Skip to comments.
Rush: Fleischer Flips Back, White House Realigns With EPA Warning Report
Rush ^
| Rush
Posted on 06/06/2002 6:44:44 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
y friends, the plot thickens. During Wednesday's program, the White House again shifted their position on the EPA global warming report that has been discussed extensively on this program and subsequently throughout the rest of the media. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tuesday, the president, while at the National Security Agency, was asked about the EPA report, and he said that he read the report by the bureaucracy, and then affirmed his position against the Kyoto Protocol, which states, among many other things, its prominent claim that human activity is responsible for global warming. So, it was assumed by the press corps that he was not accepting that since he was against the Kyoto protocol.
But then on Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was asked the following question. Here's a partial transcript:
REPORTER: Since the president addressed greenhouse gases, but not specifically global warming, does the president agree with the conclusion that human activity is likely the cause of global warming?
FLEISCHER: That's what the president said in his speech in June.
REPORTER: Exactly. He does agree with that?
FLEISCHER: When the president cites the National Academy of Sciences saying that the National Academy of Science indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity, I don't know how the president could say it more specifically than that.
REPORTER: So he hasn't changed his mind at all?
FLEISCHER: No. The bottom line for the president is, number one, he has made a proposal that he believes is a proposal that not only can reduce the problem of greenhouse gases and global warming, but it also protects the American economy, so the American economy can lead the world in technological and scientific advances that also have an effect in reducing pollution.
The president has said, citing the National Academy of Sciences, that the increase is due in large part to human activity. The president has also continued, citing both now this report the EPA has sent to the United Nations, previous evidence from the National Academy of Sciences, that there is uncertainty. And the recent report notes that there is considerable uncertainty. That's the state of science, and the president agrees with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The questioning went on and you can hear it for yourself in the audio link below, but Ari Fleischer has now confirmed that the president does believe that human activity is the cause for global warming, and there's no doubt about this now.
Fleischer came to this briefing prepared with a statement outlining how the president's view on the causes of global warming have not changed, so they probably were sitting at the White House a little bit angry at the interpretation of what the president said yesterday when he spoke of, "the bureaucracy." So the White House is making it clear in no uncertain terms that the president believes human activity is largely responsible for global warming, that he totally agrees with the EPA report that went out, and that there's no disagreement. Whatever he said about "the bureaucracy" was misread, mis-analyzed, and misunderstood by the press and others.
I think what they will say is that there has not been a flip-flop at all, there never was a flip-flop, and they can't help the way the press is going to interpret things. So it's been a roller coaster ride that needn't have left the gate, and here we are: According to the White House, human activity does cause global warming.
Now, what I think about this is well known. I have said it before and it would be redundant for me to start repeating myself here, so I'm not going to take the occasion to do it. You know what I think, and you know what you think. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-187 next last
To: texaggie79; Victoria Delsoul; tpaine; OWK; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Mercuria; MadameAxe; redrock...
-
To: Sir Gawain
Bush has become a sad joke. He panders to the left, gets called on it by his base, flips his position, gets hammered again by leftists and then backs down. Will he stand his ground on anything?
3
posted on
06/06/2002 6:47:19 AM PDT
by
LarryM
To: Sir Gawain
Bump.
This makes GWB look even more pathetic than before. This is beginning to look like poll-driven pandering gone manic. Hellooooo, Jimmy Carter. What next? Focus Groups?! Zoooom. Down the slippery slope into Bush-Gore. Blech. Time for a change. Where's my remote...
4
posted on
06/06/2002 6:52:17 AM PDT
by
Paul Ross
To: Sir Gawain
I was hoping this was one of your humor posts...
Obligatory Global Warming is a Fraud BTTT
To: Sir Gawain
The president has said, citing the National Academy of Sciences, that the increase is due in large part to human activity. The president has also continued, citing both now this report the EPA has sent to the United Nations, previous evidence from the National Academy of Sciences, that there is uncertainty. And the recent report notes that there is considerable uncertainty. That's the state of science, and the president agrees with it. Rush completely ignored the bold part of the statement. The President has been pretty consistent on this, IMO. He isn't changing any policy and he won't sign Kyoto, so really, why does all this matter?
6
posted on
06/06/2002 7:04:18 AM PDT
by
LizJ
To: Paul Ross
What next? Focus Groups?! You think there is a national politician anywhere who doesn't use focus groups? I can't imagine it. In fact, since I am home and immobilized today, I will try and scare up some evidence of the current adminstration's use of focus groups. Maybe they don't use them, but I can't imagine it.
7
posted on
06/06/2002 7:05:41 AM PDT
by
Huck
To: LarryM
"Whatever he said about "the bureaucracy" was misread, mis-analyzed, and misunderstood by the press and others."
