Fred Thompson may have quit his day job at "Law & Order," but he hasn't given up the business of spouting fiction.In the last month, Thompson has pledged his allegiance to the new conservative media strategy -- if the facts don't support your opinion, simply make up your own set of facts. Iraq has provided the most of examples of this, from Dick Cheney's "last throes" to John McCain's "this Baghdad market would be perfectly safe even if I didn't have 30 armed Marines with me."
But Thompson has branched out well beyond conservatives' magic fantasy land of Safe Democratic Iraq. And it makes you wonder if Fast Freddie is any more honest than Bush & Cheney -- whose staff he's raiding.
Let's take a closer look at Thompson's most recent lies about global warming and the Scooter Libby case.
Here's Thompson on global warming:
Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto.NASA says the Martian South Pole's 'ice cap' has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter's caught the same cold, because it's warming up too, like Pluto.
This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.
Silly, I know, but I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our SOLAR system have in common. Hmmmm. SOLAR system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn't even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There's a consensus.
Ask Galileo.
1) Pluto isn't a planet
2) Thompson's argument was disproven last year
And ironically enough, the scientist who conducted the study used Thompson's own analogy to illustrate how dated the solar heating hypothesis is:
Solar astronomer Peter Foukal of Heliophysics, Inc., in Nahant, Massachusetts, points out that scientists have pondered the link between the sun and Earth's climate since the time of Galileo, the famous 17th-century astronomer."There has been an intuitive perception that the sun's variable degree of brightness - the coming and going of sunspots for instance?might have an impact on climate," Foukal said.
Foukal is lead author of a review paper on sunspot intensity appearing in tomorrow's issue of the journal Nature.
He says that most climate models - including ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - already incorporate the effects of the sun's waxing and waning power on Earth's weather (related images: our stormy star).
But, Foukal said, "this paper says that that particular mechanism [sunspots], which is most intuitive, is probably not having an impact."
Thompson's attempt to rewrite established science comes a month after he engaged in some revisionist history in the CIA leak case:
The only problem with this little scenario was that there was no violation of the law, by anyone, and everybody - the CIA, the Justice Department and the Special Counsel knew it. Ms. Plame was not a 'covered person' under the statute and it was obvious from the outset.Furthermore, Justice and the Special Counsel knew who leaked Plames's name and it wasn't Scooter Libby.
1) Libby violated the law by lying to the special prosecutor and to the grand jury. That's why he's going to prison for 30 months.
2) Even Bush's own CIA Director has admitted Plame was a covert operative.
3) Libby leaked Plame's identity along with Richard Armitage, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove, all of whom are the target of an ongoing civil suit by Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson.
So why would Thompson make stuff up to make Scooter look good?
He's a member of the Advisory Board of the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust, and apparently Thompson is willing to lie to protect his friends -- just like Bush and Cheney.
The question is about the extent to which solar variations are responsible for global warming. In fact, the work of thousands of the best scientists to date has concluded that the most likely cause of the observed increase in the Earth's temperature in recent years is human activity leading to the increased release of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases.
(check out page 2)
Sun Not Off the Hook for Warming
The authors and other experts are quick to point out that more complicated solar mechanisms could possibly be driving climate change in ways we don't yet understand.
Solar ultraviolet (UV) rays are one possibility, though that theory creates its own challenges.
Magnetized plasma flares known as solar wind could also impact Earth's climate. Solar wind influences galactic rays and may in turn affect atmospheric phenomena on Earth, such as cloud cover.
The theory that solar activity is driving global warming is NOT disproven.
The idea that some solar cause that we don't know of could theoretically have an influence on climate change doesn't change the fact that, based on all available evidence, the best scientists have concluded that human activity is the most likely reason for the observed increase in warming.
See Pew summary of the science for more info.
Since science is based on facts, not faith, it is always subject to being overturned based on some evidence we haven't yet discovered. Be that as it may, we have to operate on the best science we have -- which in this case is the evidence that human activity is responsible for climate change.
The authors of the paper "Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate" by Foukal,Fröhlich,Spruit and Wigley are explict in saying that solar phenomena can not be excluded in explaining climate change. They're simply saying the the measure they're using (sunspot measurements since 1978) does not provide enough evidence to fully explain climate change.
http://www.nature.co...
(sorry, you need to pay for it)
"We think" and "we've proven" and "we can't exclude" are all different things. If we're going to use science, we should be precise in what science is saying. Perhaps your reference to the Pew research would have been a better link.
