I was most certainly NOT attacking our President.

He told the Palestinian delegation to Egypt in 2003 that God commanded him to attack Iraq, and only Scott McClellan (not Bush) ever denied it. If you believe Scott McClellan’s denial of all recorded versions of Bush’s statements to the Palestinians in 2003, it only “tells of your limited ability to see the world other than through a sound bite”: because when McClellan was asked what he was basing his denial on (at the same press conference in which he made the denial sound bite, immediately following the sound bite) McClellan agreed that he knew precisely nothing whatsoever about what happened at the meeting in which Bush made the statements.

You’re taking the word of an out-of-context sound bite from someone who claims to have no knowledge whatsoever on the topic instead of in-context transcriptions from the leader of Palestine, and the former leader of Palestine (both of whom were actually at the meeting with Bush) and the BBC (who has never been asked publicly to retract the claim or issue any corrections for the claim).

The members of the Palestinian delegation President Bush spoke with reported his exact words to be: “And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’”. Nobody took it literally - “he was illustrating [in his comments] his strong faith and his belief that this is what God wanted.” (Mahmoud Abbas) - but by EVERY first-hand account he made the statement.

More importantly: Sam, your insubstantial attacks on me have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and I would like to apologize to the rest of the Earth& Sky Community for giving so much space here to repudiating Sam’s misdirections from the topic of calling for more ‘joined-up’ thinking about scientific thinking at G8, a discussion for which I have some comments I’d like to add:

With our government’s recent admission that there is global warming, maybe, George, your idea that they could teleconference for a future meeting is possible (now that all 8 agree there’s a reason to).

I think the summits do achieve something (even if we don’t always meet our intentions we set at them, like for aid spending). Being able to come together and share our common goals and ideals (and work together toward meeting them) empowers all of the G8 nations to meet our own individual goals by having each other’s support, and reminds us all that in the developing global economy, even though we may have been former enemies, and we may be in direct competition economically, that we share something bigger than ourselves as well.

In actual fact nothing,but:

I suppose they get air miles, expensive food, dancing girls, new scenery, getting out of the office and all at other tax payer’s expense.

Perhaps they are not so dum after all.

George

A photo represents a tiny fraction of time. A camera, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet been invented to capture everyone in a group, or individually, the way they would wish to look.

More important, why are they and their ‘hangers on’ there in the first place? Yes, as Deborah says, they have the power to do good for the world, but have they not heard of video conferencing?

It may not be their intention, but it all seems to me to be big expensive ‘jolly’. Much the same as any ‘World’ conference is held.

What is the real cause of all this ’so called’ poverty, has anyone heard of birth control. Some ‘religious’ organisations/cults have a lot to answer for.
This is a very serious matter and I do think and believe that the world thinks that all problems can be solved by throwing money at them. How stupid can we get?

Demonstrations in Germany will not help, better to target the government in one’s own country by voting for people who will best meet the needs of the problems.

George

But unless you were personally in a CCCP nuclear silo with a geiger counter and team of rocketry and weapons experts, then your belief that they had (still have) nuclear weapons aimed at us can be traced entirely to pictures and media reports.

That didn’t change the veracity of the situation then, just as it doesn’t change the veracity of the situation now. We’re trying to put missile silos in Prague against the Czech Republic’s citizens’ wishes, and against the wishes of surrounding nations. Remember how we felt when they tried to put their missiles in Cuba?

Lindsay is completely correct that political tension between us and Russia is mounting. And why not: in the last 5 years, we’ve violated most of the Geneva Conventions and every agreement in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty.

Russia not being able to afford to maintain the unity of the Soviet Union did not make them our best buddy who agrees with us about everything. Putin’s been talking about the U.S. as the new Third Reich - is that something friends do? The political rifts didn’t go away when the wall fell, are they’re growing wider again now.

And if you’re afraid of religious zealots: our President claimed that he invaded Iraq because God directly commanded him to. Whatever your beliefs, citing God as a blaming over 650 thousand civilian deaths on God is taking His name in vain (at the very least).

If you think we’ll pull through this current tension without launching World War Three, I applaud your optimism and agree whole-heartedly. But lay off the personal attacks - they really take away from any discussion.

Lindsay is one of the smartest people I know. I thought her comment was very perceptive. And I know for a fact she was not “raised to believe only in the media and pop culture.”

Please refrain from picking on her in my blog again.

Thanks,
Deborah

It’s hard to be optimistic about the potential of ‘joined-up’ thinking when political rifts are getting wider and deeper.