Gingrich says war on terror is phony...

[Ripsnort]

Hmmm...well, I don't exactly agree with him on this...hell, the "Peaceful Religion" is touching just about every country these days....however, I do agree with Newt about getting off our dependency on foreign oil....

Washington — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.

A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.

• More Nation/World news
 
 
 
"None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives.

Gingrich, who led the so-called Republican Revolution that won the GOP control of both houses of Congress in 1994 midterm elections, said more must be done to marshal national resources to combat Islamic militants at home and abroad and to prepare the country for future attack. He was unstinting in his criticism of his fellow Republicans, in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

"We were in charge for six years," he said, referring to the period between 2001 and early 2007, when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. "I don't think you can look and say that was a great success."

Thursday's National Conservative Student Conference was sponsored by the Young America's Foundation, a Herndon, Va.-based group founded in the 1960s as a political counterpoint to the left-leaning activists who coalesced around the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War.

Gingrich retains strong support among conservatives and ranked fifth among possible Republican nominees behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, with the backing of 7 percent of those queried in a ABC News/Washington Post poll taken last week. The poll surveyed 403 Republicans and Republican-leaning adults nationwide and has a 5 percentage-point margin of error.

"I believe we need to find leaders who are prepared to tell the truth ... about the failures of the performance of Republicans ... failed bureaucracies ... about how dangerous the world is," he said when asked what kind of Republican he would back for president.

[crockett]

Holy **** who smacked Newt Gingrich with some common sense? I can't believe I'd ever say that I totally agree with what he said.. I think this must totally do away with any thoughts of global warming because hell must surly be freezing over.

That or has April 1st come early?

[FrodeMk3]

Well now...time to keep an eye on Newt. I'm hoping some kind of Third party, but I'd like to see the rest of his platform, if he's thinking of running.

More likely, he's trying to barge in with an "outside" nomination as a republican. Let's watch and see.

[Elfie]

A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.

I totally agree with that...totally. Hit them where it hurts the most, their pocket books. Develop viable, renewable energy sources that can replace the fossil fuels we use now. Then share that info with the rest of the world and....voila!! Those governments that support the terrorists go broke. With no money, they can't buy explosives, weapons, food etc etc. I think the terrorist problem largely goes away if this happens.

[rpm]

C'mon Rip, he's an Amerihater and you know it. That's not Karl Rove's approved position. Either you are with us, or you are against us.

[john9001]

fight terrorism, burn a gas station.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by rpm
C'mon Rip, he's an Amerihater and you know it. That's not Karl Rove's approved position. Either you are with us, or you are against us.

Somebody give Polly a cracker, he's successfully parroted his line again.

[crockett]

Originally posted by Elfie
I totally agree with that...totally. Hit them where it hurts the most, their pocket books. Develop viable, renewable energy sources that can replace the fossil fuels we use now. Then share that info with the rest of the world and....voila!! Those governments that support the terrorists go broke. With no money, they can't buy explosives, weapons, food etc etc. I think the terrorist problem largely goes away if this happens.

I said that since the beginning. If we had spent the 400 billion that we've spent in Iraq, on renewable energy. We wouldn't need oil from the middle east in 10 to 15 years.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by RetroVirus
Indeed. And that's why I don't understand guys like Lazs2 and jackl. They seem to think that a shift away from "conventional" petroleum based fuels would "cripple the US economy". I think the opposite is true. Right now, the price of oil is around $78/bbl, and the US imports 13m bbl per day. And... while demand remains high, so will the price!  But I would ask those guys

• 1) How does the US economy benefit from spending one trillion $ a day on foreign/OPEC oil?  
• 2) How would generating electricity from nuke/ethanol instead of oil "cripple the US economy"?

[/B]

I think you misread Newt. He wants to wean us off imported oil.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by crockett
I said that since the beginning. If we had spent the 400 billion that we've spent in Iraq, on renewable energy. We wouldn't need oil from the middle east in 10 to 15 years.

So have I

[crockett]

Originally posted by RetroVirus
Indeed. And that's why I don't understand guys like Lazs2 and jackl. They seem to think that a shift away from "conventional" petroleum based fuels would "cripple the US economy". I think the opposite is true. Right now, the price of oil is around $78/bbl, and the US imports 13m bbl per day. And... while demand remains high, so will the price!  But I would ask those guys

• 1) How does the US economy benefit from spending one trillion $ a day on foreign/OPEC oil?  
• 2) How would generating electricity from nuke/ethanol instead of oil "cripple the US economy"?

[/B]

Well in reality, it might actually cripple our economy. However it's going to happen sooner or later, so IMO it's best to have it happen at the time of our picking.

I don't think it will affect our economy in the way you are thinking though. The dollar is currently backed by oil. That's what gives the dollar it's value at this point.

Any oil that is sold anywhere in the world is sold first in dollars. That is the very reason the US dollar has been the world's currency and been stable for so long. Eventually this will change, sooner or latter oil will be sold in Euros or Yuan. Once that happens the dollar will no longer be the world's currency and we will likely be in trouble if we aren't ready for it.

That's why I say it's best we pick the time and place for this to happen, so we are ready for it and it happens on our terms. IMO the sooner we are ready the better.

Can you imagine what would happen if we had to start buying oil in Euros because the dollar's value had failed? That would bankrupt this country in a heartbeat. The current way of doing things , by backing the value of the dollar by oil, is going to really hurt this country if things don't change.

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by crockett
Well in reality, it might actually cripple our economy. However it's going to happen sooner or later, so IMO it's best to have it happen at the time of our picking.

I don't think it will affect our economy in the way your are thinking though. The dollar is currently backed by oil. That's what gives the dollar it's value at this point.

Any oil that is sold anywhere in the world is sold first in dollars. That is the very reason the US dollar has been the world's currency and been stable for so long. Eventually this will change, sooner or latter oil will be sold in Euros or Yuan. Once that happens the dollar will no longer be the world's currency and we will likely be in trouble if we aren't ready for it.

That's why I say it's best we pick the time and place for this to happen, so we are ready for it and it happens on our terms. IMO the sooner we are ready the better.

Can you imagine what would happen if we had to start buying oil in Euros because the dollar's value had failed? That would bankrupt this country in a heartbeat. The current way of doing things , by backing the value of the dollar by oil, is going to really hurt this country if things don't change.

People are so afraid of free market fluctuations, that they think any fluctuation will cripple the economy.

When the reality is that it is socialism that has already crippled us.

[Suave]

What was it that convinced you that global warming was a real and pressing problem?

Oh, I think the weight of evidence over time [convinced me] that it's something that you ought to be careful about. As a conservative, I think you ought to be prudent, and it seems to me that the conservative approach should be to minimize the risk of a really catastrophic change.

We've had three administrations: one early, and maybe not technology there yet; a second administration that reportedly knew everything about global warming; and now we've got another administration that has been saying all along that it's not a problem. Why do you think we have had three administrations who have not been able to deal with this issue on the federal level?

Because the left insists on pain, and the right insists on avoidance, and you've had no real leadership that says there's a positive, economically rational, science-and-technology way to solve this that makes your life better, not worse, and gives you more options, not fewer. ...

Is it because there are institutional impediments? I'm talking the oil and gas lobbies.

No, I think it's intellectual. I think that we're right at a tipping point where you could begin to imagine the development of an entirely new generation of systems; where you had a combination of a carbon cap with a trading system; you had prizes for the invention of major breakthroughs; you had incentives for investing in the new breakthroughs and accelerating their use and their development. And you could imagine a world 15 years from now that is dramatically greener than the world we're currently in.

But what you have is: People on the right know they're against regulation, and they're against taxation, and they're against bigger government, so they don't want to think about it because the only answers they ever see are things they hate. People on the left know the environment's important, but their answers are all regulation, taxation and litigation. So you're caught in this gridlock.

The average American, in fact, wants a healthy environment, but they also want a healthy economy. And the average American would like their political leadership to figure out a solution which is economically rational, environmentally favorable, and which leads to the creation of a better future using better science and technology to give them more choices and a higher quality of living.

[Blooz]

Translation :

I've invested heavily in these new technologies to diversify my portfolio and am quite certain that if we can convince the general population that there is an environmental problem I can hedge my bets and reap a whirlwind as my stocks go through the roof.



I'd love it if Newt made a bundle. I just wish it didn't have to come out of my pocket.

It just doesn't read like Newt.

I think someone slipped some LSD into his Rice Crispies.

[USRanger]

Bush & Cheney have waaayy too much personal money involved in foreign oil.  If you look at how much the Bush/Cheney families rake in from their oil ties, compared to their government salaries, you'll see who they are gonna look out for in the long run.  I think every President has ties to some kind of big business.
We just need the next few to be tied to American big business, if that's even possible now.  I believe it will take at least 2 Presidential terms ONCE they get serious about changing our ways, to really see any kind of change in the American daily life, energy wise.  

    I just saw a commercial by BP 5 minutes ago saying they have invested 50 billion in researching alternative energy sources.  Of course, the commercial doesn't say the length of time than money has been spent.  Hell, they could be talking about the last 30 years, but they imply with the visual images that they are spending billions & billions of dollars on it RIGHT NOW.

    I try to remain apolitical.  I believe most politicians are vermin who sell their souls and votes to their special interest buddies, and really couldn't give a damn if we ever change the way this country operates, as long as those checks keep coming in, and I don't mean the one's signed by Uncle Sam.