The bandwagon is filling up.  Despite the growing evidence that maybe Global Warming isn’t all the result of capitalism’s insatiable appetite for oil and our desire to read at night under Edison’s great invention, the number of politicians who take the “Inconvenient Truths” of Global Warming as gospel—the  start of some catastrophic forgone conclusion—continues to grow.  The situation—at least politically—looks eerily like 2002-2003 and the buildup to the war in Iraq.  Like those political opportunists-turned hawks (John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Hagel) who voted for the war against Iraq based on the intelligence of impending national security doom, many politicians who know nothing about the chemistry of the environment have become converts to the faith of imminent ecological doom.  Their conversion, like those hawkish opportunists of the Iraq war, may soon find that the importance of ridding the world of incandescent light bulbs is about as relevant as the WMD threat of Iraq.  Let us consider the similarities:

            Both the WMD justification for war and the ‘certified data’ that humans have caused global warming is/was based on a number of facts, quite a few assumptions, and expectations based on both.  Iraq had previously used chemical weapons, had an active nuclear weapons program, and continuously defied UN inspectors’ demands for information or access.  When inspectors found facts which hinted at any WMD program, Saddam kicked them out.  Also, intelligence from many nations concluded that Saddam’s weapons program was alive and well.  Global warming experts point to recession of glaciers, a .6 degree increase in average temperatures over the past year, and the corresponding increase in CO₂ as evidence of global warming. 

            The Iraq war and the need for urgent action on global warming were based on official statements and actions of the United Nations.  The UN passed seventeen resolutions threatening Iraq with forceful action if they did not change their ways.  Likewise, the UN board of scientists stated that Global Warming was probably due to human activity and urged the nations of the world to act. 

            Both the Iraq War and the push for carbon emissions reductions were/are considered moral imperatives.  Those who oppose either one do not love freedom, the world, and the life we live.

            Despite the assurances of either party of advocates, neither outcome is sure, nor does course of action guarantees happiness, security

             There were many reasons for ridding the world of Saddam’s regime, not the least of which was WMD.  His support for terrorists, is blatant violations of the UN-imposed cease-fire agreement, the murderous nature of Saddam and his cronies, and the oppression felt by the Iraqi people were all valid arguments for removing him from power (all of which were espoused by the opportunity hawks).  Similarly, there are many (and better) arguments for changing how we consume energy and take care of the environment.  Energy independence will take power away from belligerent regimes.  Increasing population and more crowded areas require that we re-think how we dispose of waste, network our power, and manage our resources.  Our economy relies on a readily-available source of energy not subject to the whims of other nations who dislike us, and the options are limitless. 

            As we progress with the Iraq war towards a situation that leaves that nation much better than it was under Saddam, one of the great differences between Iraq and Global Warming becomes apparent.  While the supporters of Saddam’s removal from power have stumbled towards a resolution of the conflict, the Global Warming supporters have yet to offer any type of solution to the problem.  Most Ecological prophets speak of the impending world demise, and man’s involvement in the problem, but almost none propose any solution that does more than slow down the march of warmer temperatures.  These Global Warming sirens have given us not a single solution regarding how to live in a world a degree or two warmer, and they admit that their draconian actions may very well do little to change the warming trend on earth.  So while the Hawks of Iraq presented a solution to the problem in Iraq, the carbon-haters of the world have no solution, only hysteria to match their gloomy outlook. 

            The biggest danger the Global Warming crowd faces will be if their predictions of heat and dying baby seals turns out to be yet another portion of the cycle of the earth’s ever-changing environment.  Then, not only will they look foolish, but any future calamity will be met with disbelief and disdain.  If we think George Bush took it on the chin for his stance on Iraq, just wait for the spears that Al Gore and his friends will take in the chest for their chicken little cries for a non-existent problem. 

It is a well-known fact among political junkies that Hillary Clinton is a very ‘handled’ politician.  Her campaign constantly controls the environments she appears in, refuses to let reporters that concern them ask her any questions, and strong arms many magazines when they think the coverage of their candidate might be negative.  This may work in the short term, but the Clinton campaign only robs their candidate the opportunity to grow and face challenges that will make her a stronger candidate.  Likewise, the public may tire of the candidate that never has to answer for her answers and start to distrust this “smartest woman alive” as nothing more than politician with a hollow vision and no real experience to handle the tough challenges of being President. 

            As the primary voting season nears, the ‘other’ Democratic candidates are looking to put chinks in the armor of the front runner by finally asking her questions about her positions, and highlighting the disconnects of many of them.  And as many in the nation saw in the recent debate and the aftermath, Senator Clinton’s armor may not be that thick.  The more the challengers press her, the more confusing her answers got, and the less she appeared to really be the “smartest woman alive.”  The New York drivers’ license discussion was just one of many examples where her unwillingness to take a real position left her open for cross-examination, the accusers smelled blood in the water.  No longer will the “blame Bush” response work, as it gives no vision for the future, and no insight into what the senator really believes. 

            Further disappointing for anyone wanting to know what the senator really would be like as President was her (and her campaign’s) post-debate reaction.  She and her campaign may not have exactly said, “Don’t hit me, I’m a girl!”, but that is the message that the rest of us got.  Electing an unqualified person to the White House simply because they are a woman would be hurtful at best, catastrophic at worst.  Margaret Thatcher never played any gender card to get what she wanted in politics.  She fought for what she believed in because she saw it as right, not because she felt a feminine message needed to be heard.  Our President must be able to deal with a scathing press, other world leaders who would just as soon spit on them than sit and negotiate, and the ‘piling on’ of everyone from Tim Russert and the Media to the results of the latest Zogby poll.  A woman President, whoever that woman may be, will not be able to ask for the kid glove treatment because she is the ‘more delicate gender.’ 

            The Clinton supporters who coddle their candidate and shield her from the challenges of a scrutinizing media hurt themselves, their candidate and potentially the nation as Senator Clinton never learns what it is like to have to answer hard questions.  Sure, she is severely disliked and criticized by much of the country, but that is much different than having to make an accounting for her ideas.  As the campaign progresses, and especially if she becomes the nominee for the Democrats, she would be foolish to expect that the real Presidential debates would not involve tougher questions, and that the Republican nominee would not press her on exactly what she stands for. 

            Perhaps the real reason she shuns the tough questions is because she and her party know that what she really stands for is simply unpalatable for the nation at large.  Based on some of her quotes, one must wonder whether she believes more fully in Karl Marx’ Manifesto than she does in Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration.  Mixed in with her attempts at warmth, her ‘tough’ stance on terrorism, and her criticism of Bush, she has vocalized beliefs that sound more like the positions of Politburo members than those of the Senate.  But it is hard to tell for sure, as she really is all over the place as she attempts to cover all her bases for the diversity that is our electorate.  So no one really knows who the real Senator from New York is, and we are simply left guessing about her competency, her ideals, and her ability to take a punch. 

            Good luck to the Clinton Campaign in its attempt to push their candidate of the lesser gender with unknown concrete ideas and untested leadership to the White House at a time when the nation really needs a strong President.  My guess is that if they really want to win, they are going to have to prove that she can really lead, and that she has a vision that is right for America.  Thus far their protection only weakens her chances.  She will be too weak to compete, too weak to lead under duress, and too affected by what others say of her to be effective.