Replies

...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.

Nick your take on this when it was breaking news on Drudge was solid and sound. Great Job!

Let me extend my apologies to the President for my critical remarks on this topic. Let me also apologize to any Freeper for any unkind remarks that I might have made concerning their thoughts or beliefs on this report or the discussion that surrounded it.

"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

Very observant!

THAT'S THE KEY .......!

I can disagree with Rush immediately playing up what the NY Times liars "said" the report held without reading it himself line by line; but recognize that WHAT THE TIMES "SAID" THE REPORT CONCLUDED ISN'T THE TRUTH.

And that is what is damaging, because in six months, the headless masses who vote democrat will never remember the truth, only the screaming headlines. (And the national press corpse will have played the DNC's hand again.)