Monday, July 30, 2007
Notes for the Democrats- The War in Iraq: Dear Democrats, thought you might be interested in some information about Iraq that could come in handy while you deliberate on forcing the unconditional surrender of U.S. military forces in Iraq. I know you won't believe me, so luckily two liberal journalists from The New York Times just returned from the war zone and filed this report:
July 30, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Washington
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.
Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.
Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.
In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.
In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.
We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.
But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).
In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.
In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.
The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.
In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas).
Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.
Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.
In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.
Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.
In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave.
In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.
How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.
Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.
(Source Link: The War We Might Just Win)
July 30, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Washington
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.
Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.
Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.
In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.
In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.
We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.
But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).
In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.
In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.
The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.
In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas).
Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.
Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.
In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.
Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.
In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave.
In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.
How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.
Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.
(Source Link: The War We Might Just Win)
Labels: Baghdad, D-NV, Dem-no-crats, Democrat Party, Democrats, Iraq, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Senate, Senator, War in Iraq, War on Terror, Webb, withdraw
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Liberals vs. Freedom of Speech: The fun-loving, tolerant, defender-of-rights liberals are at it again! They're trying to stomp out some more speech they disagree with. Rather than go on Fox News and participate in meaningful debate, they're trying to stomp Fox News out. Yep, this from our defenders of the 1st Ammendment and ACLU-loving, tolerant, elite, deep thinkers on the left. The tolerant liberals that never met an opposing opinion they didn't try to squash.
Don't take my word for it:
(Source link: Liberals Going After Fox News Advertisers)
Liberals Going After Fox Advertisers
Jul 27 04:08 PM US/Eastern
By DAVID BAUDER
AP Television Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - Liberal activists are stepping up their campaign against Fox News Channel by pressuring advertisers not to patronize the network.
MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos.
The groups have successfully pressured Democratic presidential candidates not to appear at any debate sponsored by Fox, and are also trying to get Home Depot Inc. to stop advertising there.
At least 5,000 people nationwide have signed up to compile logs on who is running commercials on Fox, Gilliam said. The groups want to first concentrate on businesses running local ads, as opposed to national commercials.
"It's a lot more effective for Sam's Diner to get calls from 10 people in his town than going to the consumer complaint department of some pharmaceutical company," Gilliam said.
Some of videos produced by Gilliam's company compile statements made by Fox anchors and guests that the activists consider misleading, such as those that question global warming.
Representatives for Fox News Channel, which is owned by News Corp., did not immediately return calls for comment.
Home Depot has not had an unusual number of calls, said spokesman Jerry Shields, and the home improvement chain will not change its advertising strategy.
"We're not in the business of censoring media," Shields said. "We need to reach our customer base through all mediums available."
Groups like the Sierra Club have targeted Home Depot because they believe it's inconsistent for the company to promote environmentally friendly products while advertising on a network that has questioned global warming.
The groups seem particularly angry at Fox's Bill O'Reilly, who has done critical reports on left-wing bloggers. On July 16, O'Reilly said the DailyKos.com Web site is "hate of the worst order," and sent a reporter to question JetBlue Airways Corp. CEO Dave Barger about the airline's sponsorship of a gathering run by DailyKos.
He'll never ride on JetBlue again, O'Reilly said.
MoveOn.org is campaigning against Fox because it says the network characterizes itself as a fair news network when it consistently favors a conservative point of view, said Adam Green, the organization's spokesman.
"We're not trying to silence anybody," Green said. "Rush Limbaugh has a right to be on the air—he admits his point of view. Fox doesn't."
Don't take my word for it:
(Source link: Liberals Going After Fox News Advertisers)
Liberals Going After Fox Advertisers
Jul 27 04:08 PM US/Eastern
By DAVID BAUDER
AP Television Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - Liberal activists are stepping up their campaign against Fox News Channel by pressuring advertisers not to patronize the network.
MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos.
The groups have successfully pressured Democratic presidential candidates not to appear at any debate sponsored by Fox, and are also trying to get Home Depot Inc. to stop advertising there.
