| Muck and Mystery Loitering With Intent |
blog - at - crumbtrail.org |
I'm as mystified by Bush supporters as I am by Bush critics. The latter are often deranged, but the former are coming to seem nearly as out of touch with reality.
MORE BOGUS KYOTO HISTORY FROM REUTERS: "President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of Kyoto in 2001, arguing it would cost U.S. jobs and that it wrongly excluded 2012 goals for poorer nations such as China."To be given credit for pulling out of Kyoto is a longer term political advantage, even if it isn't true. It's no surpise that the Bush administration does not dispute the false credit. Though there are many who don't see this as a plus, there are fewer of them as time passes and it becomes increasingly evident, even to an ill informed public, that Kyoto is just dumb.Er, no. The U.S. refused to ratify Kyoto under President Clinton. We've been over this before. It's all spelled out in Wikipedia, even. Really, if Reuters can't get simple things like this right, why should we trust them for actual news? . . .
UPDATE: The Anchoress is unhappy, with Bush:
I’m starting to get really pissed off with the Bush Administration for their inability or disinterest in fighting their own battles. We should not have to be doing this over and over, setting the record straight again and again. The WH needed to get out in front of this stupid narrative right away, instead of letting it settle in like kudzu.I've commented on the Bush Administration's curious passivity before.
It would be a better world if the media was honest and accurate rather than so transparently greedy and partisan, but you can't fault politicians for declining to set the record straight when they get false credit. They are politicians. Honesty and accuracy are not relevant to their trade.
It's interesting, humorous even, to see the deranged Bush opponents - Reuters again in this example as in so many others - help Bush while trying to harm him. They are so deeply lost in their BDS that they can't grasp the dynamics of reality. It won't be so long before those who refused to ratify Kyoto, those who later pulled out, and those who simply ignored it and moved on will be seen as the wise ones.
Bush had a minor role, late in the Kyoto game. But imagine if he had put the energy into reviving Kyoto and ramming it through congress that he put into the Iraq war, perhaps instead of the Iraq war. He'd still be in trouble, perhaps worse trouble, and would still be vilified for bad policies. Now imagine that he had taken a Kyoto-like stance on Iraq, and stood aside. Then the difference between Bush and Clinton would have been near zero in these matters, limited to style rather than substance.
And I would have been more pleased. Both get mixed reviews for style - slick Willy and blunt Bush - but I can cope with that so long as their policies aren't too dumb. As it happens Clinton scores better in my book because he did less, but Bush may have been as good had he also been faced with an opposition controlled congress. Bad ideas are much harder to enact when government is split. We would be better off with a system that required the president be from the minority party in congress. Much less would be done, so less harm would be done.