I've always wanted a bumper sticker to say "Every gallon of gas is fuel for the global jihad"

But also fueling jihad: The literal reading of the Quran and the model of Mohammad.

But James Woolsey is getting close. It isn't "extreme Islam" that is the issue, since what does that mean? The threat is coming from Islam as it is recognized today by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence - Unreformed Islam. Name the actual source.

Posted by: npabga at June 20, 2007 3:45 PM

Finally someone connected (albeit formerly) with the government "Gets It".

Now how to get the rest, or at least a good portion of the rest, to "Get It"? Thereine lies the crux of the problem.

Posted by: walterc at June 20, 2007 3:56 PM

I feel good right now. Someone is 'getting it'. I know there is more to do.

And I do my part by writing to news stations, radio stations, blogs, the congress (they are the dullest ones) the president and the Universities.

Posted by: R_not at June 20, 2007 4:04 PM

"Woolsey said the West has to do more than simply defend itself against the terrorists."

....agreed!....you must constantly attact them day and night until God returns to straighten things out....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at June 20, 2007 4:04 PM

The ‘writing is on the wall’ with our vulnerability to the plaque of islamic barbarism tied directly to our mall-hopping and gas guzzling extravagance. This man Woolsey really makes sense but will anyone listen? Our current crop of 'leaders' who the bounds of reality trying to discover the elusive 'Religion of Peace' are definitely not listening.

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at June 20, 2007 4:08 PM

Woolsey has been getting it for a long time actually, I'm glad to say.

He is a prime mover over at setamericafree.org where he's been a spokesman for hybrids and alternative fuels for a long time.

As a hyrbid driver myself since Nov 2001 (a direct consequence of the 9-11 attacks) I have always welcomed his vocal opinion on this issue.

Posted by: GreatShaitan at June 20, 2007 4:15 PM

"Woolsey warned against “lapsing into moral relativism” by accepting fundamentalist Islamic practices that are contrary to Western values, especially those that degrade women."

This whole article was wonderful, but the statement above gets to the heart of how we should interract with the Islamic world.

First we have to stop pretending that Islam is a moral religion. It is profoundly immoral, and we should say so. the proof of its immorality is there in a hundred different ways, especially in its sharia laws. The treatment of Women, apostates, and its barbaric punishments for minor infractions of religious laws are an abomination and affront to the civilized world.

So why all the pretense? Are we afraid to offend them?

Our Judeo/Christian moral principles are by far superior to anything that passes as morality in Islam. It's more than just making a choice to tell Muslims the truth about their twisted religion, It's a moral obligation on our part to confront evil whenever we see it. If we don't, we betray ourselves, and lead Muslims to believe we respect their perverse practices and beliefs.

Woosey hit the nail on the head. Tell Muslims we do not approve of their religion and its practices - and pull no punches.

For God's sake, Take a moral stand for a change.

Posted by: rational at June 20, 2007 4:23 PM

descendantofacrusader, you have to keep at it. Keep writing your congress, and the list of people that I mentioned above. Hey, I even sent notes to the FBI and CIA asking them why they are letting muslims call the shots about hiring Jews and why are they giving them government funded foot baths, private bathrooms, etc when they are obviously used for their intolerant selves. I tell them to read the koran and hadiths and they would know that they are following a book of battle tactics and all they want to know are in those books.

I liked the notes I sent to the president of the UC system - he is letting campuses be used as muslim centers for hating and disrupting those who disagree with them instead of centers for discussion and debate. They drown out speakers with a 'thug' mentality. What if it was against blacks or muslims - it wouldn't be allowed, but since it is against Jews and those who disagree with them, it is allowed?!! Why is that Mr. UC president? I also sent the same note to our governor. The UC system gets government money - my money. I suspect they are also getting Saudi money and the Saudis always expect the push of their wahabbi agenda.

I might get one person to start looking at this a little closer and that is all I can hope for. And with that will come one more and one more...

Posted by: R_not at June 20, 2007 4:24 PM

"Woolsey warned against “lapsing into moral relativism” by accepting fundamentalist Islamic practices that are contrary to Western values, especially those that degrade women."

Close. Almost worth a cigar, even.