At least 5,000 people nationwide have signed up to compile logs on who is running commercials on Fox, Gilliam said. The groups want to first concentrate on businesses running local ads, as opposed to national commercials.
"It's a lot more effective for Sam's Diner to get calls from 10 people in his town than going to the consumer complaint department of some pharmaceutical company," Gilliam said.
Some of videos produced by Gilliam's company compile statements made by Fox anchors and guests that the activists consider misleading, such as those that question global warming.
Representatives for Fox News Channel, which is owned by News Corp., did not immediately return calls for comment.
Home Depot has not had an unusual number of calls, said spokesman Jerry Shields, and the home improvement chain will not change its advertising strategy.
"We're not in the business of censoring media," Shields said. "We need to reach our customer base through all mediums available."
Groups like the Sierra Club have targeted Home Depot because they believe it's inconsistent for the company to promote environmentally friendly products while advertising on a network that has questioned global warming.
The groups seem particularly angry at Fox's Bill O'Reilly, who has done critical reports on left-wing bloggers. On July 16, O'Reilly said the DailyKos.com Web site is "hate of the worst order," and sent a reporter to question JetBlue Airways Corp. CEO Dave Barger about the airline's sponsorship of a gathering run by DailyKos.
He'll never ride on JetBlue again, O'Reilly said.
MoveOn.org is campaigning against Fox because it says the network characterizes itself as a fair news network when it consistently favors a conservative point of view, said Adam Green, the organization's spokesman.
"We're not trying to silence anybody," Green said. "Rush Limbaugh has a right to be on the air—he admits his point of view. Fox doesn't."
Labels: censorship, Democrat Party, Democrats, Fox, Fox News, Freedom of Speech, Liberals, MoveOn, Pelosi, Reid
Democrat Party and Iraq: I'm just going to throw this out on the table. It's a simple question for all to ponder. I don't even really need to weigh in after I pose it. Here it is:
"If the Democrats and the Democrat Party really did want the U.S. military to fail in Iraq, and if they really did want the U.S. humiliated on the battlefield and forced into an unconditional surrender to jihadists, what would they be doing different to force that outcome than they are doing now?"
"If the Democrats and the Democrat Party really did want the U.S. military to fail in Iraq, and if they really did want the U.S. humiliated on the battlefield and forced into an unconditional surrender to jihadists, what would they be doing different to force that outcome than they are doing now?"
Labels: Bush, Democrat Party, Democrats, Iraq, jihadists, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Sheehan, War, War in Iraq, War on Terror
Democrat Anti-War Hoax: I suggest the entire "anti-war movement" is a hoax. There is NO national outcry to leave Iraq. The thinking reader will ask how I can come to this conclusion. It's easy.
This country recently experienced a real "anti" movement- Immigration Reform. Look at the outcry and national response to that legislation. Stopped it in it's tracks.
Where is that outcry on Iraq? Have you heard of the phone bank at Congress being shut down due to overload? Are we hearing of e-mail blizzards? I rest my case.
I submit the entire "anti war" platform the Democrats and Democrat Party is standing on is a pure, political hoax. If so, the question becomes why are Democrats so anxious for our troops to fail and surrender in Iraq? Why are the Democrats actively working for the defeat and humiliation of the U.S. military on the field of battle? The answer can only be political....
This country recently experienced a real "anti" movement- Immigration Reform. Look at the outcry and national response to that legislation. Stopped it in it's tracks.
Where is that outcry on Iraq? Have you heard of the phone bank at Congress being shut down due to overload? Are we hearing of e-mail blizzards? I rest my case.
I submit the entire "anti war" platform the Democrats and Democrat Party is standing on is a pure, political hoax. If so, the question becomes why are Democrats so anxious for our troops to fail and surrender in Iraq? Why are the Democrats actively working for the defeat and humiliation of the U.S. military on the field of battle? The answer can only be political....
