[teal_tormentor]

Do you guys feel President Bush went far enough with his recent promise to maintain "no net loss" of wetlands?

 

[teal_tormentor]

The proposal he has now abandoned was accompanied by a directive to the field offices of the Army Corps of Engineers that effectively weakened protections for wetlands and streams even as the new rule was being considered. This directive must be rescinded. Until it is, the administration's commitment to "no net loss" will remain largely rhetorical.
Please tell me what Bush has "done better than others."

 

[teal_tormentor]

President Bush has worked to dismantle water protections by cutting key funds for municipal sewage treatment; changing regulations to allow destruction of valuable water resources; attempting to eliminate or curtail environmental review processes; and allowing industries to get away with serious violations that could harm America's waters. The Bush Administration proposed a rule that would allow the destruction of up to 20 million acres of wetlands nationally (The Los Angeles Times). The Administration withdrew the rule but left in place a policy directive that results in the same amount of wetlands losses. This policy directive is inconsistent with the Bush Administration's pledge to go beyond the goal of "no net loss" of wetlands.
You are either for wetlands...or you're not.
And so far, by their numerous actions, the Bush administration isn't.

I wonder if Mr. President will be making more wisecracks and taking the detour route again to avoid questions in the next debate he can't
answer??? :hammering: