Truth-telling and course-changing.

[Mariner]

It's been an interesting couple of weeks for the President.

I've not been able to keep up as thoroughly with the news as usual, as I've been busy at work, but a few things stood out--

--his speech at the Naval Academy, where he said we can't leave Iraq too soon for fear of turning it into a base for Al Qaeda, which is a backhand way of admitting that it wasn't one before.

--his call for "staying the course" even as the media was abuzz with leaks from the Pentagon about reducing troop levels in 2006. A classic case of political double-speak.

--his first admissions that things aren't actually going perfectly over there.

--his first ever reference to the number of Iraqi civilian dead (he suggested 30,000).

--the "Plan for Victory" which the administration said was a declassified version of a 2003 plan, but whose main author was apparently Peter Feaver, a newly-hired political consultant whose expert is public opinion polling (has Bush become poll-driven Clinton?).

--the bizarre revelations of $100,000,000 worth of planted propoganda stories, outsourced to some seriously shadowy folk.

--Bush finally showing some recognition of the reality of global warming.

--Rice finally showing some official recognition that being known worldwide as a torturer, renderer, and keeper of secret prisons might not be our best advertisement for the joys of democracy.

Overall, it seems like slightly more truth-telling and course-changing than we're used to from the administration. Too bad it's not working--a grand 25% of the populace is convinced Bush actually has a workable plan for getting us out of Iraq. If only the Democrats were offering something better, but they're not.

Mariner.

 

[Mariner]

truth-telling and course-changing. Bush actually took questions today--in recent history, he is the president who has least often been willing to answer reporters' questions directly.

And when asked why he continued to blame Saddam Hussein for 9/11 to justify invading Iraq when "no respected journalist or other Middle Eastern experts confirm that such a link existed," he did NOT answer that there was a link. Instead, he said "there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, 'You're a threat," and the 9-11 attacks extenuated that threat."

I think he needs to check the meaning of extenuate in the dictionary, but it's still remarkable to me that he sideways admitted that his previous linkage was wrong. Instead, he proposes an emotional linkage, which might be close to his actual truth, i.e. 9-11 made him feel more vulnerable and therefore in more urgent need of doing something about Iraq.

Mariner.

 

[dilloduck]

truth-telling and course-changing. Bush actually took questions today--in recent history, he is the president who has least often been willing to answer reporters' questions directly.

And when asked why he continued to blame Saddam Hussein for 9/11 to justify invading Iraq when "no respected journalist or other Middle Eastern experts confirm that such a link existed," he did NOT answer that there was a link. Instead, he said "there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, 'You're a threat," and the 9-11 attacks extenuated that threat."

I think he needs to check the meaning of extenuate in the dictionary, but it's still remarkable to me that he sideways admitted that his previous linkage was wrong. Instead, he proposes an emotional linkage, which might be close to his actual truth, i.e. 9-11 made him feel more vulnerable and therefore in more urgent need of doing something about Iraq.

Mariner.

Glad to hear your still obsessing about it all!

 

[Mariner]

billions a month on this war, and charging it to our kids. It's hard for me to think of a more worthwhile subject for obsession, particularly if you feel, as I do, that managing it incorrectly increases rather than decreases our safety.

Paying for propoganda in Arab newspapers, for example, is about the stupidest move I could imagine. Here we are, extolling the wonders of freedom--free speech and a free press--and then it turns out we're total hypocrites, trying to control their press. Ugly. How can we now take any kind of moral high ground when Al Jazeera or a mullah hypes something anti-American? And did you see some of the actual propoganda stories? Absurd beyond belief! Why does Bush constantly throw away our moral high ground? It's our most important asset, like a person's character.

I think most people here know this, and don't like it any more than me, but since they voted for the guy, it's hard to talk about.

Mariner.

 

[Democrat4Bush]

Here we are, extolling the wonders of freedom--free speech and a free press--and then it turns out we're total hypocrites, trying to control their press.

How is paying someone to run an article controlling their press. The paper could have just as easily said no thank you, right.

