Kerry Rips Bush Administration in Davos
by Pamela LeaveyJohn Kerry is in Davos this weekend for the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting where he wasted no time stepping up to speak the truth to power. Liberated now from the constraints of running for president in ‘08, Kerry ripped the Bush Administration as he spoke at the WEF session, ‘The Future of the Middle East’, saying “it has caused the United States to become ‘a sort of international pariah.’”
Kerry’s statement, making headlines today, came as “the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee responded to a question today at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, where the tumult in Iraq and the Middle East took center stage.”
Kerry was asked about whether the U.S. government had failed to adequately engage Iran’s government before the election of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005.
Kerry said the Bush administration has failed in addressing a number of foreign policy issues.“When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don’t advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy,” Kerry said.
“So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East — in the world, really. I’ve never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today.”
Kerry said the government needs to use diplomacy to improve national security.
“We need to do a better job of protecting our interests, because after all, that’s what diplomacy is about,” he said. “But you have to do it in a context of the reality, not your lens but the reality of those other cultures and histories.”
Kerry criticized what he called the “unfortunate habit” of Americans to see the world “exclusively through an American lens.”
He also criticized President Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,000 U.S. troops to Baghdad to help secure Baghdad from rampaging sectarian violence.
“I don’t care how many troops are put in — Iraq is not going to be pacified,” Kerry said. “Now, we are partly responsible. The absence of legitimate significant diplomacy is a disgrace. Quick flights in by a secretary of state are not diplomacy.”
“There should be a special envoy, maybe a joint bipartisan special envoy. Why not a President Clinton together with a Republican of high ability, and bring them together and really work the process?”
Wingnut bloggers have wasted no time in twisting Kerry’s comments from Davos, evidently his decision to not run for president has not taken him off their hit list.
UPDATE: The video of the World Economic Forum session, “The Future of the Middle East ” with John Kerry is available here.
2007 has begun with much of the Middle East facing grave challenges and multiple threats to its stability. Many of the issues are linked – Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as the outlook for US foreign policy.
UPDATE 2: Welcome readers from Jules Crittenden’s blog. All you wingnuts who are questioning why Kerry is in Davos speaking on Middle East affairs are obviously unaware that Kerry is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Funny — there was no one on that panel from the Bush administration today.
UPDATE 3: Note to Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard… The Kyoto Protocol vote in the Senate that you reference in response to my post here was a non-binding vote. The Senate actually never voted against ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. Your spin is just another example of how the wingnuts attempt to twist Senate votes to mean something that they don’t. Here’s an explanation on the vote for S. RES. 98, dated June 12, 1997:
Q. Did the U.S. Senate vote against ratifying the Kyoto Protocol?
A. No. The protocol has never been submitted to the senate for ratification. The Bush administration has referred to a vote on the non-binding Byrd-Hagel resolution, which registered views on some aspects of protocol negotiations. The vote on the Byrd-Hagel resolution took place prior to the conclusion of the Kyoto agreement, and before any of the flexibility mechanisms were established. The resolution was written so broadly that even strong supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, such as senators Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) voted for it. In doing so, Sen. Kerry said: “It is clear that one of the chief sponsors of this resolution, Senator Byrd . . . agrees … that the prospect of human-induced global warming as an accepted thesis with adverse consequences for all is here, and it is real…. Senator Lieberman, Senator Chafee and I would have worded some things differently… [but] I have come to the conclusion that these words are not a treaty killer.”
UPDATE 4: It’s heartening to see that Kerry unhindered from the pool of ‘08 presidential candidates is garnering as much vituperous vitriol as ever from the wingnuts. When they crow as loud as they do, it always means that he’s right. Memeorandum has the links to all the buzz here.
Filed under: Bush Admin, Democrats, Foreign Policy, In The News, International, Iran, Iraq, John Kerry, Politics, Republicans, Senate | Get Permalink or trackback |
Well it seems the Davos visitors are the absolutely hungry for news about Davos itself. check this
“I’ve never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today.”
Will someone please inform the over 12 million illegal aliens in this county about America’s pariah status.
I’m from Massachusetts, and Kerry has done nothing in 25 years except marry rich women. He’s ridiculous. He has no morals, no principles; he’s done nothing for Massachusetts, and never pretended that he ever would. He’s lazy, he doesn’t do any work as a Senator, and parrots whatever (now) Theresa and the Tides Foundation tell him to say at Davos. If she dumps him, he’ll be off looking for another rich woman. Then he’ll parrot her. Kerry is pathetic and always has been.
It looks as if we have some visitors here, today.
GW…those are two different, separate, serious issues you raise. As a California resident, I care a lot about the immigration issue. As a person who believes the United States should be a positive leader in the world, I care about that issue, too. For you to link the two issues for the purpose of making a joke is offensive to me.
Jan…documentation????
Kerry has been a pathetic America-hater since he left Vietnam after three months and three fake Purple Hearts to malign the US Armed Forces. If he didn’t live in the twisted Peoples Republic of Taxachusetts, he’d be just another ambulance chaser.
Instead he’s a skirt chaser of rich women. And still hating America after thirty-five years. Too bad we don’t have this clown running again for Prez, as he has LOSER written across his forehead.
Jan and Dave in Boca
Did you drop by together? Talk about parrots – the two of you are like a mimic machine.
Personally I’m SO happy to see that Kerry not running for president hasn’t stopped you wingnuts from perpetuated lies about him. Because honestly when you come here and you post this crap you both look like a couple of loonytunes wingnuts who don’t have a clue.
“For you to link the two issues for the purpose of making a joke is offensive to me.”
Sir or Madam (as the case may be):
Please accept my apology for causing you any distress. Nevertheless, this inconvenient fact refuses to stay hidden. While the effete European elites may eschew America, the commoners of the world would like nothing more than to reside within the belly of the beast.
How can any thinking individual be proud of kerry’s statement. He voted in the senate against Kyoto and Bush has contributed more for AIDs than any other person in history! Except maybe that uber-capitalist Bill Gates. Time for a reality check.
Carl
Bush could do a lot more for AIDS than he does. That is is Kerry’s point. U2’s Bono pointed out a couple of years ago that Kerry is one of the forerunner’s in this country in speaking out on this subject.
As for the Kyoto Protocol:
Carl
I’ll just add also that for a very long time Kerry has spoken out about the initial Kyoto Protocol being a “work in progrss” and that it needed a lot of work. He has been a tireless advocate on the need to do more on Climate Change. In February ‘05 Kerry gave a speech at the Brookings Institute and said:
Pamela,
So what exactly has john accomplished by burning untold gallons of jet fuel to take his self-important backside to Europe except perhaps make terry feel important and slander the country I served.
And as for doing more for AIDs yes everyone can always do more, you are incapable of giving credit where it is due.
Pamela,
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 105th Congress – 1st Session
Vote Date: July 25, 1997, 11:37 AM
Question: On the Resolution (s.res.98 )
Declares that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997 or thereafter which would: (1) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex 1 Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period; or (2) result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.
YEAs 95
NAYs 0
Not Voting 5
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Liberated now from the constraints of running for president in ‘08, Kerry ripped the Bush Administration as he spoke at the WEF session,
Of course, if he was actually running for Prez in 2008– he would surely still be the same old cowardly, nutless ‘flip-flopper’ he’s always been…
“When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto…”
What was Mr. Kerry’s position in 1997 when the Senate voted on the “Kyoto plan? I believe this issue(led by former Klansman Robert Byrd) was defeated in the Senate by a 95-0 margin.
My research indicates that John Kerry voted against the Kyoto plan!
IOW, “I voted against it, before I was in favor of it…”
Good strategy, John!
…when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa
Of course, GWB has already spent more on this issue than all Presidents before him combined- while Kerry has done absolutely nothing to advance this “cause” in the Senate.
The first result when I ‘google’ (”John Kerry” and “aids in Africa”) is an April 2001 PR statement in support of Bush’s initiatives… the second is an awesome “bleat” by Lileks in 2004…)
Kerry also says, “I’ve never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today.”
Except for 1972- when I took it upon myself to travel to Paris to meet with the Communist leaders of North Viet Nam, and accused my compatriots and fellow veterans from the USA of “war crimes”-after I personally shot a 12 yr. old in the back as he was running away from me. Further, I knowingly supported individuals(”Winter Soldiers”) who lied about their service in support of my cause. I guess “We” were “pretty bad” then, also…
Kerry criticized what he called the “unfortunate habit” of Americans to see the world “exclusively through an American lens.”
John Kerry is another Dem who thinks it’s an “unfortunate habit” that most Americans still choose to defend both the ideas and ideals that have been the basis of our “greatness” for the last 200+ years, and that these same thoughts also help continue to establish and support America’s status as the ‘global superpower’.
“I don’t care how many troops are put in — Iraq is not going to be pacified,” Kerry said.
What was Kerry’s vote on the AUMF?
“I voted for it, before I voted against it…”
Why? I’ve heard a few ‘excuses’…
1)GWB ‘lied’ about the “basis” for war(on the conclusions of the exact same intelligence that Senator John Kerry was easily able to access any time he wanted).
As noted above, JFKerry voted “yes”.
2)John Kerry was ‘deceived’(on the intelligence) by the dumbest President in the entire history of the US.
3)He is an absolute coward who has always valued his “potential” political future over ever acutally expressing or even acting upon his ‘true’ beliefs.
Carl
The Byrd-Hagel resolution was NON BINDING. What part of that do you not understand?
The fact is Kerry has gotten all along that we need to do more on Global Warming. Bush has been in denial.
Perhaps Kerry was for Kyoto before he was against it.
This man was the nominee of your party. He reeks of self-loathing and hatred for his country. Rejected by America, he runs into the arms of the Euro-elites and the Shiite Fanatics. Just another snob, married into money, who got Cs at Yale and thinks he’s too sophisticated for the American electorate.
Markj
I know the Senator and his wife personally. Neither are snobs and IF you took the time to read Kerry’s position on Global Warming you would understand his Kyoto vote and understand the NON BINDING resolution that received a unanimous vote from both sides of the aisle.
Pamela,
I think you hit the nail on the head: These are not readers.
Carl
The most activist on AIDS has said point blank that Bush has not done enough. That activist is Bono of U2.
Contrary to what Bono says about Bush on AIDS, he had this to say about John Kerry a little over a year ago:
Fletch
Evidently you don’t know how to utilize Google search too well:
And then there’s this:
Kerry Introduces Plan to Combat Global HIV/AIDS, Neglected Diseases
Pamela,
Senator Kerry spoke of the work on the AIDS bill in the Senate when he came to the floor of the Senate to give a tribute to a person who has been on his SFRC for years. Here’s what he said on this:
“In addition to the normalization with Vietnam, Nancy contributed enormously to global health issues and to some of the most significant policies of any industrialized country against diseases of poverty. Her work on malaria, TB, and AIDS, where she fought to significantly increase the U.S. contribution to the Global AIDS Fund, were among her proudest accomplishments. People across the world today literally owe their lives to Nancy’s work.
I remember when we began that effort, Senator Helms was then chairman, and a lot of people said: You are never going to get anything through this committee. Well, with slow and steady work, we not only got it through the committee, we got Senator Helms, to his credit, to be one of the principal cosponsors of this effort.
Together with Senator Frist, we drafted the first original comprehensive plan on AIDS that passed the Senate and which became the centerpiece of how we are approaching particularly Sub-Sahara and Africa today, but really our global efforts to try to deal with this scourge that is growing, I might say notwithstanding those efforts, for lack of global initiative and effort to focus on it.”
