If that's how you want to spend your life, go ahead. The very fact that you're continuing to carry forth Drudge's story, after it has been REPEATEDLY DEBUNKED on this very site, shows where YOU are coming from.
B. I have tried to click on this report (only 5.7M in .zip formatted .pdf -- it's probably just a page or two --LOL)
Here's what I got:
The requested document does not exist on this server.
The website goes on to say that printed copies of this report will not be available for some time. Okay. I'm happy about that, too.
The point of A. is, you are just like the liberals, who attack anyone with a point of view that is, to you, irrefutable.
The point of B. is, THAT BUSH REALLY IS A CRAPPY PRESIDENT, because he has not had a press conference on this, and put his spin on it, BEFORE the NYT did it to him.
And, hey, guess what? I pay so much in taxes, that I feel I shouldn't have to read through a 5.7M .zip file, and decipher all the bureaucratic lies and gobbledegook, so as to know what Bush is up to.
He should just come out and say what he is up to.
(In this way he is very much like Clinton, IMHO.)
But, hey, he has all the time in the world to say, hundreds and hundreds of times, that, some time, in some distant galaxy, we, the United States, will be attacking Iraq.
Face it, a smart strategist, he ain't.
Face it too, Howlin, that you really, deep down, have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT W IS GOING TO SAY OR DO NEXT. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT NEW PROGRAMS, SLOGAN, OR POLICY HE IS GOING TO ESPOUSE. NO CLUE.
And this says nothing about your personal loyalty to W, which, on the surface, is noble and laudable.
But face it, my friend, neither you nor I have ANY idea what W is going to do, say, champion, or espouse, next.
Face it, he stinks.
And the only hope he (and we) have, is to communicate loudly to him, a la Rush, that we conservatives are setting the bar a little higher for him as a POTUS.
And he better start producing, and start acting like something we can vaguely identify as a conservative.
I'm weighing in late but I have to agree with your post.
I see this as a quite good piece of W "stratgery".
What you have here is a qualitative analysis of global warming that only restates the known hypothesis. As to any damaging remedies that the greenies would like to impose based on these hypothesis the report tells the environazis basically to pack sand.
In order to use global warming as an issue the wackos have to simultaneously agree and disagree with the same report. The logical gymnastics required in arguing for draconian measures based on this report will be staggering.
As to my own opinion on Global Warming I believe that it may be happening at a slow rate but that it could reverse at any time due to natural cycles or events. The effect of man's activities to either accelerate or retard natural cycles or events is minimal.
I will say this: Bush should not have this coming out of his White House's EPA, because, in it, he (i.e., his administration) talks out of both ends of his alimentary tract.
It indeed says that there are no changes in Administration policy planned.
But, amazingly, the report has as a 'given' that there IS climactic change due the presence of man, industry, fossil fuel, etc., and that it may cause environmental harm that is potentially serious, in the United States.
If so, W, aren't you as an Administration, supposed to consider some way to improve the situation?
This fuzziness is all it takes for W to have given away the farm to the liberals, and Rush is entirely correct to crack on him for this.
Because it is not at all established that there is any sort of global warming going on at all.
But if it WERE established, (and this is a premise of the document) then W's Administration sure as h&ll ought to have something more in mind than, "No changes in administrative policy are planned."
To even hint that there is going to be some effect on snowmelt water supplies, coastlines, etc., is totally inflammatory to the populace, and so, to the Greens it is the same as to give away the GOP farm.
It is to acknowledge that the sky is falling, when it really is not.
One aside: A table in the back does show small, gradual increases in estimates of CO2 production by fossil fuel burning, and a concomitant loss in "woody biomass stocks" a.k.a., trees.
Nobody has suggested just planting a boatload of trees, except as an aside program for middle school students.
If W had any brains, he would not have let this panic-piece out, and would have just said, "There is no evidence of global warming. There is a little more CO2 production, and a few less trees to soak up the CO2. It would make sense to plant more trees, since there are fewer of them around today than in the time of George Washington.
That's what he should be doing, instead of kissing some Saudi Prince's a$$ at his Texas Double Wide Ranch.