Facts about George W. Bush - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By NRAMAN
#71546
fastspawn wrote:i guess the problem here is that nobody can rebut each other because they can say each other sources lie. The truth is, if someone gives 100 points, u are not going to waste ur time and give 100 counterpoints.

I guess the most direct way to get an answer is too ask simply phrased questions a few at a time like,

Did Bush Skip Vietnam?
Did Bush get into Yale and Harvard Business School despite having mediocre SATs?
Did Bush at his gubernaterial term decide to give in to big oil companies(conflicting interests) and pollute the texans?

And the debate can proceed with point counterpoint easily, rather than regurgitating links to sources(dubious)


fastspawn wrote:Did Bush Skip Vietnam?

The Real Military Record of George W. Bush: Not Heroic, but Not AWOL, Either
By Peter Keating and Karthik Thyagarajan
For more than a year, controversy about George W. Bush's Air National Guard record has bubbled through the
press. Interest in the topic has spiked in recent days, as at least two websites have launched stories essentially
calling Bush AWOL in 1972 and 1973. For example, in "Finally, the Truth about Bush's Military Record" on
TomPaine.com, Marty Heldt writes, "Bush's long absence from the records comes to an end one week after he
failed to comply with an order to attend 'Annual Active Duty Training' starting at the end of May 1973... Nothing
indicates in the records that he ever made up the time he missed." And in inBush's Military Record Reveals
Grounding and Absence for Two Full Years" on Democrats.com, Robert A. Rogers states: "Bush never actually
reported in person for the last two years of his service - in direct violation of two separate written orders."

Neither is correct.
It's time to set the record straight. The following analysis, which relies on National Guard documents, extensive
interviews with military officials and previously unpublished evidence of Bush's whereabouts in the summer and
fall of 1972, is the first full chronology of Bush's military record. Its basic conclusions: Bush may have received
favorable treatment to get into the Guard, served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited
discharge, but he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge.
At the Republican convention in Philadelphia, George W. Bush declared: "Our military is low on parts, pay and
morale. If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, 'Not
ready for duty, sir.'" Bush says he is the candidate who can "rebuild our military and prepare our armed forces for
the future." On what direct military experience does he make such claims?
George W. Bush applied to join the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968, less than two weeks before he
graduated from Yale University. The country was at war in Vietnam, and at that time, just months after the bloody
Tet Offensive, an estimated 100,000 Americans were on waiting lists to join Guard units across the country. Bush
was sworn in on the day he applied.
Ben Barnes, former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, stated in September 1999 that in late 1967
or early 1968, he asked a senior official in the Texas Air National Guard to help Bush get into the Guard as a pilot.
Barnes said he did so at the behest of Sidney Adger, a Houston businessman and friend of former President
George H. W. Bush, then a Texas congressman. Despite Barnes's admission, former President Bush has denied
pulling strings for his son, and retired Colonel Walter Staudt, George W. Bush's first commander, insists: "There
was no special treatment."
The younger Bush fulfilled two years of active duty and completed pilot training in June 1970. During that time and
in the two years that followed, Bush flew the F-102, an interceptor jet equipped with heat-seeking missiles that
could shoot down enemy planes. His commanding officers and peers regarded Bush as a competent pilot and
enthusiastic Guard member. In March 1970, the Texas Air National Guard issued a press release trumpeting his
performance: "Lt. Bush recently became the first Houston pilot to be trained by the 147th [Fighter Group] and to
solo in the F-102... Lt. Bush said his father was just as excited and enthusiastic about his solo flight as he was." In
Bush's evaluation for the period May 1, 1971 through April 30, 1972, then-Colonel Bobby Hodges, his
commanding officer, stated, "I have personally observed his participation, and without exception, his performance
has been noteworthy." In the spring of 1972, however, National Guard records show a sudden dropoff in Bush's
military activity. Though trained as a pilot at considerable government expense, Bush stopped flying in April 1972
and never flew for the Guard again.
Around that time, Bush decided to go to work for Winton "Red" Blount, a Republican running for the U.S. Senate,
in Alabama. Documents from Ellington Air Force Base in Houston state that Bush "cleared this base on 15 May."
Shortly afterward, he applied for assignment to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, Ala., a unit that
required minimal duty and offered no pay. Although that unit's commander was willing to welcome him, on May 31
higher-ups at the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver rejected Bush's request to serve at the 9921st,
because it did not offer duty equivalent to his service in Texas. "[A]n obligated Reservist [in this case, Bush] can
be assigned to a specific Ready Reserve position only," noted the disapproval memo, a copy of which was sent to
Bush. "Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron."
Despite the military's decision, Bush moved to Alabama. Records obtained by Georegemag.com show that the
Blount Senate campaign paid Bush about $900 a month from mid-May through mid-November to do advance
work and organize events. Neither Bush's annual evaluation nor the Air National Guard's overall chronological
listing of his service contain any evidence that he performed Guard duties during that summer.
On or around his 27th birthday, July 6, 1972, Bush did not take his required annual medical exam at his Texas
unit. As a consequence, he was suspended from flying military jets. Bush spokesperson Dan Bartlett told
Georgemag.com: "You take that exam because you are flying, and he was not flying. The paperwork uses the
phrase 'suspended from flying,' but he had no intention of flying at that time."

