Democrats care more about global warming than security!

MonsterMark

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
9,225
Reaction score
3
Location
United States
House GOP hits shift of spy funds to study climate

By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 4, 2007

Senior House Republicans are complaining about Democrats' plans to divert "scarce" intelligence funds to study global warming.

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.

"Our job is to steal secrets," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

"There are all kinds of people analyzing global warming, the Democrats even have a special committee on this," he told The Washington Times. "There's no value added by the intelligence community here; they have no special expertise, and this takes money and resources away from other threats."

Democrats, who outnumber Republicans on the committee, blocked the minority from stripping the warming language from the bill.

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."

The panel voted 11-9 to keep the provision that directs a National Intelligence Estimate "on the anticipated geopolitical effects of global climate change and the implications of such effects on the national security of the United States," according to a Republican staffer familiar with the bill.

The study, which so far has an undetermined cost, would examine the science of climate change, among other things. Few details about its method were available, but the staffer said it would "divert already scarce resources to study the climate."

The staffer added that the U.S. already tried using intelligence resources for this purpose in the 1990s.

"There are other parts of the government better suited to doing this type of study," agreed Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican. "Our government should not commit expensive spy satellites and human intelligence sources to target something as undefined as the environment."
 
Well, if (and I say IF) Global Warming is real as "they" say it is in respects to cause and potential magnitude, it could potentially devastate future generations to come, so that would be more important to "security" in the long run. Personally, I would find other sources to fund the research instead of tapping into intelligence funds.
 
Is diverting funds away from national security programs suppose to be one of the democrat big accomplishments in the first 100 days since the 2006 election?

That’s right…the first 100 days is over.

Surprise…Surprise…the democrats lied. What’s worse is that they didn’t even attempt to accomplish anything constructive—Instead they do nothing but call for one investigation after another and continue to waste time trying to embarrass the President and exploit our troops with their idiotic political games.

Oh well, we can only hope that in 2008 they will be tossed out of office.
 
...democrat big accomplishments in the first 100 days since the 2006 election?

That’s right…the first 100 days is over....

We can only hope their next 630 days in office are as productive as the 1st 100 days.:D
 
Before you two blows your loads all over the keyboard, this hasn't passed yet(?). It's just "plans", wait until next week at least.
 
Before you two blows your loads all over the keyboard, this hasn't passed yet(?). It's just "plans", wait until next week at least.
I remember when Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and a bunch of other democrats complained about President Bush giving less federal aid to New York for security. Now, it looks like democrats are poised to go over the edge and divert funds away from national security programs, to of all things, fund there little CO2 global warming cult. Notice I say "cult", since anyone (including reputable scientists) willing to dispute the man made CO2 global warming theory stand to be ostracized, loose his/her job, and may even receive death threats. So, it looks a though ultra-left-wing liberals are now in control of the democrat party agenda. Apparently the reasoning behind possible diversion of security funds is because, according to Intelligence panel Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX):

"We're concerned that global warming might impact our ability to maintain national security," he told The Times, describing the idea as "cutting edge."

Accordingly, the Chairman and his democrat supporters propose to divert much needed resources, including spy satellites, to study global warming instead of looking for al-Qaeda and other potential threats to our national security. So now it’s clear that democrats lie every time they say they’re going to do whatever is necessary to protect our national security.

Again, all we can do is hope that by the time 2008 rolls around Americans will realize democrats (like Silvestre Reyes) should not be among those entrusted with holding the reins of our nation.
 
If the Republicans lose the white house in 08, it will be because of how bad GW has done in the eyes of 70% of americans.
 
If the Republicans lose the white house in 08, it will be because of how bad GW has done in the eyes of 70% of americans.
No, it will be because of how well the American media has lied and deceived the stupid American public.
 
Accordingly, the Chairman and his democrat supporters propose to divert much needed resources, including spy satellites, to study global warming instead of looking for al-Qaeda and other potential threats to our national security.
Jeez, some Republican makes a knee-jerk comment, and you take it as fact.

No one's suggesting we divert spy satellites away from spying in order to study global warming. This is to be a policy report on security issues only. There will be no resources devoted to climate change science. Besides, spy satellites have absolutely zero use in the study of climate anyway. We already have satellites for that.

Again, this is simply a study to look at security implications, of which there are many. The intelligence communities have done this sort of work for years, such as looking at the security implications of disease and famines. Even the Pentagon has done its own study on global warming.

What this little spat is really about is a few people (mostly Republicans) wanting to stifle any and all mention of climate change.
 