Talk about twisting the truth, you libs are the champions at.

 

[theHawk]

and charging it to our kids.

I assume you are referring to our military. They are not kids. I was not a kid when I was in the military. I am sick and tired of hearing liberals refer to military as a bunch of clueless kids being used. We are adults. :finger:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

billions a month on this war, and charging it to our kids. It's hard for me to think of a more worthwhile subject for obsession, particularly if you feel, as I do, that managing it incorrectly increases rather than decreases our safety.

Paying for propoganda in Arab newspapers, for example, is about the stupidest move I could imagine. Here we are, extolling the wonders of freedom--free speech and a free press--and then it turns out we're total hypocrites, trying to control their press. Ugly. How can we now take any kind of moral high ground when Al Jazeera or a mullah hypes something anti-American? And did you see some of the actual propoganda stories? Absurd beyond belief! Why does Bush constantly throw away our moral high ground? It's our most important asset, like a person's character.

I think most people here know this, and don't like it any more than me, but since they voted for the guy, it's hard to talk about.

Mariner.

Are we stopping others from getting THEIR message out? That's suppression of free speech. You want to suppress the speech of the administration.

 

[Zhukov]

--his speech at the Naval Academy, where he said we can't leave Iraq too soon for fear of turning it into a base for Al Qaeda, which is a backhand way of admitting that it wasn't one before.

Were the training camps in operation in Iraq before the invasion ever specified by the administration to be al-Qaeda bases? Even if you can find such an assertion that's hardly the same as saying 'Iraq itself is an al-Qaeda base' now isn't it?

--his call for "staying the course" even as the media was abuzz with leaks from the Pentagon about reducing troop levels in 2006. A classic case of political double-speak.

Double-speak how? Cannot a winning force stay the course with fewer troops?

--his first admissions that things aren't actually going perfectly over there.

It wasn't his first. And in a few weeks certain people will be saying he's never admitted any lack of mistakes....once again. He and his administration, including Rumsfeld, Myers, and Pace, have repeatedly stated that things aren't going perfectly and further that it would be illogical to assume that they would.

--his first ever reference to the number of Iraqi civilian dead (he suggested 30,000).

Why is this important to you?

--the "Plan for Victory" which the administration said was a declassified version of a 2003 plan, but whose main author was apparently Peter Feaver, a newly-hired political consultant whose expert is public opinion polling (has Bush become poll-driven Clinton?).

Might it be a poltical consultant edited/re-worded the actual text of the internal plan so that it was better fit for media and public consumption? Or is that too far fetched? Is it much more likely that among all the people at the White House, all the people at the State Dept., all the people at the Dept. of Def., and all the officers in the military, not a single person put forth any sort of plan for anything whatsoever until a politcal consultant came along a few months ago?

--the bizarre revelations of $100,000,000 worth of planted propoganda stories, outsourced to some seriously shadowy folk.

Why is that bizarre? Propaganda is about as old as war itself. And incidentally, contrary to common understanding, 'propaganda' is not synomous with 'lies'. Were any of the submitted stories lies? Some people who oppose this war believe war is never the answer, that disputes should be settled through talk and diplomacy. Someone of that persuasion, one could conceivably assume, would prefer we spend money on propaganda than on bombs and tanks. Which would you prefer?

--Bush finally showing some recognition of the reality of global warming.

Now that's bizzare. Or perhaps just politically driven. Global warming, at least as a result of human activity, is a crock of shit.

--Rice finally showing some official recognition that being known worldwide as a torturer, renderer, and keeper of secret prisons might not be our best advertisement for the joys of democracy.

I would agree. That's why I think the media, Kerry, Murtha, Reid, Kennedy, and the like should stop spreading lies about the conduct of our soldiers.

Too bad it's not working--a grand 25% of the populace is convinced Bush actually has a workable plan for getting us out of Iraq.

Have a link for that? Worst number I can find is 41%.

 

[Zhukov]

continued to blame Saddam Hussein for 9/11

First of all, did someone really ask him that? Do you realize the adminstration never blamed Hussein for 9/11? Do you further realize the bias of a reporter implicit in the nature of such a question?

to justify invading Iraq when "no respected journalist or other Middle Eastern experts confirm that such a link existed," he did NOT answer that there was a link. Instead, he said "there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, 'You're a threat," and the 9-11 attacks extenuated that threat."

I think he needs to check the meaning of extenuate in the dictionary, but it's still remarkable to me that he sideways admitted that his previous linkage was wrong.

You have fallen into the lie of the question itself.

Instead, he proposes an emotional linkage, which might be close to his actual truth, i.e. 9-11 made him feel more vulnerable and therefore in more urgent need of doing something about Iraq.

Close to the truth? It is the truth; no question about it. Why? Because he admitted as much himself in the run up to the war. The shortness of memory is either astonishing or deliberate. He explicitly stated, repeatedly, that 9/11 revealed a vulnerability previously unrecognized or ignored by the the public and many in the government, both sides of the aisle, for years. And that the position of the U.S. with regard to terrorism, with regard to terrorists supporters, and with regard to Saddam Hussein had to be re-evaluated.

See, you have a problem with pro-U.S. propaganda, yet you swallow anti-U.S. propaganda by the bushel. You've been told the sole reason for the invasion was WMD, when mountains of information proves otherwise, and you have bought it.

WMD was never the only reason, and this 'true cause' for the war you think you have discovered was in fact enunciated, by the President, even by Democrats, more than four years ago.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Thats the best you've got? Pleasssssssssssssssssssee

give us something difficult to respond to.
Zhukov responded quite well.
You have been owned.

It's been an interesting couple of weeks for the President.

I've not been able to keep up as thoroughly with the news as usual, as I've been busy at work, but a few things stood out--

--his speech at the Naval Academy, where he said we can't leave Iraq too soon for fear of turning it into a base for Al Qaeda, which is a backhand way of admitting that it wasn't one before.

--his call for "staying the course" even as the media was abuzz with leaks from the Pentagon about reducing troop levels in 2006. A classic case of political double-speak.

--his first admissions that things aren't actually going perfectly over there.

--his first ever reference to the number of Iraqi civilian dead (he suggested 30,000).

--the "Plan for Victory" which the administration said was a declassified version of a 2003 plan, but whose main author was apparently Peter Feaver, a newly-hired political consultant whose expert is public opinion polling (has Bush become poll-driven Clinton?).

--the bizarre revelations of $100,000,000 worth of planted propoganda stories, outsourced to some seriously shadowy folk.

--Bush finally showing some recognition of the reality of global warming.

--Rice finally showing some official recognition that being known worldwide as a torturer, renderer, and keeper of secret prisons might not be our best advertisement for the joys of democracy.

Overall, it seems like slightly more truth-telling and course-changing than we're used to from the administration. Too bad it's not working--a grand 25% of the populace is convinced Bush actually has a workable plan for getting us out of Iraq. If only the Democrats were offering something better, but they're not.

Mariner.

 

[Mariner]

guys are in the rapidly shrinking group (currently 25% and falling fast) who still believe in Bush's Iraq rationale and strategy. Maybe you should consider if you've been "owned" instead of the skeptical rest of us.

What do you mean, "Is that the best I've got"? These were all legitimate news items, and they were inconceivable a year ago when the President was riding high. Many of them confirm the worst fears of skeptics such as me who were against the war at the outset.

Zhukov--yes, this was an actual question from the audience. I quoted it from a newspaper account in the Boston Globe.

It IS the truth that we attacked Iraq because 9/11 made president Bush feel all shaky in the knees? And he actually admitted this earlier... umm, when?

Look back at the president and his advisers' numerous press conferences, etc., in the run-up to the war. There was a constant, and successful effort to depict Hussein as behind 9/11, to conflate his dictatorship with terrorism and to suggest that he supported terrorists. All while the President held in his hand a top-secret assessment that Hussein had ZILCH to do with it. Immediately after 9/11, 6% of people thought Hussein was involved. After the president's propoganda campaign, 53% of people did. Without that change of perception, he could never have won support for the war from the people or from Congress.

I have a HUGE problem with propoganda in a war which is designed, not to repel a deadly enemy, but to unseat a dictator who used to be our ally and replace him with a democracy. Being seen as a propoganda machine is as bad for our image as being seen as torturers. It completely undercuts the image of what we're trying to spread. Why couldn't we give that $100 million to provide security for Arab journalists, so they could cover the war themselves? Hearing their own people report on it would be far more convincing than discovering we planted fake stories with ridiculous headlines.

Why are the Iraqi dead important to me? Good grief, people, have you forgotten that we are all human? Are you American--or rather Republican--first and human second? How would you feel if another country invaded us "for our own good" and killed, oh, 30,000 Americans in the process--and then asked why we cared? If you can't see that that is important, you've completely lost your moral bearings.

RightWing. Guess what, you're wrong on global warming. The vast majority of the world's climate scientists agree that it's happening, and happening faster than predicted. You have an alternative explanation for why, starting exactly in the mid-19th century, when coal burning fueled the Industrial Revolution, global temperatures began a steady rise? With 6 of the 10 hottest years on record right now? With an increase in carbon dioxide concentration of 30%--traceable directly to burning trillions of gallons of oil and trillions of tons of coal? Why is this so hard to swallow? Where's the permafrost going? The arctic ice? What's bleaching the coral reefs? Of course it's all a theory, but the support is getting awfully strong. To the point that regions of the U.S. are revolting against the President's unbelievable blindness on this issue and setting up emissions limits of their own.

We could be the world leader in green technologies and save the entire earth. Instead our heads are in the sand thanks to our lovely President. 20 years from now, he's going to be seen as the worst President ever--let's wait and see if I'm right.

TheHawk--no, I wasn't referring to the military as "kids." I was referring to our children, who will need to pay back our deficit, the vastest chunk of which was created by GW Bush and Ronald Reagan. $300 billion a year in interest payments right now--what good we could do with that money if supply-side economics weren't all the rage among the governing elite! Anyone notice how it's turning out exactly as we non-supply-siders predicted? Sure the economy is booming, but where is the trickle-down? Wages are stagnant or declining, poverty is rising (to 38 million people, including one of five children in the U.S.), and the medically uninsured are increasing, not decreasing. Supply side doesn't work. We learned it in the Reagan years, and we're being forced to learn it all over again now. It only works for the readers of the Wall Street Journal, who earn, on average $200,000 a year.

Mariner.

 

[Gunny]

billions a month on this war, and charging it to our kids. It's hard for me to think of a more worthwhile subject for obsession, particularly if you feel, as I do, that managing it incorrectly increases rather than decreases our safety.

Paying for propoganda in Arab newspapers, for example, is about the stupidest move I could imagine. Here we are, extolling the wonders of freedom--free speech and a free press--and then it turns out we're total hypocrites, trying to control their press. Ugly. How can we now take any kind of moral high ground when Al Jazeera or a mullah hypes something anti-American? And did you see some of the actual propoganda stories? Absurd beyond belief! Why does Bush constantly throw away our moral high ground? It's our most important asset, like a person's character.

I think most people here know this, and don't like it any more than me, but since they voted for the guy, it's hard to talk about.

Mariner.

Try being honest for once. Dig up the numbers of what it cost us to babysit Saddam for 13 years and compare it to the cost of the war.

I love it when you libs get on your "moral high ground" kick. How come it is y'all only have morals where anyone BUT your own society is concerned?

 

[Zhukov]

guys are in the rapidly shrinking group (currently 25% and falling fast)

Well you cited it again, and again there is no link.

It is my belief that you are lying sir.

But against my better judgement I will continue to read and respond.

who still believe in Bush's Iraq rationale and strategy

Describe to me the President's rationale and strategy as you understood it and provide links.

It IS the truth that we attacked Iraq because 9/11 made president Bush feel all shaky in the knees? And he actually admitted this earlier... umm, when?

Your dishonest charecterization aside:

But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence -- the promise of massive retaliation against nations -- means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.

We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html

Look back at the president and his advisers' numerous press conferences, etc., in the run-up to the war. There was a constant, and successful effort to depict Hussein as behind 9/11

Links and quotes please.

I have a HUGE problem with propoganda in a war which is designed, not to repel a deadly enemy, but to unseat a dictator who used to be our ally and replace him with a democracy. Being seen as a propoganda machine is as bad for our image as being seen as torturers. It completely undercuts the image of what we're trying to spread. Why couldn't we give that $100 million to provide security for Arab journalists, so they could cover the war themselves? Hearing their own people report on it would be far more convincing than discovering we planted fake stories with ridiculous headlines.

You didn't answer my question. Care to try again?

Why are the Iraqi dead important to me?

Ha. I just knew you would come back with this. I wasn't asking you why the number of dead was important. I was asking you why you found it important that the President mentioned it.

but a few things stood out--

--his first ever reference to the number of Iraqi civilian dead (he suggested 30,000).

Why does that stand out to you?

RightWing. Guess what, you're wrong on global warming. The vast majority of the world's climate scientists agree that it's happening,

RWA didn't say anything. That was me.

Have any links describing the opinions of the 'vast majority' of climate scientists?

I've a few links that might interest you.

In 1996 the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the IPCC -- released a document titled, "Summary for Policy Makers," which supported the notion of global warming. Environmentalists crowed that 15,000 scientists had signed the document.

However, the report was doctored without the knowledge of most of those 15,000 scientists, whose protests became so vocal that the lead authors backed off their conclusions, disavowing the document as "a political tract, not a scientific report."

In 1998, 17,000 scientists, six of whom are Nobel Laureates, signed the Oregon Petition, which declares, in part: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. "

In 1999 over ten thousand of the world's most renowned climatologists, astrophysicists, meteorologists, etc., signed an open letter by Frederick Seitz, NAS Past President, that states, in part: the Kyoto Accord is "based upon flawed ideas."

Finally, in a paper in June of 2001, aptly titled, GLOBAL WARMING: The Press Gets It Wrong -- our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: "Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens."

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1824

Newsweek
April 28, 1975

The Cooling World

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

Climate policy requires solid science foundation to be effective long

Leading scientists, including some of the most ardent supporters of the theory that human activity causes global warming, continue to acknowledge the large number scientific uncertainties surrounding climate change. Scientists from the nation's best academic and scientific institutions point out how little is known about the workings of the atmosphere, weather patterns and natural or human effects on the climate. They also stress the need for additional scientific research and development of better computational models to advance understanding of the global climate system.

The GCC believes that sound scientific understanding should provide the underpinning of global climate policy decisions. In the meantime, the GCC advocates expanding the current path of new technology development and voluntary emissions reductions.

http://www.globalclimate.org/climscience.htm

Fact is the causes of terrestial climatology are extraordinarily complex and any significant variations in it occur on geological timescales, i.e. millions of years. This means the occasionally spike, up or down, here or there, is ultimately irrelevant.

Also, some believe it may have nothing to do with humans at all.

Global warming may not be caused by humanity's fossil fuel emissions, but could be due to changes in the Sun.

Research suggests that the magnetic flux from the Sun more than doubled this century. As solar magnetism is closely linked with sunspot activity and the strength of sunlight reaching Earth, the increase could have produced warming in the global climate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358953.stm

But go on with your hysteria. In 25 years you just might be warning of the impending ice age again. Meanwhile humanity goes on and the Earth keeps spinning.

But what the hell. Let's say there is global warming occuring....

found that overall the economic impact of global warming on the U.S. is positive, about a 0.2 percent increase in GDP. This includes large positive impacts on agriculture and smaller positive impacts on forestry and recreation.

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=549

20 years from now, he's going to be seen as the worst President ever--let's wait and see if I'm right.

He'd be hard pressed to fall behind a Clinton or a Carter, and thats just the last quarter century of Presidents. Hell, he's better than his father without a doubt.

We could wait 20 years, but I think I'll break the suspense and reveal the answer now. You are wrong.

 

[Mariner]

I appreciate your use of citations and links. That's certainly a lot better than simply voicing opinions out of the blue.

I wish I had the time this morning to hunt down everything you're asking for.

The 25% figure came from a major national poll whose results were released last week. NYT, NBC, Gallup or similar.

The 6% and 53% figures (for the effectiveness of the Bush administration's campaign to conflate Hussein with 9/11) came from the New York Times.

I'm sorry I took your question about how Bush's mention of 30,000 dead was important. I assumed that you were with the president in his (to me, bizarre) refusal to name or count the Iraqi deaths involved in our invasion. If the invasion if "for their own good" then a dead civilian is automatically a great patriot and has given the ultimate sacrifice--without even making the choice that our 2100 dead did, to take that risk. Therefore I have thought we should be naming them and showing their pictures just as we do to honor our own dead.

Why do I think Bush's acknowledging the number is important? Well, in the spirit of the thread, it is a course-change. Previously, Bush has been content to ignore them. That suggests that the criticism that he is out of touch took root, and he needed to respond.

As for global warming, you cite very old sources. There are a series of large supercomputer models running right now which are in general agreement that the earth will warm several degrees over the next century. However, there are many other possibilities. Europe, for example, is kept warm by the "Atlantic Conveyor," whereby warm water from the Caribbean slides up the Atlantic coast and then across the ocean (the Gulf Stream). As a boater, I am well aware of the temperature difference between southern Cape Cod and Massachusetts bay/the Gulf of Maine. The latter two are less warmed by the Gulf Stream. Increasing melting of Greenland and arctic ice could stop this conveyor. In that case, New England will get very much colder, and England could become as cold as Newfoundland or Labrador. Hardly a small effect. Other models predict possible triggering of an ice age.

I will look for a good link for you for the numerous reports of the major scientific organizations that have concluded that global warming is real and human-caused. You completely leave out issues such as extinctions, the potential huge increase is deserts, the loss of islands (just last week, several thousand people were removed from a South Pacific island that is going underwater due to rising sea levels) and other consequences of rising waters, potentially more frequent and severe hurricances, etc.

In particular, your point about solar activity has been carefully analyzed and concluded to inadequately explain the extent and type of warming.

Greenhouse gases, for example, have been calculated to retain heat in the atmosphere equivalent to a Christmas tree bulb per square meter of the planet's surface. I personally have no difficulty understanding this idea--it's not complicated: burn ancient deposits of the sun's energy (oil and coal). Release vast amounts of carbon dioxide and other gases. These retain heat. The earth warms.

The most worrisome thing is the potential for chaos (in the strict mathematical sense). If we "tip" the system beyond a certain point, it may spiral out of control. For example, permafrost, as it warms, is now being shown to release carbon dioxide. This could lead to a spiral of more warming, more melting, etc.

I believe that almost any other president would have tackled this issue directly, and made the U.S. a leader in green technologies. We should be developing the hybrid engines, not leaving it to the Japanese. We'd then sell and license them to the entire developing world. We should be developing the clean energy technology. But we have an administration filled with oil-company executives. Remember the $8 billion tax cut for oil companies last year? Why has this administration consistently sought to replace scientists with political appointees, and to water down the scientific reports it receives? There have been numerous documented cases of pro-global-warming data being hidden, weakened, or redacted.

As for Kyoto--you're right. It is flawed. But at least it is a first attempt by the nations of the earth to do something about a threat that nearly everyone sees coming, with increasing evidence accumulating almost daily.

The best summary of global warming evidence that I have read was Elizabeth Kolbert's 3-part series in the New Yorker. I'm not sure if it's available online, but I will look for you.

In any case, Bush is coming around. Some time last year, he stopped saying global warming wasn't real, and his science office stopped weakening the statements of the various scientific advisory panels. And last week and this week he finally, however tepidly, acknowledged the need for U.S. involvement in the global effort.

Mariner.

 

[Mariner]

warming link, about as authoritative as you could ask for--the NOAA's own page on the subject:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Even while Bush has dragged his feet, regional alliances and corporations are rapidly committing to the reality of global warming and the need to change their business practices. The business community may end up dragging the Republican party into the reality on global warming--a most interesting prospect. For example, California is concerned about the loss of extremely important farmland (where almost all our salad and vegetables come from) and New Hampshire is concerned about the potential end of the ski industry.

Here's a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

December 7, 2005

Economists Warn Bush Administration About the High Cost of Inaction on Global Warming

Montreal, Dec 7—At the daily Climate Action Network (CAN) press briefing at the Montreal climate change negotiations, 25 respected American economists, including three Nobel laureates, called upon the United States to move aggressively to combat global warming. These economists, all with expertise on applying economics to environmental policy, assert that unless we act now, the price of dealing with global warming and its disruptive effects is only going to increase. The statement was delivered to President Bush and key cabinet members, as well as to every U.S. senator and member of Congress.

"It is important that greenhouse gas emissions be managed using an incentive based policy, such as a market-based approach to capping and reducing such emissions," the economists stated. "This type of strategy…assures that economic forces are directed to keeping the cost of reducing emissions as low as they can be."

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said the economists' call for action underscored that the cost of inaction on global warming will hurt the American economy and U.S. based businesses. Many major corporations, including General Electric, Wal-Mart, and DuPont, have made commitments to cut their own emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. A growing number of corporate CEOs are calling for the United States to establish mandatory caps on such emissions.

* * *

Mariner

 

[LuvRPgrl]

guys are in the rapidly shrinking group (currently 25% and falling fast) who still believe in Bush's Iraq rationale and strategy. Maybe you should consider if you've been "owned" instead of the skeptical rest of us.

What do you mean, "Is that the best I've got"? These were all legitimate news items,.

Mariner.

LIAR.

You post news items, WITH your OPINION about them attatched and then call them news items.

Your opinon is not NEWS.

Your deliberate attempt to call them such is a LIE

Hence, you are a LIAR.


Example "Bush stated that Iraq cannot become a training base for Al Quiada" hence Bush is backhandidly admitting al quiada wasnt there before the invasion.

I paraphrased your words, but the basic concept is there. YOUR OPINION follows the news event and you attempt to disguise it as news. Typical method of the lefties, spreading lies and distortion. One of your favorite tools.
OWNED.

 

[Mariner]

in my original post that I was referring to actual events, reporting them in my own language. I did not mean that I was quoting a reporter. I meant I had read of these things, and was noticing a pattern of increased truth-telling, and, for the first time, active changes of direction in how President Bush is handling his critics.

And this trend has continued. He immediately confirmed the New York Times report about his three dozen executive orders permitting open spying on any American without the need for a search warrant. And in tonight's speech, he referred to the war in Iraq as controversial, another first. Even speaking about Iraq from the Oval Office was a course-change--it's the first time he's done so since 3/03. And, Cheney's visit to Iraq is another course change... as is Bush's capitulation on the terrorism bill.

Just as in this previous paragraph, my initial post was a report of the news in my own words. I thought that might be pretty clear from my obvious judgements such as calling something "bizarre." I'm sorry if I confused you--I had no intent to lie. In ancy case, reporting actual events in my own words hardly consittutes lying. If I used someone else's words that would be plagiarism, not lying. And I didn't.

Mariner.

 

[manu1959]

why does the left want to give up?

 

[Mariner]

are nuts to call for a quick withdrawal. Just as the President said last night, even if (like me) you didn't support the war in the first place, we're there now and we'd better make it work.

I do think our chances of winning would be vastly improved if we recognized that this is less a military battle than a "hearts and minds" battle. It's not as if there's a fixed group of insurgents or terrorists in Iraq. New groups are springing up daily, typically fuelled by anger about particular real things that we have done wrong.

Yesterday's New York Times, for example, contained an extremely disturbing story about a Pakistani man who bragged about having contact with Al Qaeda. The U.S. interrogators quickly concluded that he was a braggart, and almost let him go. Instead, he ended up in detention for FOUR YEARS, with no charges against him at all, no lawyer, and no way out. This type of obvious human rights violation, combined with Bush's Christian-Crusader rhetoric, our paid propoganda fiasco, Abu Ghraib, rendition, etc. etc.... all these things are fuel tossed on the fire of the insurgency, and were completely predictable and unnecessary.

Another way in which Bush is missing the point is, as Joe Biden pointed out to him recently: if every insurgent in Iraq were to drop dead tomorrow, there could still be a civil war. This requires a political, not military solution. I think Bush and his team have been using inappropriate war metaphors for what really could be a much more nuanced and delicate process, that should include maximum respect for human rights, maximum transparency about our goals and our methods, and maximum honesty with everyone--including us poor voters--about what is really going on.

No way do I want to give up.

Mariner.

 

[Zhukov]

The 25% figure came from a major national poll whose results were released last week. NYT, NBC, Gallup or similar.

Everything I could find says 41%. So I maintain my belief you made the 25% number up.

I assumed that you were with the president in his (to me, bizarre) refusal to name or count the Iraqi deaths involved in our invasion.

I think you misunderstood the number he was citing then. Most of those deaths were a result of insurgent activity. It was not just the invasion and it wasn't even the invasion plus any and all subsequent coalition activity. The IBC, from which that number presumably came from, which further is quite obviously biased against the Bush administration, the Blair administration, and clearly the idea of a War on Terror itself, estimates between 27,000 and 31,000 civilian Iraqi deaths yet attributes only about 10,000 to the coalition.

the USA and its allies have been responsible for over 13,000 civilian deaths, not only the 10,000+ in Iraq, but also 3,000+ civilian deaths in Afghanistan

Which leaves 17,000 to 21,000 caused by insurgents, or 62-67%.

Therefore I have thought we should be naming them and showing their pictures just as we do to honor our own dead.

I've been listening to speechs by Rumsfeld, by the Joint Chiefs, and by Generals and lower level officers serving in Iraq commending the sacrifices of the Iraqi people since the begining. Don't you watch the Pentagon briefings? Don't you listen to the speechs given by Gen. Myers, and Gen. Pace, and Gen. Abizaid?

Previously, Bush has been content to ignore them.

It's just not true. Perhaps he just didn't feel the need to callously relegate the sacrifices of the Iraqi people to a number.

As for global warming, you cite very old sources.

One deliberatley so. But not that old when you consider the point I was trying to make, that being just 30 years ago people were warning of a coming ice age.

Let me repeat that, because it bears repeating.

Just 30 years ago people were warning of a coming ice age.

And I understand all the theories about salinity, ocean currents, and so forth.

The ice age they were predicting had nothing whatsoever to do with that.

From your link:

Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?
Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. There appears to be confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance. With only 20 years of reliable measurements however, it is difficult to deduce a trend. But, from the short record we have so far, the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases. There are many indications that the sun also has a longer-term variation which has potentially contributed to the century-scale forcing to a greater degree. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

A lot of qualifiers in there.

I contend that we do not understand climate and climate variation nearly as well as those who prophesize impending doom would have you believe.

I can find a contradiction to any point of global warming theory, and you can find a counter point to the contradiction, ad infinitum, which leads me to one conclusion:

We do not know what is going on and therefore it is in my opinion too early to start steering policy based on something that isn't proven, isn't completely understood, and could quite possibly not be happening at all.

Personally I do not believe what's going on right now with the climate is outside natural variation, is substantially caused by human acitivity, or represents a dire threat to humanity. As per one of my links, if it were even happening, it might actually be beneficial in some respects.

If I am wrong though then the Earth will rectify the problem itself.