Bush swings ax of environmental devastation

[quote=“Alien”]Ha ha! This is your ‘source’, Tigerman? USA TODAY?
Gannett owns USA Today, USA Weekend, USA Today Sports Weekly, and the USA Today Information Network.
Gannett owns 100 daily newspapers in the USA; the Army Times, Navy Times, Navy Times Marine Corps, Air Force Times, Federal Times, Defense Times, and Military Market.[/quote]

So, are you saying that the ex-Clinton aides did NOT admit that Kyoto was flawed?

:bravo: :bravo: :bravo:

Amazing how that one logical sentence cuts through all the hysterical hyperventilating. haha How’s things Alien? Someone cut in line at the grocery store today? haha

The original point of this thread was to illustrate just how bad Bush is on the environment. Is anyone actually disputing THAT? He sucks on the environment…better go find a link for that. He sucks. He’s an ax-swinger. None of you have even tried to deny that, and that was the point of this thread. Fred and others, haberdash, simply want to say “what do you want me/us to do about it”? Nobody asked you to do anything. Just don’t refute that Bush Swings The Axe of Environmental Destruction -he does!

Yes, but no one has really shown that Bush is an anti-environmentalist axe swinger. What the hype has been about is that Bush favors drilling in the Arctic but so do most of the people who live in Alaska. Second, he is against Kyoto but even when Clinton (a true style European politician of saying one thing and doing another) supported Kyoto, the Senate voted almost unanimously against it. So since we do not believe that Kyoto is a good treaty and since no one has shown why drilling should not take place in the Arctic, the question becomes, not has anyone shown that Bush is NOT an axe swinger but has anyone shown that he is and that if he is, he is so to a degree greater than past U.S. presidents. I think the answer to that is a definite NO.

Fred, check out these sites. You’ll find, Bush swings the ax harder than any.

commondreams.org/headlines01/0505-03.htm

mindfully.org/Heritage/2003/ … 7mar03.htm

commondreams.org/headlines05/0125-03.htm

Just one more thing - agree with you about Kyoto. I don’t think Gore or Kerry would have signed it. They couldn’t have -the Senate wouldn’t have allowed it, and many in the US administration see it as designed and strongly supported by Europeans who would like to put restrictions on the US. So I don’t use, nor have I mentioned, Kyoto in any of this thread. From what you’ll gather in the links I’ve just posted, the unique thing about “W” Bush is that he seems to have basically sold out the national parks to energy companies. Right?

No Wispy:

He has not sold out our national parks to corporate interests but many of us believe that federal property should not be limited to remaining corporate frei. Again, those are “cute” sites but what do they really show? Do they show that France is not meeting its Kyoto commitments? Canada? So where is the reference point for all this outrage and criticism? Why complain about Bush not meeting these commitments when he never said he was committed to doing so but no comment about those that said they would and have not made and serious effort to meet their commitments when they claimed to be committed to?

Bush puts petroleum on his corn flakes in the morning, and wipes himself with the fur of wild animals. His ranch house is built of old-growth trees, each of which (let’s say 500-1000years old each on average) was cut down for one hour’s pay.

We need more research on climate change! The jury is out! It isn’t happening!

Bush needs to make serious environmental decisions because, and let’s face it, he rules the globe.

Better him than: