So I guess what Bush is saying is murder is okay if you can make a profit from it.

Hit the nail on the head!!

I just wish someone would pull up Tony Snow or Bush on this.

Tony is going to get them in a lot of hot water.

Great clip!

...the president believes, as do miilions and millions of Americans...

Translation: the president believes, as do millions and millions of antiabortionist-voters... 'Tain't an election year without political posturing.

It's nice to see Russerts' fat face is as able to hold the politician's feet to the fire, and not just pasted on sappy father's day books, and some balls in the media again. ¡Viva Murrow!

I disagree with the president's position, but I don't think there is any raging moral inconsistency. For instance, I don't eat meat, because I believe that to do so requires the murder of an animal with moral status. No doubt many of your readers sympathize with or even hold these views themselves. Yet very few of these readers would agree with the tactics of A.L.F. or other groups which seek by coercion to ensure that animals are not murdered. I happen to believe a great many of these tactics are justified -- while just as many aren't -- but the point is that moral nuance is involved, and that there is not necessarily an inconsistency either way. Similarly, there would be no inconsistency in a vegetarian who did not advocate laws against the slaughter of animals, but at the same time did not want to subsidize the activity. (I happen in fact to advocate these laws, but this is beyond the point.)

Granted, at a more basic level, I do think the president is wrong in believing that a group of a few unconscious cells have rights. But it's not a matter of logic; it's a matter of moral sympathies.

Did Tim R actually say "...Homicidal Inc.'s"? This discussion is so magical it makes me want to own the DVD The Passion (of the Christ) so I can watch it in continuous loop. -tgs-

I think this exchange also highlights the administration's complete lack of scientific rigor, bordering on arrogant disdain for science and rational thought. When Bolten is pressed to substantiate Rove's claims regarding adult stem cell utility over embryonic stem cells, the stooge finally capitulates without capitulating. In true administration fashion he claims not to be a scientist, essentially insisting that a little science and fact and knowledge of the issue shouldn't stand in the way of the "Message" he was sent to defend. This is the same tack that is used in the adminstration's approach to climate change, evolution, energy policy and any other issue in which scientific advisors are asked to provide feedback and then demonized when their analysis does not support the Agenda.

Why pose the hypothesis if you have already formed the conclusions with no factual bases? This must be the new scientific method. I also find it interesting that Bolten reminded Russert that the president was only dealing with the issue of whether or not taxpayer's money should be spent on "murdering" embryos - as opposed to the televised, staged and sterilized for your safety grandstanding morality message associated with the Life issue. I guess Rove calculated that including cuddly puppies on stage with the kids would have been over the top.

Ahhh, the smell of the election year dung heap.

mark it in the calendar, I actually agree with bush here. if he and his government thinks this kind of research is wrong but a lot of people don't agree I think it's the right thing to do to cut federal funding but don't ban the research completely like a lot of other countries did.

don't force the average tax payer to pay for the research he doesn't agree with but don't ban the research because it's about believe and religion which is to be seperated from state.

The man answered nothing. Brilliant.

Why didn't someone ask Mr. Snow the same questions?

Bolton:

"well I can't site scientists on either side of this".

Nice. Completely ignorant.

The danger in this is pretty much the path they're choosing to go, when companies set the rules and it becomes a stem-cell market.

Although I'm not sure it would make a big differance with the nut in charge.

Bush says no tax dollars will support "homicidal" embryonic research. I wonder, are any of the private companies engaged in this research receiving the benefits of president Bush's tax cuts?

Tim, thank you.

if you equivocate on right and wrong, then wrong will win the day.

bush should choose right... this aint it.

Great, now masturbation's going to be criminalized. What a waste of potential human life! I'll be arrested for killing more people than Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot combined!

I disagree with the president's position, but I don't think there is any raging moral inconsistency. For instance, I don't eat meat, because I believe that to do so requires the murder of an animal with moral status.

"The simple answer is that the president believes that murder is wrong."

That's got to be the dumbest thing that Snow has said and will say for a long time. The simple question is what classifies as murder, not whether murder is wrong.

Russert has a good point; if in vitro fertilization is complicit in murder, then how can you legally tolerate in vitro fertilization? The way Bolton describes it, the 'balance' the president is striking seems to be merely a balance between an extreme position on the status of human embryos and the necessities of maintaining political power. There's nothing delicate at all about that kind of balance.

But it's not the case that just because you don't want to fund something on grounds that it is unethical means that you are logically committed to outlawing it. That's an example of the slippery slope fallacy. If embryos are full fledged human beings then you are painted into a corner (if you threw a one-month old in the dumpster you'd still be guilty of murder). But even there, one can make the distinction between killing and letting die. I think that the distinction is not that important given the fact that the letting die in this case serves no good or bad end, whereas the killing potentially does great good. But it still is a significant consideration.

"The danger in this is ... when companies set the rules and it becomes a stem-cell market." Wise words... without puplic involvement we will be left at the mercy of the big genetic Co.'s they are patenting as we speak and we have no idea of what they are up to. Pubic funding means public understanding/awareness!

Thank you Tim Russert, for keeping Bolten's feet to the fire on this double speak. Oof! 2 more years of this, and then some; it makes my head hurt - REAL BAD.

Here are 2 links to articles comparing performance of adult and embryonic stem cells: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060712180513.htm and http://www.i-sis.org.uk/stemcells2.php.

The articles discuss recent research that shows that 1. AS cells perform better and with more diversity than was previously thought and 2. while ES cells can reproduce any cell in the body, they are less stable than AS cells.

Perhaps Herr Rove caught wind of such work, so he made a hyperbolic comment (that gee isn't completely true) to support Bush's veto. Even though this research shows some detriment to the performance of ES cells, I'd have to say more research is necessary if we're ever going to learn their potential.