Some media reports have speculated that Bush took and failed his physical, or that he was grounded as a result
of substance abuse. Bush's vagueness on the subject of his past drug use has only abetted such rumors. Bush's
commanding officer in Texas, however, denies the charges. "His flying status was suspended because he didn't
take the exam,not because he couldn't pass," says Hodges. Asked whether Bush was ever disciplined for using
alcohol or illicit drugs, Hodges replied: "No."
On September 5, Bush wrote to then-Colonel Jerry Killian at his original unit in Texas, requesting permission to
serve with the 187th Tactical Reconnaisance Group, another Alabama-based unit. "This duty would be for the
months of September, October, and November," wrote Bush.
This time his request was approved: 10 days later, the Alabama Guard ordered Bush to report to then-Lieutenant
Colonel William Turnipseed at Dannelly Air Force Base in Montgomery on October 7th and 8th. The memo noted
that "Lieutenant Bush will not be able to satisfy his flight requirements with our group," since the 187th did not fly
F-102s.
The question of whether Bush ever actually served in Alabama has become an issue in the 2000 campaign-the
Air Force Times recently reported that "the GOP is trying to locate people who served with Bush in late 1972 ... to
see if they can confirm that Bush briefly served with the Alabama Air National Guard." Bush's records contain no
evidence that he reported to Dannelly in October. And in telephone interviews with Georgemag.com, neither
Turnipseed, Bush's commanding officer, nor Kenneth Lott, then chief personnel officer of the 187th, remembered
Bush serving with their unit. "I don't think he showed up," Turnipseed said.
Bush maintains he did serve in Alabama. "Governor Bush specifically remembers pulling duty in Montgomery and
respectfully disagrees with the Colonel," says Bartlett. "There's no question it wasn't memorable, because he
wasn't flying." In July, the Decatur Daily reported that two former Blount campaign workers recall Bush serving in
the Alabama Air National Guard in the fall of 1972. "I remember he actually came back to Alabama for about a
week to 10 days several weeks after the campaign was over to complete his Guard duty in the state," stated
Emily Martin, a former Alabama resident who said she dated Bush during the time he spent in that state.
After the 1972 election, which Blount lost, Bush moved back to Houston and subsequently began working at
P.U.L.L., a community service center for disadvantaged youths. This period of time has also become a matter of
controversy, because even though Bush's original unit had been placed on alert duty in October 1972, his
superiors in Texas lost track of his whereabouts. On May 2, 1973, Bush's squadron leader in the 147th,
Lieutenant Colonel William Harris, Jr. wrote: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit" for the past year. Harris
incorrectly assumed that Bush had been reporting for duty in Alabama all along. He wrote that Bush "has been
performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."
Base commander Hodges says of Bush's return to Texas: "All I remember is someone saying he came back and
made up his days."
Two documents obtained by Georgemag.com indicate that Bush did make up the time he missed during the
summer and autumn of 1972. One is an April 23, 1973 order for Bush to report to annual active duty training the
following month; the other is an Air National Guard statement of days served by Bush that is torn and undated but
contains entries that correspond to the first. Taken together, they appear to establish that Bush reported for duty
on nine occasions between November 29, 1972-when he could have been in Alabama-and May 24, 1973. Bush
still wasn't flying, but over this span, he did earn nine points of National Guard service from days of active duty
and 32 from inactive duty. When added to the 15 so-called "gratuitous" points that every member of the Guard got
per year, Bush accumulated 56 points, more than the 50 that he needed by the end of May 1973 to maintain his
standing as a Guardsman.
On May 1, Bush was ordered to report for further active duty training, and documents show that he proceeded to
cram in another 10 sessions over the next two months. Ultimately, he racked up 19 active duty points of service
and 16 inactive duty points by July 30-which, added to his 15 gratuitous points, achieved the requisite total of 50
for the year ending in May 1974.
On October 1, 1973, First Lieutenant George W. Bush received an early honorable discharge so that he could
attend Harvard Business School. He was credited with five years, four months and five days of service toward his
six-year service obligation.

