In the run up to the second Iraq war, there came to light a document which came to be know as the “Downing Street Memo.” The crux of this document is that it reflected the author’s concerns that the culture in the White House at the time was such that there was only one right answer, and that answer was war with Iraq.
Intelligence estimates and analysis were feared to be colored by this culture, tuned and filtered or “cherry picked” to give the most damning possible indictments of Iraqi weapons programs, even if the evidence did not fully support such a view. To quote, “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy“.
Dissenting opinions were hushed up or buried, and the view seemed to be that since Pres. Bush had already decided in his mind to use military force, that the discussion was over, and efforts should cease to be about finding the truth, but rather, become oriented towards supporting the pre-established conclusion.
This document is often spoken of as a “smoking gun,” potential grounds for impeachment, and/or a clear revelation of the “rush to war,” demonstrating a resolve to take one certain course of action, regardless of what alternatives some naysayers might have suggested. Sadly, a great deal of this seems to have been true.
The mindset, the policies, the actions reflected in the Downing Street Memo have been used by Pres. Bush’s many ardent critics and enemies as justification for their outrage, often bordering on hatred. How COULD he just ignore evidence which didn’t support his view!? How can we trust an administration that shows itself deaf and blind to any information save for that it wants to hear!?
Fast forward to 2009.
Many quite rational and sane voices on the “Right”, and now increasingly from all walks of scientific and political life, have become open sceptics about the “incontrovertible” nature of the “evidence” supporting global warming. The science is weak, the evidence lacking, and the prophecies of doom and gloom wholly unsupportable. Yet, despite the growing volume and number of protests, there still seems to be a prevailing culture of there being only “one right answer” in many circles. There is a culture of implicit acceptance of all things global warming…as long as they paint a dark and terrible picture requiring immediate and expensive action. More and more is seems that the available intelligence is being “cherry-picked” to support the pre-established conclusion, and that which doesn’t is ignored. To quote, “the intelligence and facts [are] being fixed around the policy“.
Now, via Michelle Malkin, I wonder if we are finally being provided with Global Warming’s version of the “Downing Street Memo?”
From Ms. Malkin’s article:
The free market-based Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington (where I served as a journalism fellow in 1995) obtained a set of internal e-mails exposing Team Obama’s willful and reckless disregard for data that undermine the illusion of “consensus.”
Later on, quoting senior supervisor Al McGartland of the Environmental Protection Agency with regards to a subordinate’s report that didn’t support the desired findings:
“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”
Read the rest. It’s really quite disturbing. For all the frothing fist-waving and chest-beating of the vocal left about the Evil that was BushCheneyRumsfeldSatanHitler, for all the demands for impeachment and talk of war crimes, for all the hearfelt insistence that Bush “lied us into war,” what, I wonder, will be the response by the Left to this EPA whitewashing of evidence countering their own carefully nurtured global warming hysteria?
How many millions and billions will we spend “fighting an unjust war” against global warming? Is Barack Obama lying is into this war? Is there only one right answer in the Obama administration with respect to global warming?
The screaming Progs have long lamented the “irresponsible deficit” inflicted on the American people by Bush’s war for oil.
Yet, how many trillions of dollars are we being forced to swallow in Obama’s war AGAINST oil?
How many people will die of starvation because we are using 1/3 of our corn crop to produce ethanol rather than export as food for hungry nations? What will happen to our economy when the cost of houses doubles as they must be built to new, and very expensive…”green” standards? When our electricy costs triple because we have outlawed efficient coal-fired energy plants and refuse to embrace nuclear energy? All in the name of “complying” with an ill-considered and unsupportable global warming policy?
Many would suggest that Iraq didn’t pose a threat to the US, and so our war was illegal and immoral. I’d like to suggest that the “war on global warming” is even more unjustified, illegal, and immoral, and poses a great threat to our country than Iraq ever did, or that global warming itself ever will.