Photobitstream

Feb 20 2006, 05:04 PM

cmoehle

Feb 20 2006, 11:42 AM

All the reasons, including those justifying invasion, were given. Granted, the focus shifted over time, the White House's and ours as the grave threat faded. But all the reasons were given from the start.

Now you're practicing revisionist history. The focus shift over time because the reasons stated before the invasion turned out to be bogus.

Remember the yellow cake document? You know, the forged one which the CIA and Italian analysts warned the bush administration was unreliable?

How about Colin Powell going before the United Nations and stating we knew Iraq had WMDs and we knew where they were?

Or George's infamous 16 words in the 2003 SOTU?

You've obviously forgotten Dick Cheney's assertions that Saddam had close ties with Al Queda.

Do you remember Donald Rumsfeld testifying before Congress that the war would last no more than six months, cost no more than $1.9 billion, and the Iraqi people would greet us with flowers in the streets?

George W Bush stated repeatedly, before the invasion, that the War in Iraq was not about regime change, but about removing an imminent threat to the United States and the region. Now he's stating repeatedly that the invasion was all about toppling a tyrant and installing Democracy.

Do you see the lie?

Quote:

 

Do you see the lie?

Lon Frank

Feb 20 2006, 04:31 PM

Justme, I admire you for using the alternate energy sources!  I think sometimes that I will move to another area and employ a lifestyle of much less impact.  But I'm old now, or so my doctors tell me.  Perhaps the pessimism of age shows through in what I say or write sometimes.  I regret that.  I regret that I cannot be more in this worldwide debate.

Lon Frank

Feb 20 2006, 11:07 AM

Those who know a little about me, know that I've been a professional environmentalist all my adult life. My resume is rather heavy, with some very serious players. In the early 1990's I started preaching that mankind, and the U.S. in particular, must begin to evolve beyond our dependence on fossil fuels. In the late 90's, I started telling people that global warming was indeed a reality (regardless of the then current 'science' countering it, produced by oil compaies).

Quote:

 

"Antarctica is a tricky region and is more likely to do its own thing as the rest of the planet warms," he added. One reason for this, Walsh explained, is that compared with the Arctic, Antarctica is more susceptible to heat loss and gain from the ocean.

Walsh and his colleagues reported last week, also in Science, that contrary to previous reports, Antarctica is cooling.

If the whole of Antarctica were divided into a grid, said Walsh, about 60 to 70 percent of the squares would reveal a cooling trend, while warming would be seen in the other 30 to 40 percent of the overall area. "So there's a slight net cooling for the entire continent," Walsh said.

Inconsistent Reports

The total surface area of Antarctica is 5.1 million square miles (13.2 million square kilometers), but the area doubles in winter with the addition of sea ice, said Lloyd Peck, of the Natural Environment Research Council in Cambridge, United Kingdom.

"You can't expect an area three times the size of Australia to behave the same way throughout," said Peck, a co-author of the new study on the Signey Island lakes.

Walsh and his colleague Peter Doran, who collaborated on the recent study that concluded Antarctica is cooling, say past reports of global warming in the region were skewed by the nature of the measurements.