Labels: Dem-no-crats, Democrat Party, Democrats, Iraq, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Terrorism, War, War in Iraq, War on Terror
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Global Warming Myth- Collapse Continues: Al Gore's Global Warming myth is losing steam at a pretty good clip. This information today from the BBC shows larger and larger portions of the populace opting off Gore's bandwagon.
Source Link: Scepticism over Climate Claims
Scepticism' over climate claims
The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.
The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.
There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.
The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an "unprecedented" effect on climate.
The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change.
Ipsos Mori's head of environmental research, Phil Downing, said the research showed there was "still a lot to do" in encouraging "low-carbon lifestyles".
"We are alive to climate change and very few people actually reject out of hand the idea the climate is changing or that humans have had at least some part to play in this," he added.
"However, a significant number have many doubts about exactly how serious it really is and believe it has been over-hyped."
People had been influenced by counter-arguments, he said.
Royal Society vice-president Sir David Read said: "People should not be misled by those that exploit the complexity of the issue, seeking to distort the science and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of climate change.
"The science very clearly points towards the need for us all - nations, businesses and individuals - to do as much as possible, as soon as possible, to avoid the worst consequences of a changing climate."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6263690.stm
Published: 2007/07/03 00:25:26 GMT
© BBC MMVII
Source Link: Scepticism over Climate Claims
Scepticism' over climate claims
The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.
The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.
There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.
The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an "unprecedented" effect on climate.
The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change.
Ipsos Mori's head of environmental research, Phil Downing, said the research showed there was "still a lot to do" in encouraging "low-carbon lifestyles".
"We are alive to climate change and very few people actually reject out of hand the idea the climate is changing or that humans have had at least some part to play in this," he added.
"However, a significant number have many doubts about exactly how serious it really is and believe it has been over-hyped."
People had been influenced by counter-arguments, he said.
Royal Society vice-president Sir David Read said: "People should not be misled by those that exploit the complexity of the issue, seeking to distort the science and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of climate change.
"The science very clearly points towards the need for us all - nations, businesses and individuals - to do as much as possible, as soon as possible, to avoid the worst consequences of a changing climate."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6263690.stm
Published: 2007/07/03 00:25:26 GMT
© BBC MMVII
Labels: Al Gore, Concert, Democrats, environmentalist, Global Warming, Liberals, Live Earth
More Lies Spew Forth From Joe Wilson: Notorious liar and disgraced former Ambassador Joe Wilson is still perpetuating the myth (lie) that The White House and Scooter Libby were somehow involved in "outting" his wife Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. Again, more lies from the man whose lies have intruded into foreign policy and now into personal destruction.
For the record and to correct the latest Wilson Lie, Scooter Libby WAS NOT CHARGED WITH LEAKING THE NAME OF HIS WIFE TO ROBERT NOVAK! Richard Armitage did it. But the Armitage leak occured long after Liar and Disgraced Former Ambassador Joe Wilson and wife Valerie provided her name and affiliation for publication in a Washington Whose Who magazine.
For the record and to further correct the latest Wilson Lie, Special Counsel Fitzgerald DID NOT CHARGE ANYONE WITH LEAKING THE NAME OF HIS WIFE TO ROBERT NOVAK! He was either unable to prove the underlying charge or determined she did not meet the requirements to qualify for the "covert" status spelled out in the law. If she did qualify, and if there was an underlying violation of the law RICHARD ARMITAGE committed the crime.
RICHARD ARMITAGE INFORMED SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD IN THE OPEN DAYS OF HIS INVESTIGATION THAT IT WAS HE, ARMITAGE, THAT GAVE LIAR AND DISGRACED FORMER AMBASSADR JOE WILSON'S WIFE'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK.
The facts are there and are public. The proof that the LIAR IS JOE WILSON is there for the viewing. Isn't it interesting that Reid, Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton have hitched their wagons to the LIAR AND DISGRACED FORMER AMBASSADOR JOE WILSON! Much as they might like, they cannot change the information I've provided in this post!
