Well, thats certainly something real you can bash Bush on then jshore…agree completely.
-XT
Bush, Clinton, Bush I, Regan, Carter… almost anyone who has served in congress
All these people are to blame. I won’t blame Bush anymore, or less then i will blame Clinton, he didn’t anything about it either. All of them with their hands out for money.
since this has not somehow made it to the pit yet i will stop there.
If storm intensity and frequency is due global warming (I’ve never seen evidence against it) we are all to blame. It’s not like im riding a bike to go get my organic fruits, or have hooked up solar panels to supply me with power.
Thanks, newscrasher. I had clicked on the link in the OP, but didn’t follow it in turn to the HuffingtonPost.
Perhaps the OP’er didn’t either…
- As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2. *
It looks to me as though Kennedy is leading off by stating that Bush backed off of promised increased environmental regulations as a direct result of pressure from a politician in a region now hit by the hurricane. I would say that the main criticism is heaped on the Governor, and only later on Bush as a result of caving to political pressure.
However, yes it does sound like politicizing and, yes it is insensitive at this time. In defense of his principles (though not his tact): I’ve heard Kennedy speak and it is clear from everything he says that it is the environment that is closest to his heart. If it sounds like a condemnation of Bush or Republicans, it is only because they tend to favor industry over the environment, and have rolled back many of the environmental regulations that have been passed, and refusing to enforce those that have been passed.
Just to address some points made in earlier posts: Even if global warming is a result of the last 100 years of US industrialization (since 1905? Cmon, I’d say since after WWII), that doesn’t excuse any administration from blaming the past and walking away (as the US did at Kyoto). One doesn’t reverse a trend by perpetuating it.
True, but nor does it give the right to someone to blam the guy in charge for a problem that can be said to have begun with the industrial revolution. Once those smokestacks started billowing the gasses in the air, the problem existed. My point was that a quick four years is not going to reverse many years of doing nothing but contributing to the problem.
You’re right. Don’t bother blaming Bush. But for chrissakes, will people realize there’s a problem???
True - in the sense that one can’t blame Bush (or anyone for that matter) for the industrialization that has been taking place for decades.
False - in the sense that continuing to do nothing is bad enough. In Bush’s case, I believe that conditions have worsened. The link I posted above to Kennedy’s speech to the National Press Club itemizes the transgressions of this administration.
While we’re on the subject of politicizing Katrina, prepare yourself for a much bigger one: This is the time when the President ordinarily dispatches the National Guard to aid in a national disaster. With the Guard stretched thin with many of them in Iraq, this is going to hamper the efforts to provide aid, reconstruct infrastructure, deter looters, etc. Much will be made of the troops being abroad in a questionable war when they are desperately needed here.
And then expect politicizing over the cost of reconstruction on top of the cost of the Iraq War, and the rising cost of oil.
Isn’t the national guard supposed to be here for national emergencies, not random invasions? Oh, I accidentally criticized Bush again. None of his actions have consequences. We can plunge the country in debt and strap our resources, but there are no consequences and to suggest otherwise is indecent and amoral.
Nope, not everyone. If there is the slightest dissention within the scientific community, which there is regarding global warming, there will always be those who for whatever reason refuse to admit that there is a problem. They will tell you that weather is cyclical, like 1,000 of years in a cycle. Further, it is shortsighted to make predictions of future weather calamities based on a relatively small number of human years in which meteorology has been studied. That argument has some merit by the way.
The hardest concept to sell is the whole global warming causing cooler than average temperatures. The average Joe wont see the correlation between the two and dismiss the entire effort as “junk science”. Movies like The Day After Tomorrow don’t help either.
Not necessarily. The National Guard has faught in plenty of overseas conflicts besides this one. Did you actually read the article by the way? It was repeated several times by several different sources that Guard levels are adequate for the job at hand in the states currently affected by the storm.
And what consequences should Bush face? Poor planning is not a trait unique to this administration.
Well, Bush has politicized the event by making a big deal about cutting his vacation “short” to address the disaster. Here’s Salon’s take:
Sounds like he’s using the tragedy as an opportunity to burnish his image a little…
Wow, I’m glad to know that criticizing the President can, in the right context, actually be unforgivable! Will you let us know when those situations are in the future? :rolleyes:
OK, fine. Do you mind if we lay the blame for the shortage of National Guard troops squarely at his feet, then? It is his war that’s responsible for fewer NG stateside, not to mention lower recruitment numbers and an already exhausted supply of soldiers who, after multiple tours abroad, have to face this disaster with diminished numbers. There isn’t morally and ethically wrong to blame him for that, is there?
I’ll ask you, did you read the article? Several officials said that the Guard levels were adequate for the task at hand.
Did you?
*The Pentagon has sent about 40 percent of Mississippi’s National Guard force to Iraq and 35 percent of Louisiana’s – a combined total of about 6,000 troops. But officials maintained this had not hurt the relief effort in those states, hardest hit by the hurricane. ~bolding mine
The Pentagon has promised never to deploy more than half of a state’s guard force at any given time.
“None of the states impacted are stretched thin at all,” said Jack Harrison, a National Guard Bureau spokesman at the Pentagon, noting there are about 31,500 guardsmen either activated or available to be activated in the four states.*
Just for clarification
Obviosuly a different point of view from those behind a desk and those on the ground. I humbly retract my previous statement.
Caving in to political pressure? Haley Barbour was the Chairman of the Republican Party for six years. He was Reagan’s Director of White House Office of Political Affairs. He’s served as the chair and CEO of the country’s top lobbying firm.
Haley Barbour IS political pressure.
-Joe
Right…The difference is also between the Pentagon Party Line and what the people who are freer to speak the truth can say.
And the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
So let’s see…
- There’s no evidence at all that global warming contributed to this storm in any way.
- Had Bush pushed for Kyoto, it would have been overwhelmingly rejected in the senate.
- Had he managed somehow to get it passed into law, it would have had absolutely no effect on global temperatures by this time.
Other than that, it’s all Bush’s fault. :rolleyes:
As for making general points about global warming, the time to do that is not while there are still bodies floating in the flooded streets of a destroyed city.
Alternatively, this is the best time to do it, when people will make the association between global warming and dead bodies and destroyed cities. That sort of association is good to have lodged in people’s memories when you want to bring up the topic, later–sort of like making false links between Iraq and terrorism if you want to launch an invasion: get the idea into the heads of the people so that you don’t have to start over when you try to build your case.
Now, regardless whether science eventually provides a link between global warming and destructive hurricanes, if it is your belief the the link exists, this is the time to reinforce that belief among the rest of the public.