Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

An article in the NY Times, Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security, deserves a special place in the annals of journalism in the service of liberal politics. The thrust of the article is that global climate change "could" cause massive geopolitical disruption in the next 20-30 years, so we need to pass John Kerry's cap-and-tax bill in September.

Here's a taste (emphasis mine):

Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.

Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.

So we must pass John Kerry's cap-and-tax bill:

This argument could prove a fulcrum for debate in the Senate next month when it takes up climate and energy legislation passed in June by the House.

Lawmakers leading the debate before Congress are only now beginning to make the national security argument for approving the legislation.

Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a leading advocate for the climate legislation, said he hoped to sway Senate skeptics by pressing that issue to pass a meaningful bill.

All of these hypothetical "could" happens would be derided as politicized fear mongering meant to push the Democratic agenda, if not for the fact that the Department of Defense included the projections in its security forecasts. If DoD thinks it's important, it can't be political, right?

Wrong, read deeper into the article, and learn that the only reason that DoD included climate change in its projections is that Democratic politicians required it to do so:

The Department of Defense’s assessment of the security issue came about after prodding by Congress to include climate issues in its strategic plans — specifically, in 2008 budget authorizations by Hillary Rodham Clinton and John W. Warner, then senators.... Although military and intelligence planners have been aware of the challenge posed by climate changes for some years, the Obama administration has made it a central policy focus.

Climate change as national security threat is a completely manufactured crisis. Democrats forced the DoD to include climate change "what ifs" in its strategic projections, then use the fact that the DoD included the projections as proof of a crisis requiring passage of the cap-and-tax bill.

I wonder what to call this?

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
All As One Now
AstroOutrage

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook