It's Bush who's the flip-flopper

Hi Chopper and welcome to A2K. We'll hijack Au's thread if we answer your question here, but be sure to check in on all the threads. You'll probably find one where it fits. Sofia will probably start a RNC Convention thread soon.

Bush, again, his
own word enemy

WASHINGTON - President Bush tripped over his tongue again yesterday, inadvertently suggesting that he and his administration are plotting new ways to harm America.At a White House ceremony where he signed the $417 billion defense spending bill for the 2005 fiscal year, Bush uttered another of his celebrated malapropisms.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," he said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."


It may have been just another confused statemenrt eminating from Bush's confused mind. However, he may have just hit the nail on the head.

BUSH MISLEADS ON GLOBAL WARMING

Campaigning for the presidency in 2000, George W. Bush promised to place mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions to control global warming.[1] After he assumed office - in what was widely seen as payback for the energy industry that helped finance his campaign - Bush quickly reneged on his pledge.[2] Bush claimed such regulations were inappropriate because there was no clear scientific link between human activity and global warming.[3]

But last week, a report signed by Bush's Secretary of Commerce Don Evans and Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham,[4] concluded, "rising temperatures in North America are due in part to human activity."[5] The report found that global warming was already causing draught, damaging farms and changing migration patterns.[6]

Nevertheless, the Bush administration is still content to do nothing. John H. Marburger, the president's top science adviser, said the report has "no implications for policy."[7] Bush himself denies that there has been any change in the administration's position. Asked by the New York Times to explain the switch, Bush replied "Ah, did we?...I don't think so."[8]


Sources:
1. "Bait and Switch," Pollution Engineering, 12/01/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52541.
2. "Bush u-turn on climate change wins few friends," The Guardian, 8/27/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52542.
3. "Bush administration report links human acts to global warming," The Boston Globe, 8/27/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52543.
4. "Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Climate Change Science Program for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005," U.S. Climate Change Science Program , 8/25/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52544.
5. "Administration Shifts on Global Warming," Washington Post, 8/27/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52545.
6. "White House Climate Policy Remains Unchanged in Face of Science Shift," Natural Resources Defense Council, 8/26/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52546.
7. "Administration Shifts on Global Warming," Washington Post, 8/27/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52545.
8. "White House cites human role in global warming," CNN, 8/27/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52547.

Good one, au. Thanks for posting it.

That is what happens when you let the monkey out of the cage. He sometimes tells the truth, what he knows of it. And now come the denials and explanations "He meant"Blah,Blah Blah. I am so proud of our presidents ability to express himself aren't you?

THE PRESIDENT

Bush Cites Doubt America Can Win War on Terror

By ELISABETH BUMILLER

Published: August 31, 2004

ASHUA, N.H., Aug. 30 - President Bush, in an interview broadcast on Monday, said he did not think America could win the war on terror but that it could make terrorism less acceptable around the world, a departure from his previous optimistic statements that the United States would eventually prevail.

In the interview with Matt Lauer of the NBC News program "Today," conducted on Saturday but shown on the opening day of the Republican National Convention, Mr. Bush was asked if the United States could win the war against terrorism, which he has made the focus of his administration and the central thrust of his re-election campaign.

"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush replied. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

As recently as July 14, Mr. Bush had drawn a far sunnier picture. "I have a clear vision and a strategy to win the war on terror," he said.

At a prime-time news conference in the East Room of the White House on April 13, Mr. Bush said: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we are asking questions, is, 'Can you ever win the war on terror?' Of course you can."

It was unclear if Mr. Bush had meant to make the remark to Mr. Lauer, or if he misspoke. But White House officials said the president was not signaling a change in policy, and they sought to explain his statement by saying he was emphasizing the long-term nature of the struggle.

Taken at face value, however, Mr. Bush's words would put him closer to the positions of the United States' European allies, who have considered Mr. Bush's talk of victory simplistic and unhelpful.


story

Hey, au, I just started a thread about this. Come over and chat, and bring your sources -- you have better ones than mine.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=32610

As expected, the Bushies will try to tone down their obvious extremist agenda by presention more moderate faces at the convention. Last night, I am told, Guiliani spoke to the delegates, or should I say, to the camera.

Guiliani and McCain both have aspirations for the White House, perhaps against Kerry in '08. So it makes perfect "political" sense for them to be supportive even when, in McCain's case, my guess is that he despises Bush.

I did not watch the coverage last night, but I heard Mario Cuomo later comment on Guiliani's reference to Kerry's prior comment that he would 'vote to support the war resolution again'. Cuomo explained, as many others have done, that Kerry's comment was, of course, truncated and taken out of context.

What Kerry said, if anyone is really interested, is that he would vote to give the president the authority to act in defense of the country (of COURSE) with the understanding that, barring the absence of an "imminent threat", that same president would exhaust all diplomatic alternatives before sending American troops into harms way. In this case, that understanding included going back to the UN and working (for I believe ONE MORE MONTH) with the weapons inspectors.

As it turns out, the whole WMD thing was irrelevant to Bush, and he never intended to adhere to any UN resolution unless it supported his real agenda: regime change/oil. He chose not to wait the month so as to make the "threat" appear imminent, and make the American people think pre-emption was justified.

Too bad he didn't heed his father's words:



- George Bush Sr, from his memoirs.

The acorn landed miles from the tree

But it sure is a nut.

For a list I made of Bush failures and flip-flops, see http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=875017#875017

Cycloptichorn

The Bush credo we buy our friends SWIFT BOAT VET GOT $40M CONTRACT FROM BUSH

The Bush White House has denied any connection to the Swift Boat Veterans
for Truth[1] - the group that has been airing factually unsupportable smear
ads against Sen. John Kerry's war record. But a new report today shows that
one of the key accusers in the smear ads was a lobbyist for a company that
recently received a massive federal contract from the Bush administration.

As the Washington Post reports, Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr., the
man who claims Kerry was not under fire when he received his first Purple
Heart, is a top lobbyist for a defense contractor that recently won a $40
million grant from the Bush administration. According to a March 18 legal
filing by Schachte's firm, Blank Rome, Schachte was one of the lobbyists
working for FastShip's effort to secure federal contracts.[2] On Feb. 2,
FastShip announced the Bush administration had awarded it $40 million.[3]

Schachte has other connections to the Bush administration. The Washington
Post notes David Norcross, Schachte's colleague in the Washington office of
Blank Rome, is chairman of this week's Republican convention in New York.[4]
Records show that Schachte gave $1,000 to Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns.[5]
Additionally, Schachte helped organize veterans' efforts against Sen. John
McCain (R-AZ) and for Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary.[6]

This is not the first member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who has
been revealed to be connected to the President. The Bush-Cheney campaign's
top outside lawyer was forced to resign after he admitted providing legal
services to the veterans group.[7] The Bush-Cheney campaign's veterans
adviser was also featured in one of the smear ads.[8]


Sources:

1. "Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan," WhiteHouse.gov, 8/20/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52656.
2. "A Swift Shift in Stories," Washington Post, 8/31/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52657.
3. "FastShip, Inc. to Receive $40 million in Federal Support for Marine
Cargo Terminal in Philadelphia," FastShipAtlantic.com, 2/02/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52658.
4. "A Swift Shift in Stories," Washington Post, 8/31/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52657.
5. OpenSecrets.org, 8/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52659.
6. Charleston Post & Courier, 2/17/2000.
7. "Bush-Cheney Lawyer Advised Anti-Kerry Vets," Washington Post, 8/25/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52660.
8. "Bush Campaign Drops Swift Boat Ad Figure," Washington Post, 8/22/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52661.