Slashdot Mirror

The problem with Bush on environmental issues is that he's all talk. The environmental policies he promotes may sound good up front, but as with so much of what he says, things look worse and worse the more you look at them.

In 2003 he proposed a "hydrogen fuel initiative". Sounds good. But what if instead of wasting money on something that won't be feasible for ten or fifteen years we concentrate on high-yield biofuels like algae?

You say in his 2006 state of the union address he heavily promoted biofuels? Sounds good. But Bush and the rest of the government seem to back corn ethanol exclusively. Which is a shame since it's practically the least energy-dense crop possible, and there are questions as the whether or not the energy you get is worth the energy put in.

And let's not even talk about the Bush administration's clear skies initiative and clean water act.

To me it's obvious that the problem is a lack of scientific understanding in the areas of the government responsible for implementing policy. Bush's solution is to throw money at things that sound good but aren't practical (giving him a false image of environmental stewardship), while paving the way for big business. Congress doesn't appear to have any idea of the science behind the mandates they argue about. We need realistic and common sense discourse about what works and what doesn't. Unfortunately this topic is too politicized for that. In the end everyone loses.

The documents maintain that Nacchio met with top government officials, including President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice in 2000 and early 2001 to discuss how to protect the government's communications network.

If you're going to suggest that our government is violating the constitutions by "...encroachments upon Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..." then I suggest you find some actual incidents of this happening instead of oblique references to rulings and laws that you understand little about, much less can't even spell correctly.

Here are some suggestions:

This XO gives the Secretary of the Treasury the right to seize the funds of any person they suspect is "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq". No warrant or oversight required. Pretty scary stuff if you even thought about protesting the war.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

How about the FISA amendments that Congress recently passed, allowing the federal government to electronically wiretap anyone they believe is communicating with someone outside of the U.S. Effectively legalizing the previously illegal TSP and providing the government an easy way to justify surveillance on anyone they'd like.

"...undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."

Hard-core incompetent is a bit extreme - his main failure was the failure to get hostages out of Iran, and that is as much to blame on US foreign policy and bad luck with rescue operations as anything. Many people give Reagan credit for getting the hostages out of Iran, but it was pretty much over and done with before he even took office - the Shah had died and Iran changed their demand (which included extradite the Shah to them for trial and execution) to just release the billions of Iranian money in American banks and agree not to interfere with their government (the Algiers Accords). I'm really not a believer in the conspiracy theory - I personally think Reagan just happened to be in the right place at the right time to get credit for that one.

A lot of people say Reagan was a god in comparison to Carter, but Reagan's administration was far from perfect - he ignored Iraqi genocide and even allied with their dictator because they were anti-Iran (not to mention armed them). His administration was full of scandals (e.g. the Iran-Contra affair, HUD rigging, and the lobbying scandal). He scrapped the SALT II nuclear non-proliferation treaty so he could get military spending for SDI, then claimed the soviets violated it first (this was never officially signed, so I can't say the treaty was broken, and the ensuing arms race contributed to the financial collapse of the USSR, so it wasn't all bad).

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "sold out to the Saudis," either - AFAIK, no such thing happened during Carter's presidency and the US has never wavered in its support of Israel. You are probably referencing his post-presidency book with an anti-Israel message that I see mentioned on many conservative blogs when I google for it - apparently the Carter foundation received a large Saudi grant after one of his books was released ripping Israel, including some money from a bin-Laden (NOT Osama). Having not read the book, I can't answer this objectively and you may be completely right in bashing him, but saying a bin-Laden is Osama is like saying a Jones is always Jim Jones (the mass murderer) and that is basically a conservative smear campaign.

Personally, I blame Carter for founding FEMA using an executive order (which probably hides provisions allowing them to declare martial law in a crisis, which is illegal), the failure to avoid the 1979 energy crisis, FAR too many executive orders (bypassing congress), and inability to work with congress. Incidentally, I pretty much blame Bush for the same thing - FEMA's poor performance, high gas prices, FAR too many executive orders, and an inability to work with Congress. Both Bush and Carter have used executive orders to make illegal activities legal - Bush in allowing the NSA to spy on US citizens [confirmed] and Carter by [allegedly] allowing FEMA to declare martial law without Congress. Since executive orders may be exempt from being public on the grounds of national security, we often don't even know what's in them.