But that should read any Islamic practices that are contrary to Western values.

There is nothing 'quaint' about amputating an unrepentent thief's hands or killing an apostate or a blasphemer or...

Posted by: PRCS at June 20, 2007 4:28 PM

Without oil, the Muslims would be nothing.

Nothing. Non-entity. Zero.

Posted by: darcy at June 20, 2007 4:29 PM

"Without oil, the Muslims would be nothing.

Nothing. Non-entity. Zero.

Posted by: darcy"

...absolutely!...and if not for european christians, the Muslims would have not discovered oil for a long time...It was the christians who did the research, the exploration and the developement of the oil wells...it was the greedy Muslims who ran them off and the rest is history....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at June 20, 2007 4:39 PM

Let me see...

Diesel can be made from coal. Perhaps gasoline can also be made from rape seed. Alberta has a lot of coal reserves and canola fields. There is also the Athabasca tar sands in northern Alberta. More oil there than all of Saudi Arabia. There are also oil reserves in Alaska, Utah, Mexico and even Russia. Buying oil from these regions would definitely starve terror supporting nations. But then again, if that ever happens, Saudi Arabia would lower the price of oil at bargain prices and western nations would be suckers for funding their terror.

Posted by: The Resistance at June 20, 2007 4:51 PM

The West has more than enough resources to cut off any need for Middle East petroleum by the end of the decade.

All that is missing is a leader with the understanding of the existential problem involved in fueling the Jihad, the will, and the ability to motivate people.

The people are ready. The knowledge of the "oil-for-jihad" danger is becoming widespread..

All that is lacking is a political/societal figure of prominence with the power to galvanize.

The potential name for the program already exists:

A Manhattan Project for Energy Independence.

Jimmy Carter could have begun it in 1979.

Or any leader in the meantime.

But all seem to be in the pocket of global petro-interests.

Which will serve them quite poorly when the shi'ite hits the fan.

Stop Funding Terror In the Buying of Oil from Jihad-Supporting States.

The Saudis, first. Iran, next. And down the list.

No Oil for Blood!

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 20, 2007 4:55 PM

'Women’s and human rights organizations also have to put the “absolutely horrible treatment of women in much of the Arab and Muslim world front and centre of their agendas,” he said.'

Has anyone noticed a noticeable silence from the "women's libbers", or women on the left, in regard to islam and its deviance towards women? I have notice the same outcry from them as I have from those 'moderate' muslims - basically an outcry of silence.

I wonder if they are aware of the sharia law being practiced in Europe and the clitoral circumscisions, beatings, killings, etc of muslims women and the 'safe houses' being filled up by muslim women once they realize there is such a thing. For there are no such things in muslim lands from where most of these women come from.

Some of our cities that are known as sanctuary cities also have the same problem with muslim women. Although I really don't sympathize with them very much. I am not very sympathetic to women who allow much of this to happen. Women themselves do this to other women - the clitoral circumscision. And also they will harbor other women who got beaten. Women are just as much of a problem in islam as men, they make sure to teach their children to hate. They want a shahid in the family so they go to heaven too.

Posted by: R_not at June 20, 2007 4:56 PM

A steamroller moves very slowly at first, but picks up speed as it begins to crush everything in its path.

babysteps. have patience. it's working.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at June 20, 2007 4:57 PM

R_not,

Sorry if my post might seem at first to be bit cynical regarding the muslim plague currently sweeping the civilized world. I am optimistic as you and I regularly contact the President, federal & state lawmakers, and also the university I’m a graduate of concerning this painful issue we are all faced with. I’m definitely glad there are many others such as yourself who are also actively and constructively voicing their opinions to the right people. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at June 20, 2007 5:16 PM

First, the mohammed pictures in a Danish news paper, then the knighting of Rushdie, and now the former central intelligence agency director James Woolsey has the nerve to speak out against islamofacism at a fundraiser for the Canadian institute for Jewish research. Can you imagine in the islamic world, oh the mayhem, oh the humanity.

Posted by: mustang65 at June 20, 2007 5:26 PM

Yes, it is true that without the ten trillion dollars in oil (and gas) revenues since 1973, the Arab and Muslim states would have far less power, and certainly little claim on our attention. But it is wrong of Woolsey to limit his discussion to "terror" for two reasons.

