|
| quote: | Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC
So each and everyone of those things was approved,
no wait, thought of, and pushed into being by George
Bush himself? |
Hmm, perhaps I can hold your hand and back up to where I stated this:
| quote: | | If you have a difficult time with that concept, I will gladly substitute my criticism of silencing such issues the name "Bush" with "this Administration". Does that make things nice and rosy? |
Criticism of how this FEDERAL government and it's various branches are being run goes right to the heart of this Administration. How is this somehow incorrect? I seem to have heard similar rantings by Bush supporters during Katrina as well. While it was certainly appropriate to go after the FEMA director, whom do you think put that director there in the first place? Whom do you believe hires most of the staff of these various federal positions that instills these policies?
One other thing that's somewhat obvious as well - what these points demonstrate are in line with much of, if not all of Bush's policies. For example:
| quote: | * The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has to date failed to produce a congressionally-mandated report on climate change that was due in 2004. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has called the failure an "obfuscation."
* The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced plans to close several libraries which were used by researchers and scientists. The agency called its decision a cost-cutting measure, but a 2004 report showed that the facilities actually brought the EPA a $7.5 million surplus annually. (Thanks to Mark B. below.)
* A rule change at the U.S. Geological Survey restricts agency scientists from publishing or discussing research without that information first being screened by higher-ups at the agency. Special screening will be given to "findings or data that may be especially newsworthy, have an impact on government policy, or contradict previous public understanding to ensure that proper officials are notified and that communication strategies are developed." The scientists at the USGS cover such controversial topics as global warming. Before, studies were released after an anonymous peer review of the research.
* In 2002, Bush officials intervened to derail the publication of an EPA report on mercury and children's health, which contradicted the administration's position on lowering regulations on certain power plants. The report was eventually leaked by a "frustrated EPA official."
* In 2003, the EPA bowed to White House pressure and deleted the global warming section in its annual "Report on the Environment." The move drew condemnations from Democrats and Republicans alike.
* Also in 2003, the EPA withheld for months key findings from an air pollution report that undercut the White House's "Clear Skies" initiative. Leaked copies were reported in the Washington Post.
|
tends to fall in line quite well with Bush's resistance to global warming.
And keep in mind what McCain, a Republican last I heard said in the article that the point above alluded to:
| quote: | Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) raised eyebrows yesterday with that comment regarding the Bush administration, made before a crowd of several hundred at a Washington, D.C. event.
At issue is a report on climate change that Congress requires every four years. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is responsible for producing the document, last filed a report in 2000. A new report -- the first to be filed by the Bush administration -- was due in November 2004, but to date the agency has not done so.
"When you get to that degree of obfuscation, then you get a little depressed," McCain said, according to several attendees. McCain's comments were also reported by the trade daily Environment and Energy.
McCain has rapped the administration before over the long-overdue report.
At a June 2005 hearing, McCain grilled Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, Bush's appointed chief of NOAA, over a GAO report chastising his agency for failing to deliver their findings on time. |
Another point above linked this article:
| quote: | WASHINGTON: The Bush administration is clamping down on scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey, who study everything from caribou mating to global warming, subjecting them to controls on research that might go against official policy.
New rules require screening of all facts and interpretations by agency scientists. The rules apply to all scientific papers and other public documents, even minor reports or prepared talks, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/14/america/NA_GEN_US_Bush_Scientists.php |
The point you snipe about the Forestry links to this article:
| quote: | But environmental groups and lawmakers on Capitol Hill, who've been battling the Bush administration on a variety of ecological fronts, fear that it will squelch the public's voice and limit scientific oversight.
They charged that this wasn't the first time the Forest Service had attempted to "bury bad news" near the end of the year, when Congress had left town for the holidays.
"This is a master plan for the national forests," said Michael Francis, the director of the Wilderness Society's national forest program. "You ought to have some rigorous scientific and environmental review to look at what you want to do - as they have done since 1982."
... Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, who's expected to chair the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee next year, said the Forest Service's suggestion that planning had no environmental impact was a "sad but revealing admission."