fastspawn wrote:Did Bush get into Yale and Harvard Business School despite having mediocre SATs?


Gaining entry to Yale is difficult to say the least. All prospective students are required to sit for their SAT's, which are a form of aptitude tests and comprise a verbal and numeric examination. Each test is out of 800 and therefore a perfect score is 1600. In addition to the SAT's prospects need to do well in the last 2/3 years of their high school studies, receive numerous recommendations from teachers and eminent people. Prospects are also hauled up for an interview and need to write an essay which answers the reason Yale would be a good match. Bush scored a very credible 1330/ 1600 for his SAT's and would not have got into Yale unless he filled the other rigorous requirements which need to be met.

To get into Harvard MBA school a student prospect also needs to demonstrate a certain mental capacity for higher level problem solving and sit for another aptitude test.

As you can see, all in all these requirements are quite rigorous. Just so you understand things a little better, Bush's SAT score would in fact translate into an IQ of about 135. Gore's SAT score were in fact lower than Bush's and he did not complete either a J school or law degree. He flunked out of both course as far a as I know. But Gore's education was never questioned. :?:

fastspawn wrote:Did Bush at his gubernaterial term decide to give in to big oil companies(conflicting interests) and pollute the texans?

Texas leads the nation in reduction of toxic releases. Texas has led the nation in the reduction of toxic releases by 43 million pounds from 1995 to 1998 (during GWB's tenure as governor). It is not the most polluted state in the nation. According to the Environmental Protection Agency's 1998 Toxic Release Inventory (the most recent data available from the EPA, released in May 2000), Texas dropped from first to fifth place in 1998
(while GWB was still governor) for total emissions to the air, water and soil.
User avatar
By Rust
#71614
That "45 page rebuttal" is hardly foolproof either. In a quick glance, I counted around 26-28 things they didn't refute.

Lot's of straw men...
By NRAMAN
#71646
Rust wrote:That "45 page rebuttal" is hardly foolproof either. In a quick glance, I counted around 26-28 things they didn't refute.

Lot's of straw men...


Bring it out, let's have a go at it.
User avatar
By Rust
#71686
The following points of "the Resume" were not refuted. Either because the article itself admitted them to be true, because it couldn't find evidence to refute them, or because it only tried to "justify" them:


"Ran for congress and lost."

"Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago Cubs."

"Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my father’s appointments to the Supreme Court."

"Attacked and took over two countries."

"First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record."

"First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history."

"Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history."

"Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history."

"Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television."

"Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history."

"Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the ’poorest’ multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has an Exxon oil tanker named after her)."

"Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States."

I think that's enough. If you want me, I'll look for more.
By fastspawn
#71749
NRAMAN wrote:Neither is correct.


How did you get unpublished evidence of Bush's whereabouts and his National Guard Documents other than by a third source? If by a third source, then wouldn't it be open to scrutiny like the first 2 sources you have pointed out. Please point out the source be it a book or a website.

But Bush did manage to get into the National Guard through some powers that be, and that raises questions about his integrity.

NRAMAN wrote:Bush scored a very credible 1330/ 1600 for his SAT's .
(i cut this from 2 parts to see context go to NRAman's post.) Gore's SAT score were in fact lower than Bush's





In Washington Post, March 19, 2000, i got the source from
http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html
(again all sources must be put to scrutiny)

Bush score's were 1206, not 1330. this is 200 points less than average.
Gore's score was 1355, also less than average but by around 50 points.
They made no mentioning of Gore flunking though. Perhaps a source to back it up?

NRAMAN wrote:got into Yale unless he filled the other rigorous requirements which need to be met


Would having the name Bush fill the rigourous requirement? If not would having a granddad who sat on the board of trustees fulfill it?


Concerning your findings about Pollution. Ok i have read the reports about 43,000,000 pounds of reduction, and the drop of Texas from 1st to 5th place in 1997. And texas has remained there at 5th.

i shall even give a link to the EPA report.
http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri00/st ... 0Intro.pdf
(released in May 2000) the same one you talked about.

Let us look at the facts by a non-partisan(hopefully) source.

You would notice the first chart(in my opinion the most informative) liting texas as fifth on the list.

There are many columns.
As you can see texas leads in 2 columns (of the five) and is second on a third.

Texas would be placed first if not for one special column on the right (releases to land)

What exactly does releases to land mean? Well quite simply Mining contributes a lot to releases to land. That is why Nevada with its large mining community contributes 1billion pounds., texas not being one has a modest 41 million.

But still Texas drops from first to fifth, as Cato Organisation points out.
But does Cato point out why Texas drops from first to fifth?

No They don't, and nobody on the street will pick up pass issues of EPA reports and flip to them to find out.
In 1997, Texas led the way in pollution.
In 1998, Texas was fifth.

In 1997, EPA did not have mining as a category be it for coal or metal.
In 1998, they did.

The significance is that Texas only became fifth not because they\ire environmental record improved but because the figures have been manipulated. And it is sad that EPA reports are quite hidden especially archives.

For a chart of what it would look like if EPA had used their old data (most pollutants released by miners were actually there in the first place, its just that they had to report every thing they had mined)

Refer to Page 15 of the report. On and OFf site emissions of Original(manufacturing) Industries.

Texas leads the way there by almost double what 2nd place Ohio produces.


I really had to scour the Web for this report. SO i do hope you read the entire thing too.
By NRAMAN
#71887
Rust, your crap isn't even worth the time you took to write it. I thought you had a serious argument but I find you only bring up the topics the author has admitted were true, or that were stated as opinon and therefore cannot be refuted. If there was no evidence cited for the original charge, how can it be cited for the rebuttal.

fastspawn, I am impressed with your research and I ask you to allow me time to do some of my own. I love backing up opinon with a good fact, something I have noticed in the short amount of time I have been here does not happen very often, and I hope to find that I can make this interesting. I will make sure and address each point but the first one I delved into was the EPA report you provided. After a quick scan of the report and reviewing your comments I have questions. You say that the EPA did not have a category for mining in 97 but did in 98. I do not see that (not saying you are a liar, just asking for clairification). On top of this I do have to admit I am rather saddened by the Bush admin.'s lack of care for our environment. I am an outdoorsman so it is one of my first priority's, although I do not believe in global warming at all, so I am not happy with how high on the list Texas is anyway, be it first or fifth. Anyway, on with the show. 8)
By fastspawn
#71893
NRAMAN wrote: You say that the EPA did not have a category for mining in 97 but did in 98. I do not see that (not saying you are a liar, just asking for clairification). On top of this I do have to admit I am rather saddened by the Bush admin.'s lack of care for our environment. I am an outdoorsman so it is one of my first priority's, although I do not believe in global warming at all, so I am not happy with how high on the list Texas is anyway, be it first or fifth. Anyway, on with the show. 8)


sorry, i forgot to put the source.