It is incidently this bill that provided the funds that Bush is credited with providing. Bush’s contribution was not vetoing it. His negative contibution to the African fight against AIDS is his effort to stem the use of condoms.
(Incidently, the Kerry’s staffer was profiled in this article as she retired in her home state’s newpaper. In it you can see many things she worked on with the Senator: After 22 years, a quiet pillar of Congress leaves)
Carl,
Senator Kerry loves his country well enough to speak out when it is going in the wrong direction. In case you missed it, the Iraq Study Group recommended taking actions Senator Kerry recommended 3 years ago.
He was asked to be part of this prestigious panel because he is an expert on foreign affairs. Who better than the chair of the SFRC subcommittee that covers countries like Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Israel etc to speak on a panel on the Middle-eastern crisis?
Read his full comments he did not in any way attack the US – he did say he was not a proponent of the administrations policy and he did not say anything he hasn’t said for years – we need sustained diplomacy – as the ISG said. Disagreeing with Bush is not attacking America. As to America being more isolated – we are. We have fewer friends than we’ve had in my lifetime.
Karennj
The wingnuts are distributing a pieced together video on the wingnut blogs of Kerry’s comments. The full video of Kerry’s and others comments is linked above. Only war loving wingnuts can twist what Kerry said and believe it.
Aww”! aint that sweet, John Kerry gives the Kerry haters what they want and they still aren’t satisfied.
The man isn’t running go pick on the front runners. If Kerry didn’t matter why the hell are you over here messing with the good people on this site.
Bush’s aids money is most likely like the New Orleans money still in the bank waiting to go to Iraq.
Anybody with a half of brain knosw bush II’s reign has put the USA repatation down the crapper. And as far as I’m concern not one of the candidates running in 08 on either side is worth a damn and can fix it.
As for Kerry marrying rich women well sounds like somebody must be jealous.
Any how Teresa doesn’t look like the type to let her man go without a fight so good luck.
Pen
Kerry will always matter. And they proved that once again today. Good for him, I say grabbing headlines and stiring up the wingnuts. LOL!
Good to see you here Pen… we’ve still got work to do!
Pamela-
Evidently you don’t know how to utilize Google search too well
My statement was very specific… “The first result when I ‘google’ (”John Kerry” and “aids in Africa”) is an April 2001 PR statement in support of Bush’s initiatives… the second is an awesome “bleat” by Lileks in 2004…)
For your benefit!
Pamela-
BTW, Was that your biggest problem with my ‘laundry list’ of objectionable acts committed by John Kerry?
Wow! The very best argument you have is questioning my ‘google-fu’?
I would have to say you have conceded the rest of my points…
Fletch
Seriously I just tried your “search” words as you typed them and I came up with 2 links fom Kerry’s Senate website and the “bleat” thing is the next link.
But listen you claim that the PR is in support of Bush’s initiatives. Can you read? The statement says clearly that we have to do more. Bush is not even mentioned:
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=180044&
And then there’s this little tidbit about Kerry and the fight against AIDS:
“Fought Global HIV/AIDS. John Kerry authored major elements of the Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000, legislation which at the time provided the most money ever for fighting AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis around the world. He sponsored the bipartisan U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2002, comprehensive legislation that was unanimously approved by the Senate and became the foundation of the global AIDS legislation that was passed by congress and signed by President Bush.” – http://www.johnkerry.com/about/senate/
You are fighting a losing battle here, Fletch. I know Senator Kerry’s record inside and out.
While Bush can’t be even be bothered to show up to the World Economic Forum. What’s that about?
Fletch
Your laundry list? Or do you mean your list of lies? I make it a habit not to waste too much time quibbling with wingnuts who make childish and petty points about people that are not true.
G Weightman,
There are many very poor people who know that even the poorest in America have a better life than they do or will. There are many BILLIIONS more who would like us to stop interfering in their own soverign nation’s government. Whether financially or with bombs and bullets. We do share the planet with MANY more people and countries.
Just because they don’t live here doesn’t mean they are dumb or ignorant about why the world wags and what/who wags it. Ignoring their opinions – especially widely held assessments that have documentation or other support- is arrogant and causes us more problems in the long run.
fletch writes: “1)GWB ‘lied’ about the “basis” for war(on the conclusions of the exact same intelligence that Senator John Kerry was easily able to access any time he wanted).”
Wrong. The intel was heavily restricted, and what was made available to congress was heavily redacted (see also: congressional testimony of former CIA director George Tenet).
“2)John Kerry was ‘deceived’(on the intelligence) by the dumbest President in the entire history of the US.”
Wrong. He was deceived by the CIA, the Pentagon and virtually every other government apparatus that just happens to fall under the purvey of, as you yourself admit, “the dumbest President in the history of the US (sic).”
“3)He is an absolute coward who has always valued his “potential” political future over ever acutally expressing or even acting upon his ‘true’ beliefs.”
“My research indicates that John Kerry voted against the Kyoto plan!”
LOL. His “research” apparently doesn’t include the ability to read. Kyoto passed the Senate 95-0, with Kerry voting Aye.
And you’re wrong on his record on AIDS research.
[snicker] I love when the moron right pays us visits. Feel free to come by anytime, “Fletch”.
How did these stinking trolls get in here? Someone needs to develope trollware.
Todd Mitchell Says:
January 28th, 2007 at 7:55 am
LOL. His “research” apparently doesn’t include the ability to read. Kyoto passed the Senate 95-0, with Kerry voting Aye.
You are compeletely wrong on that count, Todd. The 95-0 vote you refer to was on the 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution, the key section of which said that “the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997″.
Kerry did indeed vote “yea” for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution along with 94 other Senators – i.e., he, and they, voted against Kyoto.
Moondawg writes: “You are compeletely wrong on that count, Todd. The 95-0 vote you refer to was on the 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution, the key section of which said that “the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997″.
“Kerry did indeed vote “yea” for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution along with 94 other Senators – i.e., he, and they, voted against Kyoto.”
No. The U.S. is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol (symbolic though it may be). The Byrd-Hagel amendment’s purpose wasn’t just U.S.-related, but states that “binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations” should also be included (which they weren’t). It also stresses that the protocol be amended to include these concerns, which it wasn’t.
It may have been more of a “symbolic vote” on behalf of the Senate, but to argue that Kerry’s vote was “against Kyoto” or its intentions is simply nonsense.
Todd Mitchell Says:
January 29th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
The U.S. is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol (symbolic though it may be). The Byrd-Hagel amendment’s purpose wasn’t just U.S.-related, but states that “binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations” should also be included (which they weren’t). It also stresses that the protocol be amended to include these concerns, which it wasn’t.
You are completely misreading the context of that passage, my friend Todd. Here is the full paragraph you selected that line from:
Whereas although the Convention, approved by the United States Senate, called on all signatory parties to adopt policies and programs aimed at limiting their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in July 1996 the Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs called for the first time for `legally binding’ emission limitation targets and timetables for Annex I Parties, a position reiterated by the Secretary of State in testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on January 8, 1997;
The “Convention” being referenced here is the 1994 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which did not have legally binding force for reduction of GHG emissions and so was approved by the Senate at. This paragraph of Byrd-Hagel is objecting to the policy position of the Clinton State Department, which was seeking to develop legally binding GHG reduction targets. The resolution wasn’t asking that binding targets and timetables be included, it was objecting to such.
