ONE OF THE MOST disturbing aspects of the past eight years has been the Bush administration’s willingness to suppress scientific information that did not support its political purposes.
As always, the results of that determination to make science serve not truth, but the wishes of temporary rulers have been human suffering, the spread of ignorance and the loss of valuable time.
Suffering was caused by the political decision to minimize the health risks to rescue and recovery workers at Ground Zero after the 9/11 attacks. That decision exposed heroic people to toxic air and debris without proper safety equipment. Some of the workers have died and others are likely to die from that poisoning.
The White House spread ignorance in its long rear-guard action against the growing evidence for global climate change. Government scientists were told to massage data and alter conclusions — or just to shut up — when their work challenged the administration’s assurances that there was no such thing as a human effect on global climate.
The executive branch’s refusal to consider the data before it and accept the findings of its own scientists has caused the nation to delay for eight years any effective action to slow, stop or reverse climate change.
To be sure, the Bush administration did not go as far as other recent governments in its battle with science.
Nazi Germany declared war on “Jewish science,” stripping the nation of some of its finest theorists and researchers. Nazi eugenics used bad science as a justification for the destruction of the Jews of Europe.
On the other side of World War II, the Soviet Union crippled its own research into biology and medicine by chasing the “Marxist genetics” phantom. Scientists who persisted in presenting results that did not jibe with that loopy creed were sent to Siberia. Some were killed.
Government can tell its scientists what to do, but no executive orders or signing statements can tell an experiment what its outcome should be. The purpose of science is not to promote political careers but to explain the universe. To attempt to make science fit the talking points of the day is to lie.
The lies may be at an end. This week, senators began questioning Lisa Jackson, President-elect Barack Obama’s choice to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. Her testimony indicated that science, not politics, would govern the work of the EPA in the Obama administration.
“Science must be the backbone of what EPA does,” Jackson said. “EPA’s addressing of scientific decisions should reflect the expert judgment of the agency’s career scientists.”
That would be a welcome change.
It is time for science to again be a servant of the people, not a slave to politicians.
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
Was this article written just to have something to write? I'll not try to defend George W. I'm proud to say that I voted against him. At the same time, Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" is supported by some scientists and not by others. Al Gore has made money off of "global warming" and provided fodder for the AP to send out verbal garbage to it's media subscribers. (The wording "global warming" has been changed to match up with nature's natural temperature fluctuations and to make allowance for the planet's getting cooler the last few years.) Editors do seem to love to buy into "The Inconvenient Truth".
I'm not sure how the 911 paragraph got into your article, but the sentences in the paragraph seem to be at odds with each other.
January 15, 2009 at 9:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Outside of the fact that this was just another shameless "bash Bush for all the wrongs in the world" piece (of ____), it is interesting to note that according to history, that "bad science" that the Nazi eugenics used to justify those killings was actually Darwinism. In this country's universities, Intelligent Design theories are condemned while Darwinistic hypothesis are held in high regard.
"The purpose of science is ................ to explain the universe. To attempt to make science fit the talking points of the day is to lie."
Evidence in the scientific community doesn't support this statement and it has nothing to do with party politics
January 16, 2009 at 12:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alfalfa (anonymous) says...
My take on it is Pat Kelley realizes before long he won't be able to blame every problem in the world on George W Bush, so he needs to get his remaining licks in now. I am betting though we will be nearly through the 2012 elections before anything bad that happens can't be traced back to something George W Bush has done.
Nice to throw Stalin and Hitler in the mix with GW Bush, certainly all three men are on equal footing with the far left. The Bush administration used a little common sense on the global warming issue, oh wait, now it is climate change, because we aren't actually sure we are having global warming. It is one thing to pontificate from the office of a newspaper about needing more regulations to deal with a theory, it is quite another to be in a business on the receiving end of some of those regulations. What we don't need the next 4 years are alot of costly regulations that put US industry at a disadvantage to our foreign competition. Mr. Kelley should take his own advice and read up on the history of the climate of this planet. The area we live in has gone from being on the edge of a glacier(hence the term "Glaciers edge tournament) to being part of a inland marshy sea. The climate has always changed, and no matter what we do it will change. We may indeed be impacting it, but climate change is coming whether we are here or not.
January 16, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
It will certainly be hard for the media to switch gears from "blame Bush" to anything else. Stories about fallen celebs seems to be the default so at least they'll have that. Perhaps a nice piece on comparing Britney Spears to Ava Braun.