This post is to remind everyone that the actual liar in the matter is now, and has always been LIAR AND DISGRACED FORMER AMBASSADOR JOE WILSON who, by the way, is still trying to make money off his wife's CIA career.
For the record and to correct the latest Wilson Lie, Scooter Libby WAS NOT CHARGED WITH LEAKING THE NAME OF HIS WIFE TO ROBERT NOVAK! Richard Armitage did it. But the Armitage leak occured long after Liar and Disgraced Former Ambassador Joe Wilson and wife Valerie provided her name and affiliation for publication in a Washington Whose Who magazine.
For the record and to further correct the latest Wilson Lie, Special Counsel Fitzgerald DID NOT CHARGE ANYONE WITH LEAKING THE NAME OF HIS WIFE TO ROBERT NOVAK! He was either unable to prove the underlying charge or determined she did not meet the requirements to qualify for the "covert" status spelled out in the law. If she did qualify, and if there was an underlying violation of the law RICHARD ARMITAGE committed the crime.
RICHARD ARMITAGE INFORMED SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD IN THE OPEN DAYS OF HIS INVESTIGATION THAT IT WAS HE, ARMITAGE, THAT GAVE LIAR AND DISGRACED FORMER AMBASSADR JOE WILSON'S WIFE'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK.
The facts are there and are public. The proof that the LIAR IS JOE WILSON is there for the viewing. Isn't it interesting that Reid, Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton have hitched their wagons to the LIAR AND DISGRACED FORMER AMBASSADOR JOE WILSON! Much as they might like, they cannot change the information I've provided in this post!
This post is to remind everyone that the actual liar in the matter is now, and has always been LIAR AND DISGRACED FORMER AMBASSADOR JOE WILSON who, by the way, is still trying to make money off his wife's CIA career.
Labels: Bush, Cheney, Clinton, commute, Libby, Obama, Pardon, Pelosi, Plame, Reid, Scooter, Wilson
President Bush Commutes Scooter Libby's Jail Term: President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentences and the reactions have been utterly predictable.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Democrats are apoplectic over the commutation ridiculously charging that this turns The Constitution on it's head. Which is weird because it's The Constitution that grants President Bush the unquestioned authority to commute the sentence.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Democrats, particularly Hillary, seem to have a short or non-existent memory on the issue of pardon's. I seem to remember a dust up when Bill Clinton issued a truck full of pardon's for people with extremely dubious characters. There were obvious ties between the pardons of some and their generous campaign contributions to the Clinton Campaign.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Scooter Libby should continue to clear his name through the court system and I fully expect he will. But, since the underlying crime was never proven, and since the actual leaker was never charged in the matter, I hope that President Bush follows through on this action in January of 2009 and grants the full pardon to Scooter Libby if his continued appeals fail.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
I know this will be a hard issue for the Democrat Party to swallow. They never accepted the fact that if Bill Clinton can fire all 90-some Federal Prosecutors (one of which was investigating Bill Clinton in Arkansas), then President Bush is fully allowed to fire eight, two of which had already announced their own decisions to leave. So I'm sure in the face of Bill Clinton's January 2001 "pardon fest", they'll also explode in hypocrisy over the communtation of Mr. Libby's jail term.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Democrats so far have also predictably ignored the fact that President Bush has, so far, left the guilty verdict, the fine, and the probation in tact. This is standard fare for the Democrat Party. Distort a situation - be it federal prosecutors or the Libby communtation - let the liberal leaning media run with it and continue the distortion, and next will be the equally predictable attack on Fox News for presenting the entire story with all the facts.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
It's almost sad. This is what the Democrat Party- the party of FDR, Harry Truman and John Kennedy- is reduced to. With no new issues and no platform to present and actually run on, they are reduced to class warfare and obfuscation in hopes of confusing the voters and convincing us to vote against some perceived failing of the conservative ideology. Their last big idea was the project to land a man on the moon and bring him safely home. That would be what- 45 years ago? Very sad.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
As we watch the hysteria build and the hyperbole spin out of control over the Libby communtation, let's keep one fact up in mind:
RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Democrats are apoplectic over the commutation ridiculously charging that this turns The Constitution on it's head. Which is weird because it's The Constitution that grants President Bush the unquestioned authority to commute the sentence.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Democrats, particularly Hillary, seem to have a short or non-existent memory on the issue of pardon's. I seem to remember a dust up when Bill Clinton issued a truck full of pardon's for people with extremely dubious characters. There were obvious ties between the pardons of some and their generous campaign contributions to the Clinton Campaign.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Scooter Libby should continue to clear his name through the court system and I fully expect he will. But, since the underlying crime was never proven, and since the actual leaker was never charged in the matter, I hope that President Bush follows through on this action in January of 2009 and grants the full pardon to Scooter Libby if his continued appeals fail.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
I know this will be a hard issue for the Democrat Party to swallow. They never accepted the fact that if Bill Clinton can fire all 90-some Federal Prosecutors (one of which was investigating Bill Clinton in Arkansas), then President Bush is fully allowed to fire eight, two of which had already announced their own decisions to leave. So I'm sure in the face of Bill Clinton's January 2001 "pardon fest", they'll also explode in hypocrisy over the communtation of Mr. Libby's jail term.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
Democrats so far have also predictably ignored the fact that President Bush has, so far, left the guilty verdict, the fine, and the probation in tact. This is standard fare for the Democrat Party. Distort a situation - be it federal prosecutors or the Libby communtation - let the liberal leaning media run with it and continue the distortion, and next will be the equally predictable attack on Fox News for presenting the entire story with all the facts.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
It's almost sad. This is what the Democrat Party- the party of FDR, Harry Truman and John Kennedy- is reduced to. With no new issues and no platform to present and actually run on, they are reduced to class warfare and obfuscation in hopes of confusing the voters and convincing us to vote against some perceived failing of the conservative ideology. Their last big idea was the project to land a man on the moon and bring him safely home. That would be what- 45 years ago? Very sad.
((RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED))
As we watch the hysteria build and the hyperbole spin out of control over the Libby communtation, let's keep one fact up in mind:
RICHARD ARMITAGE ADMITTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD THAT HE LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. HE MADE THE ADMISSION DURING THE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE "INVESTIGATION" TO UNCOVER THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO LEAKED VALERIE PLAME'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK. THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE ENDED IMMEDIATELY AND RICHARD ARMITAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED
Labels: Armitage, Bush, Cheney, Clinton, commute, Democrats, Fitzgerald, Jail, Libby, Mark Rich, Novak, Pardon, Scooter, sentence
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Al Gore on Terrorism- Obviously an Expert: I found an interesting video of Al Gore discussing Iraq, Saddam Hussein, Terrorism, and WMD way back in 1992. Here's a link to that video:
Al Gore Discussing Iraq and Terrorism in 1992
It's about a 9 minute video, but well worth the time spent viewing it!
Al Gore Discussing Iraq and Terrorism in 1992
It's about a 9 minute video, but well worth the time spent viewing it!
Labels: 1992, Al Gore, Bush, CSPAN, Hussein, Iraq, Terrorism, War in Iraq, War on Terror, WMD
Al Gore's Global Warming Myth- Falling Apart: Seems like the wheels are coming off the Gore Global Warming bus! This article today from The Chicago Sun-Times:
Original Chicago Sun-Times Source Link
Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
June 30, 2007
BY JAMES M. TAYLOR
In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.
If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.
A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.
For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."
Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."
Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.
Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.
Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."
Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.
Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades.
More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.
Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.
Original Chicago Sun-Times Source Link
Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
June 30, 2007
BY JAMES M. TAYLOR
In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.
If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.
A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.
For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."
Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."
Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.
Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.
Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."
Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.
Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades.
More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.
Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.
Labels: Al Gore, environmentalist, Global, Global Warming, Gore, Warming
