Posted on 07/07/2002 11:24:26 AM PDT by Keyes For President
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
By using such rags as the WP and Chicago Tribune to spread propaganda (e.g. this article).
Did you see any aliens or space-crafts last night?
You think the WP doesn't have a statist bias?
Getting back on track, why shouldn't Bush (through one of the many republicans in congress) present a bill to repeal the '93 law.
That can get sticky...
Do you know any politician that doesn't, including President Bush?
You never answered my question.
Well since all bills other than revenue bills can be introduced in either house of Congress, I nominate Senator Sam Brownback for this duty. I am sure that he would be more than happy to introduce this bill for President Bush into the Senate.
Two options:
1. Bush didn't know about the law when he made his speech. If this is correct, then he is guilty of merely failing to use the Bully Pulpit to bring that law into the light where it would either embarrass the Dems or be crushed outright.
2. Bush knew about the law when he gave his policy speech. I hope this is not the case. If it is, then he is, at best, guilty of disingenuousness, at worst, dishonesty.
Personally, I think he didn't know about the law when he made his speech, but became aware of it at some point afterwards. He then decided that, for whatever reasons, it wasn't an issue he wanted to fight the Dems over and so decided to let sleeping dogs lie. This is not a very inspiring mode of leadership, but preferable to outright dishonesty.
Tuor
Give me liberty or give me death.
"Would you rather have a liar for President, or a coward?" Interesting question.
But you avoid my question. You can't bring yourself to say that the WP has a statist bias. It leads me to think that you don't agree with this.
I'm not especially passionate about abortion and stem cell research. I have an opinion on it, but I don't have a lot invested emotionally in it.
But whether or not I can make political hay out of the issue, it doesn't alter the logic I gave for the points I made. If you can come up with a third case that would exonerate Bush of any culpability whatsoever, then I'd be happy to hear it, and will consider the points using what reasoning abilities I possess.
More generally, I always try to judge people by what they do, not what they say. Bush has *said* he will limit stem cell research to X number of lines, yet, evidently, he was not empowered to make that statement due to a law that he did or did not know about at the time. Thus, what is *done* is more 'lines' of stem cell research than the President's speech allows for. By itself, this may not be especially troubling, but as a data point for a trend in saying one thing while another is actually done, this situation could be one of many that points to something very troubling.
You can dismiss my reasoning by saying I'm merely a Bush-basher, but that, IMO, would be unwise. It would be one thing if I was just calling Bush names, but if you want to ignore factual matters because you don't like the messenger who brings them to your attention, then you are just as guilty of being a fool as those who ignored the actions of Clinton.
Tuor
Give me liberty or give me death.
Because of a discrepancy in regulations, stem cells taken from fetuses are subject to different rules than similar cells from embryos. In fact, the cells derived from fetuses may qualify for a broader range of federal funds, government experts said.Bush's policy barred the use of federal grants for research on stem cells taken from embryos after Aug. 9, 2001. Bush said the decision was based on his moral opposition to destroying additional embryos for research purposes.
But that restriction does not apply to research on stem cells obtained from fetuses, according to officials at the National Institutes of Health. Such work falls under less-restrictive Clinton-era rules, which Bush never revised.
On May 20, the NIH awarded the first funds for research on stem cells from fetuses to the team of stem cell pioneer John Gearhart at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine....In another rare step for a relatively small grant application, NIH officials notified the White House staff when Gearhart's proposal was approved, said administration spokesman Scott McClellan.
The approval "was based on long-standing law and guidelines," McClellan said.
White House officials said Bush left the Clinton guidelines for fetal-derived cells in place because Congress passed a law in 1993 that made it illegal for presidents to ban funding for such research.
Ok, as I understand the article, Bush didn't approve this funding, the NIH did, and if the NIH hadn't taken the "rare step" of notifying the White House when they approved the grant, the President wouldn't have known about it until he read it in the newspaper.
Embryonic stem cells and fetal stem cells are covered under two different catagories: Bush's law earlier covered research on embryonic stem cells; fetal stem cells (which these are) are covered under a Clinton-era law.
Wow, reading the article can make a difference.
And was challenged before the Supreme Court when?
There's always the chance that there is more here than we know about, and that neither case is true. Personally, I doubt that is so.
It is a shame that we are reduced to asking such questions about whom we elect to run this country. I guess, if it came down to it, I'd rather have a truthful coward than a liar. I'd much rather have neither.
Tuor
Give me liberty or give me death.
HaHaHaaaaa...
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.