January 16, 2009 at 8:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Actually, if one actually does real honest, balanced research, you will find just the exact opposite of what Patrick claims. Scientists who DOUBTED or did not believe in global warming were the ones ostracized, had their funds removed, etc. Plenty of them on record for that. Reading a Kelley column anymore is almost like reading the latest headline in the National Enquirer. Follows is a Senate Minority Report dated December, 2008
January 16, 2009 at 9:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
U. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008
INTRODUCTION:
Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming
claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report --
updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism
about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650
prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists,
who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250
(and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December
2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN
scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peerreviewed
studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the
UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a
"consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of manmade
climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following:
Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of
warming; (many others here) the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.
In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the “consensus”
collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be
responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a
“considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists
countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”.
India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded
the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of
more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is
“settled.”
This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of
the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific
opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore.
January 16, 2009 at 9:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
and crackinsack, do you even really understand what you are talking about?
On August 9th, 2001, President George W. Bush announced that federal funds may be awarded for research using human embryonic stem cells if the following criteria are met:
The derivation process (which begins with the destruction of the embryo) was initiated prior to 9:00 P.M. EDT on August 9, 2001.
The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes and was no longer needed.
Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo and that donation must not have involved financial inducements.
In other words, Bush said you can use federal funds for embryonic stem cell research, but ONLY on existing lines. No new ones. However, this has pushed researchers harder into non-embryonic stem cell research. While embryonic stem cells held promise, so far it has been pretty much a dead end, while ADULT stem cell research is reaping great advances.
From
http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstem...
"To date, current research on embryonic stem cells has resulted in no promising results.....
Past supporters of this controversial research are now speaking out about the false hype surrounding the results. The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported that doubters are coming out of the woodwork. Paul Billings, who studied stem cells' effects and co-founded a stem cell bank, said that hopes for major new medical treatments based on embryonic stem cells are "very remote".;....
In stark contrast to the failures of embryonic stem cell research, the future looks very promising for treatment with adult stem cells......"
So, what was that again everyone was complaining about Bush & stem cell research?????
January 16, 2009 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
Come on you can't go throwing facts and research in on a Bush roast. That might make sheeple have to think and why think when it's much easier and more convenient to just blame Bush. ;)
January 16, 2009 at 10:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
You're right, seriouslyfolks, I stand reprimanded :)
I humbly apologize for raining on Patrick's parade.... LOL
January 16, 2009 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Are you kidding me?
Do you really think that the billions of humans on this planet are not adversely affecting it? It’s not even a question of if; it’s of when and how bad. Plain and simple logic here, we can debate global warming all you like, there is mountains of data on it con and pro, people can stick their heads in the sand all they like but the reality is that as many humans as there are living on this planet, we will affect the envoirnment, period.
2001? Ugh, here is something recent for you,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busines...
And I can tell you this, our science in the US is lagging horribly while other countries are making breakthroughs with embryonic stem cells we are sitting here with our hands tied.
And lets not forget our space program, which has been vastly under funded. Do you realize how many modern innovations are reverse engineered off developments from our space programs? Yea bang up job there W, funding was cut, not we might have to hitch a ride into space and there is even talk that because of our ineptness that China could very well be on the move with launching satellites capable of shooting ours down if they so desired.
Blame Bush indeed, said it before, I'll say it again, Bush is not evil, but he is a failure as a president.
January 17, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
My take on it is Pat Kelley realizes before long he won't be able to blame every problem in the world on George W Bush, so he needs to get his remaining licks in now. I am betting though we will be nearly through the 2012 elections before anything bad that happens can't be traced back to something George W Bush has done.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Do you realize that there is actually quite a bit of truth in that? It does take quite a bit of time for policy to take hold and see results, our country is more akin to an aircraft carrier then a speedboat, we do not turn on a dime. And with the wreck our country is in currently I don't think (insert deity of your choosing here) could fix it in 8 years.
January 17, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The Senate Minority Report was Dec, 2008.
The 2001 date was when Bush instituted the controls above on stem cell research. I waded thru tons of articles on embryonic stem cell experiments, up to date, it seems none of them are showing the promise they once had. Some studies in foreign countries are turning away from embryonic research and moving towards adult stem cell research as each of their embryonic endeavors has hit a dead end or not turned up the hoped for results. THAT is the point I was making, Look them up. They're plenty. Even your own article cited an experiment that they were only hoping would work. It is looking more and more like adult stem cells are holding much more promise than embryonic stem cells. I'm just saying, maybe Bush inadvertantly pushed us in the eventual correct direction, quite awhile ago......
