Hey, Aunty,--

Links for some of this will come tomorrow. However, for every appropriations/funding bill where federal funds are appropriated, GW has to sign the card. I'll try to find a link to the constitution if you need it.

Many of the rest can be found on the USFWS website.

As for leading scientists-- I didn't make that claim-- it was yours. Show me a group of "leading scientists", and I'll take a look at their credentials to see if they are indeed leading and if they indeed have reason to speak about GW's environmental stance. Just because a person is a scientist doesn't make that person intelligent, founded in the scientific field you're looking at or credible. That goes for those for or against GW.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory-- the items I've listed as points where the Bush administration can take credit are real. Some were started under Clinton, and perhaps even under Bush No. 1, just like some of the other problems we have with the economy, the Middle East, Iraq and other good points or bad points that are currently on the table for resolution. If your prejudice is so strong that you (and here I'm talking the generic "you" not you specifically) aren't willing to look at a fact and say yes, Bush should get credit for that, then nothing I say will dissuade you. All the rest will be hot air-- and that can come from both sides.

Keith