67 posts tagged “bush”

This is a continuation of a previous post regarding Time's Person of the Year.

Here is what Time had to say about Putin:

He stands, above all, for stability—stability before freedom, stability before choice, stability in a country that has hardly seen it for a hundred years. Whether he becomes more like the man for whom his grandfather prepared blinis—who himself was twice TIME's Person of the Year—or like Peter the Great, the historical figure he most admires; whether he proves to be a reformer or an autocrat who takes Russia back to an era of repression—this we will know only over the next decade. At significant cost to the principles and ideas that free nations prize, he has performed an extraordinary feat of leadership in imposing stability on a nation that has rarely known it and brought Russia back to the table of world power.

Now let us not beat around the Bush, okay maybe we should. 

In my mind, stability is synonymous with security.  The end goal for security is a stable country.  I mean that is what we are striving to do in Iraq and that is what we strive to do in this country when it comes to terrorism.

When Bush curtails our freedoms in the name of security so that we can continue to live in a stable America, free from the chaos of terrorist strikes, it is the biggest offense against freedom.  In fact, liberals say that they would rather live in a country with that minute chance of being attacked than let the government have the ability to supposedly limit our freedoms and privacy.  And the liberal media has expounded this over and over.  I mean... watch Keith Olbermann.

Yet, the liberal media has this alter ego.   They praise Putin in their analysis for the Person of the Year, yet scold Bush for the same reasons.  When it is Putin, it is understandable "stability before freedom" and with Bush it is contemptible "security over freedom."

Putting leaders like Admadinejad and Putin on pedestals is just more the Jekyll and Hyde from the liberal press.

Lets say that there was one fresh water source where the whole world received their drinking water.  And this water source was polluted over time by most of the industrialized nations.  These nations got wealthier and helped bring the world into a new age of technology and knowledge.  But the pollution (and the rate of pollution) could threaten all.

Now, these nations agree, in principle, that their pollution is not a good thing and that we should do something about it.  But there is a rub -- nations that previously did not significantly contribute to this pollution are exempt from reducing their increase in pollution rates (as they chug along to becoming industrialized nations).  So industrialized nations would reduce their rates of pollution; however, up and coming nations would still be allowed to pollute the common water source.

This doesn't seem like a very responsible way of addressing the problem and it doesn't seem that this will give you the end goal -- a clean water source.

This example is obviously not true, but it has parallels with the current situation and with the politics surrounding what to do about anthropogenic contribution to global warming.

The BBC News (in 2005):

China is the world's second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, but as a developing country is not yet required to reduce its emissions.

With China accounting for a fifth of the world's population, increases in its emissions could dwarf any cuts made by the industrialised countries.

The average Chinese person consumes only 10-15% of the energy an average US citizen uses, but with the economy developing at high speed many analysts expect China's total emissions to overtake America's by mid-century.

And last year China, according to the International Herald Tribune, became number one:

China overtook the United States in 2006 as the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas blamed for the bulk of global warming...

China produced 6,200 million tons of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and making cement last year, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency said Tuesday on its Web site. That pushed it past the United States, which produced 5,800 million tons of the gas, the agency said.

So, the issue on the table, is that -- if anthropogenic global warming is true -- yeah China never started the problem; however, if scientists are correct about doing something about global warming and doing it now, it would be careless to let China and other developing nations (in their quest to become industrialized nations) continue to just spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere unchecked.

And with this conference in Bali, that seemed to be one of the issues the United States was arguing and it appears, according to the LA Times, that the delegation got its way (HT: Captain Ed).

Under pressure from the United States, the document abandoned setting any firm goal for worldwide emissions reductions and left open the possibility that industrialized countries could avoid individual caps on their emissions.

Nonetheless, for the first time, it enrolled the developing world in efforts to reduce global emissions and pushed those nations to consider ways to limit their output of greenhouse gases.

More important, the agreement kept the United States -- long considered the biggest roadblock to unified action in curbing global warming -- at the negotiating table and offered hints that the country might finally be willing to join international efforts.

I tend to agree with Ed Morrissey:

If Bali requires us to effectively nationalize the energy-production industry and to fund nationalization in other countries, it has no chance of passage in the US. If it requires us to force our economy into recession for the next several years, it won't have a prayer. If it forces the government to start licensing nuclear reactors, clean-coal refineries, and invest in long-term energy independence, it might be worth it.

But of course, there are already those out there claiming this is an outrage and that the U.S. continues to have their head up their ass.  I just don't see why it is a stretch to say -- hey if the U.S. is going to participate in a climate treaty that all of the participants will have to adhere to the emission regulations.  Especially, if you have a country like China that is the number one offender in CO2 emissions and they are exempt under Kyoto!

So the world will be pissed off that the U.S. made changes to try to avoid industrialized caps on emissions, but it laid the foundation for future negotiations where all countries will have to work on greenhouse gas emission reductions.

To end this, here is a quote from NewsBusters:

Readers should understand that this was a huge victory for the U.S., and what was indeed missing from the Kyoto Protocol the Clinton administration, with support from then Vice President Al Gore and 95 senators, refused to ratify in 1997. Now, ten years later, developing nations are the ones that have capitulated and agreed to participate in emissions cuts.

Though most media will downplay this, it was indeed a win for the Bush administration and America, as it establishes that any agreement to emissions cuts in the future - assuming such occur - will include developing nations like China and India. This potentially assures that any climate change agreement the U.S. enters into in the future will not give such nations an unfair economic advantage.

Now, I don't know about victory, but I understand the logic behind why Kyoto was rejected during the Clinton administration and I understand the logic that it is an all or none deal if we are truly going to have an impact on reducing warming.

John Batiste and Pete Hegseth via a Washington Post opinion article:

We are veterans of the Iraq war with vastly different experiences. Both of us commanded troops in Iraq. We, too, held seemingly entrenched, and incompatible, views upon our return. One of us spoke out against mismanagement of the war -- failed leadership, lack of strategy and misdirection. The other championed the cause of successfully completing our mission.

Our perspectives were different, yet not as stark as the "outspoken general" and "stay-the-course supporter" labels we received. Such labels are oversimplified and inaccurate, and we are united behind a greater purpose.

It's time to discuss the way forward rather than prosecute the past. Congress must do the same, for our nation and the troops.

The bandwagon is getting bigger and here is the kicker courtesy of Michael Goldfarb:

There are two stories here: 1) A formerly anti-war general flips on supporting the war, and now believes Petraeus has the right strategy; and 2) Batiste has left VoteVets.org, and the antiwar movement, and joined up with the pro-troop, pro-surge, pro-victory Vets for Freedom.

The antiwar movement has lost one of its most powerful voices today, and it will be interesting to see whether they turn on one of their own, or come around to the view, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that the surge is working.

I like those words -- the "preponderance of evidence."  I wonder what is like when those silly things called facts get into the way of arguments.  Maybe we should ask Harry Reid?  Or Murtha?

Hmmm... Interesting.

DJ Elliott explains what the real surge is all about.

Security in Iraq improves with an increased long-term security presence; a security presence that will increasingly be shouldered by Iraqi troops. The five US surge brigades were not only brought in to buy the Iraqi government time to sort out the political situation, they were brought in to buy the Iraqi Army time to expand. The five US surge brigades are doing some much needed housecleaning in Iraq's problem areas, freeing up Iraqi Army formations to provide cadre for new forming units, and providing additional training partners for the new Iraqi Army formations thus facilitating the accelerated expansion. The Iraqi Army is replacing the US forces departing Iraqi by the end of 2008 at rate of two Iraqi brigades for one US brigade.