Oh, but I forgot about your fact and proof. Well, to date, no embryonic stem cell research has lived up to the hype. So, that is fact and proof I guess, and guessing that it might if more money were thrown at it.... well, since things are different now, I guess it's irrelevant and should not even be brought up.
January 17, 2009 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
I am laughing a lot more at bashers than at Bush, but what do I know about science, I only have a Physics degree.
January 17, 2009 at 6:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Oh, but I forgot about your fact and proof. Well, to date, no embryonic stem cell research has lived up to the hype. So, that is fact and proof I guess, and guessing that it might if more money were thrown at it.... well, since things are different now, I guess it's irrelevant and should not even be brought up."
------------------------------------------------------------
Until it is properly researched how will we know? Which is exactly the point, the reason this was not funded was based on a religous belief, which not everyone shares. Funny how now your the one saying its irrelavant and a waste of time when we have not even delved into it, lol the irony.
And that is just one of the issues, what about our space program? American dominance in space is joke compared to what it was, no answer for that?. Wait! No child left behind will fix everything though! Our science and math scores are gonna go up! Oh wait.........
January 18, 2009 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"I am laughing a lot more at bashers than at Bush, but what do I know about science, I only have a Physics degree."
And I have a degree in mathematics and computer science, and an MBA, does that make me an expert to? I laugh at the people with degrees that don't see what happened to the Republicans and still defend them. I WANT a good republican candidate; one that is conservative yet has some foresight. Their party just got stomped because they broke their brand and is behind in the times. I truly hope in 2012 we get a viable conservative, I really do, I'd likely vote for them. Do you honestly think Bush does not deserve to get bashed? He was a failure as a president and all this backpedaling he is doing recently is proof positive of it. I think the most poignant thing in all this was look at the election, when was the last time you saw a candidate distance himself from the president when they are of the same party. There is a reason for it, think about it.
January 18, 2009 at 8:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
The major thing that concerned me about the Bush administration in regards to the scientific community was the adversarial tone that resulted in some scientific losses for the US. Whether we are talking about stem cells, climate change, genetic sciences or a host of other scientific activities, Europe (CERN) and other nations in the far east are quickly catching up/passing the US in the most important scientific developments and research. More scientifically friendly attitudes in other parts of the world will not only cost us our best and brightest scientific minds, but will put the US behind in industries stemming from scientific breakthroughs.
I hope that this new administration has a more respectful view towards science and our scientists. I don't think that the Bush administration is/was responsible for all the evil in the world, but he did have a problem with academia, especially when the scientific community had findings that were contrary to his administrations economic stances or were opposed by religious movements. At the present, instead of this nations best and brightest becoming doctors, engineers and scientists, we have a generation of our most talented individuals going into finance, law and marketing. Simply put, we need to re-emphasize people and jobs that actually do work that advance this nation and man kind, and pay those people for what they do. We need another generation of rock stars of science or engineering. Otherwise, we are doomed to perpetually discuss marketing strategies of products developed, engineered and built by other nations.
January 18, 2009 at 11:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
You hit the proverbial nail on the head Momus, /thumbs up
January 18, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
First, we are only talking about US stem cell research, not the rest of the world, which has plowed ahead. And HAS delved into it, and sunk enourmous piles of money into it. And, if all the best & brightest scientific minds are going elsewhere (out of the US) - then that is where we should be hearing the breakthroughs, right? Unfortunately, we're not. Oh, the Korean scientist got everyone excited, till he admitted he fudged all his data. And there are plenty of others. But this sums it up best, and explains your point of view as well:
http://www.lifenews.com/bio2396.html
Scientists Admit Embryonic Stem Cell Research Hasn't Been Successful - April, 2008
Lord Patel of Dunkeld, the chairman of the UK National Stem Cell Network and a chancellor at Dundee University, says embryonic stem cell research is simply not working.
Well, those cures have not even appeared as distant silhouettes on the horizon yet, and finally, a few in the media are beginning to notice," Smith concluded.
"By hyping the potential, the politicized science sector misled people to win a political debate, and in the process reduced science to just another special interest spinning and obfuscating to get a greater share of gruel in the public trough."
My degree is also computer science & mathematics, but I'm honest enough to admit when my pet isn't living up to the hype. I wish it had.
Funny how you keep missing the point - "Until it is properly researched how will we know?" "we have not even delved into it". (It IS researched, and with American funds. The restriction is to fund ONLY the existing lines, no new lines).
And, by the way, do a little research on new sources being found which may provide embryonic stem cells without destroying fetuses.
But then again, aren't we supposed to only look at what HAS happened, and not speculate? (aka the Depression). I get really confused as to when we are supposed to look at things, try to improve them, try to do better next time, learn from the past, etc... and when it is useless and should not be brought up. (Actually, it seems very clear, it seems on here it falls pretty much along party lines which is which, sadly).
As for our all the best/brightest in science technology being overseas, well, maybe if we wouldn't work so hard to outsource all those positions, a kid nowadays would have a reason to study along those lines in college.....
January 18, 2009 at 10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Like your global warming there is data for and against embryonic stem cell research, I can post my sources you post yours, maybe in the years to come we will know the truth. You have drawn your line, I'll draw mine, there is conclusive evidence neither way at this point so its a 50/50 shot just who is right. Sad to see though that our president tossed the shackles on people before we had even scratched the surface, breakthroughs can come at anytime in science, lets just close of more roads shall we? Again your assuming, we have not put forth the money or vested the time to truly know. But by all means lets take another countries words for it!
Now back to the space issue, no comment? Ahh I get it, pretty cut and dried there, I'd ignore that one too if I was a fan of W.
January 18, 2009 at 10:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
"And lets not forget our space program, which has been vastly under funded.....Yea bang up job there W, funding was cut........ no answer for that?"
Here's your answer:
Actually, Bush has INCREASED funding for NASA every year since he has been in office except 1, from 13.xx billion in 2000 to over 17 billion in 2008, with 20+ billion asked for in 2009. His plan to get us back to the Moon and Mars, was to be used with not only increased funding, but funding diverted from other programs. There is where your "cuts" come from. And who's to say what will/won't be developed for the moon/mars missions & reverse engineered? So, your statement, like many of your claims, is incorrect and/or skewed/spun. Maybe you got Bush confused with Clinton? (Funding for NASA was less when Clinton left office than when he began). The list is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget
January 18, 2009 at 10:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Finally, we agree. The space program issue is pretty cut and dried. Only difference is, I did a little research first.
Also, there's this little hurdle called "Congress" that has alot to do with what gets funded & how much. There are plenty of sources to study up on "Congress", I'll let you do that research on your own.
From "History of Stem Cell Research" at
http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/...
"In 1973 a moratorium was placed on government funding for human embryo research. In 1988 a NIH panel voted 19 to 2 in favor of government funding. In 1990, Congress voted to override the moratorium on government funding of embryonic stem cell research, which was vetoed by President George Bush. President Clinton lifted the ban, but changed his mind the following year after public outcry. Congress banned federal funding in 1995. In 1998 DHHS Secretary Sullivan extended the moratorium. In 2000, President Bill Clinton allowed funding of research on cells derived from aborted human fetuses, but not from embryonic cells. On August 9, 2001, President George W. Bush announced his decision to allow Federal funding of research only on existing human embryonic stem cell lines created prior to his announcement. His concern was to not foster the continued destruction of living human embryos."
So, another little point liberals like to overlook and spin, is that Bush isn't the first person to put limits on embryonic stem cell research funding, INCLUDING CLINTON. But he DOES allow it, on existing lines.
I have ALWAYS said there are 2 sides to every issue, and everything can be "spun" to suit one's particular view. Difference between you and I, goodoleboy, is I am open to listening to both sides, even if I don't agree, and I think EVERYTHING can be looked at and scrutinized to see if it is relevant. I don't just toss things aside if they don't fit my point of view and say "they shouldn't even be brought up". I say bring it all up - lets discuss it & decide for ourselves if we agree with it or not. Lots of people agree with lots of things that you think are "irrelevant" - people lots smarter than either you or I. But I'm willing to let that voice be heard, and give it some thought. And maybe, just maybe, I can learn something from it.
January 18, 2009 at 10:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
From your article, the republicans you cherish so much( dragged them in since you dragged in Clinton):
* $553.8 million in fiscal 1995
* $155.5 million in fiscal 1996
* $131.7 million in fiscal 1997
* $61 million in fiscal 1998
* $51.3 million in fiscal 2000
* $10.8 million in fiscal 2004
According to the Florida Today report, five of those cuts were during Republican-led Congresses.