"The Forest Service has largely rendered meaningless what once was a robust planning process," he said in a statement. "The public, including local communities, deserves a say in how their forest lands are managed. They're not getting that say under this administration."
...The Forest Service proposed the new policy last January and made it official last week after approval by the White House's Council on Environmental Quality. Several environmental groups have challenged the policy in court
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16258461.htm |
Hmmm, I guess this Administration has a wee bit of a direct part in that after all?
Other parts like these:
| quote: | In March 2006, the Department of Health and Human Services took down a six-year-old Web site devoted to substance abuse and treatment information for gays and lesbians, after members of the conservative Family Research Council complained.
* In 2002, HHS removed information from its Web site pertaining to risky sexual behavior among adolescents, condom use and HIV. |
Cater quite nicely to some of Bush's biggest religious supporters.
This speaks for itself:
| quote: | | * In 2006, the Federal Communications Commission ordered destroyed all copies of an unreleased 2004 draft report concluding that media consolidation hurt local TV news coverage, which runs counter to the administration's pro-consolidation stance. |
As well as these:
| quote: | * In March, the administration announced it would no longer produce the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation, which identifies which programs best assist low-income families, while also tracking health insurance coverage and child support.
* In 2005, after a government report showed an increase in terrorism around the world, the administration announced it would stop publishing its annual report on international terrorism.
* After the Bureau of Labor Statistics uncovered discouraging data about factory closings in the U.S., the administration announced it would stop publishing information about factory closings.
* When an annual report called “Budget Information for States” showed the federal government shortchanging states in the midst of fiscal crises, Bush’s Office of Management and Budget announced it was discontinuing the report, which some said was the only source for comprehensive data on state funding from the federal government.
* In December 2002, the administration curtailed funding to the Mass-Layoffs Statistics program, which released monthly data on the number and size of layoffs by U.S. companies. His father attempted to kill the same program in 1992, but Clinton revived it when he assumed the presidency.
* On November 1st, 2001, President Bush issued an executive order limiting the public's access to presidential records.......
* The White House Office of National Drug Policy paid for a 5-year, $43 million study which concluded their anti-drug ad campaigns did not work -- but it refused to release those findings to Congress.
* In October 2003, the Bush administration banned photographs depicting servicemembers' coffins returning from overseas.
|
And so on. I would think that such points would have been rather obvious in of itself. Apparently I was incorrect.
| quote: | Oh wait, "the buck ultimately stops with the President",
so if a government of an country ever does anything that
someone doesn't like it's the president's fault... So every
President/Leader from the dawn of man is a failure because
someone somewhere in his governement did something that someone
somewhere didn't approve of. |
"Someone somewhere" didn't approve of? Perhaps you can be a bit more specific as to why you seemingly approve of these outlined points?
If memory serves, this isn't anything new at all. Criticisms of Clinton's government from all Republican angles occurred at his various branches, did it not? Regardless, I fail to see how somehow substantiating this government's policies being quelled as outlined under this Admistration is somehow incorrect in pointing the finger directly at this Administration.
| quote: | Maybe anarchy with no governement is best? Then no one would
be blamed for something some pencil pusher does. |
Ahh yes, of course - going to the most extreme opposite side of the argument to the point of absurdity somehow makes your point stronger?
| quote: | Oh and if I think it's weird that when some remote agency like
the forest service makes a new policy, and suggest maybe it's
not Bush's doing, and you guys get all crazy calling me the weirdo?
So when we don't like something an agency/bureau/department of the
governement we elected does we personally hold the top dog responsible, ok... |
Is this really that difficult for you to grasp? Of course you hold that agency responsible first, but when there are policies implemented that seemingly move in lockstep with this Administration's stance on issues, I see no reason why you cannot help but feel there is more than just a mere coincidence for one, and for two again what is so difficult to hold this Administration responsible for various federal branches to which it implements its policies through?
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Dec-28-2006 at 23:24
|
