Skip to content

Rep. Giffords to Petraeus: You’re Fighting Two Wars? But What About Windmills?

June 19, 2010

My latest post at NewsReal:

On Wednesday, General David Petraeus was on the Hill to brief Congress on Afghanistan. You know, that place where we are still fighting one of two wars, even though Democrats have stopped screeching that No War For Oil line ever since Obama became President. I suppose they figure that he has enough to worry about, what with busily trying to improve his golf handicap and perfecting the art of woeful incompetence and all.

Two more American soldiers lost their lives in Afghanistan today, which makes 33 killed in June so far. At the time of General Petraeus’ briefing on the Hill, the total was at 31. In addition, the Taliban is regaining strength. So, what did Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ) ask about when she got her turn to question the General?

Hey, man. What are you doing about, you know, super cool renewable energy and stuff at our bases in Afghanistan? No, really:

There are two wars being fought? But, what about Mother Earth™! The US Air Force is totally icky; they use the most energy on the entire planet! This must be taken care of, never mind the people who are fighting and dying to protect everyone else on that planet.  I’m only surprised that she didn’t suggest combat fatigues be made from hemp and that MREs be made vegan.

General Petraeus, the man behind the successful surge strategy in Iraq, is concerned with the men and women fighting under his command. He’s concerned with protecting them and with ensuring that the loss of America’s bravest is as few as humanly possible. He’s trying to win two wars. He’s concerned with actual threats to this country, not made up scams like “climate change” cured by magic windmills.

It’s not surprising, though. She must have gotten the idea from her fellow Democrat, Senator Barbara Boxer, Ma’am, who said last week that not terrorism, not wars, not potential economic collapse, but climate change will be the leading cause of conflict for the next two decades.

“I’m going to put in the record … a host of quotes from our national security experts who tell us that carbon pollution leading to climate change will be over the next 20 years the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm’s way,” Boxer said.

Islamo-fascism, the Taliban, North Korea? No big whoop. At least, nothing that some solar paneling and windmills won’t fix!

Earlier this week, another Democrat snidely suggested that there should be pre-vote skirt checks because she can’t tell if GOP women are actually women by the way that they vote.  Well, I don’t care to check for gender, because I think not being able to tell gender by a vote is a good thing. But, they make the ability to discern something else very easy for me.

I can tell one thing that they are based on the way they both vote and speak:

Damn fools.

—–

Originally posted at NewsReal:

16 Comments leave one →
  1. realitytheanticonservativedrug permalink
    June 19, 2010 3:09 am

    How the heck does ignoring renewable energy actually HELP our soldiers…?
    If anything, the more fuel and supplies that they have to transport from place to place, the more danger they are exposed to just while running their supply pipeline. So a little thing like solar power at a forward base could SAVE LIVES…!
    Not that conservatives will let a little thing like saving lives actually get in the way of their pious pretenses.

    • Lori Ziganto permalink*
      June 19, 2010 3:13 am

      Hahaha! Pious pretenses — pot, meet kettle.

    • macleod permalink
      June 19, 2010 10:51 am

      Spoken like someone who’s never been in combat and has no sense of military history. I imagine that in your head the the song ” Feelings” runs on a continuous loop. That’s the only way to explain your thoroughly dip**** comment.

    • Recovered Demoholic permalink
      June 20, 2010 12:14 am

      Dear asshat,
      That would be a question for the quartermaster corps, and not the Commander of the United States Central Command.

  2. June 19, 2010 8:47 pm

    Yes we have no bananas! Possibly the Congresswoman does not understand that a military forces` main function is to kill people and break things not to save energy and restore the planet. Surely some of these “greenie weenies” must eat a big bowlful of stupid for breakfast every day.

  3. June 20, 2010 6:48 pm

    That’s an amazing post. Thanks a lot

  4. June 20, 2010 7:47 pm

    And these people vote (“realitytheanticonservativedrug” that is).

    It does show that these people think that the 29c savings in electricity is worth more than a human life lost in this war that day. I’m glad we don’t have a moron like that as commander in chief…. oh, wait.

