your Hummer H2, you parasites.  Nah.  I take that back.  Make it a magnet.  So you can remove it when you go out on Saturday night.  

The troops will appreciate that, too.

Brandon Friedman :: Support Terrorism: Call Obama's Fuel Plan a "$1,300 Car Tax"
And again, this is why VoteVets.org is supporting the American Clean Energy and Security Act:

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I hope you will post this at HuffPost, too. (0.00 / 0)
The more people who read this, the better!

It's up there, too. (0.00 / 0)
Here's the link.

[ Parent ]
I have to hand it (4.00 / 1)
to you on this one Brandon. This is really good work. We need to be off Saudi oil like yesterday. Albeit before we rush to namecalling, I would advise that we first consider the power of the Saudi Lobby and all of the disinformation that we are constantly fed by both the Saudis themselves and their hired mouthpieces in the United States. Before we rush to name calling, I would say put together an utterly damning presentation regarding Saudi terror ties, one that leaves absolutely zero room for any doubt whatsoever. After that, nail them on it. Albeit I would say if the politicians don't actually use this tax to get us off Saudi oil, then we need to nail their ass on it too. I don't trust any of the politicians on Saudi Arabia until I actually see meaningful action.  

But I must say (4.00 / 1)
that this plan strikes me as being too slow. We need to get of Saudi oil right now. 2016 is still too long. This plan may be great for a midterm solution, but we need something shorter than that IMHO. We definitely don't need to be dependent on any foreign oil, but we need to be off of Saudi Oil right NOW.  

Short term solutions would be disaster. (0.00 / 0)
Raise the gas tax to a level that many people would seriously be unable to drive.

Or rationing like WWII. Both gas and tires were rationed then. But then we had trains and trolleys, neighborhood grocery stores-schools, and people lived close to work. Oh, and they pushed lawn mowers. Most of our consumer goods weren't imported.

Just think if we would have done all the energy conservation in the 70s.

Just out of curiosity, do you know how much fuel that we have used supporting  OIF?


[ Parent ]
I would wager to say OIF is using a lot of fuel. (0.00 / 0)
But then you have to wonder whom did the most to sabotage Iraqi reconstruction efforts, ensuring that we stayed there longer? Probably the Saudis.

Although as far as short term solutions go, I was thinking more along the lines of exporting less of our oil and importing more from people whom aren't the Saudis.  


[ Parent ]
Fred - we need your expertise and passion (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Oops. Guess you already found it. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Yep. And, I'm still waiting for Fred! (0.00 / 0)
After all, this is right up his alley. By the way, I'm hoping that you will have some time, Brandon, to be part of the discussion over there - you will be able to persuade a lot of people!

[ Parent ]
I tried to go on (0.00 / 0)
there earlier, but my internet is bad and the account creation wasn't working. I might try again later, but am hoping people will actually link here.  

[ Parent ]
I hope you keep trying! (0.00 / 0)
And, you make a good point about linking here...wheneve we comment over there we should link it to here!

[ Parent ]
Technically speaking, the bin Laden $$$ derives from construction ... (0.00 / 0)
vs. oil, and OBL/UBL was never anywhere near so wealthy as folks were postulating back in 2002.  He hasn't had much in terms of personal wealth since he left the Sudan.

Investigations show that while he may have received a million a year from the family business from '70-'94, he was then cut off and the family was forced by SA to sell off his small  interest in the business (he was one of 52 kids, after all) and then the country froze the sale proceeds.

That said, AQ does still receive money from various Saudis, et al.


But, what we are talking about here (0.00 / 0)
is completely different from the bin Laden family construction money.

We are talking about the PROTECTION  money - a bribe, if you will - that the House of Saud pays to the radical islamist movement...through any number of avenues.


[ Parent ]
Well there is the protection money and (4.00 / 1)
I highly doubt that bin Laden's family really cut him off. But I think the worst thing that comes out of Saudi Arabia is the religious establishment. They take their petrodollars, go around the world and build mosques, mosques which are often little more than indocrination/brainwashing centers which churn out more and more Wahhabis/AQ types. The mosques in Saudi Arabia generally do the same thing as well as bin Laden is anything but a bad apple of the Saudi religious establishment.

On the other side of the coin, the Saudis are known to fund Islamist groups around the world, including the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, the Wahhabi insurgency in Iraq, and the Taliban. Well, the Saudi religious establishment also happened to have a huge hand in creating the Taliban. There is even a proven instance of the Saudis providing training and indoctrination to Chechen insurgents on Saudi soil. I wonder how many of those training camps there really are in Saudi Arabia. Hmmmm

All that aside, I am of the belief that there is more to the blackmail story than we are led to believe. There may be some of that from the House of Saud, but I also think there are those in the House of Saud who give payments to Islamists for ideological reasons. Needless to say, the Saudi religious establishment most certainly is a huge supporter of AQ and Co. at every level of the chain, from financing to indoctrination and providing actual manpower. And being that Saudi Arabia is an absolute police state, I simply do not buy the fact that the House of Saud does not know what is going on there.