Of course the resolution listed other sticking points; one of the primary ones then (and now) was the Developing Country exemption – which exempts some of the biggest polluters on earth, including China. As the Byrd-Hagel resolution said:
the exemption for Developing Country Parties is inconsistent with the need for global action on climate change and is environmentally flawed
So Byrd-Hagel called Kyoto “evironmentally flawed”, and it also said that Kyoto “could result in serious harm to the United States economy, including significant job loss, trade disadvantages, increased energy and consumer costs”. The resolution concluded that “United States should not be a signatory” to Kyoto, as written at that time.
Therefore, dear Todd, to argue that a vote for Byrd-Hagel was not a vote against Kyoto or its intentions is simply nonsense.
Moondawg
I noted above in comment #11 that the Kyoto vote was a non binding vote. Do you know what that means? I don’t think you do. It means it was a Sense of the Senate vote, a vote that says the Senate agrees on certain aspects of resolution. What they voted on was that they agreed there were aspects of Kyoto that needed work.
The fact is, as noted in my comment above, with a link to the source, that the Kyoto Protocol has NEVER been submitted to the senate for ratification.
Bush has never put anything in to law one way or another about Kyoto. Thus the Senate vote that you wingnuts are all crowing about was MEANINGLESS.
Do us all a favor and drop it here. You’ve been debunked repeatedly here and it’s time to move on.
Heya Pamela – of course I know what a Sense of the Senate resolution is (although there are some who would argue that the words “sense” and “Senate” don’t belong in the same sentence). To say Byrd-Hagel expressed a Senate consensus that Kyoto “needed work” is putting it mildy, but is also essentially correct.
And of course I know that Kyoto was never submitted for ratification. Why do you think Clinton (let alone Bush) never submitted it? Because the “needed work” was never implemented, and thus President Clinton knew that the Senate would shoot it down in flames. The vote on Byrd-Hagel was indeed “meaningless” in legislative terms, but was critical in political terms vis a vis the acceptability of the treaty as written. Senator Kerry himself said as much in 1997:
“What we have here is not ratifiable in the Senate in my judgment,” Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said.
And in just what respect, pray tell, have I been “debunked”? Todd had stated that “Kyoto passed the Senate 95-0″, and I merely pointed out that he was mistaken in that statement.
MoonDawg
You just totally contradicted yourself.
Pamela Leavey Says:
January 30th, 2007 at 10:39 am
MoonDawg
You just totally contradicted yourself.
Indeed? Please enlighten me as to the nature of this supposed “contradiction”. I eagerly await edification.
Moondawg writes: “Todd had stated that “Kyoto passed the Senate 95-0″, and I merely pointed out that he was mistaken in that statement.”
The intention of Kyoto is spelled out rather clearly in the Byrd/Hagel amendment. Selectively quoting from the amendment (as you’ve done) changes nothing of what I wrote above: to say Kerry voted “against Kyoto” is simply nonsense.
But since you’re selectively quoting, then allow me:
“We knew at the time, the Kyoto Protocol was a work in progress after its initial negotiation. I counseled the President against submitting it to the Congress without more progress on developing nations. We knew there was work to do.” – John Kerry, 2005
“The Kyoto Treaty was flawed. I was in Kyoto and I was part of that; I know what happened. But Bush didn’t try to fix it, he just declared it dead, ladies and gentlemen. And we walked away from the work of 160 nations over 10 years. You wonder why it is that people don’t like us in some parts of the world.” – John Kerry, 2004
From the resolution: “Whereas it is desirable that a bipartisan group of Senators be appointed by the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate for the purpose of monitoring the status of negotiations on Global Climate Change and reporting periodically to the Senate on those negotiations.”
“Dismissal of Kyoto indicative of Bush’s unilateralism.” JK, 2003
And on and on. Sounds to me like someone *supported* the principle of Kyoto, but feel free to go on disagreeing with the facts.
Todd Mitchell Says:
January 30th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
The intention of Kyoto is spelled out rather clearly in the Byrd/Hagel amendment. Selectively quoting from the amendment (as you’ve done) changes nothing of what I wrote above: to say Kerry voted “against Kyoto” is simply nonsense.