I actually agree that pollution is likely the source of climate change.
The fact that lots of things can't be excluded, however, should not be used to cast doubt on the most likely theories based on the preponderance of the evidence.
Perhaps Venus was once inhabited by a race that allowed themselves to be taken over by corrupt, scientifically-ignorant leaders who would rather take bribes from industry than care for their own people's lives.
The suppressed Senate Watergate Committee staff report on the Hughes connection to Watergate was obtained from one of the staff investigators who wrote it. The chief minority counsel, Fred Thompson, apparently first proposed deleting it from the committee's final report, and Senator Ervin quickly agreed. One of the senators said in a background interview that none of his colleagues, Republican or Democrat, wanted it published. "Too many guilty bystanders would have been hurt," he remarked, "and after two years of Watergate I don't think anyone was ready to accept such a small price tag."
So there's our boy Fred protecting his Washington cronies then, and now 33 years later, here's the same old Fred lobbying on behalf of a convicted felony whining about this "miscarriage of justice". Thompson is the very definition of political Washington. Standards and the rule of law only apply to ordinary folks, not to those entrusted with an oath to uphold the Constitution, and to preserve the rights of a free and just society. The man is thoroughly compromised.
Unlike the Libby case, the Clinton issue didn't involve a violation a criminal statute. We will probably never resolve the issue of 50 USC 426 governing the outing of a CIA agent, because Libby's perjury makes it impossible to establish the question of intent. Contrary to noise from some Libby defenders Plame's status is not a matter of debate--both the current CIA Chief, and Plame herself have stated under oath that she was covert. If this issue was in dispute then the FBI never would have referred this matter to Justice for the appointment of a special prosecutor in late 2003.
Thompson also has a little problem having involvement going back to 1974--as well as the very bizarre defense of Libby's perjury more recently. Thompson may play a patriot on TV, but in terms of his actual record of service, it is anything but distinguished.
I would agree with you that lying is lying, but I also recognize degrees of offense.
For starters Fred Thompson is not Scooter Libby's spouse--that's one problem with your analogy; and there is also a difference between lying about a criminal matter involving the outing of a CIA agent, and lying about a civil matter involving sex.
As far as "distinguished" goes, I believe a resume DOES matter. Past performance can give some sense about what future performance will look like. This most recent president is a fine example of what I'm talking about--his record in business and as a governor has played out consistently with his performance as president. I don't think anyone should be surprised by how things have turned out.
I give high marks for non-political public service (work in the military, civil service, the peace corp). I give marks for persons who have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps, and who have made their own way. And I also tend to think that elected office at the federal level is overrated.
I think Biden has a first-rate background on matters of foreign policy. However, I do not see how Senate experience necessarily equals executive experience--so there is a question about how well he will be able to manage a massive bureaucracy.
In terms resumes it's hard to argue with Bill Richardson. He is not an exceptional debater, but he has had some success working in the federal bureaucracy, and as a governor. I think he would be a very good chief executive.
I think Hilary Clinton is highly capable and a type A personality, but she also has some questions in terms of her management experience. She has seen the operation of the White House first hand, but she did not have a direct hand in the management large departments during her husband's tenure--so there's no track record to go on (aside from the her health care committee--which is not a plus in her favor).
Obama has a record of educational achievement, and good political leadership at the local level, he also brings a perspective and experiential background that many candidates do not have. Like Biden he lacks executive experience, so it's an open question whether he will be successful managing people in a large organization. However, I think he also has the potential to be a capable chief executive.
As far as Thompson goes, he's done well for himself as a special interest lobbyist. I don't have a problem with lobbyists for large corporate interests per se, I just don't think they have any place running for political office. Thompson is also a fine actor who plays tough hard-nosed roles well. That just tells me that he's successful at projecting a tough hard-nosed attitude, not that he is a tough hard-nosed guy. Aside from that, I wouldn't be comfortable with this guy in one of the most demanding jobs in the world. The fact that he's in bed with the Bush NeoConservative Iraq War team on this Libby matter, should be cause for concern for ordinary voters as well. If you're a fan of Bolton, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, et al--here's your man. In fact, he was not only a member of Libby's PR team, but was one of the managers up until two days before the announcement of his exploratory committee. I don't see how any self-professed moderate could embrace a man who is in bed with NeoConservatives.