Posted on 05/10/2007 9:16:01 AM PDT by K-oneTexas
Al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea -- and Global Warming Democrats assess the threats to U.S. national security.
By Byron York
What a difference an election makes. Today the House of Representatives will debate whether global warming is so serious a threat to American national security that the Director of National Intelligence, normally busy with issues like al Qaeda, Iranian nuclear research, and North Korean missiles, should be ordered to put aside other projects to create a special National Intelligence Estimate on climate change. So far, majority Democrats have pushed the proposal through the House Intelligence Committee — on a party-line vote — and there is a good chance it will become part of the final intelligence authorization bill passed by Congress.
“Climate change can have a serious impact on military operations and exacerbate global tensions,” says Democratic Rep. Sylvestre Reyes, the intelligence committee chairman, pointing to a report by a group of retired high-ranking military officers who recommend taking global warning into account in national-security strategy.
Republicans disagree. Their objection is not a denial of global warming, nor even an argument that some claims made about climate change, most notably by former Vice President Al Gore, are exaggerated. Rather, the GOP objection is that many other agencies inside the U.S. government are studying climate change, and there is no pressing need for the CIA to join in. “Why would it be in an intelligence bill?” asked committee ranking Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra in an appearance on C-SPAN Wednesday morning. “What added value does the intelligence community add to this debate?”
The question is particularly acute, Republicans say, because the intelligence agencies are already stretched by the war on terror. Citing Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, Hoekstra added, “Do we really want to start diverting resources from those threats to global warming?”
Hoekstra and other Republicans worry that Democrats want to return intelligence policy to a time in the 1990s when the Clinton administration established what was known as the DCI Environmental Center within the CIA. The Center used satellite spying resources to track environmental matters. “They took pictures of volcanoes and sea turtle nests and took air samples of air pollution, as opposed to checking for traces of biological or chemical weapons, and it was all done at the behest of Al Gore,” says one Republican knowledgeable about intelligence affairs.
Former CIA director George Tenet mentions Gore’s environmental emphasis in his new book, At the Center of the Storm. “True to his interests, [Gore] had a fascination for wonkish issues,” Tenet writes. “He asked lots of questions about the impact on national security of water shortages, disease and environmental concerns.” Tenet reveals that some inside the CIA derided Gore’s priorities as “bugs and bunnies.”
“We started allocating precious intelligence resources to environmental issues just as al Qaeda was on the upswing,” says Rep. Hoekstra. “We were becoming politically correct. My fear is that we’re going back to the same place.”
The military officers’ report points to situations like drought in Darfur and Somalia and concludes that “Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United States.” While some lawmakers, mostly Democrats, have embraced the report’s conclusions, others suggest it is more than a little overdone. “Everything’s a national security issue these days,” Scott Barrett of the International Policy Program at Johns Hopkins told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s a bit of a marketing ploy.”
But soon it could be more than a ploy; it could be national policy. At the very least, it is now the position of the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate. (A similar National Intelligence Estimate measure is pending in the Senate.) And it comes just in time for coming campaigns: If global warming is a national security issue, then Democrats, contrary to their long-time image, can claim to be very, very tough on national security.
—
Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time.
DUMocRATS just don't get it.
“retired high-ranking military officers who recommend taking global warning into account in national-security strategy.”
Guess we can assume these are not part of the “greatest generation.”
The DIMocrats WERE in charge of the Intelligence Oversight Committee BEFORE 911
GW PING!!!
The liberals are useless. And the RINOs are in the same boat. Washington, in general, has forgotten what its job is...why the voters sent them there, and who they are accountable to.
They have forgotten all of it.
Why am I not surprised?
This suggests a massive misunderstanding of both the proper role of government and the proper role of a government's "intelligence."
What is the carbon footprint of a nuclear weapon detonated in an American city?
Come people.....there’s money in Global Warming. That’s what it’s all about. Gore made something like $40 million on his movie. Do we really think that others aren’t looking at this and they will take advantage of the people that fall for this stuff.
“Democrats assess the threats to U.S. national security.”
The first thing they should look at is themselves.
DEMOCRATS ARE A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY!!!
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average
Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
###
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions.
I thought the headline read “Democratic asses ...”
So...was Byron York one of those conservative columnists who, before the 2006 elections, urged Republican voters to stay home? Amazing how many people here in FReeperland bought into their line of thinking. Always such fun to sit on one's haunches like Nero while Rome burns.
Yes, it really is remarkable what difference an election makes. Although there are exceptions, usually the worst Republican is stil better than the best Democrat.
Let’s see....Terrorism or Global Warming?, A real tough one for Democraps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.