Ye gods, there’s so much wrong in just this single paragraph, it boggles the mind.
a) The “intention” of Kyoto is *not* spelled out in Byrd-Hagel. The flaws of Kyoto – as the Senate saw them, anyway – are spelled out in Byrd-Hagel (what may have you confused is that some elements of the ‘94 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are in fact listed in Byrd-Hagel).
b) As Pamela has repeatedly pointed out, Byrd-Hagel is not an “amendment”, it is a Sense of the Senate Resolution, and has no legal force.
c) You, Todd, quote a single sentence from Byrd-Hagel, and I then quote the entire paragraph that the sentence appeared in – but I’m the one who’s “selectively quoting”?
d) Byrd-Hagel pointed out the flaws of Kyoto (exemption of Developing Country Parties, and adverse impact on the US economy), and stated that the US “should not be a signatory” to Kyoto until and unless those flaws were addressed. How can you possibly say that voting against the US becoming a signatory to Kyoto is actually a vote for Kyoto?
So we can go by the actual text of Byrd-Hagel, or we can go by Kerry’s spin on the resolution nearly a decade after the fact. BTW, Kerry is distorting the truth when he says that Bush “declared it dead”. Bush’s objections to Kyoto are the very same objections that the Senate raised in Byrd-Hagel: “it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy.”
As I noted earlier, in ‘97 Kerry himself said that Kyoto couldn’t pass the Senate because of those factors. So the Senate pointing out these flaws in Byrd-Hagel is somehow supportive of Kyoto, but when Bush points them out he’s declaring Kyoto “dead”? Please.
Moondawg
Kerry stated clearly why he voted for the resolution and stated clearly that Kyoto needed work and should be fixed. He never sought to totally abandon it. Bush did. Even Republican governors like Arnold have now taken steps to adhere to Kyoto.
Bush could have cared less over the past 6 years about Global Warming. Now, finally now, it’s evident there to most people including some Republican’s that we need to change things. Bush is finally, pardon the pun, warming up to that.
The Bush administration will go down in history as the worst offenders to the environment in decades. Kerry was right in Davos.
Moondawg writes: “BTW, Kerry is distorting the truth when he says that Bush “declared it dead”.
LOL. Yet he doesn’t seem to want it come up for its “constitutional right to an up or down vote”. Hmmmmm…..
“How can you possibly say that voting against the US becoming a signatory to Kyoto is actually a vote for Kyoto?”
The U.S. is a signatory to Kyoto. Who voted for or against that?
Mornin’ Pamela –
You’re right – Kerry was quite clear about his support for Kyoto, while at the same time recognizing that it “needed work” before it could be ratified. He was quite clear in 1997, that is. To hear him talk today you’d think that Kyoto is Holy Writ, even though the the problems with the protocol identified in Byrd-Hagel still haven’t been addressed.
As to Arnold, I would hardly call him a standard-bearer for conservatives. Go home Arnold – when will you realize, Vienna waits for you…
And it is quite wrong to say that “Bush could have cared less” about climate change during his term. In early 2002 the administration issued a detailed policy initiative aiming for an 18% reduction of GHG in the US by 2012. You may disagree with some of the particulars of the policy, but to contend Bush has ignored the issue during his term in office is simply not true.
The US’s GHG emissions from the time Bush took office in 2001, to 2004 (2004 is the most recent year that figures are available) rose by an average of only 0.33 percent. From the time the UNFCCC went into force in ‘94 to Clinton’s final year in office, 2000, US GHG emissions rose by an average of 1.43%. So which administration was the “worst offender” on GHG emissions?
[...] Kyoto Protocol.” Similar right wing spin that the Senate refused to ratify Kyoto was debunked here months ago. The Senate vote was a non-binding vote. The NRDC explains S. RES. 98: Q. Di [...]