Tony Snow had this to say about his boss and his environmental policies…
Mr. Bush had in fact been “keenly committed both to environmentalism and conservationism from the start.”
Must be something in the Kool-Aide up there in the White House. As the NY Times points out in an editorial…
Mr. Bush made three big promises in this area in the 2000 campaign. One was to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. He reneged on that one almost immediately. The second was to finance the federal government’s core open space program, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, at its annual authorized level of $900 million. He has shortchanged it badly every year and this year he is asking for $85 million.
The third promise was to put more money into the national parks. Here history may give Mr. Bush higher marks, thanks largely to the entreaties of Mr. Kempthorne, who pressed for and received a commitment of $258 million in new spending this year and a guarantee of $1 billion over 10 years. The parks have been starved for years (and not just by this administration), and people who care about them have every reason to be pleased by the prospect of a substantial increase in the budget.
The only hope that Bush has of turning around his record is laid out right there in the editorial. The proof will be in the way in which the promise is fulfilled…or not. That is the record that Bush has to run away from, his ability to actually fulfill a promise. Let’s hope that this will be the start of something new for this White House, but let’s not bet the bank on it…Not that they’ve left any money in the bank for us to bet on.
Source: T.R.? He’s No T.R. – New York Times
Somehow, after four years, the debate on Iraq is still animated by wishful thinking. The White House talks as if a surge of 20,000 troops is going to stop a civil war. Democrats argue that when America withdraws its troops, Iraqis will finally take responsibility for their own security. But we all need to face the likelihood that this story isn’t going to have a happy ending.
What we all need to face is the real possibility (aw, hell, it’s damn near a foregone conclusion) that the American “solution” to Sadam is going to be worse than not having gotten involved at all. George W “decided” and his decision is going to end up getting more people killed than Sadam himself was responsible for. By W’s rules of world relations, we probably should face the real likelihood that someday soon Crawford, TX will be under global interdiction with a “Coalition” of forces waiting to take the “war criminal” (oops, “war President”) off to account for his unleashing “Bush style democracy” on the rest of the world.
Source: David Ignatius – Expect The Worst In Iraq – washingtonpost.com
Charles Krauthammer takes us to task for those blaming America for the deaths in Iraq…
We have made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. But when Arabs kill Arabs and Shiites kill Shiites and Sunnis kill all in a spasm of violence that is blind and furious and has roots in hatreds born long before America was even a republic, to place the blame on the one player, the one country, the one military that has done more than any other to try to separate the combatants and bring conciliation is simply perverse.
It infantilizes Arabs. It demonizes Americans. It willfully overlooks the plainest of facts: Iraq is their country. We midwifed their freedom. They chose civil war.
His entire premise overlooks one thing…Why? The American Congress did not vote to go to war to “midwife freedom”. The American people did not ask to have their sons and daughters placed in the middle of the oldest religious strife on the planet. Three thousand year old tribal warfare will not be stopped with more war. Good God, the Jewish people were driven out of this region, returned, and are still being killed today in the effort to run them out again. Does anyone think that this region will see peace as long as it benefits some to see them at war?
Again, I ask. Why is America in Iraq? Besides oil, what does this country have that we are willing to die for? Who is it that thinks America’s blood is as cheap as Iraq’s oil? Only those who never bleed for it.
Source: Charles Krauthammer – Who’s to Blame for The Killing – washingtonpost.com
Another tribute to a life lived large…
Remembering Molly Ivins
Source: Remembering Molly Ivins