"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." The Statue of Liberty (P.S. Please be so kind as to enter through the proper channels and in an orderly fashion)

Location: Arlington, Virginia, United States

Saturday, December 10, 2005

Former-President Clinton Is A LIAR!

Friday, December 09, 2005

Former-President Clinton told a global audience of diplomats, environmentalists and others Friday that "There's no longer any serious doubt that climate change is real, accelerating and caused by human activities."

Climate change is real. It changes four times a year as it is. That there is a warming trend--ONE DEGREE FAHRENHEIT OVER THE LAST CENTURY since global measurements were first made and tracked--is discernible.

Did he say "accelerated and caused by human activities?" No. He said "accelerating," which seems to be true when factoring the derivatives of the velocity of infinitesimal temperature increases over the last century (hardly an exact science, at that, as the environmental scientific community was foreboding the approach of a second Ice Age as recently as the 1970's--and remember the hysteria over the "Expanding Ozone Hole" in the late 1980's and early 1990's? It closed, on it's own, naturally), but when immediately conjugated with "and caused by human activities," it comes off as "accelerated and caused by human activities," with the subliminal message being "caused and accelerated by human activities," while grammatically--technically-- allowing a denial that he said--no less meant-- that.

(Aren't you glad we have a president who's not worried about stuff like that?)

But this, ladies and gentlemen: "There's no longer any serious doubt that climate change is real...and caused by human activities," IS A LIE.

There is very serious doubt.

Carbon emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels account for percentiles of the cumulative greenhouse gases which contribute to the Greenhouse Effect.

The main culprits are solar flares (which don't give a damn if you drive a Hummer), volcanic activity (which also, while spewing greenhouse gases, apparently counteract any greenhouse effect they contribute to by becoming atmospheric coolants because of their reflective properties), and manure.

Yes. Manure.


So what's Former-President Clinton's deal?

Why is he lying?

Why else?

To make political mischief.

He's resurrecting one of the early gripes of the Bush-Hater's to keep them pissed and determined to vote in the mid-term elections: President Bush's rejection of the Kyoto Treaty (which REALLY pissed them off early in the first term).

It's going to get a lot noisier after the New Year, folks.

They want the Congress back.


Anonymous Jeff said...

November 15, 2005
Bush Rewrites History( ie: BUSH IS A LIAR) LOL

When in a hole, one of the timeless maxims of politics states, stop digging. President Bush, facing plummeting poll numbers, the festering PlameGate scandal and a growing national consensus that he misled the country into war with Iraq, has apparently decided to keep digging.

In shameless and angry speeches in front of military audiences on Veterans Day and again in Alaska on Monday, the President in essence accused his critics of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. But in seeking to salvage a presidency perhaps in its "last throes", Bush answered charges of past deception with a new crop of lies.

In a nutshell, President Bush, echoed by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman and others in his amen corner, has decided to defend himself by offering the American people four falsehoods regarding the path to war. These calumnies - "same intelligence", "no manipulation", "no pressure" and "rewriting history"- are fitting for a President now viewed by a majority of Americans as dishonest and unethical.

The Truth: Congress Did Not Have the Same Intelligence as the President

The first thrust of President Bush's counterattack is that his Democratic foes in Congress had access to the same intelligence assessments he did. "More than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence," Bush said, "voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." This is simply untrue as a matter of fact and history.

As a matter of White House policy, President Bush ensured early in his presidency that this would not be the case. In an October 5, 2001 memo, the White House notified the Congressional leadership, the Attorney General, the Directors of the CIA and FBI and the Secretaries of State, Defense and Treasury that sensitive and classified material would only be shared with 8 members of the House and Senate. "Relating to the information we have or the actions we plan to take," the memo directs, "the only members whom you or your expressly designated officers may brief" are the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and Ranking members of the respective intelligence committees.

As a practical matter, it was impossible for members of either party in Congress to have the same intelligence assessments as the President and his national security team. As Senator Rockefeller pointed out, Congress did not see the Presidential Daily Briefs, such as the infamous August 6, 2001 warning, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." The Bush administration further circumvented regular intelligence channels, relying on "outsourced" intel from groups such as DoD's Office of Special Plans.

Information essential to the case for war with Iraq simply was never available to Congress. This included the Energy Department skepticism regarding the much-hyped aluminum tubes, which Condoleezza Rice wrongly (and knowingly) described as "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." CIA doubts regarding the claims that Iraq sought uranium in Africa, including its doubt over documents later known to be forgeries, were brushed over in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. Similarly, the Bush White House never provided to Congress the February 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency memo concluded that statements by captured Al Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi about his group's training and support in Iraq were lies. Nevertheless, Dick Cheney used the al_Libi fabrications as the basis for his claim throughout 2003 "that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s."

The Truth: Neither the Senate Intelligence Committee Nor The Silberman-Robb Commission Concluded That Intelligence Had Not Been Manipulated

President Bush and his allies have also relentlessly pursued the fiction that both the Senate Intelligence Committee and Silberman-Robb Commission concluded that no manipulation of intelligence by the administration had taken place. "The truth is that investigations of intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world," said President Bush at Elmendorf Air Force Base, "and that person was Saddam Hussein." National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley stated even more forcefully on Sunday, "It is unworthy and unfair and ill-advised, when our men and women in combat are putting their lives on the line, to relitigate an issue which was looked at by two authoritative sources and deemed closed."

Unfortunately, neither Bush nor Hadley is telling the truth. Neither the Senate "Phase I" nor the Commission investigations ever reached such a conclusion regarding the administration's misuses of intelligence information. Chairman Lawrence Silberman of the independent WMD panel, which issued its report on March 31, 2005, has been very clear that the manipulation issue was outside the charter of his Commission:

Well, on the [that] point, we duck. That is not part of our charter. We did not express any views on policymakers' use of intelligence -- whether Congress or the president. It wasn't part of our charter..."

Similarly, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, led by Republican Chairman Pat Roberts (KS) and Democratic Vice Chairman Jay Rockefeller (WV), made no conclusions regarding intelligence manipulation. Again, given the obvious implications for the 2004 election, that issue was intentionally left out of its "Phase I Report." On July 9, 2004, the very date the report was released, Senator Rockefeller was clear on this point:

"And I have to say, that there is a real frustration over what is not in this report, and I don't think was mentioned in Chairman Roberts' statement, and that is about the -- after the analysts and the intelligence community produced an intelligence product, how is it then shaped or used or misused by the policy-makers?… So again there's genuine frustration -- and Chairman Roberts and I have discussed this many times -- that virtually everything that has to do with the administration has been relegated to phase two. My hope is that we will get this done as soon as possible."

It was over the very issue of the Phase II report, delayed and stonewalled by Senator Roberts and committee Republicans for 20 months, that Democratic Leader Harry Reid took the Senate to closed session two weeks ago.

The Truth: The Bush White House Pressured the Intelligence Community to Support Its Policies

On Veterans Day, President Bush appropriated a national holiday and a military audience to further attacks his critics. "These critics," Bush fumed, "are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs."

This is true in the sense that one finds no evidence if one does not look for it. As Robert Dreyfus detailed in the American Prospect:

"The pressure directed at Tenet, McLaughlin, and scores of other CIA managers, analysts, and field officers was intense. Subsequent official investigations, by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and by the commission co-chaired by Lawrence Silberman and Charles Robb, blithely passed over the question of whether intelligence analysts were pressured by the administration. Both studies determined that analysts were not pressured, a conclusion that CIA and other U.S. intelligence professionals find laughable -- especially the idea that analysts would answer in the affirmative when asked by commissioners or senators if they had been pressured."

A litany of intelligence community employees past and present confirm this assessment. W. Patrick Lang, formerly head of the Defense Intelligence Agency's Middle East section, grumbled, "The senior guys got together and said, 'You guys weren't pressured, right? Right?'" 32 year CIA veteran Richard Kerr, brought out of retirement to lead an investigation of the agency's failures on Iraq WMD was even more blunt about the pressure brought to bear by the Bush administration. In a series of five reports, Dreyfus noted, Kerr found that "unlike the outside reports that looked at the same issues, however, Kerr's concluded that CIA analysts felt squeezed -- and hard -- by the administration." Kerr bluntly stated that the squeeze came from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others within the administration:

"Everybody felt pressure. A lot of analysts believed that they were being pressured to come to certain conclusions…I talked to a lot of people who said, 'There was a lot of repetitive questioning. We were being asked to justify what we were saying again and again.' There were certainly people who felt they were being pushed beyond the evidence they had…"It was a continuing drumbeat: 'how do you know this? How do you know that? What about this or that report in the newspaper?'"

Michael Scheuer, the former CIA agent who gained prominence with his 2004 anonymous book, Imperial Hubris, backs Kerr's assessment. Scheuer noted the dissent within the CIA over the claims made in the controversial October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a document critical in the march to war. "I know a lot of people in the Iraq shop who were dissenting," he said. "There were people who were disciplined or taken off accounts. There was a great deal of dissent about that [NIE]. No one thought it was conclusive. One gentleman that I talked to, a senior Iraq analyst, regrets to this day that he did not go public."

Former CIA officer Larry Johnson noted that it was WINPAC that most vociferously advanced the Bush administration's case in the face of solid opposition from the agency's Near East Division. "The Near East Division people didn't buy into what the Bush administration wanted to do in regard to Iraq, but much of WINPAC did," Johnson said. "Bush, and the White House, favored WINPAC over [the Near East Division]. There were people in the agency who tried to speak out or disagree...who got fired, got transferred, got outed, or criticized. Others decided to play ball."

The Truth: It is President Bush Who Is Rewriting History

Perhaps the most disgusting and disturbing of President Bush's claim that his opponents are "rewriting history" and in challenging his leadership, undermine American troops in the field.

"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war," Bush said on Monday, "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges."

It is, of course, President Bush who speaks falsehoods to the American people. And with his presidency disintegrating in scandal, corruption and a calamitous war ill-conceived and badly executed, it is President Bush who is rewriting history.

8:10 AM  
Blogger John said...

Another opinion by a partisan, Leftist journalist who's crafty with words and spin.

Republicus will presently select one of Lee Harvey's "Authority Pieces" and dissect it to show what they do, and use the analysis as a post.

It should serve to put the bulk of the other opinion pieces which he obsessively floods the commentary section with in their proper, subjective light.

In the meantime, although Lee Harvey thinks he has a firm grasp on "The Truth" (and people who think otherwise must therefore not have any grip at all on it), and vomits out subjectively-crafted opinion pieces and presents them as objective "facts" (in lieu of forming any independent opinion of his own outside of the "facts" that the President is a "fascist in the absolute sense of the word," a "prick," "deserves to be asssassinated," etc.), take it all with a grain of salt until Republicus shows you how they operate (if you haven't already figured it out).

You can figure out what's going on in the "Gospel Truth" Lee Harvey subsituted here for his own independent analysis (he has none know) by carefully reading the first two paragraphs.

Lee Harvey again leaves out the author and source of this piece.

Because he's hiding. He attacks, demonizes, and/or ridicules conservative sources but hides his own.

Look at the first two paragraphs.

It's chock-full of subjective premises and language using strategically-selected adjectives, and rife with snide, petty vindictiveness, all along spoken in an "everybody knows this as fact by now" tone (a growing national consensus).

Right off the bat, the propagandist tries to make the conservative--if not the independent--feel marginalized and subjected to adolescent peer-"Come on, everyone's doing it!"-- pressure.

It's disgusting. It's vile. It relies on the herd mentality.

It's lies.

Why should the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war be "shameless" because he's delivering a speech to naval cadets ("military audiences") on VETERAN'S DAY?!?





3:41 PM  
Blogger John said...

P.S. What does that have to do with Clinton fear-mongering and lying about the environment?

3:43 PM  
Blogger John said...

"It's a slam dunk."

CIA DIRECTOR George Tenet on whether Saddam Hussein possessed WMD

8:36 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer Wed Dec 14, 3:36 AM ET

WASHINGTON - If the Bush administration has its way, some factories won't have to report all the pollution spewed from their smokestacks, making it harder for government scientists to calculate the health risks of the air Americans breathe.

Environmental Protection Agency, responding to an AP analysis that found broad inequities in the racial and economic status of those who breathe the nation's most unhealthy air, says total annual emissions of 188 regulated air toxins have declined 36 percent in the past 15 years.

But the EPA wants to ease some of the Clean Air Act regulations that have contributed to those results and proposes to exempt some companies from having to tell the government about what it considers to be small releases of toxic pollutants. The EPA also plans to ask Congress for permission to require the accounting every other year instead of annually.

The agency said in September it wants to reduce its "regulatory burden" on companies by allowing some to use a "short form" when they report their pollution to the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory.

The inventory program began under a 1986 community right-to-know law. If Congress agrees, the first year the changes could be possible would be 2008.

Those changes would exempt companies from disclosing their toxic pollution if they claim to release fewer than 5,000 pounds of a specific chemical — the current limit is 500 pounds — or if they store it onsite but claim to release "zero" amounts of the worst pollutants. Those include mercury, DDT, PCBs and other chemicals that persist in the environment and work up the food chain. However, companies must report any storage of dioxin or dioxin-like compounds, even if none are released.

EPA officials say communities will still know about the types of toxic releases, but not some of the details about how each chemical was managed or released. Critics say it will reduce the information the public has on more than 600 chemicals put in the air, water and land, making it harder for officials, communities and interest groups to help protect public health.

8:19 AM  
Blogger John said...

Hey, knucklehead:

What does that have to do with Clinton LYING about the causation and "accelerating" of global warming?

Do industrialized nations cause pollution?

Yeah. Lots. Check out the view from the Jersey Turnpike.

What are you going to do?

Regulate production or improvise the means of it as the situation warrants and new technologies allow?

12:05 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home