"FACT 1) North polar summer ice hole biggest ever "

This is a fact: since the satellite measurements starting 1979, 2007 had the most ice free areas. And 2008 had less ice free areas.
So, unless since 1979 includes all of "ever", what claim as a fact, isn't a fact.

"FACT 2) North polar winter ice thicker than year before"

2008 has more coverage than 2007, not merely the same or less coverage but thicker. I don't believe thickness of ice can be accurately measured in all areas. But with that said, it seems reasonable to say that 2008 could be thought to be thicker than 2007. But that doesn't seem to support your argument.
The satellite measure is mostly about coverage, rather than precision in the thickness of the ice. I don't think you could say 2008 was 1% or .001% thicker from satellite measurement and expect to be within 50% of being accurate.

"FACT 1) The president has signed a historic civilian nuclear power agreement with India."
Well, certainly historic for India, and probably also for the US- and perhaps the world.

"FACT 2) India became a nuclear power under Bush's watch without the CIA even knowing."

Obviously, wrong. The Clinton administration faced a possible nuclear war between India and Pakistan- it was in all the news.
Another fact is India do not violate any international law by developing nuclear wars- it didn't become a member of the Non proliferation treaty. By not joining the treaty it was clearing telling the world that it wanted the option of building nuclear weapons. You don't need CIA intel to get that information.

"Three states—India, Israel, and Pakistan—have declined to sign the treaty. India and Pakistan are confirmed nuclear powers, and Israel has a long-standing policy of deliberate ambiguity (see List of countries with nuclear weapons). These countries argue that the NPT creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid.

India and Pakistan have publicly announced possession of nuclear weapons and have detonated nuclear devices in tests, India having first done so in 1974 and Pakistan following suit in 1998 in response to another Indian test. India is estimated to have enough fissile material for more than 150 warheads. Pakistan reportedly has between 80 and 120 warheads according to the former head of its strategic arms division.India is one of the few countries to have a no first use policy, a pledge not to use nuclear weapons unless first attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons. The main reason India cites for not signing the NPT and for possessing nuclear weapons is that China is one of the "nuclear haves."[citation needed] China and India have a longstanding border dispute, including a border war in 1962."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

Hell, you can't really even blame Carter, even though India tested a nuke in 1974.
All Bush did was recognize as a India and thereby bring India into Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, just as the UK or many other countries which have Nukes.
Pakistan has yet to do this. And whether or we do this is a bit different situation than compared with India. But under the right conditions, we should perhaps do the same with Pakistan. And I suppose, Israel, if it ever made any political sense to do so.