http://www.nma.org/policy/tri/what_is_tri.asp
this is from National Mining Association.(i believe it to be non-partisan)

A quote from there(i try not to pull out of context so my quotes happen to be real big);

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the TRI program, receiving the data collected by reporting entities and making it available to the public. EPA previously required reporting for manufacturing entities in Standard Industrial Classification 20-39 to file annual TRI reports. However, in May 1997, EPA expanded TRI reporting requirements to include seven new industry groups; key among them are mining and electric utilities

This is the part about mining being included in May 1997.

I hope this helps.

Everyone (all politicised) skews figures and manipulates audiences, it is up to one own to conduct research, (not through another politicised website or book, but through a non-partisan body)

Because of that, i cannot be considered Left or Right Leaning, I have my own beliefs which coincide with both sides.
User avatar
By Rust
#72210
Rust, your crap isn't even worth the time you took to write it. I thought you had a serious argument but I find you only bring up the topics the author has admitted were true, or that were stated as opinon and therefore cannot be refuted. If there was no evidence cited for the original charge, how can it be cited for the rebuttal.


Remember, YOU are the one challenging my statement, not me. I posted a fact whether you like it or not;hence, are you suggesting that a fact isn't worth being written? Now, if you would have read the points I cited, you would have notice that only 1 was admitted to be correct, and approximately 4 -5 were not refuted "because lack of evidence". The rest, the majority, were failed attempts at refutations. The very first one is a prime example.

Like I said, the "45 page rebuttal" is hardly foolproof.
By NRAMAN
#74043
fastspawn wrote:How did you get unpublished evidence of Bush's whereabouts and his National Guard Documents other than by a third source? If by a third source, then wouldn't it be open to scrutiny like the first 2 sources you have pointed out. Please point out the source be it a book or a website.

But Bush did manage to get into the National Guard through some powers that be, and that raises questions about his integrity.


Just put in "National Guard" + Bush in Google and you will get many sources. Although most all of them contain a different story. From what I can gather Bush did not serve from May 1972 to April 1973, while still enlisted. So there were obviosly some strings pulled on his behalf. But I will say that Bush does not use his service as a campaign tool (as Kerry has) and he has not used it to appear as something he is not. I will concede that his service is poor and he got into the National Guard by pulling strings in the first place. But I think it is strange how the same people defending Clinton for not serving at all will attack Bush on this point. His integrity is far above and beyond that of Clinton's, it is immeasurable in my opinion. While I think military service makes a better man out of anyone, I don' t know that I consider it a prerequisite for the presidency.

fastspawn wrote:In Washington Post, March 19, 2000, i got the source from
http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html
(again all sources must be put to scrutiny)

Bush score's were 1206, not 1330. this is 200 points less than average.
Gore's score was 1355, also less than average but by around 50 points.
They made no mentioning of Gore flunking though. Perhaps a source to back it up?


Vice President Al Gore flunked out of a leading Tennessee graduate school

"In his sophomore year at Harvard," according to The Washington Post, " Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale

And Gore's graduate school record is even worse. He dropped out of Vanderbilt Divinity School after earning F's in five of the eight courses he took over three semesters. Then he dropped out of Vanderbilt Law School after receiving mediocre grades.

Meanwhile, Bush earned his MBA from Harvard.


fastspawn wrote:Would having the name Bush fill the rigourous requirement? If not would having a granddad who sat on the board of trustees fulfill it?