And then like no child left behind;
Despite the Bush Administration's public commitment to the space program, in the form of the 2004 Vision for Space Exploration initiative, which sets goals of returning men to the Moon, establishing a base there, and later mounting manned missions to Mars, the White House has not fully committed to funding it. The five-year projection of the budget needed annually by NASA to meet the program's major milestones, proposed by the Administration and passed by Congress in 2005, has been underfunded by more than $1 billion per year.
He can propose all he wants, but if he does not get the funds for the task it will fail like his education program.
And I say again, now we are at the point where China is getting close to being able to castrate us in space, and all that happened on a Republican congress and presidential watch, the ooorah guys if you will. And as a fellow geek, I am sure you can appreciate how terribly open we are to attack on the cyber front.
January 18, 2009 at 11:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
First, the "destroyed fetuses" that were proposed for stem cell usage were remaining cells from fertility programs that were being discarded. So, scientists proposed that something that was being "destroyed" be put to scientific use. The cells get destroyed either way, but one way may benefit us as a whole people, while the other is simply discarded medical waste (at present).
Second, if I tell a program to divert a massive portion of its funding to obtaining one goal (Mars) while keeping funding at a relatively same level, it equals a cut to most other programs. I'm not saying that Mars isn't a worthwhile goal, especially when it looks like we will have to race the Chinese to get there, but there are other programs in NASA that told us more about our planet and its internal and external threats that are also vital.
Finally, from "editing" reports on climate change (which President Bush now admits is real and man made), to applying theological judgments to scientific fields (advocating of Intelligent design, despite the fact that it doesn't adhere to the scientific method), groups of scientists have stated a repeated adversarial relationship with this administration. When you have emerging nations like China, and established bastions of science like CERN competing for the best and brightest minds the world has to offer, what effect does that relationship have on our ability to compete? If other nations advance or overtake our scientific prowess because they were able to provide a more supportive, less restrictive, pro-science atmosphere, was it worth it?
January 19, 2009 at 8:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Thanks for making my point, goodoleboy. Congress has alot to do with it, so when you lay it all on Bush in your blind fury, you're being dishonest. Clinton asked for those cuts. And, we had a Republican-led Congress all those years that Bush INCREASED Nasa funding, how come you didn't mention that? Oversight? Or Spin?
Good points momus. Yes, many areas of Nasa complained about their funding being cut/diverted to Bush's moon/mars initiative. But, I'm sure, if we divert the funds back, and cancel the moon/mars missions, and China gets to the moon, and especially Mars first, we'll hear whining that we should have concentrated on the missions. It would be nice if you could please all the people, all the time.... (sigh).... but the bottom line is, under Clinton, Nasa funding was cut, and with a Repub Congress. Under Bush, with very vew exception, under a Repub Congress, Nasa funding was steadily increased. So the claims about Bush & Nasa funding are simply, incorrect.
As for the fetuses, you have a point. I think the anti-abortionists are going to be against this forever. But, as I said before, given the research going on, this may not matter, if it continues to look like it has been - that embryonic is a dead end, and adult cells are the way to go.
As for climate change, yes, the pro-warming crowd definitely has an "adversarial" relationship with this administration. But how come the other "adversarial" relationships never get mentioned? Like the one who sued to have his name removed from the original UN report? Why don't you mention the 2008 Congressional Minority report I cited, showing the growing number of scientists that seem to have an "adversarial relationship" with the pro-warming crowd? Does their research & opinion not matter? Or were they just somehow the lower half in the intelligence rankings? Did you read thru the report?
January 19, 2009 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Thanks for making my point, goodoleboy. Congress has alot to do with it, so when you lay it all on Bush in your blind fury, you're being dishonest. Clinton asked for those cuts. And, we had a Republican-led Congress all those years that Bush INCREASED Nasa funding, how come you didn't mention that? Oversight? Or Spin?"
5 of the 6 cuts were made by republicans, and like I said Bush wanted to increase funding but yet, did it happen? Nope, just like his education program, great idea, but unfunded it fails, he had a congress on his side yet he still fails. I can say I want to increase my wealth, but without the income its not happening.
Bottom Line:
Republican Congress
Republican President
Failing Space Program, Clinton was out of the loop in 2000, here we are in 2009 and other countries space programs rival ours, something unheard of, and quite scary to me that China could overtake us.
January 20, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
More for you,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090126/a...
January 26, 2009 at 11:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )