Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (165044)	6/29/2005 8:22:19 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 281500

Bush did not desert. Cheney's deferment was legal. Cheney's post 60's record of national service is very impressive. Much more so than yours and the rest of you fat ass liberal whiners no doubt. You're all bile and no substance. Do us all a favor, dry up and blow away.... J.

To: geode00 who wrote (165044)	6/29/2005 9:01:56 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Bush's dishonesty on environment deserves impeachment _____________________________________________________ SECTION: EDITORIAL The State Journal-Register (Springfield, IL) June 27, 2005 Monday President Bush in his 2000 presidential campaign was asked about climate change and global warming. His response was that we needed more evidence before the United States could act. Several weeks ago he was asked the same question. His response was the same as in 2000. This is remarkable and somewhat ironic. Here is a president who launched a pre-emptive war based on, at best, uncertain intelligence information and as recent information (Downing Street memos, etc.) indicates, very likely based on outright deception. At the same time, the evidence for human-induced climate change is now almost universally accepted by climate scientists worldwide. More evidence of this was indicated on June 7 when a statement was released by The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and 10 other national science academies, including Brazil, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Russia and the United Kingdom. The statement called on world leaders to "acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing, to address its causes and to prepare for its consequences. Sufficient scientific understanding of climate change exists for all nations to identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reductions in net global greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming." Since taking office, the Bush administration has consistently sought to undermine the public's understanding of the view held by the vast majority of climate scientists that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are making a discernible contribution to global warming. After coming to office, the administration asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and provide further assessment of what climate science could say about this issue. The NAS panel rendered a strong opinion, which, in essence, confirmed that of the IPCC. The American Geophysical Union, the world's largest organization of earth scientists, has also released a strong statement describing human-caused disruptions of Earth's climate. Yet Bush administration spokesmen continue to contend that the uncertainties in climate projections and fossil fuel emissions are too great to warrant mandatory action to slow emissions. The Bush administration also has used deceptive and patently dishonest methods to distort the science of climate change. In one well-documented case, the Bush administration blatantly tampered with the integrity of scientific analysis at a federal agency when, in June 2003, the White House tried to make a series of changes to the EPA's draft Report on the Environment. A front-page article in The New York Times broke the news that White House officials tried to force the EPA to substantially alter the report's section on climate change. The EPA report, which referenced the NAS review and other studies, stated that human activity is contributing significantly to climate change. More recently, internal documents were made public that show that White House official Philip Cooney, who once led oil industry fights against limits on greenhouse gases, has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming. Cooney recently resigned as chief of staff for President Bush's environmental policy council and will go to work for Exxon Mobil this fall. Such unethical conduct at the highest levels of the Bush administration must be publicly denounced by all responsible government leaders regardless of political preferences. Such actions undermine the essence of scientific credibility but seem to fit the pattern of unethical behavior of this administration. According to a report commissioned by the Pentagon and obtained by media outlets in February 2004, "An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately." This report did not even make the front pages of our newspapers. The United States is the biggest producer of greenhouse gases. But the United States and Australia are the only major developed countries not to sign on to an international treaty, called the Kyoto Protocol, that calls for participating countries to cut emissions to 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The Senate endorsed President Bush's global warming policies last Tuesday, approving a measure that avoids mandatory reductions of heat-trapping pollution while still boosting government support for cleaner energy. Republicans rallied around this measure offered by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., that would rely on voluntary industry measures to slow the growth of heat-trapping emissions. But it is headed for a collision with the version passed by the House and supported by the White House. The House bill instead emphasizes increasing the supply of carbon-based fuels like oil and gas, which of course would only further increase climate change problems. We have had years of voluntary measures, and they have proven to be a complete failure. I wonder if President Bush would have settled for voluntary measures in dealing with the illusory weapons of mass destruction that was the basis of his invasion of Iraq. There is very credible scientific evidence on the potential catastrophic effects of climate change that our president chooses to ignore or worse yet, to cover up. I suggest that this dishonesty overwhelms the dishonesty charges that were the basis of the impeachment proceedings for President Clinton. Does G.W. Bush deserve anything less? Copyright 2005 The State Journal-Register

To: geode00 who wrote (165044)	6/29/2005 9:52:09 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