The first is that much homegrown "terror" does not require a lot of money. Those responsible for bombings in Madrid and London, and Moscow and Beslan and Amsterdam and a dozen other cities in the West, actually had little need of "failed states" (whatever that phrase means), the kind of places that the Bush Admnistration thinks need to be permanently patrolled lest, all of a sudden, they be bristling with highly efficient Al Qaeda camps, camps which could not possibly be established anywhere else, or even done without, given the template about "Al Qaeda terror camps in Afghanistan" that has been permanently imprinted on the brains of so many who cannot conceive of leaving Afghanistan to its own hopelessn devices, with Western powers intervening only intermittently, with swift raids, and wherever possible, from the air and from afar, not swiftly, and mainly from the air, to destroy whatever camps or weapons project might require destroying. Instead, NATO troops and aid groups are engaged in a costly, misguided effort to somehow construct out of Afghanistan a society that owes its miserable condition largely to Islam, but Islam itself is not to be touched, not even to be attacked, but treated by those NATO troops with respect at all times.

If the venture in Afghanistan has largely continued without opposition, it is mainly because by comarison with the tremendous squandering in Iraq, what goes in Afghanistan appears to exhibit a kind of good sense -- but only comparatively. It is true that before the Americans attacked Afghanistan in late 2001 that Al Qaeda had the freedom to use parts of Aghanistan as a base for training camps. It does not follow, however, that such camps, or such training and planning, can only go on in such camps, nor that such camps can only be created in Afghanistan (they can be established right outside London or even within London, or for that matter Paris or Washington, D.C.), and it is folly to require a huge NATO presence when, with advances in spy satellites and drones, it is possible to keep Afghanistan under observation, and to intervene, as the occasion warrants, without a permanet presence and certainly without that attempt at a makeover of Afghani political and social institutions that reflect the same kind of naive hopes, and incomprehension of Islam, that the policy in Iraq reflects.

What James Woolsey should have gone on to say is that Arab and Muslim nations have received ten trillion dollars since 1973, that much of that money has helped to spread Islam, by paying for mosques and madrasas all over the Western world, not only the buildings but the permanent upkeep, that such money also goes into buying vast quantities of weaponry for Arab and Muslim armories, and pays for the weapons-of-mass-destruction projects of Pakistan, Iran, and other Muslim countires -- projects which cannot be permitted to continue to the point of producing such weapons or, in the case of Pakistan, of acquiring the means of effective undetectable delivery.

He might have said that when you fill up your tank you are helping to pay for the vast army of Western hirelings, including former diplomats and even C.I.A. agents (he could mention Edward Wilson, and Raymond Close, and describe their post-retirement activities), as well as for "Centers of Islamic Studies" and well-endowed chairs, hither and yon, designed to create a network within universities -- see "MESA Nostra" -- so that Western students would be forced to learn about Islam, and all subjects related to Islam (such as the various Lesser Jihads against Israel, India, and now even within Western Europe) from Muslim apologists and their non-Muslim collaborators.

Woolsey might have started to talk about the Money Weapon, started to talk about it as the critical instrument of Jihad, along with Da'wa and demographic conquest, and that would have furthered understanding a bit more than he was apparently willing, or able, at this time, to do.

It is Woolsey, after all, who was a great enthusiast for the Light-Unto-the-Muslim-nations Project in Iraq, and he, like Bernard Lewis, owes himself, and those he presumes to influence, a reckoning: what was it, exactly, that Woolsey did not understand about Islam, and what was it he did not understand about sectarian and ethnic divisions in Iraq, that had he understood, would have led him to have been far less of an enthusiast?

Posted by: Hugh at June 20, 2007 5:31 PM

Re: Oil dependency is fueling Islamic terrorism: ex-CIA head

This CIA talking head must have read Hugh's comments on this. Oil is to Islamic supremacism, is to Arab Imperialism, as the iron of the Ruhr and the Krupp works were to Nazi Germany. Just as the basis of Nazi power had to be neutralized, so too the basis of resurgent Arab and Muslim Imperialism must be neutralized. It's common sense.

Posted by: Frank at June 20, 2007 5:36 PM

encouraging to hear it from this source, just a pity he is only a former CIA director, and not the current one.
i do not agree that reducing dependency on Arab oil may be "the only effective means" of stemming the Islamic tide, as i fear that things have now gone too far for it to be that effective (as i think Hugh says above).
however, i do think reducing dependency is about the biggest non-military weapon we have available, and we have not yet deployed it.
coal-to-oil has promise if only because of the huge reserves of coal to be found outside the Islamic axis. corn-to-ethanol is a similar situation, with so much of world's best agricultural land also being outside the Islamic axis. corn conversion and the resulting increase in food prices may also prove to be valuable in influencing certain countries....

Posted by: M Al-Content at June 20, 2007 5:54 PM

Gas from coal, ethanol from vegetation, hydrogen power, hybrids, solar/wind all combined (and others) could make us independant from foreign oil in less than ten years.

A Manhatten style program is all we need.

Now can someone in Washington get off their ass and get going on this?

Oh, and fight the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan (and Iran when it happens, we all know it's coming) the way we fought the Japanese and Germans in WWII. Turn the whole place into a smoldering wasteland.

Posted by: walterc at June 20, 2007 6:15 PM

It's a nice idea, distinguishing between good and bad Muslims, as we did between good Socialists and bad Socialists (Communists).

It's easier said than done. He warns against "moral relativism" but the elites of this country, including Woolsey's former boss, have made it our policy. The PC climate means you cannot call anyone bad or even question their motives. All cultures are good. There are no bad countries, just a few bad people. So who is going to be allowed to draw a line between acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior without being permanently branded a bigot? Moral relativism lives on.

Woolsey was part of the administration that rode the wave of low oil prices, ignoring the jihad because oil was just ten bucks a barrel. NOW he wants change. He needs to talk to his friends who will be in the next administration about that. He needs to call the NY Times and the Washington Post editors and make them see the light. Talking to the converted won't accomplish much.

Just once I would like to see one of these former or current officials suggest that if Muslims cannot behave, the West will not let ANY OF THEM in. Someone said collective action means collective guilt. Collective guilt requires collective punishment. Given the actions of jihadists and the Muslim community's failure to respond, denial of access to the West seems a pretty mild price to pay.

What's with "EVERY TIME an American fills up the tank" anyway? Since when did Canada join the jihad?

Posted by: PMK at June 20, 2007 6:37 PM

It is pretty hard for the government to pick winners and losers among the alternative fuels. That is something best done by market forces. (Personally I favor methanol from coal with some of it being converted to gasoline as was done in New Zealand in the 80s before crude prices fell. I take my M85 in a series plug-in hybrid thank you). Government can do at least two things 1) fund basic research into chemistry, chemical engineering, material science, etc. as well as funding college education in these areas; and 2) putting a floor under the price of gasoline in the U.S. (and elsewhere hopefully).

At or somewhat above current prices there are a lot of feasible alternatives to petroleum based fuels. What they need is not so much a Manhattan project as they need a guarantee that the Saudis et al will not lower prices to freeze out alternatives like they did in the '80s. Nobody is going to invest the $100s of billions that new alternatives will take if it can be rendered uneconomic by a decision made in Riyadh.

What I wish George Bush had done in October 2001 is to have announced a 10 year program to phase out petroleum imports into the U.S. We could cap imports for 5 years and then reduce them by 20% for each of the next 5 years. Each year they could have an auction of import rights. The proceeds could fund research into alternatives and give income tax credits to offset the impact on individuals.

We could still do it. When we get to the point where the U.S. no longer imports petroleum how long would it take the U.S. military to halt exports of petroleum from the Persian Gulf? One call to Lloyds would pretty much do it.

Or we could use the U.S. military and another $880 billion to prop up Iraq for ten years. Take your pick.

Posted by: Malta_1565 at June 20, 2007 6:40 PM

But America has to be aware...

that as we try to bring on new energy sources, or develope new oil fields....that America will be presented with obsticles.

These obsticles will be frivulous lawsuits, environmental complaints and appeals and research, lawmakers that will hold up decision making.

