January 17, 2007
Well, unless he's going to say it's bullshit, whatever it is can't be good.
This is encouraging, however:
"It's not accurate. It's wrong," White House spokesman Tony Snow said regarding media reports suggesting that Bush would agree to mandatory emissions caps in an effort to combat global warming. Such caps could require energy conservation and pollution curbs.And, of course, another blatant lie from Al-Reuters:
"If you're talking about enforceable carbon caps, in terms of industry-wide and nation-wide, we knocked that down. That's not something we're talking about," Snow said...
..."We'll have a State of the Union address in a week and we'll lay out our policy on global warming," Snow said when asked whether British Prime Minister Tony Blair had persuaded Bush to agree to tougher action to combat global warming.
U.S. allies such as Britain and Germany have pressed for a new global agreement on climate change to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012. Bush withdrew the United States from the protocol in 2001, saying its targets for reducing carbon emissions would unfairly hurt the U.S. economy.Kyoto was never ratified by the Senate, who voted it down 95 to ZERO in 1999 - under Clinton's watch. Bush simply called a spade and spade and spelled out why. You can't withdraw from a treaty you've never entered into.
He could easily have passed the buck to his predecessor and all those Senators, but that's not what leaders do.
The President did withdraw from the ABM treaty in 2001 (and rightly so since one of the parties no longer existed). So it could be that Al-Rueters is just being lazy. Either way, it's disgraceful reporting.
January 11, 2007
I don't have all the data about the current situation in Baghdad and Anbar Provence (few do). But it strikes the right tone in my mind.
Implementing this plan offers no guaranty of victory, but the Democrats' alternative can only guaranty defeat. It's the only thing they understand.
As far as I'm concerned, only one of these choices is acceptable. Give our men and women what they need, remove the unnecessary restrictions on the rules of engagement and let them do their job. Period.
January 09, 2007
Really, with Bush's override-proof veto power and a one-seat majority in the Senate, the Dems are going to have a pretty difficult time passing any kind of meaningful legislation. So the next two years are going to amount to merely impeding and harrassing the President wherever and whenever possible.
That's where Fielding comes in:
It's hard to imagine a more experienced choice than Mr. Fielding on the subject of executive power. As deputy White House counsel from 1972 to 1974, he witnessed the modern low tide of Presidential authority as Richard Nixon was besieged by Watergate. And as Ronald Reagan's counsel from 1981 to 1986, he had to cope with a Democratic House that unleashed special prosecutors on the executive branch.So let Rep. Henry "Nostils" Waxman and his merry band of litigious buffoons take their best shots.
The "independent counsel" law has happily expired, but this Congress will be looking to assert itself in particular on war powers. Mr. Fielding understands the importance of fighting off such poaching--for the sake of Mr. Bush and the Office of the Presidency. This ought to mean recommending that Mr. Bush veto any weakening of last year's law on military tribunals, as well as resisting any further delegation of executive power to the judiciary for approving warrantless wiretaps of al Qaeda.
The question of responding to the avalanche of subpoenas will be more politically delicate. Congress has every right to conduct oversight of the executive branch, and the White House will be obliged to supply numerous documents. However, the principle of executive privilege is vital to Presidential decision-making, and preserving the privacy of that deliberative process will be one of Mr. Fielding's primary tasks.
111 queries taking 0.1065 seconds, 227 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.