It's apples and Cadillacs ...

... that's what I so frequently say. It's a quote from a Soprano family cappo.

Before I get to that - the NY Times above the fold headline: "Security Improvements In Baghdad For Real." With accompanying pictures, and admissions that at least 20,000 displaced residents have returned to their neighborhoods thus far. Now, lets avoid the "Titus urge" to lunge into a rant about how Rummy should of, could of, would of done better and achieved this earlier had he gone in with more forces and more versatile weaponry to begin with -we've covered that - and just acknowledge just how WELL things must be going if the Times is forced (and undoubtedly they waited until it could no longer be ignored) to print such positive news in Iraq. And to Col. Oliver North's credit, he noted more than a year ago that if you control the violence in Baghdad, you control the perception of how the war is going. I'm sure that idea was not singularly his, but I happened to hear him say it long before the surge was even proposed.

To the last post .... I assume your point, Titus, was that if the administration, or the US govt in general, would embrace, i.e. compromise, on some of the "Algorian" so called "environmental reforms" that we would engender both international good will and have the added benefit of becoming less dependent on foreign oil thus addressing national security concerns. In a word, WRONG!

The UN advocated/Kyoto/Gore "reforms" being proposed are recipes for US economic disaster. And I think (my opinion) that it's no coincidence. The level of anti US (and to an extent anti-Semitic) sentiment within the gaggle of thugs and despots known as the UN, desires with these reforms to do nothing more than level the economic playing field in their eyes. The US is the strongest and most powerful economic engine in this race, and everybody knows it - being "on top" has its price, and being "liked" is often a casualty of being #1. That may sound simplistic, but it's accurate. And keep in mind, we ARE liked. The rest of the world worries about being in our good graces, not the other way around. Conservative, or moderate-right chief executives have been elected in Canada, Germany, Australia, FRANCE, and we have "war on terror" ideological allies in the UK - ALL during Bush's tenure. And that has less to do with his leadership in the war on terror, and more to do with his tax cuts and the economic force that the US is, causing it to be very costly not do business with the US. Sarkosy, the president of France addressed congress recently ....

The United States and France remain true to the memory of their common history, true to the blood spilled by their children in common battles. But they are not true merely to the memory of what they accomplished together in the past. They remain true, first and foremost, to the same ideal, the same principles, the same values that have always united them...

... Upon first meeting Washington, Lafayette told him: "I have come here to learn, not to teach." It was this new spirit and youth of the Old World seeking out the wisdom of the New World that opened a new era for all of humanity.

... America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who—with their hands, their intelligence and their heart—built the greatest nation in the world: "Come, and everything will be given to you." She said: "Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent." America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance.

Here, both the humblest and most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. That's what constitutes the moral value of America. America did not teach men the idea of freedom; she taught them how to practice it. And she fought for this freedom whenever she felt it to be threatened somewhere in the world. It was by watching America grow that men and women understood that freedom was possible.

What made America great was her ability to transform her own dream into hope for all mankind....

That of course is just a few excerpts ... he went on to pay homage to the US fighting man in WWI, and WWII. It was quite moving and I wish more of our leaders painted this grandiose, and accurate, portrait of our nation as Sarkosy did (http://www.nysun.com/article/66054?page_no=2).

My point is this - he went on to urge the US to "lead" in the fight on global warming. Which got standing "O's" from the democrats. BUT he said that after he lavished us in terms such as 'the greatest nation" on earth. He didn't say "we would be the greatest" if only we would compromise on the belief in man-made climate change. And what has made us great? What has fueled our military and influence in the world? The size and scope of our wealth. Compromising on consumption (the green point of advocacy) would threaten that, and thus our "greatness" as a world power.

And remember, that's from France, after all our "Kyoto rejection" (done 99-1 in the Senate by the way), all of our very necessary, while unpopular, war making, and some vicious dislike of Bush, WMD, etc. Despite all that France elects this guy - openly pro American. It, economically speaking, costs too much to be on our bad side for very long. Do you see what I am saying? The biggest international goodwill "engenderer" we have is our economy. To implement, even a compromised version, that which Gore et al are advocating would harm our biggest asset. You want to see our allies running for cover every time we make a "controversial" decision, make doing business with the US in order to be successful as a nation, optional. Then we are up that famous creek with no arms, let alone a paddle.

And you're coming at this from the wrong direction. How many, if polled, of the American voting populous believes in man induced global warming? Lets say you get a few Republicans to say yes, and a few Democrats to say "no", and you end up with about half. Now ask if our dependency on Middle Eastern oil is a national security risk? What do you think? 90% or so would say "yes.?" THAT is the rallying point. You should be saying to the "greenies" that if they want the fringe benefits of alternative energy (in their mind a cleaner world) then they need to come on board with us, in the "national security advocacy" of alternative fuels. Not to mention - I can demonstrate unequivocally in about ten minutes that our security is at stake by importing 11.7 million barrels a day, where as there "science" is inconclusive (at best) and consensus lacking amongst our own population. Their version of compromise focuses on limiting what we consume, thus damaging our economic leadership in the world (and like China, second, according to the UN in CO2 pollution, would EVER concede to any of this compromising business). We (with the focus on security) on the other hand say "consume all you want" while we enthusiastically push forward on searching for a viable, renewable, domestic alternative. And brother, solar panels and windmills ain't gonna cut it - not for the level at which the US consumes. Furthermore, I believe that in a few years (10 to 20) science will illustrate that man made global warming is a farce. If we proceed in search of a viable fuel alternative based on that premise, then what will happen if it turns out to be a hoax? Perhaps a dry up of federal funding (and our much lauded multi-trillion dollar contract prize). At the very least there will be a decrease in our sense of urgency - and dependence on Middle eastern oil will remain unabated, now with no real enthusiasm for that to change. Where as if national security is the reasoning all along, "who cares" the feds and companies will say to the discovery that the "green science" was bogus, "that's not why we're doing this anyway." You have to concede that this is a plausible scenario. In contrast we will NOT some day discover that foreign dependency on oil was in fact "no threat" to our security.

Let's go back to China for a moment. They will never, and I mean never, concede to any compromise in any way shape or form that at all hinders their booming economic growth. At current their economy is about one-fifth of ours, with what, three times the population? If we were to implement consumption decreases - a part of any green compromise, they're emphatic about that - we will be handing them (China), non participants in that compromise, a strategic and economic advantage, which they will press hard. Suddenly in 25 years worth of this compromise their economy is four-fiths ours, with the same population (both providing the world's most lethal army), and they're dicating international policy to the world, rather than us. It's a disastrous scenario. If you go with national security, limits on consumption ceases to be a focus, and our economy hums along in the meantime while we invest financially and emotionally in a "energy moon shot" program.

What is needed, I concede, is for a GOP president (it won't be the other side) to use the bully pulpit he has to rally the country around the national security angle so that it can have the press, notoriety and flat out "fame" that global warming currently enjoys. THAT is the lynch pin. Leadership on the issue, with the reasoning of security.

Those whom advocate changing our economics and energy consumption based on global warming concerns are setting us up for real time financial ruin, and potentially (a certainty in my eyes) a lack of enthusiasm for finding more "security sound" energies in the future, by way of their "science" being debunked.

They would do well to sit at our feet with the intent to "learn, not to teach." And that goes for any future Republican president as well.
FR