In addition to the SAT's prospects need to do well in the last 2/3 years of their high school studies, receive numerous recommendations from teachers and eminent people. Prospects are also hauled up for an interview and need to write an essay which answers the reason Yale would be a good match.
By fastspawn
#74114
Gore flunked out of Graduate School.

and the problem being he didn't do very well.

This is the normal course of things, he wasn't given special priveledges so when he did badly, he failed to get his masters.

But Bush has a history of getting things his way. From getting recommendations from teachers and eminent people, now i am not questioning Yale's selection though, but a black person with maybe slightly higher SAT scores than Bush would not be able to get into Yale, because he doesn't know any eminent people.

But what irks me is the method he managed to get into National Guard, and he managed to become a Lieutenant without Officer Cadet School. Most people would have to become a Master Sargeant before becoming an officer, but no he jumped from PFC to Lieutenant in a few months.

That just stinks of cronyism. Isn't America becoming more of a nepotist and cronyist country?

And what is wrong with Kerry using his military service in Vietnam as a campaign tool? He was a decorated war hero after all.

And Bill Clinton being an Conscientious Objector? A lot of people in the country were that.

But I am afraid very few people can become officers without going through cadet school in a few months. and very few people can enter Yale with 1206 Sats. And very few people have Senators as grandfathers.
By NRAMAN
#74524
fastspawn wrote:Gore flunked out of Graduate School.

and the problem being he didn't do very well.

This is the normal course of things, he wasn't given special priveledges so when he did badly, he failed to get his masters.

But Bush has a history of getting things his way. From getting recommendations from teachers and eminent people, now i am not questioning Yale's selection though, but a black person with maybe slightly higher SAT scores than Bush would not be able to get into Yale, because he doesn't know any eminent people.

But what irks me is the method he managed to get into National Guard, and he managed to become a Lieutenant without Officer Cadet School. Most people would have to become a Master Sargeant before becoming an officer, but no he jumped from PFC to Lieutenant in a few months.

That just stinks of cronyism. Isn't America becoming more of a nepotist and cronyist country?

And what is wrong with Kerry using his military service in Vietnam as a campaign tool? He was a decorated war hero after all.

And Bill Clinton being an Conscientious Objector? A lot of people in the country were that.

But I am afraid very few people can become officers without going through cadet school in a few months. and very few people can enter Yale with 1206 Sats. And very few people have Senators as grandfathers.


I agree, I think we have reached a consensus here. The majority of politicians have gotten where they are with some hard work and with some strings being pulled.
By NRAMAN
#74676
While I admit your documentation has shown that the ranking of Texas is skewed due to the info included/excluded in the report, I have found a lot of info that shows the Bush admin. instisuted programs that were evironmental friendly. For example;

The Bush administration pioneered a voluntary planthat has reduced air pollution in Texas. Between 1995 and 1997:

Nitrogen oxide emissions fell by more than 23.5 percent - second best nationally.

Emissions of volatile organic compounds fell by over 43 percent - fourth best nationally.

Sulfur dioxide emissions fell by over 17 percent - fifth best nationally.

Carbon dioxide emissions fell by 12 percent - thirteenth best nationally.


Furthermore, Texas under Governor Bush compares favorably to the rest of the nation in reducing the emission of several pollutants that increased nationwide under Clinton-Gore
By Il Porko
#74999
I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.


The DJIA was over-valued anyway. I think that Enron had something to do with the Dow falling a bit. The stock market is all about mood and sentiment, and stockbrokers get nervous when big companies are caught cheating and lying. Just because Bush was in power at the time does not mean he can really be blamed for all this.

By the way, the DJIA fell on Black Friday, but is now over the 10,000 mark.
By Crazy Brown Guy
#75011
NRAMAN wrote:While I admit your documentation has shown that the ranking of Texas is skewed due to the info included/excluded in the report, I have found a lot of info that shows the Bush admin. instisuted programs that were evironmental friendly. For example;

The Bush administration pioneered a voluntary planthat has reduced air pollution in Texas. Between 1995 and 1997:

Nitrogen oxide emissions fell by more than 23.5 percent - second best nationally.

