BUSHCO vs. Consistancy

[Mr. Shaman]

"President Bush has long touted clean coal technology as a potential solution to global warming. In 2006, he insisted that the United States is “spending quite a bit of money here at the federal level to come up with clean-coal technologies.” During Monday’s State of the Union address, Bush said, “Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions.”

Yet just 24 hours after his SOTU declaration, Bush’s Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman indicated the White House was pulling the plug on the ambitious FutureGen project..."

*

At least he's maintaining his Momentum.

 

[Bunz]

Maybe its just me, a genuine Bush dissident, but with his lame duck status, I am just ticking time until he is gone. I find quite a bit of irony in the Bush desire to get things on the right path for the next President. He gets his most lofty legislative ambitions in the very year they never will.
Considering the election year, war time, very very little controversial legislation will go anywhere.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Considering the election year, war time, very very little controversial legislation will go anywhere.

.....Just one o' the many benefits of being a War-Time President; everything-else is relegated to Trivial-status.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Considering the election year, war time, very very little controversial legislation will go anywhere.

....While our "credit-card" balance keeps growing!!

*

The Defense Department's major weapons programs have suffered cost overruns in the billions of dollars, years-long delays and quality shortfalls because of poor acquisition practices by the department, according to a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office.

The GAO warned that the cost of designing and developing weapons systems could "continue to exceed estimates by billions of dollars" if the Defense Department doesn't improve its acquisition practices.

The report, which focused on 11 troubled weapons programs, said contractors had "poor practices" for systems engineering and relied on "immature designs, inadequate testing, defective parts and inadequate manufacturing controls."

The report said the Defense Department did not provide effective oversight as projects were being developed, and often entered into weapons-development contracts before engineering of the project had been analyzed, driving up costs."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../02/01/AR2008020103388.html?hpid=sec-business