Giving our military the time and the plan to get it done.  Something that definitely falls on deaf ears on the left side of the aisle.  Especially now.  I haven't seen many blog posts calling for withdrawal from Iraq anymore.  Just the sound of crickets.

Just report the news, don't speculate on motives.

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N. climate panel won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for their part in galvanizing international action against global warming before it "moves beyond man's control".

The award appeared to be a snub to President George W. Bush, who has doubted the science of global warming and rejected caps on emissions of gases believed to cause it, but the White House said it was happy for the winners and praised their work.

I am on the global warming bandwagon, but this is just more of the same media bias in reporting.

The ironic thing about this is that the reporting is just like global warming deniers.  There is a speculation and appearance -- but no substantive evidence to the claim.  Is there a source on the Nobel committee who says this is a snub?  No.  So why report this?  It just shows bias.

Just the facts.  Please.

UPDATE:  It appears that the article has been updated and now says the following:

Political opponents saw the award as a snub to President George W. Bush who has doubted the science of global warming and rejected caps on emissions of gases believed to cause it but the White House said it was happy for the winners and praised their work.

Noel Sheppard has a good post.

So, a shocking increase in deaths would have "certainly" been newsworthy. However, for a decrease to be reported, skeptical journalists have to be more convinced that it's a lasting improvement.

Sadly, this is what makes today's reporters more like sports fans than real journalists.

If they act like sports fans, you have to wonder what team they support?

Arnaud de Borchgrave has a great piece about the greater context of al Qaeda and the war on Islamofascism.

Mr. Gingrich's alarm bell is the loudest: "The gap between where we are and where we should be is so large that it seems almost impossible to explain why the Petraeus Report, while important, will be a wholly inadequate explanation as to what is required to defeat our enemies and secure America and her allies."

America, says Mr. Gingrich, is "currently trapped between those who advocate 'staying the course' and those who would legislate surrender and defeat for America." The Petraeus Report is about a specific campaign, he explained, but Iraq is a campaign in a larger war just as Afghanistan is a campaign in a larger war. Context is missing. Like Gettysburg without the context of the larger Civil War still to be won; or Guadalcanal without the larger war still to be won, or President Reagan's Berlin Wall speech without any understanding about the Cold War and that the Soviet Union was a mortal threat to freedom.

Beyond Gen. Petraeus' testimony, says Mr. Gingrich, we need a report "on the larger war with the irreconcilable Wing of Islam. This enemy is irreconcilable with the modern civilized world... because it cannot tolerate other religions or other life styles... the Islamofascist approach to imposing its views on others and as such it is a mortal threat to our way of life, to freedom, and to the rule of law."

Can you imagine in WWII the U.S. backing out of the Pacific theater because of a loss of comprehension of how the struggle against Japanese imperialism fit into the greater war?

Not according to Michael O'Hanlon:

...Petraeus will argue that the overall situation has improved substantially this year. He will be right to do so, based on virtually any primary-source data I have seen (in my capacity as co-author of Brookings’s “Iraq Index”). Depending on which category of violence one emphasizes, and which starting and end points one uses for the comparison, most categories of killings are down 20 to 50-percent since the surge began. This is true for overall civilian fatalities from all causes, including victims of extrajudicial killings (basically reprisal assassinations), murders, and for the most part, car- and truck-bombing victims.

The contempt on the liberal left regarding Iraq is absolutely out of control.

General Petraeus has served this country for over 35 years with honor, distinction, and integrity. And this is not just about General Petraeus. After all, if General Petraeus is "cooking the books," then the entire military chain of command in Baghdad, and all the staff, military and civilian, who have been working with General Petraeus are complicit, since Petraeus did not write his report in isolation. They are all, apparently, 'betray[ing] us.'

I guess they wouldn't know objective thought on Iraq if it hit them smack in the mouth.

But in defense of some liberals, if there could be vast 9/11 conspiracy where nobody talked or leaked it to the public, then there certainly could be a vast military conspiracy regarding a turnaround in Iraq.