  5. Molten permalink
    June 21, 2010 2:24 pm

    Lori,

    You really do just write these posts of yours without doing any research at all…don’t you?

    As a fiscal conservative, I don’t see how you can miss the cost savings and national security implications of renewable energy use in the military.

    Here’s a couple of links to, and excerpts from articles that discuss how and why the military is on the cutting edge of renewable energy sources, and will likely be the catalyst for nationwide movement toward those technologies.

    FYI…President Obama’s economic stimulus package included $120 million to improve the energy efficiency of Defense installations and $300 million for military research into alternative power.

    1.) The U.S. Military and True Energy Security

    http://cleantechnica.com/2010/06/18/u-s-military-is-developing-smart-microgrids-with-solar-power/

    In some civilian circles, energy security for the U.S. simply means drilling for more oil in American soil and coastal areas, and buying less foreign oil. The military doesn’t see it that way. The Department of Defense has established a far more insightful and comprehensive approach that calls for ending reliance on fossil fuels altogether, due to their high risks for environmental and public health, their potential to create global political instability related to climate change, their role as a flashpoint for military action regardless of climate change, their expense, and above all the impact of fossil fuels on troop safety and supply logistics in the field. Because the civilian sector has failed to act, the military has adopted an explicit policy of going beyond merely meeting the requirements of existing environmental regulations, and using every constitutional means within its disposal to lead the country to a safer, saner way to harvest energy. It is beyond ironic that many of the same politicians and pundits who would otherwise profess to support our troops have instead blocked this goal at every opportunity.

    2.) Military Embraces Green Energy, For National Security Reasons

    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/26/local/me-army-green26

    When Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard took command of Ft. Irwin in 2007, he was stunned by the cost of housing troops in tents powered by generators, as they often are in Iraq and Afghanistan. A brigade of about 4,000 to 5,000 troops was spending about $3 million to rent the tents and keep the air conditioners humming during a month-long rotation, Pittard said. By building tents covered with two to three inches of insulating foam and a solar- reflective coating, they reduced the generator requirements by 45% to 75%, a technique that is now being used at some larger bases in the war zones.

    Estimates are that a $22-million investment to replace all the rented tents at Ft. Irwin with insulated, semi-permanent ones would pay for itself within nine months and could save the Army $100 million over five years, said Eric Gardner, a logistics management specialist at the base.

    The nearby Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, also in the Mojave Desert, already is powered completely by geothermal energy generated by hot water below the surface.

    In a combat zone, reducing reliance on fossil fuels can save lives, officials said. The convoys that bring fuel to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are among the most frequent targets of bombs and ambushes.

    In an often-cited memo from Iraq in 2006, Marine Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, then commander of U.S. forces in Anbar province, made an urgent request for renewable energy systems to reduce casualties and free up the troops defending fuel convoys.

    “Continued casualty accumulation exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success,” he wrote tersely.

    That same year, the Defense Department formed an Energy Security Task Force, which reports to Congress twice a year, to drive efforts to wean the military from fossil fuels. Each of the military services has also set up its own energy team.

    Why don’t you support our troops, Lori??

    • June 21, 2010 5:51 pm

      Three cheers for the Military but we still need oil(which is not a fossil fuel). Why don`t you support common sense Molten?

  6. Molten permalink
    June 21, 2010 9:41 pm

    johnnywood,

    First of all, I’m not against responsible drilling. We both know that oil companies can make their rigs safer. As long as they adhere to high saftey standards, I say drill baby drill.

    I do support common sense, that’s why I’m here. I know we’ll need oil for the forseeable future, and I hope that the abiotic theory that you reference is proven beyond a doubt to be true. It would be nice if oil was continually replenishing itself in the Earth’s mantle. There is some evidence that points in that direction, but the abiotic theory has yet to be proven, even though you speak of it as if it has been.

    Even if oil is in infinite supply, they’ve still got a lot of it, and we don’t, so it makes sense right now to do everything we can to reduce the amount of oil money we send to our enemies.

    The military knows this, and the military also knows that it’s really the best at developing these alternative energy technologies quickly. (your tax dollars at work)

    The military was key in developing cell phones, GPS, the internet, and a host of other things we take for granted today. It’s only a matter of time before they make solar and wind affordable reliable, and convenient.

    Right-wingers should embrace these new technologies now, or risk looking like they have no common sense in the near future. These energy sources will co-exist with carbon fuels for many years to come. We’d be lacking in common sense as a country if we didn’t get out in front of everyone else in research and development of these technologies.

    It’s not all about global warming. There are immediate national security issues involved that have nothing to do with climate.

    You can actually support renewable energy without compromising your distrust of climate science.

    • Snardius permalink
      June 22, 2010 4:53 pm

      Molten,
      No one can be serious about replacing hydrocarbon fuels without demanding that we begin building nuclear power plants and dams for hydro power. Solar and wind are good for suntans and powering sailboats but neither will replace cheap, abundant, efficient hydrocarbon fuel even in our great grandchildrens’ lifetimes.

      And we have more than enough oil in the US just in the Bakken Formation to stop importing from the middle east.

      Energy independence means more nuke and hydro power and using our own resources.

      • Molten permalink
        June 22, 2010 8:11 pm

        Snardius says:

        “And we have more than enough oil in the US just in the Bakken Formation to stop importing from the middle east.”

        You’re quite the optimist, aren’t you? Please provide me with a reliable link that suggests we’ll ever get close to the barrel per day count at Bakken that would allow us to “stop importing oil from the middle east.”

        Wind can do a lot more than just power sailboats.

        This is from The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and The National Renewable Energy Laboratory February 2010 assessment of current U.S. wind resources.

        In 2009, the U.S. wind industry added nearly 10,000 megawatts (MW) of new capacity, enough to power the equivalent of 2.4 million homes or generate as much electricity as three large nuclear power plants. The wind turbine fleet in place at year’s end—over 35,000 MW—is enough to power the equivalent of some 9.7 million homes, and that number is increasing at the rate of a million homes every five months.

        You can’t stop it, Snardius…you may as well get used to it, and try to appreciate it.

        There’s been a few breakthroughs in both thermal and photovoltaic solar technology in recent years also, Solar is definitely in the mix.

        Both solar and wind are good for our economy, they address national security concerns, and they’re environmentally friendly and renewable. What’s not to like?

        Nuclear, hydro, geothermal…yes, yes, yes…we should be doing it all.

        Don’t forget about hydrogen, there is one energy source that is essentially infinite, it’s readily available worldwide, and it produces no carbon byproducts. The source of that energy is seawater, and the method by which seawater is converted to a more direct fuel for use by commercial and military equipment is simple. The same conversion process generates potable water. Nuclear power plants will eventually clean power for converting large quantities of seawater into usable hydrogen fuel.

  7. Snardius permalink
    June 22, 2010 4:34 pm

    As someone who served in the military at a time when politicians thought they could run it better than career officers (proving they were wrong with the humiliating defeat in Vietnam) I must say that Rep. Giffords embodies the breathtaking ignorance of the average liberal politician. How do these people get into office?

    Constipated by her ideology, she seems incapable of assembling a thought or idea remotely consistant with the reason Gen. Patraeous is present except to pander to her equally ideologically stove-up constituents.

    • Molten permalink
      June 22, 2010 8:17 pm

      When did politicians stop thinking that they can run the military better than career officers? They don’t call him the Commander in Chief for nothing.

  8. January 12, 2015 11:11 am

    I like the helpful info you supply on your articles. I will bookmark your blog and test once more
    here regularly. I’m fairly certain I’ll learn many new stuff proper here!

    Best of luck for the following!

  9. January 12, 2015 12:11 pm

    I used to be recommended this blog by way of my cousin. I am
    now not positive whether this post is written through
    him as no one else recognise such unique about my trouble.
    You are wonderful! Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: