On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:51:35 GMT, "Steve Bloom"
wrote:

"A campaign to avoid action is a very different beef from rejecting the
problem or the connection."

Owl, this is only true if the person doing the rejection is making an honest
attempt to consider the issue.

Steve, that's not the only time it's true. And in this case, that
restriction is false - Bush knows about the warming, and he accepts
the connection - it's the remediation action, in any shape or form
that has mandatory on it, that he's fighting.

Imo, it's anything but a co-incidence that the '2003 Study' Lloyd
referred to has 2007 and 2012 target dates on it. It's anything but a
co-incidence that a band of science sorcerers around the
Administration cry chicken-little at the problem, while another
smaller of group of people in the Administration say it's a known and
action could be 'in the pipe' shortly.

Bush has laid it out very clearly - he's responsible for the welfare
of the American people, and it is not in the best interests of the
American people to clean it up. It gets down to terrible ROI:- and
the American voters bought the package.

Bush isn't. In his case, the campaign to
avoid action is the means of rejection. Of course this approach is not
unique to him.

Altho it could be a word game to join those dots, I'll agree that
there are cases where rejection is behind a refusal to act. In Bush's
case, however, that isn't the case. If anything, that is the most
frustrating part about it - the tactic of proving there's a problem or
joining the dots to pollution won't work. He says "Yabut" and then
talks jobs and energy supply.