Don't use our tax dollars, but still allow the science? While better than nothing, we'll end up with corporations setting the direction of the research. Scientists working in other countries will have access to a myriad of resources, including government money, and they will advance more quickly. Yet another blow to science education in the U. S.

"The inconsistency comes when you attempt to argue that some 'murders' of 'humans' are okay and some are not. Another problem is that in the animal case you are not arguing that 'murdering' some animals is okay but not others."

No, the President is not necessarily arguing that murder is okay in some cases and not in others; he is arguing that actively preventing murder is okay in some cases and not in others. This is the same as I would argue with animals. Morally, I do not think it is 'okay' to actively kill any animals, but I do not think that in all cases it is 'okay' to actively prevent such killing by coercion or whatnot.

Another moral analogy is free speech. You certainly don't believe that it is okay to print propoganda in support of the war in Iraq, or against gay rights, etc. Such propoganda definately makes the world a worse place. Almost certainly, you would not advocate that the government fund that sort of tripe. All the same, you presumably would not advocate restricting by law such speech.

My basic point is that there is a difference between believing something to be wrong, and using coercion to prevent it. The second belief does not necessarily follow from the first.

Hey, don't give Bush crap. It's a very smart decision actually, that caters to everyone: the right wing nuts who are against the whole research, the right wing nuts who believe governments shouldn't mess with corporations, and right wing moderates who think this is a decision catering to both ends of the spectrum (of the right wing). So, there you have it.

Sure, I have no problem with adult stem cell research having a greater focus, if it makes the silly people happy, why not. But religious beliefs shouldn't influence law. It should be a scientific decision and not a political or religious one.

"I don't eat meat, because I believe that to do so requires the murder of an animal with moral status.No doubt many of your readers sympathize with or even hold these views themselves."

Sure, it's a good personal belief, but the natural order of things is: carnivors and omnivors eat meat. We're omnivors. Our diet is greatly unbalanced without it. So we eat it. That stance is equal to saying a tiger is a psychopath who needs to be jailed. I don't mean to be rude. I just don't see a true logic behind that, I see it more of an emotional decision. I'd respect vegetarians more if they'd admit that there isn't that much logic in their actions. Sorry if I'm being so harsh, it's how I see it. For the rest of your post I see your point, but then another argument ensues: were is the line drawn between beliefs and law? After all, all laws are based on some basic beliefs. Why aren't vegetarian beliefs as good as other beliefs?

In the end, I think a simple political solution has already answered this question. Democracy is meant to put the beliefs of the majority to law.

But Bush ignores the majority.

"bush should choose right... this aint it."

Why is everyone saying this? Isn't this a right (wing) decision?

I know, crappy joke.

"The inconsistency comes when you attempt to argue that some 'murders' of 'humans' are okay and some are not."

Good point. Most governments aren't even touching what I see to be the true subject at heart: are embryos human beings? Most discussion stems not from either belief, but from their results. From a logical perspective, no, they are not, so to say they are is a purely religious stance. Which violates the separation of state and church. The whole argumentation, not just on the american front, tries just to do that: ignore the core part of the debate, because legally separation of state and church must prevail. And religious politicians want to avoid that, of eliminate that.

"But even there, one can make the distinction between killing and letting die."

Both of which are illegal. Again, it'd be much easier if the whole "are embryous human" debate actually got debated, other then play second fiddle to the funding, research and abortion debates. These are all related, and the issue itself is talked about. But it never really gets any actual results. Because conservative politicians know the probable result. I thinks.

And when it is a private investment, I seriously doubt a company will give up the information and let new treatments become cheap and widespread. Because that would make the shareholders cry.

crappy jokes are the best kind - for example - what is yellow and blue and sits at the bottom of the swimming pool...?

if bush wishes to be honest he must condemn murder in all cases and he must enforce killing only when its justified. its going to be even more difficult to be honest now that he has used dishonest reasons as justification for both.

as for the debate over ebryos being human - logic and reason .. emotion and intuition all say embryos are human. religion is a completely unnecessary element in this discussion.

arguments that say otherwise rely on unsubstantiated or unprovable assumptions, they rely on arbitrary cut off points and numerous classifications ... all this to justify the act of giving more value to human life we all live with every day over human life that we never generally see and dont have to think about.

...a bulldozer wearing jeans.

I wish Exxon or Haliburton would get into the Stem cell business, so that maybe we can cure some diseases.

Similarly, there would be no inconsistency in a vegetarian who did not advocate laws against the slaughter of animals, but at the same time did not want to subsidize the activity.

Lets keep the form of this argument the same but do a little substitution

Similarly, there would be no inconsistency in a abolitionist who did not advocate laws against the slavery, but at the same time did not want to subsidize the activity.

Holy Christ, this is such bullshit. Bush the war criminal bans the wasting of zygotes while sending "smart bombs" to Israel to kill real people in Lebanon? Are we all living on "Bizzaro World?"

Does Bush realises that the stem cells will be harvested from embryors that would be discarded/abandoned/left to die otherwise?

Faith or morals is no excuse for wilful ignorance and a distaste to find out more about the world.

the problem is that once a "small" opening is made on allowing state sanctioned murder ... the opening will only get bigger.

if bush is right he should make the right decision .. that he is malleable on his stance only shows how certainly he will lose to the wrong side.

Can someone please let me know why people are debating this so much? The mother makes the choice, right? Why don't people see that? Some people are idiots!!!

Of course what he said was right. Bush is the only American with real moral values. Stem Cell Research on embryonic stem cells is murder! You are killing a perfectly good child. You will all burn down below for this. He only exepts those who follow His laws, like nnot murduring babies!