All of these obsticles will be created and funded by OPEC, or otherwards our enemies. They are addicted to our money, our money advances their cause, and many people in America will recieve that money to put up road blocks.

Development of our own domestic oil should be a National Security issue.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at June 20, 2007 6:44 PM

Here's the doable list:
Add 10% of Ethanol in gasoline - no tech changes needed.
Bio diesel
Coal diesel
Shift from home oil to wood pellet stoves.

I'm not for big government but we are at war with Shariah-Islam so:
Mandate better mileage.

Fire of the nuclear plants - Canada has loads of uranium!

Develop hybred cars.

Insulate everyones attic in America.

Start a war time shift from oil!!! It will placate the global warming crowd too.

Posted by: James Martel at June 20, 2007 7:32 PM

"oil dependency fueling islamic terrorism"???
LOL...and "flies cause garbage", too.
Case-in-point why he's no longer at the CIA, either.
LOL

Posted by: jcom972 at June 20, 2007 7:54 PM

Oil is both the Middle East's economic engine and its Achilles' Heel. We can seize the oil fields and impoverish our enemies at the same time. (Two good things.)

1,500,000,000 goatherds are no threat to the West.

Posted by: Havoc at June 20, 2007 7:55 PM

I've always wanted a bumper sticker to say "Every gallon of gas is fuel for the global jihad"

In fact, Woolsey does have a Prius with a bumper sticker that reads. "Bin Laden hates this car"

Posted by: jihadwatcher at June 20, 2007 8:24 PM

Havoc,

Seizing the oil fields --instead of waiting for some kockamamie alternative fuel bullsh*t to play itself out--is an immediate and best solution.

The Saudi ones, the Iraqi ones (definitely, those Illegitimates owe us, and owe us, and owe us, plenty), and if Iran makes warlike noises, cut off their gasoline supply.

Anyway, no chance of any of that with what we have leading this "great nation*" is nil.

[*once and future great nation?]

Posted by: unicorns62000 at June 20, 2007 8:26 PM

I've always wanted a bumper sticker to say "Every gallon of gas is fuel for the global jihad"

In fact, Woolsey does have a Prius with a bumper sticker that reads. "Bin Laden hates this car"

Actually, the fuel consumed in the manufacturing of a Prius far outpaces the energy savings in the use of a Prius.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/06/04/EDGI7Q63U01.DTL

A more realistic solution is to limit our use of oil for vehicles. Nuclear and natural gas can meet non-vehicular requirements. If we limit oil consumption to vehicles and drill for more oil in the Gulf and ANWAR, we wouldn't need to import any oil.

Posted by: JSobieski at June 20, 2007 9:02 PM

For a contrary view, see
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf

Posted by: JSobieski at June 20, 2007 9:09 PM

Woolsy's statements are absolutely true but do not go far enough. Petroleum dollars going into the Muslim world are not the entire story of the western world's support for the growth of Islamic terrorism. Huh? See below-

As Bat Ye'or points out in "EURABIA" the EU has invested billions and billions of Euros in the Muslim world and is now chained to Islam economically as a result. Europe will not be able to change course immediately, asit has too much money invested in Islamic dictatorships. The EU will probably attempt to placate the Muslim governments around the world whether or not the United States approves (and it may do it behind the US's back too).

This problem with Europe cannot be overlooked since the EU directly pours billions into Arab dictatorships that openly sponsor terrorism and the result has been Islamic terrorism metastasizing globally.

Eliminating petroleum dollars going into the Muslim world is a very important step that must be taken!! Do not misread me. But unless the EU gets its Euros out of these countries it will not be enough. Islamic terrorism will continue to find substanatial economic support from the EU to continue its fostering of global mayhem and murder and its path towards the establishment of an Islamic caliphate.

The EU MUST be held accountable for its financing of Islamic terrorism over the past 4 decades. And appropriate action must be taken to EU get monies out of the Muslom world. This is as important as eliminating petro-dollars going into the Muslim world. That is if we want to see Islamic terrorism eliminated on the world stage. (And who doesn't)?

Posted by: pythagoras at June 20, 2007 9:10 PM

Woolsy's statements are absolutely true but do not go far enough. Petroleum dollars going into the Muslim world are not the entire story of the western world's support for the growth of Islamic terrorism. Huh? See below-

As Bat Ye'or points out in "EURABIA" the EU has invested billions and billions of Euros in the Muslim world and is now chained to Islam economically as a result. Europe will not be able to change course immediately, asit has too much money invested in Islamic dictatorships. The EU will probably attempt to placate the Muslim governments around the world whether or not the United States approves (and it may do it behind the US's back too).

This problem with Europe cannot be overlooked since the EU directly pours billions into Arab dictatorships that openly sponsor terrorism and the result has been Islamic terrorism metastasizing globally.

Eliminating petroleum dollars going into the Muslim world is a very important step that must be taken!! Do not misread me. But unless the EU gets its Euros out of these countries it will not be enough. Islamic terrorism will continue to find substantial economic support from the EU to continue its fostering of global mayhem and murder and its path towards the establishment of an Islamic caliphate.

The EU MUST be held accountable for its financing of Islamic terrorism over the past 4 decades. And appropriate action must be taken to EU get monies out of the Muslom world. This is as important as eliminating petro-dollars going into the Muslim world. That is if we want to see Islamic terrorism eliminated on the world stage. (And who doesn't)?

Posted by: pythagoras at June 20, 2007 9:11 PM

In a prior post I stated that Islamic immigrants should be considered on a par with the Communists. Glad to see Woolsey agrees, and he's sharp in realizing that a lot of people have difficulty in so categorizing it because Islam is a religion, misunderstanding its political dimension.
As for energy conservation, dream on folks. It ain't gonna happen. We're going to have to send the troops in to take the oil away from the Muslims should things continue to deteriorate.

Posted by: jewdog at June 20, 2007 9:17 PM

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

The report, and a specific defense of the 100,000 mile amoritization for the Prius.

Posted by: JSobieski at June 20, 2007 9:20 PM

I would remind Woolsey that islam teaches first degree murder against the unbelievers via the Kuran and its verses.

There are no real constraints on this. Especially with regard to jihad warfare. Furthermore, Islam institutionalizes murder, teaches conspiracy to commit murder, and generally Muslims believe what they are taught and carry it out.

The Kuran alos teaches Muslims to cover up their beliefs to slaughter the unbelievers, so many civilizations and cultures that are targeted for extermination by Islam (and who have been exterminated by Islam in fact) never saw what was coming until it was too late.

First degree murder is a capital crime in the US and all western democracies. So too is conspiracy to commit first degree murder. Then there is teaching people to commit these crimes which is also a crime under US law.

The US government fell down on the job letting Muslims come to the USA. It's that simple.

Islam violates many critical US laws and it violates the US constitution in many ways (as with cruel and unusual punishment--how many cruel and unusual punishments are there in Islam that you can think of I can think of at least seven). American people need PROTECTION from Islam and its murderous doctrines! As does the rest of the world.

The US federal government has lately shown a grave in ability to enforce its existing laws as we have seen repeatedly with the illegal immigration problem. Unless our government learns to do its job, then we are all in trouble.

Posted by: pythagoras at June 20, 2007 9:27 PM

Pump ALL the oil out and put it in storage tenks in the U.S., Canada & England. Do not pay 1 penny for it, Should keep the legal residents of those countries busy building storage tanks and refineries for a long time.

Posted by: ooddballz at June 20, 2007 9:34 PM

The United States does need to severely reduce our need for foreign energy. But not for the reasons that would seem so obvious. The fact is the world is running out of oil, sooner or later.

I don't believe that drastically reducing our dependence on foreign energy will solve the worldwide Jihad. Why? Because we would also need to simultaneously reduce our need of foreign imports of products, mainly from China and India.

The fact is as we reduce our imports of foreign oil other nations that are trying to secure oil resources such as China And India will step up and purchase those commodities as they are needed to fuel their booming economies mainly because of increased demand for those products in the West.

Even if OPEC were to except the Chinese Yuan for payment of oil OPEC could still buy back US dollars from China if needed because China holds over 1 trillion US dollars. But OPEC as of now is flush with US dollars. Using the Yuan to buy Chinese military hardware would probably be easier.

