posted on June 12, 2001 10:27:13 PM new"I understand others don't agree with this position," he said. "The democracies in Europe reflect the will of the people of Europe. That doesn't mean we can't be friends. That doesn't mean we can't work in common areas of importance to our people. And that's the spirit in which I come to Europe."
His use of double-negatives sure seem to spell out his intentions.
In a news report today, Bush stated that our European allies were baffled at his withdrawl from the Kyoto Treaty and his Missle Defence program and that once he got over there, he was going to "explain it to them." Wish I were a fly on the wall to see the looks on thier faces when he attempts to do just that! He hasn't bothered to explain his actions to us yet.
posted on June 12, 2001 10:38:08 PM new
Typical political position. If someone disagrees with you they are ignorant and need to be brought up to your exalted level. Never allow any merit to the other position.
All this tactic does is piss people off by calling them fools on top of all your other differences.
posted on June 13, 2001 09:25:05 AM new
I can't read much into his excess use of double negatives here.
The campaign stand on the Kyoto Treaty never made much sense as that treaty is too strong to expect to get accepted in the US, just plain too ambitious for a first stab. My guess is that it was a cynical ploy (easily reversed) to confuse the exceptionally gullible about his anti-environmental extremism.
His stand on wanting to build ABM systems, in the face of near universal opposition and insufficient technology approaches fascism.
posted on June 13, 2001 10:38:25 AM new
The senate found the Kyoto agreement unacceptable in its present form by a vote of 95-0 in 97, and Bush is the fall guy. Tell me how that works Borillar.
posted on June 13, 2001 10:59:48 AM new
From what I understand, not a single European nation has ratified the Kyoto Treaty. So what exactly is the problem?
posted on June 13, 2001 12:00:29 PM new
That's not true, James, as this shows:
'The text of the Convention was adopted at the United Nations Headquarters, New York on the 9 May 1992; it was open for signature at the Rio de Janeiro from 4 to 14 June 1992, and thereafter at the United Nations Headquarters, New York, from 20 June 1992 to 19 June 1993. By that date the Convention had received 166 signatures. The Convention entered into force on 21 March 1994. Those States that have not signed the Convention may accede to it at any time'.
posted on June 13, 2001 01:50:59 PM new
That may be, Ken. This is what I read in today's paper:
On the question of global warming, the Europeans are simply intent on a free lunch. Not one of them has ratified the Kyoto protocol, which calls for mandatory emissions standards. The excuse is America's (bipartisan) refusal to accept the sort of industrial limits Kyoto implies.
European economies, like America's, would be adversely affected by Kyoto. The main beneficiaries would be developing countries such as China and India, which it exempts. By hiding behind Bush's opposition to growth limits, the Europeans merely pose as disinterested global citizens. If Bush were a more Machiavellian figure, he'd call their bluff and make them live up to the protocol's demands.
My guess is that signing a piece of paper in the UN doesn't = ratifying.
