[Nick Danger]

Bush is flat out wrong to think he's going to win the environmental crowd to the Republican side.

What would make you think that Bush was trying to win over the environmental crowd? Do you believe the head of the National Wildlife Federation when he says that Bush "now admits that global warming will change America's most unique wild places and wildlife forever?" Did you, yourself, hear Bush say this? Can you picture Bush saying, "I admit that global warming will change America's most unique wild places forever?" Do you think maybe Mr. Wildlife Federation just made that stuff up?

So far all the news on this seems to be coming from the New York Times. Do you trust the New York Times to convey accurately the contents of a report concerning global warming? Do you trust the New York Times to convey accurately anything having to do with positions of the Bush Administration?

Do you think you might be falling for the media's Attack Of The Week on Bush?

Why not go to the EPA site and read some of this report for yourself, instead of trusting media liberals to interpret it for you? I did, and I can't imagine how anyone could interpret it as an attempt to coddle environmentalists. They are going to hate it. In fact they already hate it. That's why they are pulling quotations out of context and using them to bash Bush.

[freebilly]

Why not go to the EPA site and read some of this report for yourself, instead of trusting media liberals to interpret it for you? I did, and I can't imagine how anyone could interpret it as an attempt to coddle environmentalists. They are going to hate it.

The language in the report gives the impression that industrial greenhouse gas emissions are significantly responsible for global warming.

Now, of course environmentalists will hate the report as it doesn't go far enough in "solving" the "problem" of greenhouse gas emissions.

My problem with this report is that it admits what is still disputed (i.e., that greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources have significantly contributed to current climate changes). He's handing the libs a gold-plated opportunity to attack him (e.g., "See, he admits that global warming is a problem created by HUMANS, and he refuses to do anything about it.").

Why admit to something that is still under debate unless you want to curry favor from someone, somewhere?