Without simultaneously reducing foreign imports of oil and manufactured goods its a catch 22.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Posted by: havekoranwilltravel at June 20, 2007 10:56 PM

Well, when this inner spiritual struggle becomes a real war, those oil fields will be ours anyway. After all, infidels built them. The Arabs didn't know oil from Shinola until we told them what that black smelly stuff was.

If the US never imported one ounce of Arab oil, there are enough countries without oil deposits to provide the revenue necessary to finance the current resurgence of Islam. How much of a reduction in total Arab income would have been realized with an energy independent US? Would it have made a difference? I do not think so.

From a technological standpoint, reducing the US demand for oil by a significant amount, say 20 percent in the next several years is not achievable, maybe in another generation. The technology is not there. I feel that I must remind everyone of the significant strides in thermal efficiency we have made since 1970.

I am going to tell you again that a 2004 Taurus gets twice the fuel mileage as a six banger 1965 Mercury Comet; and that is typical of all automobiles. Who wants one of those three wheel Messerschmitt cars?

The environnentalists have us by the sensitive parts. Forget nuclear, coal, or hydro-electric power. If oil gets high enough, we will see more shale oil, that is if the Demmicrats will let us. I live in the East, don't try to sell me that white elephant known as solar and wind energy.

Posted by: Pelayo at June 20, 2007 11:00 PM

MultiCulturalism has prevented Islam from being exposed to the light of day.

The Muslims are extracting a price for the World giving Israel back to the Jews.

The Imps of the Devil are hard at play.

On a previous thread there was mention of Muhammad's Mother referring to her Son as the Devil. If this be true, then who is the Real Prophet?

Mothers know their Children.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at June 20, 2007 11:17 PM

Actually, the fuel consumed in the manufacturing of a Prius far outpaces the energy savings in the use of a Prius.

Actually, no. If you read the article, it actually comes to the opposite conclusion. But the salient point in all of this is that with a Prius you are not funneling money into Saudi Arabia. Incidentally, the energy to make a product may come from a coal-fired factory, or a nuclear power plant, but the gas that goes in your Hummer very likely comes from a muslim country. In any event, energy efficiency is not the crux of the matter for us jihadwatchers, nor was it the inspiration for the bumper sticker that graces Woolsey's Prius, but, rather, keeping our dollars away from Saudi Arabia, by not buying the gas made from their oil.

Posted by: jihadwatcher at June 20, 2007 11:54 PM

I have a couple of comments.

Some folks have wondered why feminists don't speak out more about the plight of Muslim women in the Third World. The answer is that they used to, back in the 1990s. In fact, Western feminists were calling attention to how the Taliban were mistreating Afghan women long before Jihad Watch existed.

But the election of Bush, and his decision to go to war in Afghanistan after 9-11, changed all that. Feminists absolutely despise social conservatives like Bush because of the abortion issue, and wouldn't be caught dead being on the same side with Bush on anything. Secondly, Bush's bombing of Afghanistan deeply fractured the feminist movement and there were big arguments at the National Organization for Women as to what to say. There were indeed some feminists who believed the Taliban deserved what they got. But feminists also tend to be leftists, and leftists tend to be peaceniks, and that wing won the day. A splinter group, the Feminist Majority, formed and consists of some of the former type like Eleanor Smeal, and they do speak out occasionally--check their website. But the larger National Organiztion for Women has adopted the "Peace Is a Feminist Issue" leftist talking-point.

I believe that Western feminists would speak out more about the issue if they were generally supportive of the U.S. in other areas. Right now, with a social conservative and foreign policy hawk in the White House, they're not. They are part of a coalition of left-wing groups that works within the Democratic Party almost exclusively.

As for the energy issue: Except for the Texans and the Wall Street Journal (which wrote a brazen editorial last year entitled "Ode to Oil," which "reminded" us of how wonderful oil is), everybody agrees we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The problem is that for 30 years, America hasn't reached a consensus on how to do that.

On the one side you've got liberals who are simply allergic to the production side of the equation: No matter what you propose--drilling, nuclear power, hydroelectric, anything--some of them will oppose it. Even Senator Ted Kennedy opposed a wind farm in his native Massachusetts. They wave around solar energy like it's pie in the sky until you demand to know exactly where and how the solar collectors (or any other alternative energy) will be built.

