1) Clean, renewable energy to get us off the foreign oil addiction, ie, Saudi, Venezuelan, and Mexican oil.
American oil usage as addiction. Classic left wing bumper sticker thought processes not worth responding to. Solar and Wind power are pure science fiction alternatives to petroleum, period. Beyond the obvious and known drawbacks to both, there is no possibility of using either on a mass scale. Wind, beyond small (read personal) applications is a no brainer. Solar may be cost effective and practically efficient in a few decades, but the technology is not near that level yet.
2) Local drilling.
Yes, massive drilling everywhere there is oil, in Alaska, of the pacific coast, of the Florida coast, and reopen as many wells on the continent closed in the seventies as possible.
3) Embargoes on the Islamic Bloc until they make social reforms that place them on equal footing with the Free World.
Pure fantasy. Its never going to happen except by sheer brute force, and that's not going to happen.
4) Dollar for dollar tax incentives to encourage Americans to outfit their homes and cars with solar, wind, and geothermal power systems.
These techoologies are not anything like cost effective or efficeint enough to make any such move. Wind and solar, in particular, are both intermittant and unreliable (depending as they do, on day to day natural processes). These are the romantic fantasies of the environmental movement, not serious proposals.
5) Investing a trillion dollars into American infrastructure that would reduce our dependency on Saudi oil, which would de-fund terror and extremism and empower us to take control of our future rather than being dependent on people who are hostile to us.
Good idea, as long as the money is private and the infrastructure is scientifically and economically sound.
6) Drastically reducing ANYTHING to do with Sharia law, ie, investment, educational grants, banking, commerce, travel, immigration, etc...
Absolutely.
Waging war is a short-term, costly, and ineffective approach to a solution that is complex and enduring.
Until you are attacked. Islamism is not the sole Saudi phenomena you make it out to be. Its all throughout the Middle East and all of it is just as deadly and just as committed as Al Quada. Mohammad Atta came into America on a Iraqi passport, and other 9/11 members passed through that country as well. Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other numerous groups are just as dangerous as Al Quada and hold to the same ideology. Your above claims are false by all historical measures. Economic sanctions and diplomatic moves not backed up by the very real threat of decisive force are worse than useless: they indicate a timidity and lack of will that to an enemy like Islamism indicates weakness, and to a people who understand and respect little more that strenght and weakness, that's an important factor.
Bush did not start this war. Saddam Hussien started it 17 years ago. Bush ended that war in 2003, but then attempted a nation building project to democratize the country and create a buffer state friendly to the west and hostile to Islamofascism. Al Quada, Islamist fighters and terrorists from other Islamic states, including Syria, Iran, the Sudan, and who knows where, plus the remnats of Saddam's Baathist thugocracy, then continued the war in an attempt to destory any chance of a democratic alternative. The Iraqi people voted in free elections decisively against them. The point? Iraq is dead center of the entire barbaric region, and a democratized Iraq would be a substantial impediment to the further gains of Islamic fundamentalism in the region. A growing economy, open society, and military presence friendly to western interests would be a big thorn in the paw for the other dictatorships in the region. Libya has already come clean about its own WMD program thanks to Bush's supposedly terrible war. Why? Out of fear, the only thing regimes such as this understand?
War worked very well in WWII in solving the problems presented by Hitler and Tojo, and it took upwards of ten years of occupation to democratize those countries. The present war is global, is going to be of long duration whether we like it or not (we cannot "end the war" with these people because they are the aggressors, and it is their choice to continue it. Our only choice is whether to respond or not) and the stakes are at least as high, if not higher, then those in either WWII or the long struggle with Socialism.
If people like you prevail shock, it is perfectly possible that we could lose this war, and that would involve consequences better left to the darkest places of men's minds.
Becoming independent of Middle Eastern oil will not stop them. Russia, China, and other eastern countries are ravenous consumers of Middle Eastern oil (China is growing by leaps and bounds, and will continue to do so in the near term). It will make us independent, which is a good thing, but will not stop terrorism or Iran's nuclear program.
They desire the total destruction of our civilization, and have made itclear that they are ready to fight for generations to see that happens.