Another "Victory" for Bush's Foreign Policy

Last October, it seemed as if The Bush Gang had proved the "stopped clock" theory and had "gotten one right" on the foreign policy test. A major development in the nuclear situation in North Korea involved six-party talks and an agreement stipulating that N. Korea would end their nuclear programs in return for removal from the "State Sponsors of Terror" list. They did. We didn't. Surprise!

Now, as the US and other nations bicker about the method of verification of the disarming, N. Korea has stated that as of Aug. 14th, they have halted the dismantling of their enrichment program.

Way to go George. The immaturity of this guy is astounding. He got what he wanted, the feather in his cap for disarming N. Korea, but when it came time for him to keep his end of the bargain, guess what he did? Yup, changed the rules and yelled "Psych!" And now the world once again must face the consequences of the Bush Cabal's ignorance/incompetence; a potentially re-armed North Korea.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

What the hell is the difference?

So the White House issued a press release today discussing Bushie's recent talks with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. Apparently, everything is moving along nicely over there, but Bush reiterated his opposition to any time lines for troop withdrawals.

You can't win a war if you have an artificial timetable for withdrawal.... Artificial timetable for withdrawal send the wrong message to the Iraqis, they're seeing it's not worth it. There's a lot of Iraqis over there determined -- trying to make up their mind whether they want to be a part of democracy, or whether or not they're going to take to the hills and see what happens. Artificial timetable for withdrawal, an early withdrawal before this finishes sends the message to the enemy, we were right about America. That's what they said. Al Qaeda has said it's just a matter of time before America withdraws. They're weak, they're corrupt, they can't stand it, and they'll withdraw. And all that would do is confirm what the enemy thinks.

Oh wait, that was from 2006. Apparently, Bush has been doing some McCain-style flip-flopping. Time lines equal surrender and failure and scary things. But "horizons" for troop reductions are just awesome, simply the natural course of the super-successful surge.

In the area of security cooperation, the President and the Prime Minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals -- such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.

Ok, so I have a question. I'm pretty sure that when Democrats (and other sentient beings) have called for a time line for troop withdrawals from Iraq, they we asking for something like "Down by 50% in 2 years, down to no more than 20,000 in 4 years, contingent on conditions permitting." I don't remember anyone credible demanding a time line which called for every single US service member to be outside of the Iraqi borders by June 10th, 2009 at 8 am, no exceptions. And my question is, what the hell is the difference between setting a time line, which according to Bush is tantamount to recasting the Statue of Liberty in Osama Bin Laden's image, and setting a horizon? They mean the same damn thing! They are both a tentative plan under which our leadership attempts to reduce the number of American forces in Iraq. From Obama's website:

The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Nothing about that plan even implies a "date-certain" deadline. Seems to be another example of the Bush/McCain strategy suddenly mirroring what Obama and other Democrats have been advocating for years.

Obviously the difference is the source. When Dems call for...well...anything, it is treason and betrayal, but if the Bush Cabal makes the same determination, its part of their carefully planned and patriotic vision for Victory.

Obviously.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

I've Been Stimulated!

Thanks El Presidente for that cool $600 you put in my bank account today. I sat down to plan out how to pay you the favor back and stimulate you to get your economy up. Instead I bought 2 plane tickets to Cancun, I'll try to only buy American goods while I'm there. Hasta pronto!
Chee (that's Tye in Spanish)

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Why Politics Should Stay Out of Science

Close to 900 scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have experienced political interference in their work in the last 5 years. This study was conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists who sent out 5,419 questionnaires with 1,586 responses. 889 scientists (60%) said they suffered at least one instance of political interference. 224 scientists had been "directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from an EPA scientific document." Full information about the report can be found here.

This shouldn't come as a surprise as the Bush administration's political interference is very pervasive. I'm afraid its at a point where only a complete change of those in charge will release the hold that the corporate handhold has over true study and unbiased information. The EPA scientists obviously have something to say and I wish that they felt like they could come out and say it. The scientists, in fact, are the ones who own the EPA (an organization that means nothing without scientific backing) and all of the information deposited there. They should have ownership over the data, reports, and press releases that the agency constructs. This is bullcrap plain and simple and combined with the pervasive head-turning over the ozone issue leads me to believe that the only ones looking out for our wellbeing is ourselves. I shouldn't have to worry about the government skewing the information to further their corporate measures but I do and you should too.

Here are the report's top findings and quotes:

– 889 scientists (60 percent) said they had personally experienced
at least one instance of political interference in their work over the
last five years.

– 394 scientists (31 percent) personally experienced frequent or
occasional "statements by EPA officials that misrepresent scientists'
findings."

– 285 scientists (22 percent) said they frequently or occasionally
personally experienced "selective or incomplete use of data to justify
a specific regulatory outcome."

– 224 scientists (17 percent) said they had been "directed to
inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from an EPA
scientific document."

– Of the 969 agency veterans with more than 10 years of EPA
experience, 409 scientists (43 percent) said interference has occurred
more often in the past five years than in the previous five-year
period. Only 43 scientists (4 percent) said interference occurred less
often.

– Hundreds of scientists reported being unable to openly express
concerns about the EPA's work without fear of retaliation; 492 (31
percent) felt they could not speak candidly within the agency and 382
(24 percent) felt they could not do so outside the agency.

"OMB and the White House have, in some cases, compromised the integrity
of EPA rules and policies; their influence, largely hidden from the
public and driven by industry lobbying, has decreased the stringency of
proposed regulations for non-scientific, political reasons," said a
scientist from one of the agency's regional offices. "Because the real
reasons can't be stated, the regulations contain a scientific rationale
with little or no merit."

"Scientific integrity is the bedrock on which the federal science
establishment must rest," said Bill Hirzy, an EPA senior scientist and
senior vice president of the National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter
280, the union that represents EPA scientists. "Too many EPA scientists
have had to fight interference from political or private sector
interests and fear retaliation for speaking out."

More After the Fold...

Summary only...