...And Thanks for a Lovely War huffingtonpost.com <<...President Bush’s speech itself, delivered on a night the Taliban claimed they shot down an American helicopter in Afghanistan (the Taliban? Didn’t we win that war?), and one that will be applauded or pilloried ad nauseam by left and right, also gave the American public nothing new. It was well-crafted though, and sure to play well with those who don’t believe America should ever lose a war, and Guns and Ammo subscribers. And of course, with those who still believe that Iraq somehow has some connection to terrorism on American soil, and that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale, cheap. So here’s a thought, Democrats. Explain to Republicans that you like a good war just as much as they do, but that this war is simply not good but more importantly can’t be made good. Not by any definition of the word good. It wasn’t good under international law, it wasn’t good when we bombed the shit out of Iraqi civilians, it wasn’t good when we started treating Iraqi prisoners as a sadist might treat a stray dog, and it isn’t good that we can’t find a way to stop some Iraqis from blowing us and their fellow Iraqis up at every opportunity. And that’s with the most powerful, well-equipped military (and best supported, judging by the amount of metallic ribbons affixed to American cars these days) that the world has ever seen. But above all, it isn’t good that we seem to have no way out of it. Is it two years or is twelve? President Bush is right in saying that “ an artificial timetable for withdrawal” would be a huge mistake. So how about a genuine, organic timetable then?...>>

To: geode00 who wrote (165044)	6/29/2005 10:59:08 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Bush to errant flock: 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 George W. Bush referred to the attacks of Sept. 11th six times in his speech on Iraq Tuesday night. Weapons of mass destruction? He didn't mention them once. What the president said about 9/11 wasn't false, exactly; White House speechwriters are better than that. The president talked about the war that "reached our shores" on 9/11, the speech that he gave after 9/11, the Americans who died on 9/11, the "lessons" that we learned from 9/11, the way that the terrorists tried to "shake our will" on 9/11 and, once again, the speech that he gave after 9/11. Bush didn't say Tuesday night that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, but he didn't have to, either. His administration has spread that phony story so many times before -- sometimes explicitly, more often through the sort of guilt-by-association game the president played at Fort Bragg -- that the president's supporters have long since internalized it. A study released in October by the Program on International Policy Attitudes found that "a large majority of Bush supporters believes that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaida and that clear evidence of this support has been found. A large majority believes that most experts also have this view, and a substantial majority believe that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission." The problem for the president heading into Tuesday night's speech: At least some of those Bush supporters aren't Bush supporters anymore. The president won re-election in November with a little under 51 percent of the vote. But according to the latest Gallup Poll, only 45 percent of the public approves of Bush's job performance now -- and even fewer, just 40 percent, approve of the way he's handling the war in Iraq. Bush needs those supporters back. Without them, his poll numbers make him look like some sort of disgraced lame duck, and Republicans like John McCain and Chuck Hagel and Lindsey Graham and Walter Jones feel not only free but maybe compelled to put some distance between themselves and the president. Bush doesn't need to get his approval ratings back to the stratospheric levels he enjoyed just after 9/11, but he's got to get them back to the 50-50 range that got him re-elected. The Bush team knows how to maneuver there: Claim a mandate, ram whatever you need through Congress, and marginalize anyone who dares to disagree. With a 53 percent disapproval rating, that dog won't hunt, at least not without a lot of gnats nipping at its knees. So yes, Harry Reid, all those references to 9/11 did remind us that Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and that al-Qaida still has the capacity to strike the United States. But Bush wasn't speaking to us Tuesday night, and he wasn't speaking to you, either. He was reminding his own supporters of what they already believe: Saddam Hussein's fingerprints were all over 9/11, and Iraq was the central front in the war on terror long before the president's failed policies turned that country into the terrorist training ground that it is today. Bush needs those supporters now, and he needs to get them back to the place where they think that anyone who disagrees with them is both out-of-touch and un-American. Karl Rove started that process last week in New York when he reminded Republicans that there are sides to be taken in America. With his speech in Fort Bragg Tuesday night -- with all those invocations of 9/11 and the Pavlovian response he's hoping to get -- George W. Bush did what he could to get Republicans back on his. -- Tim Grieve www.salon.com