But before we go any further, we should probably ask ourselves one question first:

What is the difference between the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia and the Taliban?


[ Parent ]
That's exactly what I mean by protection money... (0.00 / 0)
through any number of avenues.

As for comparing and contrasting Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia and the Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan...I'm really starting to have doubts about how successful the new strategy here can be, especially the part about negotiating with 'moderate' or less ideological elements within the Taliban.

I hope that there is a healthy enough majority of Taliban that can be worked with to stabilize Afghanistan, because if this turns out to be a fools errand, then I am at a loss as to what we can achieve there.

I'm starting to become very, very pesimistic about all of this. :(


[ Parent ]
Well the first (0.00 / 0)
thing I would like to know is: Who is the main force behind actually pushing the "Moderate" Taliban solution? Is it the politicians? Troops on the ground? Top Brass?

Personally I think it is an incredibly horrible idea, but I need to know whom is pushing it before I can give a more reasoned opinion.


[ Parent ]
You may want to watch AC360 on CNN Thurs night... (0.00 / 0)
Looks like an very good panel is going to be on to discuss Pakistan.

[ Parent ]
Fred, I'm not sure that what I wrote up there (0.00 / 0)
is exactly what I meant...basically, I'm not sure about anything anymore when it comes to the Taliban and whether or not any of them may have a role to play in the new strategy for Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Do we even have the essential details of how this new strategy is going to be implemented? So far, I'm getting the feeling that we're flying by the seat of our pants.

Anyway, what you say makes sense - I would also like to know who is pushing negotiation with certain elements of the Taliban and why they think it will work. I mean, wasn't this already tried in Pakistan and now we are seeing the tragic results of that course of action?


[ Parent ]
Er, the post wasn't intended to be an argumentative point ... (0.00 / 0)
just speaking to Brandon's initial post in which he kept saying "his family".  :)

The House of Saud hates him even more than we do; he's the one set out to destroy the royal family.  (This is not to say that X members of the extended family do not back his views and fund him accordingly.)


[ Parent ]
I wouldn't be too sure of that (0.00 / 0)
We hear bin Laden and the House of Saud go at each other from time to time. But at the same end, it is a common tactic in Arab politics for two parties to cut secret deals and then go out in public and talk about how much they hate each other. I have seen little or no proven effort from bin Laden to actually overthrow the House of Saud and if the House of Saud knew where bin Laden was, I don't think they would tell us.  

[ Parent ]
"I have seen little or no proven effort from bin Laden to actually overthrow the House of Saud ..." (0.00 / 0)
Then I guess you haven't been paying as much attention as I have to what's gone on inside SA since Desert Storm and our being on Saudi soil.  (And I hadn't even paid that much attention.)  :)

[ Parent ]
I beg to differ (0.00 / 0)
The vast majority of those attacks were against foreigners and I cannot remember a single proven instance where a member of the Royal Family was ever targeted. And I did say "I have seen no proven effort."  bin Laden may very well be trying to overthrow the Sauds. But at the same end, the Saudis may very well be trying to spin this to make themselves look like our allies against a common foe, in spite of the fact that they appear to have actually done absolutely nothing to truly aid us against al Qaeda. Needless to say, if there is a dispute between the Sauds and bin Laden, I think it is more of a domestic variety regarding who gets to be Caliph vice anything else, which makes the Saudis anything but reliable allies against Al Qaeda.  

[ Parent ]
Foreign Oil, and Friedman... (0.00 / 0)
Obama's fuel plan will provide some relief in stifling our foreign dependency, but that shouldn't be the end of the solution.  We simultaneously need more nuclear, wind, and solar energy markets!!  And most importantly, drilling for our own oil on our own land would be cool too.  Why the hell are so many of our fine, "outstanding" politicians against that?
.
....these warmongering chickenhawks....self-designated troop supporters like Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck..... you parasites...

Hey Friedman, that was a fine article, but I can't determine if it was primarily about trashing Malkin and Back while using the fuel crisis as background, or vice-versa.  I think most of us know.

E. (0.00 / 0)
I think Brandon was being very restrained with his comments toward those...those...talking (air)heads. Seriously!

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I know.... (0.00 / 0)
....he could have been a LOT more "unrestrained!"

But Elizabeth, my main point was Congress' stalemating the other energy sources that would aid tremendously in solving our needs.  For example, Harry Reid, someone I truly disrespect, nixed the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada (surprisingly) that 2 federal laws had already approved and double-digit billions have already paid for!  As a result, nuclear power plants must temporarily store their waste on-site, and more power plant building is on hold due to related costs.  This is totally unconscionable.  Friedman could have touched on that, but......

Then there's my point on domestic drilling.  ANWR, the coastal locales around FL, CA are full of easy oil.  Senator Kennedy doesn't want wind energy near his beloved Massachusetts because it would obstruct the "view."  Same in California. And on and on....  These should also be targets for Friedman's "parasite" descriptions.

I have a bad feeling that the $1300 additional cost of new vehicles and the subsequent increased costs for gasoline (Cap and Trade) is really going to hit poor people and those who travel many miles to work daily.  Thank God you and I both multi-millionaires, huh!


[ Parent ]
ANWR is THE biggest red herring, EVER! (0.00 / 0)
The big oil companies currently have a slew of leases where they can be drilling off-shore but they are not. Why are they not?

Why don't we demand an answer to this question before we even think about giving them more leases, especially in a wildlife refuge. This is nothing short of laughable...I, mean, pathetic...I'm starting to get flashbacks to McCain/Palin. Geesh.


[ Parent ]
Answer... (0.00 / 0)
I've asked this question, researched it, and found from independent sources that those "slew of leases" are extremely hard to access.  It's like trying to build an interstate hwy within the Rocky Mountains.  The "easy" oil is located in those areas I covered above.

Those leases you mentioned were practically given to the oil companies, due to the extreme associated problems.  The "easy" oil is where we should be now, as the energy crisis continues to build.

And sorry, we disagree about ANWR.  Look at the continental USA -- it's full of people, highways, cities, etc.  Yet wildlife thrives, sometimes to the point of nuisance.  I think the opposition to ANWR drilling is the Red Herring.


[ Parent ]
Well, you know... (0.00 / 0)
anything to make it easy for the big oil companies and their sorry bottom lines. I feel for them.

[ Parent ]
No wait! (0.00 / 0)
It's not about the oil companies' bottom lines; it's about the U.S. having its own oil, and soon.  Like you, I despise the oil companies and the prices of gas going up daily.  But we need that easy oil for our own benefit.

[ Parent ]
Actually, I think the price of gas is way too low (0.00 / 0)
...if, that is, we seriously want to move away from a dependence on Middle East oil and toward energy security.

[ Parent ]
Of course, there has to be a balance (0.00 / 0)
where the price of gas never falls below a certain threshold so as to incentivize the quicker emergence of new energy technology. China is already moving ahead in this green energy revolution and there is no time to spare.

We need to continually make the links between our addiction to oil and how that addiction supports terrorism and how we may be left behind in the next green energy technology revolution.

It is no surprise to me that VoteVets.org is in the leading wave to support and promote policies that will move us all toward energy security - no one knows the consequences of inaction on this issue more intimately and profoundly than the new veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq.


[ Parent ]
Personally I am for a multifaceted approach (0.00 / 0)
including both numerous alternative energy sources, more domestic drilling, and selective use of tariffs. And given our current situation, I would even be inclined to support the $1300 car tax as well as some price controls. But at the same end, if I don't see the getting off of Saudi crude as the number one priority in our current mission, then I will be inclined to say no to the $1300 tax and price controls. If we are going to make sacrifices, which we rightly should in a time like this, the least we can ask for is results.  

[ Parent ]
We are in full agreement, Fred! (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Definitely! (0.00 / 0)
But I think most importantly, we should be watching the politicians like hawks through all of this. If many of our politicians can't stand up to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and MoveOn.org, then how can we expect them to stand tall in the face of the most ghastly, nefarious, and powerful Lobby that has existed in the recent history of the United States Government: The Saudi Lobby.  

[ Parent ]
Indeed! (0.00 / 0)
Between the Saudi lobby and AIPAC, we have a lot of pol-watching to do.

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
but the Saudi lobby has to take priority. I see the Saudi lobby as being extremely unAmerican and having a rather abominable agenda. On the other hand, I think the main problem with AIPAC is that many politicians are not smart enough to understand the simple fact that Israel's interests do not necessarily equal US interests.

[ Parent ]
You're right. (0.00 / 0)
The US-Saudi dependency is a primary root of the most serious problems facing us.

I think the main problem with AIPAC and most US and Israeli pols is that they haven't got the foggiest idea about what is in their own best interests, let alone each others. It's really quite unbelievable.

Fortunately, we have a very smart team in Obama/BIDEN and if they can't get us on the right path here, then I would suspect that no one can.


[ Parent ]
Drilling is a short term solution that will take long term implementation... (0.00 / 0)
Beyond nuclear power plants, the problem of nuclear 'medical waste' needs to be solved. Nuclear power plants are also not a 'quick fix'.

The only point that you have that is reasonable is the Kennedy objection to a wind farm.

Long term we need to deal with coastal erosion and "dead" ocean pools. Water will be the next "war" and unfortunately nuclear power plants require mega-water.

Face it, part of the solution is to reduce demand. You know the other side of the Economic Equation that Supply Siders want to ignore. The Supply Side Economy that has gotten us into this huge mess that we are in.

"Peak Oil" + "Peak Water" are part of living on a finite planet.


[ Parent ]
VetVoice 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.

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
Search

Advanced Search

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