That's interesting, yet I've never seen you go out of your way to criticize them the way you have Bush.
Additionally, would it have done any good for Bush to be for the Kyoto Protocols when the Senate was so completely against its ratification?? Of course not. He would have been just as useless as Clinton in decreasing CO2 emissions if he fought for the treaty against the Senate's 95-0 vote.
That's one of the things which bugs me about Democrats. Just because someone says something, that's enough with many of them, although they've never done anything, nor hope to accomplish it in the future. CO2 went up and up under Clinton's eight year term, and he accomplished nothing in regards to reducing it. He also accomplished nothing in regards to reducing all those one person cars which bother you so much. Yet, you really don't care, because he said he cared.
Words are meaningless without a plan of action which leads to their accomplishment. Bush is a person of action. And he's not willing to simply say "I'm for the Kyoto Protocols" when it's so clear they will never pass the Senate who voted 95-0 against the treaty. Therefore, I predict, he will wait and develop a sound strategic plan which ends up actually accomplishing something, instead of just talking about it the way Clinton/Gore did for 8 years.
Someone who genuinely cares about the environment (like Bush), wants to do much more then simply read a few words on the teleprompter. |
