White House Refused To Open Unwelcome EPA E-Mail 497
epfreed writes "The White House lost a case in the Supreme Court about the need for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. So the EPA made new rule. And now the NYTimes reports that the White House did not want to get these new rules from the EPA about greenhouse gases. So they did not open the email."
Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:3, Informative)
Bill Clinton: I thought everybody liked hummers.
George W. Bush: I thought everybody wanted a Hummer.
Kucinich (D-OH) has introduced articles of impeachment - and plans to keep introducing new articles (I heard 60 was the goal for the next round) until the Judiciary committee that tabled the articles puts them on the floor.
Re:Wait a sec (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:5, Informative)
He was impeached. He was not convicted.
Re:Wait a sec (Score:1, Informative)
Not to be overly pedantic, but it's not a violation of Catch-22; it IS the catch -- catch 22.
Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:4, Informative)
Bill was impeached for lying under oath. The only place you can get impeached for getting a hummer is Alabama.
Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:3, Informative)
OK ... to further that then.
Where is the impeachment for LYING ABOUT WHY THE COUNTRY WAS DRAGGED INTO A PROTRACTED WAR! ... not for the war itself.
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
Please move on to something else now. May I recommend something a little more On Topic. Thank you.
Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:5, Informative)
This is willful, blatant disregard for one of the most important principles in the US Constitution, that of checks and balances.
The legislative branch passed a law requiring action by the exective branch. The executive branch said it was; the judicial branch found differently and told the executive to do better. The exectuive branch plugged its fingers in its ears and ignored the order.
This is a prime example of direct non-compliance with the US Constitution.
Now, I don't think we should waste the resources on impeachment proceedings at this point. However, I think there needs to be a full investigation by the Senate so that all the details are entered into the historical record before they disappear. As GWB has often alluded to, history will judge him. I hope he is haunted to the end of his days by what he has done and by what historians write about him.
Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:2, Informative)
What your media earpiece is calling "specluators" this week are more accurately called "futures traders." You might even BE one of them. Check your mutual funds, say, in your 401(k) account. Any of them invested in "the energy sector"? There are some common hedges that may make you a "speculator" (investor in oil futures). You might have even made some money on it. Oil futures are traded on very competitive, very transparent markets.
Anything else you traded that showed gains like oil would have you celebrating. So why is high oil value perceived as such a catastrophe?
Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:1, Informative)
I take it by "smart" you mean "narrow minded" and by "compassionate" you mean "insular" ?
Not all, but hey, only 18% own passports (low as %7 depending on what source you believe).
You need to get out more.
History will judge him... (Score:2, Informative)
The good people of San Francisco already have GWB's legacy organised - they're proposing to name their new sewerage plant after him.
http://presidentialmemorial.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com]
If you are an SF resident, do your duty, and sign up.
EPA != Congress (Score:3, Informative)
This is willful, blatant disregard for one of the most important principles in the US Constitution, that of checks and balances.
The legislative branch passed a law requiring action by the executive branch.
Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency operate as rogue legislative bodies. They create regulations, which generally are not laws passed by Congress.
There are no checks and balances between the EPA and the Executive Branch, because the EPA itself is unconstitutional.
Re:"It found nothing"? No, you just excerpted noth (Score:2, Informative)
So, should ALL the people in the link I just provided, including Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, John Kerry, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and the oracle himself, Al Gore all be tried for treason?
Do you think they should? [snopes.com]
Origins: All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S.
If so, on what grounds? No, they did not say "THE EXACT SAME THING." They made similar statements, when discussing the real dangers of Iraq, but they did not ignore contradictory facts and they did not run a publicity campaign for the purpose of waging a war of aggression in Iraq.
First, nothing from the Huffington Post can be used as a source... EVER. It is opinions posted by the most ignorant of Americans, celebrities. If anything, having something said in the Huffington post should be used as COUTNER-evidence to whatever was said.
In my opinion, discarding any one article merely because it appears in the Huffington Post [or any other source] would be to subscribe to the premise of guilt by association, which I do not. Heh, I held my nose and read the article you posted from snopes. You're entitled to your opinions. Everybody else is equally entitled to our opinions, and that includes everybody who disagrees. That's life. The subject at hand is not difference of opinion, but irresponsible and dishonest representation of fact in the pursuit of others' opinions, voters' opinions, in one of the gravest of all political matters, declaration of war. To dismiss a fact merely because it's expressed by a person, or in a journal, with which you have a difference of opinion is to make the very same type of error as we are discussing.
However, I did notice that there was no mention of Sandy Berger, the Clinton security advisor stealing top secret documents and cutting them up with scissors during the 9-11 investigation. I guess that was no big deal, what with Bush lying and all.
That's a disgrace, no doubt about it and no argument, but it is not currently "news." It was not omitted from that article because of Democratic bias. That was the correct professional journalistic decision.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country.
Vladimir Putin, no matter how friendly he may be nor how pure his soul, is primarily responsible for advancing the interests of Russia, not of the United States. As those tend to overlap these days, it is wise to be receptive to any tips he offers, to take them seriously. But because he is primarily responsible not to us but to a foreign power, the correct next step is to validate what he says independently, with U.S. intelligence assets and never take him, nor any other foreign power, on feith. "Russian President Vladimir Putin said" is not relevant rebuttal to the findings of the U.S. Congress, for this U.S. citizen.
Granted, Saddam Hussein was not in full compliance with terms of treaties he signed. It is also worth noting, however, that his invasion of Kuwait was in response to diagonal oil drilling from Kuwait into Earth under Iraq and that oil was as much a motive for the defense of Kuwait against Iraq as it was a motive for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait [answers.com], so the U.S., and especially t
Why listen to bad news? (Score:2, Informative)