Did GWB have any interest in coal ?  Based on his track record, I doubt it.

I must admit, for a second or two I thought you had gone off the deep end with your initial post, but knowing you like I do, I figured I needed to read it all instead of jumping to a knee-jerk conclusion, and in doing so, quickly realized the point you were making. It is unfortunate that not all the responders took the time to do the same thing.

If an accident happened at a company that had been through the loss prevention process, it was necessarily not the fault of my former company.  But you can be sure that every company went through underwriting and loss prevention designed to minimize the possibilities.

President Bush does not believe in loss prevention.  He is not fully culpable for any of the catastrophes that have happened during his reign, Iraq aside.  

He did not fly planes into the World Trade Center; he simply failed to accept the dangers of terrorism.

He did not cause Hurricane Katrina; he simply failed to fund the levees.

He did not ignore the pleas of Katrina survivors; he simply failed to surround himself with people who would bother to tell him there was a problem.

He did not cause global warming; he has simply failed to acknowledge the growing dangers.

He did not cause the 12 miners to die; he simply failed to enforce mine safety standards.

The problem with Bush (again, aside from Iraq) is not that he actively sets out to cause harm.  It is that he is averse to preventing loss.  

You were blaming Bush for appointing industry insiders and lobbyists to the MSHA knowing that they were likely to reduce safety standards. Malkin and the National Review rhetorically tried to paint you into a corner by using the phrase "blame Bush" as if it somehow denoted wingnuttery.

Essentially, they were trying to suggest you were blaming Bush for the explosion or something. But by getting you to say that you were not blaming Bush, you lose twice: it is clear that you are placing some blame for the deaths on Bush (because you assert a causal, morally relevant connection between him and critical reduced safety standards), so you look foolish, and you also somehow assert that Bush was "not to blame."

It's like the end of War Games: "The only way to win is not to play." My guess is that you got a little played by Malkin et al. this time around. Indeed, I think the National Review guys were quite correct to point out that you were blaming Bush when you wrote: "The defense will be that Bush didn't cause the explosion that collapsed the mine. My response will be that he didn't do anything to prevent it. In fact, if anything, the actions of his administration made the situation worse."

"Blaming Bush" when it is reasonable is nothing to be ashamed of -- to me it seems like something to stand up for and not shy away from.

Again, well done on your post. The research was excellent, and there are a number of people (including the New York Times) picking up on your lead.

In this, as in so many other cases, Bush is more than a passive actor in the drama.  He suspends laws.  "reforms" FEMA to a for-profit appendage of politically connected, if inept, contractors. Ignores warnings.  Rewards incompetence.

Bush has not paid even a small price for this negligence.  He has notperformed his duty to preserve and protect the constitution of the United States or defended our people (he may have defended the subset of "his" people, the have mores, but even they did better under Clinton).

In short, the original judgement many people made about him is correct (based on his record with Texas executions): he cares too little about the little guy and human life and too much about the politics of how it looks.  A Bush administration is likely to have blood on its hands (even partially).

Nevertheless, keep it up, Scott. Smart people can make their own decisions on whether this is a legitimate connection or not, and I think that it is.

By the time the sad truth reached families in the little Baptist church, the mourners were surrounded and the mine operators were safe.

Disgusting news, but it comes as no surprise in West Virginia mining towns.

This s a pre-emptive attack strategy.  They know whose fault this tragedy is and they are trying "to get ahead of it."

This post about Republican strategy refers to this Republican strategy article, which advises, among other things,  

3. In political wars, the aggressor usually prevails. ... By striking first, you can define the issues and define your adversary. Definition is the decisive move in all political wars. Other things being equal, whoever winds up on the defensive will generally be on the losing side.

The lovely and looney Michelle Malkin slimed my organization, ACORN, during the 2004 election season, accusing of us registering a terrorist to vote in Ohio, among many other things.

If you've gotten her goat, then you must be doing something right.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/01/06/robertson_iran_leader_imply_stroke_w as_deserved/