http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46059
The obstructionists are already politicizing Katrina against our President.
Will the screeching ever stop? Isn’t it absolutely shameful? I am sickened by this crap.
link doesn’t work
What if it’s accurate to say that these annual hurricanes are caused by global warming? Will it continue to be “screeching” as year after year a city is leveled by a hurricane?
I don’t see the problem. After all, if global warming is real, and has accelerated hurricanes, then anyone who causes it to exist should be blamed, be it refrigerator manufacturers, or presidents.
Seeing as it’s appearing on World Net Daily, probably none of it is true. But if it is, I certainly don’t see anything “absolutely shameful” about telling the truth and backing it up with good, solid science. We have probably around 500 people dead and several cities almost entirely destroyed. Without global warming, the damage and death would probably have been far less. While there are people in denial about these facts, of course, denial will not keep our cities above water. If our leaders want to save lives in the future, telling the truth now certainly looks like a good start to me.
Also, it should be remarked that World Net Daily responded to the terrorist attacks by celebrating the death of the victims and praising Al Queda for their Godly stand as “a sword against America”. Given that, it seems a little bit hypocritical for them to whine about someone else politicizing a disaster. Wouldn’t you agree, yo no se?
Of course the premise is that the president is above criticism. When the effects of his decision making are felt, it’s considered poor form to hold him responsible.
yo no se, are we “debating” whether critics of the current administration are correct to condemn the president’s actions regarding global warming?, are rude to publish their criticism so soon after the storm has passed through? are too shrill in their condenation (regardless whether it is correct or rude)?
Please post a specific point of debate, here. Otherwise I am going to move this to the Pit.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
You have a citation for that (as opposed to WND having quoted Falwell and Robinson on September 13)?
I’m getting used to it. Every time there is an anomaly in the weather, somewhere in the world, someone invariably will pop up and blame it on global warming. Global warming appears to be the latest pseudo-religion to afflict the environmental movement.
Is that true? :eek:
I know some of the white supremacist groups were saying things like that, but that seems a bit much for WND. (which is an odd thing to type.)
As much as I despise Bush, I wouldn’t lay this at his door, either. It’s simply not fair. He’s just one of millions with the same viewpoint.
Even if he wanted to, there’s really nothing he could do. His administration is on the way out of power. It’s not as if he could say, “Okay, that’s the last straw. We’re fixing global warming tomorrow.” At this point, it would take decades, if not a century, to correct the problem, and there’s no guarantee the next president will be scientifically literate.
Why does the OP use the word “obstructionists”? I could understand using that term to characterize activists/commentators out to “obstruct” some particular Admin program or goal, such as the war. But if Bush is in any sense to blame for global warming, he is to blame because of inaction (his failure or willful refusal to act vigorously enough to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and find replacement, non-CO2-emitting power sources, especially for automobiles); so, in this particular field of issues, it is meaningless to call his critics “obstructionists.” Rather, it is the critics who with better justice would view Bush as “obstructionist.”
This is to address the debate about politicizing tragedy, and not intended as a debate of global warming.
In the link, Kennedy states:
“Well, the science is clear. This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming.”
I wasn’t able to find an article from this month; does anyone subscribe to Nature? I did find an article referencing hurricanes and global warming (I don’t subscribe, so I can’t post a link or quote) from June 23, 2005. If Kennedy said this about this article, from his comment “this month” he must have said it in June, and that can hardly be considered politicizing this tragedy. Predicting, perhaps…
Kennedy has been absolutely consistent in his criticism of the erosion of environmental regulations during the Bush administration. See and listen to this for further elaboration. So, this is hardly hopping on a bandwagon.
RFK, Jr.s commentsdate 8/29/05
Well, the Bush administration can be blamed for the flooding in New Orleans. Upgrades and repairs to the levees which failed were deferred to pay for the war in Iraq.
So it is Bush’s fault. I knew it. Now he gets to airdrop in and do photo ops and pretend he cares.
Well now that you have played the Great American Blame Game, the people who are making a difference will be distributing food and water, helping get people medicines they need and finding places for them to sleep in safety.
I hope you feel better that you can lay the blame for the suffering at the feet of Bush.
The politicization of this tragedy is vile and disgusting, not to mention petty and lacking in compassion.
Thanks for the link correction.
My POV: (1) it is extremely indecent for RFK Jr. and his ilk to politicize this event; (2) to do it at this point in time is unforgiveable; and (3) it is morally and ethically wrong to place the blame of a natural disaster of this (or any) magnitude on an individual whether in the Press or in a Courtroom unless there is sufficient evidence to prove guilt.
Is it extremely indecent to connect causes to effects? It is morally and ethically wrong to place the blame of forseeable and preventable consequences of natural disasters on individuals who repeatedly ignored warnings and refused to prepare? And why not “at this point in time,” when people are paying attention?