Anyhow, you can probably tell I'm not overly fond of Carter, Reagan, or Bush. It's my opinion that the best candidates usually get eliminated early because generally only the most liberal and conservative people vote in the primaries and they tend to favor the more extreme members of their party (non-party members can vote, but they can only vote for one party, so moderates usually stay out). There hasn't been a viable 3rd party since Perot - before he dropped out he was a viable candidate, at least, though I personally was never on his bandwagon due to his proposed method of paying off the national debt with a huge gas tax. IMO that would just drive up inflation. Basically, the US has a 2 party system that is slanted toward extremism on both sides, and not even all states have binding elections, so the electors (in the electoral college - remember, the US doesn't really v

"The Greatest Generation" did much more that just show up in the right place at the right time. It's easy to look back now and say how easy it was to make so many right decisions at such a critical time in history, but back then they struggled with overwhelming issues and yet managed to be united and purposeful - and therefore overcame.

Among other accomplishments, they:

• Fought and won a two front war against two powerful, highly immoral military dictatorships that not only sought to conquer the world (in reality, not Hollywood-ese) but to murder entire races and classes of people;
• Rebuilt both defeated countries into modern economic, republican powers and allies (the allies helped, of course, but I'm drawing a distinction with the punative post-WWI "reparations" laws that proved so foolish);
• Laid a working foundation for international dispute resolution (as opposed to the worthless League of Nations) that has survived to this day without become irrelevant (for the most part);
• Generated a huge post-war economic boom that dramatically improved the quality of life for a large percentage of the population; and
• Laid the foundations upon which the Cold War could be won without WWIII and (especially) the use of nuclear weapons.

All in all, not a bad days work IMHO.

(The "enormous debt habit" was not a product of The Greatest Generation, who were a uniformly thrifty and cash-based society except during WWII itself. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hi st.pdf (PDF file, starting pp 126) for the data - but national debt relative to GDP declined every year from 1946 (end of WWII) until 1981. The "enormous debt habit" was my generation, Bucky - show a little respect! :-/)

I don't propose TGG were perfect by any means. Discrimination against certain classes of people were not eradicated (though they certainly didn't invent the concept!), although some of the worst abuses were indeed addressed (lynchings, for example, dropped out of popular acceptance, and the accomplishments of some Blacks were finally acknowledged and recognized, if only out of embarrassment for how much had gone unrecognized in the past). And the foundations for defeat were also laid, resulting most notably in the Vietnam war (where allied soldiers were required to bomb empty jungles lest we hurt any Russian advisors - idiots!).

But compared to the moral confusion and lack of clear and unified purpose in the current generation, I think they did pretty darned good against overwhelming odds, and are worthy of the title bestowed by the popular media. YMMV, of course.

George? Is that you?

"I don't go to church, I want the portion of my taxes that supports those churches back."

You get that back. Since you are taxed "zero" for churches, you get back "zero".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/

For those of you too lazy to click a mouse, that's the Office of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives, where the Feds subsidise churches & church leaders to do things the government wants to stop doing. In a word, outsourcing. And yes, your tax dollars pay for this.

The Bush administration has long supported "faith-based initiatives." Essentially, they're contracting social services out to churches by giving "faith-based and community initiatives" grants for educational, charitable, and other programs. While in terms of infrastructure there may be some redeeming value in the idea (after all, a parochial school does know how to provide an education, and one hopes that most religious institutions know how to distribute food and alms), that does basically mean tax dollars are supporting churches. And of course, only certain ones.

The department's web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/

Tell me, did you intend to link to a parody site? Or do you just not know the URL of the whitehouse website?

I believe you wanted http://www.whitehouse.gov/ as should be fairly easy to tell if you'd loaded & read your own link.

Most of these endeavors from TFA may be pie-in-the-sky, literally; however, according to this article from the Economist the other week, the Goddard Space Flight Center has some serious plans for missions to the moon under direction of President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration. Going for the pie-in-the-sky plans may sound exciting and adventurous, but reality needs to set in eventually. Making gradual steps and acting when the technology is developed is the best plan to ensure safety and success in the space in the future.

Disallow:

Apparently Bush thinks it's one of his accomplishments to have met this alleged embezzler.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=h ttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Finfocus%2Fafrica% 2Fafrica_accomplishments.pdf&ei=NMTZRqrcF6WqxAGf5M 2OAw&usg=AFQjCNGsylMvKy5w5W7fvYJ9XGJdSbcpQw&sig2=T 3B32gMv7qDOnRQkSthpoQ
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20 021205-2.html

So, not exactly his fault, but perhaps unwise to be supporting someone who the EU, Denmark and UK had warned they would stop aid to if corruption wasn't dealt with. It seems that the magical "Support for the War on Terrorism" phrase was used.

I don't think it's fair to blame NASA, a single government agency, for a policy that was established by the White House and covers all federal government departments and agencies: Department of Agriculture, etc.

I would have to agree..... All I can really say is that the military is probably the only portion of our government with any integrity anymore. I hope when the president declares martial law after the invasion of Iran, and suspends all further elections as well as consolidating all 3 branches of government to the Executive that the military sees through all the BS and defends the American people the way they are supposed to.

I would have to agree..... All I can really say is that the military is probably the only portion of our government with any integrity anymore. I hope when the president declares martial law after the invasion of Iran, and suspends all further elections as well as consolidating all 3 branches of government to the Executive that the military sees through all the BS and defends the American people the way they are supposed to.

''The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda'', U.S. President George W Bush told reporters Thursday, is ''because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda''.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0619-04.ht m

"THE PRESIDENT: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20 030917-7.html

"We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20 021007-8.html

So, there are many many quotes insisting there was a link to Al-Qaeda. Which there wasn't. Thank you for playing, though.

''The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda'', U.S. President George W Bush told reporters Thursday, is ''because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda''.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0619-04.ht m

"THE PRESIDENT: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20 030917-7.html

"We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20 021007-8.html

So, there are many many quotes insisting there was a link to Al-Qaeda. Which there wasn't. Thank you for playing, though.

Those liberals seem to be paying back the drunken spending that you so called "conservatives" are responsible for. The "conservatives" aren't fiscally conservative at all. Read through some budgets at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/ . The largest increases in spending have been with Reagan and the Bushes. Bush II seems to have completely burned through a budget surplus and is diving for record debt. Nobody in their right mind thinks this is good except for the apologists that fantasize that debt is good.

I'm trying to give you a not so subtle education. I'll bet there have been many attempts at education but there hasn't been successful learning.

When people revolt against this real id thing or any other of the patriot acts, weather they are American citizens with all the rights or legal immigrants with green cards, they are going to be considered terrorist. That is the next step and its already into law . At this point, anything can be considered to be "threatening" the security or integrity of Irak, as this law is so open an vague, this is the first real fascist way to "control" people. People will be subject to arrest with no legal recourse, no charges, no limit of jail time, no trial. Their assets and property will be taken away, and they will end up in a gitmo type of place. Be a politician, legislator, mechanic, news person, secretary, CEO, or anything.

[...] all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, [...]

[...]there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

What do you mean "appeared to"? Are you saying that the billions of dollars the Reagan Administration borrowed by issuing treasury bills are imaginary or something?

From http://zfacts.com/p/318.html - original source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hi st.pdf
The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982 [Reagan's first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992.

NYPD Officer Is 'Not A Public Servant'
Cop Refuses to Show Badge Number, Admits Automatic Weapon is "Meant to Intimidate You"

I don't know about you, but with the Patriot Act I & II, presidential directive 51 where the president generously grants himself dictator powers in case of an emergency - oh btw, the president gets to define what an emergency is - it does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that the very same cops that stops lawful and calm demonstrators soon may get a new public suppression pukestick to play with.

Research needs funding. There is no entity that is as 'well funded' as a government of a developed country, the US in particular. Just consider the fact that more than 600 billion $ (that's 0.6 Tera-dollars or 60000000000000 US pennies!) are spent on the military this (and the coming) year and you'll see how powerful a government can really be and what potential it could have by simply collecting a few tax dollars here and there (for a unintentionally humorous take on what is being done with that kind of money check this page); compare that to charities or privately funded (even international) corporations and you'll see that (at least currently) they are peanuts by comparison.

I think if we are going to discuss this issue. We need to go straight to the source and decide for ourselves what it means. Here is the link to EO 12866 including admendments set forth by EO 13422. No conspiracy theories! no partisanship! Lets just read the thing and make our own minds on the implications.

I think if we are going to discuss this issue. We need to go straight to the source and decide for ourselves what it means. Here is the link to EO 12866 including admendments set forth by EO 13422. No conspiracy theories! no partisanship! Lets just read the thing and make our own minds on the implications.

Bush with a keyboard under water.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

It was definitely an "act of violence threatening the peace and stability" of the area.

Which means it would qualify you to have your assets frozen just for thinking about doing it in the USA today.

  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20 070717-3.html

Since when does the Iraqi conflict pose a "national emergency" for the citizens of the United States? That flawed "notion" is being used by Bush as basis for this new Executive Order.

And for the record, this would appear to conflict with the 4th Amendment, not the 5th Amendment, as the OP incorrectly states.

Helpful links so you can gain your own understanding instead of reading a bunch of off-the-cuff /. commentary:

Since when does the Iraqi conflict pose a "national emergency" for the citizens of the United States? That flawed "notion" is being used by Bush as basis for this new Executive Order.

And for the record, this would appear to conflict with the 4th Amendment, not the 5th Amendment, as the OP incorrectly states.

Helpful links so you can gain your own understanding instead of reading a bunch of off-the-cuff /. commentary:

In fact, political acts are included and guilt will only be determined through a secret process outside the courts.

I don't see this in the order. I see things like (i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of: This is not a "political act", but an act of treason. I feel these people would be getting off light.

any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense

Yes, there is a bunch of other stuff in there, but I don't see anything stopping the Secretary of the Treasury from using this for political purposes. If you go to an anti-war demonstration, you just might be undermining efforts to promote political reform in Iraq (as defined by the Bush administration).

The "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq" phrase is in 1.i.B in the document. If you look, because of 1.i, both 1.i.A and 1.i.B only apply to persons committing "an act or acts of violence" with the purpose or effect of 1.i.A or 1.i.B

So, if someone committed an act of violence at an anti-war demonstration, and said act of violence was intended to undermine progress in Iraq, then yes, that person would be hosed. But anyone who doesn't act violently is immune from that clause. Unless.....

Anyone want to take a wager on whether the Bush administration would engage in Clintonesque "it depends on what the meaning of violent is" semantic dancing?

Apparently so. And if you read the Executive Order, it mentions petroleum products numerous times. Imagine that!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20 030522-15.html

Dude, have you ever even listened to our president?

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."

Link

LIES!

I didn't know South Carolina had such a big problem with drug smugglers, is it worse than COLOMBIA?

Not only is this story lame, but it also fails to ask the right questions.

Greasings, motherfscking "citizens" of the United States of (Ignorance And Sufficiency-Induced) Obesia.

So you spent your globally warmed July 4th grilling dead-genetically-ill-creatures and waving those formerly-seens-as-cute China-made plastic flags?

How does it feel to be someone's tool?

Face it: you failed it.

Saddam would still be in power? Who cares? Christ we put him in power to do exactly what he did: prevent a theocratic state from forming in Iraq. We didn't give a damn about his genocide when he was actually doing it, back in the 90's, so it's disingenuous to get pissy about it now.

As for the rest:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." (emphasis mine)

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

Both quoted from the ultra liberal "Whitehouse.gov" political site...No doubt they were planted there. At the very least those are misrepresentations, because there damn well was doubt, and those facilities were actually not used for chemical weapons at that time.

Ring led by the goddamn media? Lot of people were ring led by the media, to think that the war was going to be quick and painless. To think that our reasons for going to war were good, to think that the dumbasses in the government knew what the hell they were talking about, and the dem's are just as much to blame; the only dems who didn't vote for war were the goddamn peaceniks. Fucking H.Clinton has quotes almost as damning, as does that weenie Kerry.

You need to open your eyes. It was a stupid war to get into, it was prosecuted in a stupid manner, and it will be prolonged indefinitely by the government in a desperate attempt to cover their bleeding asses with a flag of victory, and there is no goddamn hope of anything decent coming out of it unless the fucking people stop acting like fucking robots and following the goddamn party lines.

Saddam would still be in power? Who cares? Christ we put him in power to do exactly what he did: prevent a theocratic state from forming in Iraq. We didn't give a damn about his genocide when he was actually doing it, back in the 90's, so it's disingenuous to get pissy about it now.

As for the rest:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." (emphasis mine)

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

Both quoted from the ultra liberal "Whitehouse.gov" political site...No doubt they were planted there. At the very least those are misrepresentations, because there damn well was doubt, and those facilities were actually not used for chemical weapons at that time.

Ring led by the goddamn media? Lot of people were ring led by the media, to think that the war was going to be quick and painless. To think that our reasons for going to war were good, to think that the dumbasses in the government knew what the hell they were talking about, and the dem's are just as much to blame; the only dems who didn't vote for war were the goddamn peaceniks. Fucking H.Clinton has quotes almost as damning, as does that weenie Kerry.

You need to open your eyes. It was a stupid war to get into, it was prosecuted in a stupid manner, and it will be prolonged indefinitely by the government in a desperate attempt to cover their bleeding asses with a flag of victory, and there is no goddamn hope of anything decent coming out of it unless the fucking people stop acting like fucking robots and following the goddamn party lines.

Just to clarify for everyone, this supernova is "soon" as in (quoting Dubya Bush) "I'd like to get our troops out as soon as possible. But the definition of 'as soon as possible' is depending upon victory in Iraq".

-

Agreed. DHS is 22 agencies with 183,000 employees! What is the expected number of (uncategorized) break-ins per year? 0?, 1?, 5?, 10?, 100?, 1000?

Which specific religion?

The following link may shock you a bit. Since I constantly hear the our government hates Muslims, I did a Google search to find actual quotes from the White House on Islam/Muslims.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ramadan/islam.ht ml

Show me the money trail. How do you know this?

All I can find because everything else wants you to buy a subscription to view their articles says the budget for science is set to triple over the next ten years

They also go on to say the funds are handed over to the national science foundation who then doles it out to whatever it determines necessary. As far as I know, there hasn't been any budget that goes specifically to physics or particle physics. It has been done this way for the last 25 years that I have payed attention with the exception of earmarking for things like Aids, cancer and global warming research.

Now, the current funding is being spent on global warming and not physics because the doom and gloom is proving more interesting to the NSF then physics is at the moment. This is why whenever someone says Exxon has everything to lose and the global warming scientist have nothing to lose, the counter answer is alway they could lose their funding. If you think the president or congress should provide money singled out for physics research, then suggest that. But don't blame the president for doing something that is a direct result of the researchers now being as creative in making their projects as interesting as the doom and gloom the global warming crowd has. I suggest that instead of requesting funding to monitor the interactions of elements of atoms, you ask for funding to monitor the interactions of elements of atoms in hopes to find a way to fix global warming.

It is like that game "in the bed" were you end every sentence with in the bed. Look at tom run a race "in the bed". Tom was the first to finish "in the bed". Except change the "in the bed" to "for global warming" and you will get all the funding you need. And this isn't the evil politicking of one man causing this. It is the pressures from everyone preaching the end of the world with global warming that is causing the interest to be focused in those areas "in the bed". Man that is a fun game.

Now, keep this in mind, This article describes a situation were some in congress had their priorities in the wrong places on both sides of the isle. But it also describes members of both sides coming around to more sound thinking at the last minute. It also provided an 8% increase in funding which is in line with the presidents stated initiatives he made us aware of in 2006. And again, no one has cut funding to physic research. It is only that the funding is being used differently. You cannot claim a funding was cut when there wasn't a specific allotment by law (entitlement) to them.

Now, if you are confused about NASA funding and the physics research they do, it is two different things. Here is an article describing the problems with funding NASA and come to the exact opposite conclusion you have about Bush not funding anything. It was a republican senator who stood his ground and made sure NASA got all it's funding.

Again, show me the money trail, What beside a few ranting from people who won't verify the misconstrued facts presented to them makes you believe that Bush has it in for physic? I have went above what I would consider necessary to show this isn't the picture. Now show me that I am wrong. Show me that this is more then some political posturing because someone has a stiffy for Bush and thinks everyone will jump on the bashing bandwagon too. I want to see your proof.