- Schaffer vs. Udall
- View From A Height
- Thinking Right
- Mt. Virtus
- Rocky Mountain Right
- Slapstick Politics
- Daily Blogster
- Hugh Hewitt
- Hot Air
- Fox News
- Real Clear Politics
- Rocky Mountain News
- Denver Post
- Debka Files
- Talking Points Memo
The Senate Race
Rocky Mountain Alliance of Blogs, 2.0
My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.
|Ah, The Democrats--Both Frivolous AND Dangerous|
This is the kind of stuff that, if it got wider coverage, would just make people LAUGH and LAUGH.
The House next week will consider the Democrat-crafted Intelligence Authorization bill, which includes a provision directing an assessment of the effects that climate change has on national security. . . .
Intelligence panel Chairman Silvestre Reyes, Texas Democrat, said the climate-change study is one of several shifts his party has made to intelligence policy.
"We're concerned that global warming might impact our ability to maintain national security," he told The Times, describing the idea as "cutting edge."
"We want to get feedback from the intelligence community to understand if there are possible global issues," Mr. Reyes said, noting the change was on the advice of "several former military commanders."
I'm not really sure any comment is necessary.
But that's never stopped me before.
THIS is the seriousness with which the Democrats take national security. BE VERY CLEAR HERE: in a post 9-11 age, after which we all learned how dismal both the performance and the resources devoted to intelligence have been for 30 years, to divert ANY money away from gathering intel on the people who want to kill us quickly and in huge numbers is irresponsible. There is simply no excuse for this committe to do anything other than bang the drum for more resources to catch al-Qaeda and track our enemies around the world.
You would think this would be a no-brainer for the Democrats, also. After managing to overcome their perceived weakness on national security to sweep into power last November, they could have done much to shore up their credentials by properly managing some of these key committees. At the very least, they could have said that our intel was so bad that the President got duped into an unwinnable ar in Iraq, so we need to devote whatever resources are necessary to make sure this never happens again. And, in the meantime, we need to tend to the areas of the world that the President has neglected for too long.
But no, they choose to devote intelligence resources to global warming.
How funny would it be if the CIA comes back and concludes that there is a.) no appreciable security threat to the U.S. from glaciers melting in Antarctica, and b.) only dubious evidence of world-wide global warming at all.?
And when the intelligence community comes back with an assessment of "grave peril" from global warming, how exactly, given their recent track record, are we to put any weight on their assessment?