Emissions of volatile organic compounds fell by over 43 percent - fourth best nationally.

Sulfur dioxide emissions fell by over 17 percent - fifth best nationally.

Carbon dioxide emissions fell by 12 percent - thirteenth best nationally.


Furthermore, Texas under Governor Bush compares favorably to the rest of the nation in reducing the emission of several pollutants that increased nationwide under Clinton-Gore


Didn't Bush polute the state before and he did these after to balance his act and get re-elected.
By fastspawn
#75016
is the source partisan? i don't really have data from 1995-1997.

I remember Bush did institute the Grandfather Factories Laws.

I guess this did help emissions of Air Pollutants.
But how about 1997-2000 ?

Let me tell you a story from SNL
---------------------------------------------
Jimmy Carter got caught in Three Mile Island during the Disaster.
Due to the Radiation he grew to a enormous high.

The situation got so worrying that there was a press conference.

Spokesman: The rumor circulating that President Carter is a 200 foot monster is absolutely false!

Press: So it's not true he is above 100 feet high?

Spokesman: OF COUrse Not! That's Ridiculous!

Press: Is it not true that he is above 90 feet tall?

SPokesman: No comment.
------------------------------------------------

Likewise, why did a release dated year 2000, for the election release data from 1995-1997? Did they not have data from 1997-1999?

------------------------------------------
Bush: From the data here, Texas has record drop in pollution rate from 1995-1997?

Press: What about from 1995-1999? was there a decrease?

Bush:....

Press: What about your overall gubernaterial term?

bush: no comment.
---------------------------------------------------

[edited my mistake]
By NRAMAN
#75500
Again it looks as if the truth is somewhere in the middle. So this resume and the person who came out with the info to refute it both skewed the information to present their side. What else is new and what politician doesn't do this?

Jina wrote:Didn't Bush polute the state before and he did these after to balance his act and get re-elected.


We are trying to back up these claims with documentation, so please show me where you came up with this.
User avatar
By Davea8
#75644
NRAMAN: The Bush administration pioneered a voluntary plan that has reduced air pollution in Texas. Between 1995 and 1997:

Nitrogen oxide emissions fell by more than 23.5 percent - second best nationally.

Emissions of volatile organic compounds fell by over 43 percent - fourth best nationally.

Sulfur dioxide emissions fell by over 17 percent - fifth best nationally.

Carbon dioxide emissions fell by 12 percent - thirteenth best nationally.


Furthermore, Texas under Governor Bush compares favorably to the rest of the nation in reducing the emission of several pollutants that increased nationwide under Clinton-Gore



Really? You might be interested in this, then . . .

"Houston has a serious air quality problem. Since 1999, the Texas city has exchanged titles with Los Angeles as having the most polluted air in the United States defined by the number of days each city violates federal smog standards."

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/everyd ... re_03.html
By NRAMAN
#75652
Davea8 wrote:Really? You might be interested in this, then . . .


Please read the entie thread before commenting.

Specifically this...

NRAMAN wrote:fastspawn, I am impressed with your research and I ask you to allow me time to do some of my own. I love backing up opinon with a good fact, something I have noticed in the short amount of time I have been here does not happen very often, and I hope to find that I can make this interesting. I will make sure and address each point but the first one I delved into was the EPA report you provided. After a quick scan of the report and reviewing your comments I have questions. You say that the EPA did not have a category for mining in 97 but did in 98. I do not see that (not saying you are a liar, just asking for clairification). On top of this I do have to admit I am rather saddened by the Bush admin.'s lack of care for our environment. I am an outdoorsman so it is one of my first priority's, although I do not believe in global warming at all, so I am not happy with how high on the list Texas is anyway, be it first or fifth. Anyway, on with the show.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Potemkin They've spent the best part of two […]

Juan Dalmau needs to be the governor and the isla[…]

Whats "breaking" here ? Russians have s[…]

@Puffer Fish You dig a trench avoiding existin[…]