Earth to Libs: Bush Won't Kill You!

In his "earth day" speech yesterday President Bush said, "I would remind people today is...a day in which we recommit ourselves to being good stewards of our land. We didn't create this earth but we have an obligation to protect it." My liberal aunt read this and commented in an email that

[Bush] sounds like an environmentalist to me! Sounds very much like what I wrote to you about a month ago about being good stewards of our world. Unfortunately his policies have not done much to achieve a better environment. We need a better energy policy that conserves our resources and reduces our consumption. Perhaps if we had some rationing of gas and oil so that people were only allotted a lifetime amount, they would consider more wisely the types of vehicles they drive and how they drive and what kind of houses they inhabit, etc. If we want our children to have something we must do our part now to preserve and conserve.

I'll save my comments on the gas-rationing idea for another post. But the dissonance she sees between Bush's words and his environmental policies is important because it's a result of liberals believing their own propaganda. Many of the differences between conservatives and liberals on environmental issues boil down to preferred methods and priorities rather than overall goals. This makes it unfortunate that so many environmentalists prefer to propagandize conservatives as intentional or careless despoilers of the world. For example, Bush was pilloried by environmentalists in the media when his administration delayed changes to the EPA's arsenic regulations for drinking water from 50 to 10 parts per billion in 2001. This despite the fact that the Clinton administration had accelerated the rule change to 5 months ahead of its original schedule so Clinton could implement it in the last days of his presidency. The rule change was finally adopted by the Bush administration in November of 2001, just a few months behind it's original schedule and just two months after NAS, NDWAC, and SAB released final reports on the health effects, costs, and benefits, respectively, of the rule change. (The net benefits are perhaps still questionable, but that is a topic for another day and not one which I have fully explored.) Bear in mind also the following points:

1. The rule change is irrelevant for most of the country where arsenic does not naturally surpass even the 10 ppb threshold.
2. The new rules will not be enforced until 2006 because public water systems need time to implement the new standards.
3. Individual states can and do regulate their own arsenic levels and water quality and some have already adopted even stricter standards (such as NJ at 5 ppb).

The previous standard of 50 ppb was implemented in 1942. So after almost 60 years (including all 8 years of the Clinton administration) of the old rule, what was the response of the environmental community? Bush wants to poison your children! Here are some quotes: Friends of the Earth:

President Bush's message rivals Marie Antoinette for callous indifference: 'Let them drink arsenic,'" said Friends of the Earth president, Dr. Brent Blackwelder. "Millions and millions of Americans are drinking tap water laced with poisons like arsenic. It is clear that the administration is more concerned about the wealthy mining companies who pollute our water than the government agency responsible for protecting it.

Democrats.com:

Now if this were cocaine being knowingly added into our national food supply, you just know the Bush administration would have a zero tolerance policy. But it is only dioxin, which like arsenic, seems to be one of the condiments of choice of the current Bush administration. George Bush the 1st did not like his broccoli, which is good for you. Here is the question: Does George Bush the 2nd like arsenic and dioxin, which are bad for you? What's your bet?

Maureen Dowd in the NYT:

You can just hear Rummy [Donald Rumsfeld], slugging back a Scotch with Cheney in the Oval after they’ve put the Kid [Bush] to bed, grousing about the gazillion dollars’ worth of investments he has to sell to avoid a conflict, and growling: “Real men can drink twice that much arsenic. And how soon can we get some lead back in the lousy paint?”

DNC TV ad:

Little girl holding up glass of water: "May I please have some more arsenic in my water, mommy?"

Never forget: Republicans are evil and want to kill you!

The arsenic rule was just one of a whole host of environmental poison pill regulations signed by Clinton as he left office. And each time the Bush administration reversed or delayed the implementation of these rules to first study their costs and benefits, the mainstream media dutifully charged Bush with an offense against mankind.

Putting Judicial Nominees in Perspective

Edward Whelan knocks the wind out of the argument that Democrats must oppose President Bush's judicial nominees because they are "out of the mainstream". This is just about the most devastating response I've seen on that particular point.

West Virginia's Finest

This is too good to miss! Senator Byrd threatens to execute Senator Frist on the floor of the US Senate (metaphorically--I think...):

Don't Hamanize the United State Senate. Remember Haman. The Leader and his party may some day be on the same gallows that we in the minority find ourselves on today. Hamanize. Don't travel that path. Because the Leader and his party may some day be executed on those same gallows. Think about it. Don't Hamanize the Senate of the United States.

Listen to the entire 6 rambling minutes of this former Klu Klux Klan Kleagle-cum-Democratic party leader and, if you are a liberal, pray that you never lose your MSM PR machine!

Impeachment Dreams

One more dreaming liberal:

Hidden behind the runaway bride and Michael Jackson stories last week was the unveiling of the smoking gun in the George W. Bush impeachment drive. Last week, the Times of London published an explosive top secret British government memo that proves, once and for all, the the Bush administration was fabricating and twisting the evidence on Iraqi WMD’s and ties to al Qaeda. And, once again, the corporate press sleeps. One oligarcy protecting another. Ain’t it grand!

“Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

Now, if the Republican party only had some real morality, they’d kick that criminal right out of the office he stole twice.

Never let context interfere with your conclusions! The most common and meaningful definitions of "fix" are perfectly innocent in this context: 1) "To place securely; make stable or firm"; 2) "To put into a stable or unalterable form"; 3) "To correct or set right; adjust"; 4) "To make ready; prepare". This makes perfect sense to anyone who has ever gathered information in support of a policy position or business decision. You don't dump raw data on your audience; you analyze and reassemble it in a coherent form.

If you want to argue that the author of the memo intended the more inflammatory meaning "To influence the outcome or actions of by improper or unlawful means" you'd better have some additional evidence to back up your contention. As John Hindraker of Powerline pointed out in this post the known facts point in exactly the opposite direction:

[T]he constant implication of the BUSH LIED! lefties, is that the administration really knew that Saddam didn't have any WMDs, but fixed the intelligence to make it appear that he did. But we know that isn't true. The consensus estimate of the U.S. intelligence community has been made public, and it clearly says that, with a high degree of confidence, Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons. The Senate Intelligence Committee's report has confirmed that this is what the intelligence community believed and reported to the President, and that there is no evidence that the administration improperly influenced the gathering or reporting of intelligence ("The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.")

And, whatever the British note-taker meant by the sentence quoted by Cole, he obviously didn't mean that there was any doubt on the part of British intelligence or Blair's government that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. On the contrary, the notes specifically refer to Iraq's WMDs, in sections not quoted by Cole:

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD...

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

I know responding to stuff like this over and over is a waste of time...Oh, well.