BUSH DISMISSES ADMINISTRATION REPORT ON 'WARMING'

Drudge ^ | Drudge

[CoolGuyVic]

"'I read the report put out by the bureaucracy,' Bush said dismissivly... "

More to come, I'm sure

[Nick Danger]

...his appointed staff should have killed the report before it even saw the light of day. And if it did squeek out they should have quickly got on record as discrediting the report. Instead they waited for the public reaction to decided on what to do.

I don't buy that. I've read most of that report, and it looks to me like it got a thorough going-over by the Bush hands before it saw the light of day. I don't think the problem is in the report, it's in the highly distorted way that the New York Times, followed by the rest of the press flying monkeys, tried to present it to the public.

Had the press characterized the report honestly, it would not have been necessary for Bush to say a thing. Only in the wildest dreams of a New York Times reporter can that report be said to support the Kyoto treaty, or anything like it. What the press did here was despicable: they lied to the American people about what the report contained, to promote their own agendas. By focusing on a sentence or two here and there, they made it sound like Bush had done a complete flip-flop on Global Warming... and now "admitted" that it was all caused by humans and would Devastate The Planet.

Hogwash... it said no such thing. If there's a "public reaction" that Bush has to step in to deal with, it isn't to the contents of the report. It's to press stories that deliberately mischaracterized the report in order to further the reporters' own political beliefs. There's waaaay too much of that going on these days.

[alnick]

But I remember reading at least one post yesterday where someone was saying Bush has better info than we have and he must be making the right decision. It was pretty much following him blindly.

I read that post also. You're mischaracterizing what the lady said. She simply was keeping an open mind. She stated up until now she had not closely followed the global warming debate, but that she was going to look into it. She conceded that, since she had not followed that issue, that perhaps there was something to it, but that she would have to do some research before coming to any kind of conclusion. Someone also mentioned that it would be a good idea for both sides to look at global warming scientifically rather than ideologically.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[ohioWfan]

It's all about character. This President can be trusted, so it's folly to assume something negative until you have heard his own statement on a given subject, especially when what you hear goes against everything he stands for.

I'm not at all surprised by this.......not at all.

Thank you for your rigorous defense of our honorable President! You are magnificent!!

[Geezerette]

Bump!

g

[scottiewottie]

Don't give up so soon!

Yes Bush rejects Kyoto.
Yes Bush rejects Euro-Kyoto.
Yes Bush rejects Kyoto junk science.

But Bush will support "another study" and will support a much larger group of American corporate welfare whores in addition to some of the same sponsors of Kyoto in a "global contract for the environment". The only difference will be that more corporations, some more favorable to Republicans, will benefit from governmental handouts, under the "Green Bush Hedging".

All we have now in conservative "gases"(el rushbo) is "strategery".

[Wild Irish Rogue]

When is the last time Rush was on national television? He always used to say that the only time he would ever get called to go on the Sunday talk shows, was if they thought he would criticize Bush-and he wouldn't do it. He saw the duplicity in their invitation.But, he sure got mentioned last night on NBC, didn't he? His characterization of George Bush as George W. Algore was not only despicable, it was self serving and a cheap shot. Rush has apparently realized that the only way he can get the attention of the national media is to trash and demean Bush and he's going to ride that horse, for all it's worth.

[AmishDude]

(2) be sufficiently flexible to allow for new findings;

Read this again. Carefully. What does it MEAN?

So, in answer to your question, I believe Bush ordered this report to be made.

Even when faced with direct evidence to the contrary?

[Wild Irish Rogue]

Very,very funny!!!

[marajade]

Did you see Hannity and Colmes last night? Sean was getting it from Dan Quayle... and it was funny...

[over3Owithabrain]

Ok.

So Bush is not responsible for his own administraion, it's Clinton's fault.

Does that apply when something good happens too, or only something bad?

Rush may have over-reacted, sure. But Bush now has a strategy of waffling, of good-cop, bad-cop, of throwing morsels at left, right and center in hopes of placating everyone. It's hard for me to trust anyone who does that.

I hope the anti-Kyoto position Bush has taken will last. But I'm not exactly comforted by the fact that either Bush cannot control his own agencies until after the fact, or that he wants to play both sides of every issue.

If some Bush supporters want to celebrate a damage control statement that still leaves plenty of wiggle room, have at it. I'm disappointed it has to come to that. Guess that makes me a "frothing lunatic" for not trusting government further than I can throw them.

[Tuor]

Anything else you'd like to president to say today?

Well, I'm sure I could think of some things, but what I've said so far should be sufficient.

Of course, I'm sure some more off-the-cuff remarks about bureaucrats will send everyone on another fit of hillary...um...I mean hilarity.

Tuor

[OldFriend]

Thanks for adding your thoughts.......I am struggling to understand those who would say that it's their way or else!

There are those career bureaucrats who are doing all they can to undermine our President.

It is pitiful that our own so called proponents would not even wait to see if the bogus headlines are relevant before they begin their hysterical negative reaction.

[for-q-clinton]

Well, whaddaya know. The Bush-bashers jumped off another cliff. Try to land on Rush to cushion your fall.

I must not be reading the same story you are. The way I interpret it is that the blind Bush supporters ran into a wall yesterday when Bush finally came out and distanced himself from the report.

The bashers got Bush to come out and change his Administrations position or at least clarify it.

[ohioWfan]

I have been wrongly accused of being a Bush-hater, a Buchanobot, a Libertarian, and a liberal before.

Then stop calling him a 'betrayer.' It's not a word most people use with someone they have even an ounce of respect for.

For the most part, people who feel 'betrayed' misunderstood what he stood for in the first place.

[marajade]

You're welcome...

I still don't get how Rush got so sloppy?

[AmishDude]

Yes Bush rejects Kyoto.
Yes Bush rejects Euro-Kyoto.
Yes Bush rejects Kyoto junk science.

But Bush will support "another study"

And so the pattern goes. "Well, he didn't betray us this time, but he will, you just wait!" Too many people who are too eager for a Bush slip-up.

[hchutch]

And you can't blame some of us for realizing we have to win elections in order to have a chance at advancing policy.

[anniegetyourgun]

I didn't blame anyone....just don't have time for those who are choosing not to influence the elections.

[Reagan Man]

Rush has already "redacted" his remarks from yesterday.
I guess tomorrow we can expect his "I was just trying to get you thinking" speech.

You got that right Howlin!

Rush made comments yesterday, like, what's left for conservatives, taxes and abortion and then calling President Bush, Bush-Gore. With comments like that, Rush loses all credibility.

And today Rush is back tracking, BIGTIME!

[Grampa Dave]

We, also, score no points trying to savage our president over a Bravo Sierra oped from the NY Slimes.

If being coresidal means savaging GW 24/7, it is time to have a Core removal. The core is truly rotten if it feels that savaging GW on outright Bravo Sierra from the Slimes means being a good coresider.