Exactly. Any President would have low approval ratings if they were pounded daily by the (liberal) mainstream media.
Blah blah blah....liberal media...blah blah blah. It must be so comforting to have a scapegoat to blame all your problems on rather than take responsibility for your own failures.
 
Blah blah blah....liberal media...blah blah blah. It must be so comforting to have a scapegoat to blame all your problems on rather than take responsibility for your own failures.
Right, like ABC, CBS, NBC, The N.Y. Times, The L.A. Times, etc don't lean to the left!
 
It must be so comforting to have a scapegoat to blame all your problems on rather than take responsibility for your own failures.

Yes, because their is nothing that the left uses as a scapegoat, or trojan horse to attach problems to that have nothing to do with said scapegoat, right? Oh wait! I forgot! The left has the "religious right"!!!!
The difference is, the claim of extreme left mainstream media bias is damn acurate, while most all claims about the "religious right" are false and inacurate (including the idea that there even is an organized religious right that influences politics in any meaningful fashion). Any objective person with all the relevant information can see this.
 
If the Republicans lose the white house in 08, it will be because of how bad GW has done in the eyes of 70% of americans.

Bush isn't running for office in 2008. people won't be voting on Bush 2008 (who can't be considered a conservative). Can I make it any more clear?
 
Any objective person with all the relevant information can see this.
You've pulled statements like this out of your ass on several occasions. Who the hell appointed you the judge of who is "objective" and who isn't? An insane person may think he's the only one who's got it together and that everyone else is nuts. Doesn't make it so. How about you just stick to presenting your case and leave the prognoses to someone else?
 
Bush isn't running for office in 2008. people won't be voting on Bush 2008 (who can't be considered a conservative). Can I make it any more clear?

You do realize that the current/outgoing cabinet reflects on the party as a whole, right? Clintons shenanigans reflected on Gore's/The Democrats in 2000, no difference.

Tis the reason the candidates continuously (it was funny) invoked Reagan's name during the GOP convention, and avoided mentioning Bush like a plague. (I think "Bush" came up once)
 
You do realize that the current/outgoing cabinet reflects on the party as a whole, right? Clintons shenanigans reflected on Gore's/The Democrats in 2000, no difference.

Tis the reason the candidates continuously (it was funny) invoked Reagan's name during the GOP convention, and avoided mentioning Bush like a plague. (I think "Bush" came up once)

Gore was the VP in the Clinton administration, so there were direct ties. None of the current canidates have any direct ties to the Bush admin. like that.
Reagan redefined conservatism. Before Reagan, the republican party was all about raising taxes. Nixon and Ford bought into Deante (I forget how it's spelled), Reagan changed all that. Reagan was a conservative, Bush isn't. Mentioning Reagan at the GOP convention is like mentioning FDR at the DNC. Both redefined their parties ideology. The canidates weren't so much trying to distance themselves from Bush as label themselves more "Reaganesque" or even "the next Reagan". This is critical to them as none of them is overly conservative.
 
I agree that Bush is no conservative in any classical sense, but I'd be curious to know your reasons for saying so.
 
Global warming

There is enough evidence to suggest global warming is occurring. General Re is taking it seriously. Charlie Munger chimed in, however, that “you’d have to be a pot-smoking journalism student to believe global warming is a threat to the existence of mankind.” :bowrofl: What matters are the dislocations that will occur due to global warming, not global warming itself. People generally like it warmer. After all, people aren’t moving from Southern California to North Dakota.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/34740?source=i_email&u=51499
 
Right, like ABC, CBS, NBC, The N.Y. Times, The L.A. Times, etc don't lean to the left!

And FOX and the Weekly Standard etc. don't lean to the right. :rolleyes:

Can't you RWWs stand up for anything without blaming the "liberal MSM"??
 
Global warming

There is enough evidence to suggest global warming is occurring. General Re is taking it seriously. Charlie Munger chimed in, however, that “you’d have to be a pot-smoking journalism student to believe global warming is a threat to the existence of mankind.” :bowrofl: What matters are the dislocations that will occur due to global warming, not global warming itself. People generally like it warmer. After all, people aren’t moving from Southern California to North Dakota.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/34740?source=i_email&u=51499

A unnatural and rapid (human caused) rise in Global Temperatures can have a serious affect on the environment, from water levels to food production as models predict. Will it wipe out mankind as a whole if true... no it won't, but it does threaten humanity. Saying "people like it warmer" as a scapegoat, is a jackass move.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top