On the other, more conservative side, you've got Americans who not only want energy but they want it cheaply. If America switches to any other form of energy, the infrastructure to deliver it has to be built and the existing industrial plant and vehicles will have to be gradually replaced. So any switch is temporarily suboptimal. Sorry, folks, anybody who tells you you can switch to alternative fuels and still pay no more at the pump to fuel your car than you do now is lying. Eventually as we gain experience, the cost will come down. But initially no. And Americans will complain every time the price of gasoline rises a lousy 10 cents a gallon.

So America remains stuck. And it will stay that way until one political party wins enough of a convincing landslide that it can steamroll over the opposition. We haven't had a real landslide election in this country since the 1980's. It was that landslide that gave Reagan the leverage he needed to get a lot of stuff done.

Posted by: Steven L. at June 21, 2007 2:57 AM

Woolsey quit the Clinton Administration as I recall because Clinton would never meet with him. That led to that great 007 guy George "Its a slam dunk" Tenet taking over the CIA.

Scanning the 9/11 report it does not look like the 9/11 Commission even interviewed Woolsey. A deliberate omission of possibly embarrassing testimony?

Letters to the White House and Congress demanding a Manhattan project coal-to-gasoline seem to always fall on deaf ears. There is a lot of Arab money floating around Washington for many things besides mosques and madrassas - you can bet they are squashing any attempt at a Manhattan Project with lots of "walking around" money here and there.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at June 21, 2007 3:05 AM

There was an article in the UK a couple of weeks ago about alternative fuels, i'm no expert but it simply came down to this.... the car manufacturer insisted it had the technology to build these vehicles but it was upto the government to place the infrasructure (refuelling points etc). They had a car that ran on a fuel cell for 120 miles before it needed topping up and the only exhaust was water and CO2, and a lorry that could go 300 miles before refuelling i think. I'll see if i can find the article and post a link.

Posted by: Demvaril at June 21, 2007 5:46 AM

Jihadwatcher:

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

Posted by: JSobieski at June 21, 2007 11:44 AM

The oil dependency issue is one where many are afraid to take a meaningful stand, and I think that is a big mistake for the anti-Jihad forces.

One of the strength's of Robert Spencer's books has been the repeated calling for a Manhattan project for energy independence and a repeated recognition of America's energy insecurity to empowerment of foreign Jihadists.

An issue that some anti-Jihadists are not taking on directly, however, are energy conservation measures in the interim.

I believe in putting my money where my mouth is on this issue. So months after the 9/11 attacks, I obtained a hybrid automobile to replace my existing car, and I have exclusively been driving hybrid automobiles for the past 5 years (when I am not using public transportation).

I also created a web site to inform the public on such matters:
http://www.driving-out-terrorists.com

While we are waiting for the Manhattan Project for energy independence (and we should be making this a priority with our political viewpoints), we as individuals against Jihad can do something about it in the meantime. And of course, there is also ethanol options, electric vehicles, public transportation, etc.

I think those who are leaders in the anti-Jihadist movement should be aggressively speaking out on America's oil dependency, and more importantly, setting an example for others. It is important that the American public does not forget that our failed energy policy is also a contributor to global jihadism.

We need more people in power and influence to stand up and speak out on this issue. And that also means expecting tough choices from our leaders. In my mind, I can't correlate being anti-Jihadist and anti-Islamist with tolerance of gas-guzzling in America. And I have personally done something about it myself. Now if we could only get many millions of other Americans to take a step on this....

But I think it is important that anti-Jihadist leaders take a strong (and admittedly unpopular) stand on this.

Jeffrey Imm
UnitedStatesAction.com
Driving-Out-Terrorists.com

Posted by: jeffreyimm at June 21, 2007 12:54 PM

This expert must be an inverted genius, it should be obvious to every homo sapiens that the US with every barrel of oil purchased, financing its own destruction. I came to this conclusion ten years ago all by myself and I am just a dirt poor uneducated mexican tequilla farmer.

Posted by: hemoglobin at June 21, 2007 10:19 PM