Why is it that no Credit is given when George Bush....?

Question

Designates the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands a national Monument, making it the largest single conservation area in American History? These islands are now the LARGEST protected marine wildlife refuge in the WORLD. Why do we not hear about this on the news or do we not see the "Green" party praising GW? Clearly it all comes down to agenda doesn't it? When you refuse to give credit where credit is due just because it wasn't "your guy". Sad... oh so Sad.

So what you people are telling me is that everything good that Billy Clinton did was a result of the Republican House and Senate. Wow! Good Argument.... just kills you to give credit doesn't it?

Answer 1

The media directs its stories to where they think the ratings will make a higher score. Right now, everyone is against anything the president does, so they will not show any good that he is doing. It goes the same for any person in the spotlight. Media would rather show you dirty stuff, then any good a person is doing. For instance Angelia and Brad with all the help they do for charities around the world, but all we hear about on magazines or tv is their horrible relationship. Rosie Odonell does amazing things for many charities and gives the alternative family lifestyle a voice, has her point of view on subjects, but all we see is the negatives or bashing of her. This is America, we should all remember there is free speech, but it sickens me when the important stuff it tossed aside in a news room because the ratings would do better with a story like Hilton's reward for her dog missing. I think if George W Bush had not sent in the troops to Iraq, the country would have been dissapointed that we did not try to fight this invisible war of terrorist. I do think he is a good president, and I am glad to hear that he passed a bill to save the islands, I would however like to see more of the efforts toward making our country less dependent on oil and less talk about it. If Brazil could get it done already, we should have no trouble making this the one thing the president could do right for our country. Unfortunatly, this country has no patience and that is what this president needs most from us.
Which is Sad oh so Sad....

Just a thought don't you think we should have a news channel that shows news that is from both political sides, that might be interesting to watch, moreso then what is new with britney's hair.....uhmmmmmmm

ps..all the W haters are gonna give thumbs down ofcourse!!

Answer 2

While it is a good thing that this important wildlife conservation area was designated under the Bush Administration, it is quite difficult to ignore when looking at the administrations' record on the environment as a whole, that this action amounts to putting a band-aid on a gushing wound!

Environmentalism and sustainability should not be a party or partisan issue and should be everyone's top priority at the end of the age of oil. We ignore the planet at our own peril and at the expense of our own wellbeing. Forget the "future generations" argument. The time for change is now, and changes need to be made on a global level.

That said, acknowledging the Administration for the few right things they have done environmentally and ignoring the thousands of wrongs that are happening on their watch, and as a direct result of their pro-corporate, pro-greed policy,
is counterintuitive. That is the big picture that people are focusing on when legitimate criticisms are made. Just to name a few of the atrocities committed:

They have paid off media outlets with taxpayer money and distributed misinformation on all types of domestic and global political and environmental issues.

They pressured former EPA director Christie Whitman into allowing rescue workers into the WTC ground zero without protective gear when the site was swarming with carcinogens. Many of the first responders are already dead and living with chronic health conditions.

They have failed to acknowledge climate change, much less cut carbon emmissions, and until very recently, have not designated significant amounts of capital for sustainable energy research.

They have consistently tried to pass legislation that will allow oil drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve and other protected areas.

The administration and its backer's have allowed the use of many toxic chemicals in the manufacturing of everyday products, such as PFCs in plastics, when safer alternatives are frequently available.

They have made toxic emissions more lenient for industry, including raising the amount of mercury American corporations can emit. Mercury is so toxic in the human body that the level for emissions should be lowered to close to zero not raised!

Under Bush's watch, those in power have consistently undermined standards for organic food production which does not use toxic and persistent petrochemicals that poison the water and soil.

The have failed to regulate the introduction of untested genetically engineered organisms which have contaminanted food supply, some of which are even illegal in China. This may be a part of the reason for the recent collapse of honey bee colonies.

This is just a general response to many thousands of things that you could research if you so chose.

Answer 3

George W. also wants to exploit the oil reserves in Alaska, the state with the largest percentage of National Protected lands in the US...agenda?

Answer 4

Well, when you consider that he has been deemed the most damaging president to the environment at least in recent history if not ever, it is hard to balance all of the bad things that have been done with one act. Especially when he is trying to open up one of the largest unspoiled nature preserves in Alaska for oil drilling.

Answer 5

This surprised you that the media does not give credit where credit is do. If Pelosi needs to go on another fact finding tour so she can spend more of our tax dollars maybe she should do it within the US so some of us low lifers could make enough to pay the taxes she wants to impose on us.

Answer 6

That was legislation passed by the Republican house and senate first. Then the president signed it. Just like he signed EVERY piece of legislature that came out of the Republican Congress. W had very little to do with making that a park but he sure took credit for it.

Answer 7

No, it does not clearly come down to agenda. It comes down to all the facts. One good (and obvious) conservational action does not cancel out NUMEROUS negative conservation acts. You are right that Bush deserves credit for this, but one right does not cancel out dozens of wrongs. He has resisted attempts to curb greenhouse gases, is in league with oil companies, decided to drill oil in Alaska despite the environmental risks, refused to sign the Kyoto Pact to work with other governments in saving the environment, gutted the Clean Air and Water Act, has openly sought to cut the EPA's ability to enforce environmental laws, significantly cut the Superfund that was responsible for cleaning up deadly toxic wastes in neighborhoods, opened millions of acres of public land to "development," ignored attempts to give tax cuts to people who lived "green" lifestyles, and is the first President to not name a single species to the endangered species list. I guarantee you it isn't because there aren't any endangered animals.

So tell me. How does ONE national park eliminate all the rest of this? Even for a Bush supporter, this is a dumb question. The only sad thing here is your loyalty to someone who would do all this stuff. So what is YOUR agenda?

Answer 8

W gives every indication of being manipulated by his vice president and the oil industry.

The park you cite obviously has no oil reserves, so he deserves no credit.

Now, if he protected the Alaska Natural Wildlife Refuge, maybe there would be something to 'give credit' for.

Answer 9

It goes both ways.

The lefties are so rabidly anti-Bush that it would probably kill them to acknowledge that he has done anything good.

When Clinton was in office the far right probably didn't acknowledge any of the positive things he did, either.

Answer 10

Because that one action does not outweigh all of the negative actions that occurred previously. He lowered clean air standards, tried to lower the standards on organic foods so that they can still be labeled "organic" even when a company uses pesticides and hormones, thought drilling for oil in Alaska was a good idea, and didn't oppose off road vehicles in Yellowstone. I don't see how those and numerous other anti-green ideas can all go away with one act, unless it is huge, like outlawing the use of pesticides period.