The Blind Supporters have refused to accept that a person who can NOT communicate clearly "off the cuff" is a risk in a top political position. This guy has a Problem. We'll all pay for His Problem.
8
posted on
06/06/2002 7:06:17 AM PDT
by
rdavis84
To: Sir Gawain
I don't see how this is a flip flop on the president's part. He said during his campaign and after his inauguration that he was going to look for practical, market-based solutions for reducing pollutant emmissions, and place a high priority on "cleaner burning coal technology."
He said when he trashed Kyoto that his administration would look for it's own solutions. The administration is making good on it's promise to look for cleaner manufacturing and fuel burning technologies.
Sounds pretty consistant.
To: LizJ
All this only matter to Rush who sees himself losing his base of listeners and is now pandering to the libs.......he's just looking for friends poor thing.
To: Paul Ross
Well, that killed a couple of minutes. It's actually an interesting article. Folks might be interested to know how the Administration is using polls and focus groups:
The Other War Room
Excerpt:
On the last day of February, the Bush administration kicked off its renewed initiative to privatize Social Security in a speech before the National Summit on Retirement Savings in Washington, D.C. Rather than address "Social Security," Bush opted to speak about "retirement security." And during the brief speech he repeated the words "choice" (three times), "compound interest" (four times), "opportunity" (nine times) and "savings" (18 times). These words were not chosen lightly. The repetition was prompted by polls and focus groups. During the campaign, Steeper honed and refined Bush's message on Social Security (with key words such as "choice," "control," and "higher returns"), measuring it against Al Gore's attack through polls and focus groups ("Wall Street roulette," "bankruptcy" and "break the contract"). Steeper discovered that respondents preferred Bush's position by 50 percent to 38 percent, despite the conventional wisdom that tampering with Social Security is political suicide. He learned, as he explained to an academic conference last February, that "there's a great deal of cynicism about the federal government being able to do anything right, which translated to the federal government not having the ability to properly invest people's Social Security dollars." By couching Bush's rhetoric in poll-tested phrases that reinforced this notion, and adding others that stress the benefits of privatization, he was able to capitalize on what most observers had considered to be a significant political disadvantage. (Independent polls generally find that when fully apprised of Bush's plan, including the risks, most voters don't support it.)
Or just do a google search on Fred Steeper, he's the focus group guy for the Bush Admin.
11
posted on
06/06/2002 7:14:00 AM PDT
by
Huck
To: Huck
I wonder if Fred Steeper is a freeper. :-D
To: cake_crumb
I'm with you. I think Bush agrees as to the source of the problem but disagrees with the solutions proposed up til now. Nothing wrong with that.
To: Sir Gawain
Buhhhwaaahhhhhh! You mean Rush did not force Georgie to reverse himself??????? LOL
To: Sir Gawain
Rush is confused. Read the article again. There two climate reports. The NAS report was completed in June 2001.
To: Sir Gawain
You never know. Maybe he's the one creating all those "Freep These Poll" threads.
16
posted on
06/06/2002 7:28:41 AM PDT
by
Huck
To: LarryM
The Bush bashers just don't get it. GWB calls them as he sees them with alot more data and information at hand than the likes of Rush. You have to admit that there is some serious scientific disagreement about this issue (reality of it, causes, extent of damage, etc) of global warming and it seems that GWB is trying to stake out a reasonable middle ground (rather than simply ignoring the issue). From everything I have read, first-and-foremost, GWB wants to protect the economic impact that the liberal left, tree-hugging, envoronmental wackos would like to inflict unilaterally on the US. But, GWB cannot completely discount the data out there suggesting that the environment is decaying (hence the need for some funding to study/monitor it in greater detail). To me his is staking out a position that acknowledges a potential problem, that submits a resonable plan of study and voluntary reductions to US corporate polluters, and that holds to first principles of not destroying the US economy for the sake of the environment. And, by the way, this is good politics in that it diminishes another Dim/Greenie issues for this Fall and 2004. The soccer moms, who now really trust this guy after 9/11, should think this is a very reasonable approach. Remember, GWB is not just the President for the red states and the Rush Limbaugh's of the world. He has to take everything into account for the good of the nation.
Comment #18 Removed by Moderator
To: Ben Ficklin
No, Rush has been consistent, seeing the Kyoto Accord for what it is, an attack on capitalism. Secondly, I wonder if Bush could answer the following: Which is the predominant factor in global warming, the increased output of solar energy over the last decade, or human activity?
19
posted on
06/06/2002 7:35:39 AM PDT
by
gaspar
To: LarryM
Will he stand his ground on anything? He seems firm in his commitment to expand the size and cost of the federal government. He'd probably use his veto pen if that got threatened.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-187 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson