Kyoto Champ Martin

[newbie]

When Bush Sr. defamed Clinton, he dug up the past and attacked Clinton over his anti-war stance while he was at Oxford (a little hypocritical since he got his kid a job over at the National Guard to stay out of Vietnam, a job Bush Jr. did not volunteer for). Nixon did it over Clinton's womanizing. If this is about Bush's job performance I would be apalled if they didn't criticise him. His economic record is shameful as is his total disregard for international law. And you talk extensively about Martin and scandal. Have you checked out the scandals Bush's hencemen are involved in? He and his administration are a disgrace.

[Toro]

From the Environment Minister of Australia

Kyoto very close to being buried, Campbell says

By Mark Coultan in New York and Wendy Frew

December 10, 2005

THE Kyoto Protocol was "almost buried" and Australia's decision not to ratify it had been vindicated, said Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell, who is in Montreal observing the latest round of international negotiations to tackle greenhouse gases and climate change.

Speaking at the United Nations summit on climate change, he said other countries had realised that Australia and the US were right not to ratify the protocol, and he predicted the system for setting targets and timetables for greenhouse gas reductions could be scrapped after 2012, when most industrialised countries have agreed to reduce their emissions.

"A number of [countries] are saying 'Look, we made a mistake. We don't think that it's worth opening up a new negotiation about a future commitment when the commitments we have today are looking so unreasonable'," Senator Campbell said.

"Trying to squeeze everyone into the Kyoto style approach is simply not going to work."

However, his comments were not supported by statements made by other parties to the international agreement and have been described by environmental groups at the Montreal negotiations as mischievous and nothing more than political spin.

Senator Campbell said that last year he had met a number of ministers from other countries who had told him: "Australia made the right decision. This thing is not going to work."

He said that sentiment had become "like a chorus", at the Montreal meeting. "You have a number of countries inside the Kyoto Protocol who were resisting doing even what's required under the protocol which is to have a new negotiation."

He predicted that those countries would nevertheless begin discussing what would happen beyond 2012, because they were obliged to do so under the Kyoto Protocol. "I think it shows that this style of agreement is very close to being buried. That's not a bad thing. It shows that there's a recognition that we need more flexibility; we need to recognise national circumstances."

Link

[BHS]

When Bush Sr. defamed Clinton, he dug up the past and attacked Clinton over his anti-war stance while he was at Oxford (a little hypocritical since he got his kid a job over at the National Guard to stay out of Vietnam, a job Bush Jr. did not volunteer for). Nixon did it over Clinton's womanizing. If this is about Bush's job performance I would be apalled if they didn't criticise him. His economic record is shameful as is his total disregard for international law. And you talk extensively about Martin and scandal. Have you checked out the scandals Bush's hencemen are involved in?  He and his administration are a disgrace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tell me, did Bush Senior happen to dig this information up while he was campaigning against Clinton? Bush was hardly a "former president" at that time, and I don't recall Clinton's war record being an issue after the 1992 election. I don't recall Bush Sr. having anything further to say about Clinton or his policies after 1992, and in fact I recall him declining to make comment.

What Bush Sr. did is not really hypocritical either, if what you've written is true - Bush Jr.'s not volunteering for duty that he ended up performing without complaint is not the same Clinton's scramming to the safety of another country only then to voice complaint against your own country's foreign policies.

As to what Nixon had to say about Clinton, I'd have to read some of his articles. I know that he wrote periodically for magazines in the 90's, but I don't believe I've ever read anything that he wrote during the Clinton years. If you had a link it would be helpful. I'd like to add though that Nixon never assumed and was never accorded the sort of moral superiority that is regularly attributed to Carter, and to my knowledge Nixon's views on Clinton never extended to making statements or taking actions that my be construed as treason.

[newbie]

BHS, here is a link re Bush Sr. bashing Clinton. http://mediamatters.org/items/200509200002

As far as Nixon goes, I got the info from one of his later books where he blasts Clinton for his womanizing. It shouldn't be too hard to find. And this thing about Carter is interesting. Unfortunately, the writer is hardly impartial given his previous books championing the right wing. Carter's peace and humanitarian efforts are legendary, and he sets the perfect example for all ex-Presidents to follow. http://www.cartercenter.org/activities/activities.htm

I don't think you want to get into the Presidents that really assisted Dictators now do you?

[sharkman]

...And this thing about Carter is interesting. Unfortunately, the writer is hardly impartial given his previous books championing the right wing. Carter's peace and humanitarian efforts are legendary, and he sets the perfect example for all ex-Presidents to follow.  http://www.cartercenter.org/activities/activities.htm

I don't think you want to get into the Presidents that really assisted Dictators now do you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whatis with this silly nonsense about which former so and so criticized Clinton, this thread is about what Martin did in once again blasting the U.S., this time on an issue that they have greatly out-performed the Liberals in. Martin's a twit who in campaigning can only attack the other party's ideas, doesn't have anything new or creative, and has to resort to playing the anti-American card time and time again. He thinks that by re-announcing policies that he already did earlier we will forget we've already been fed this slop.

[BHS]

BHS, here is a link re Bush Sr. bashing Clinton. http://mediamatters.org/items/200509200002

As far as Nixon goes, I got the info from one of his later books where he blasts Clinton for his womanizing. It shouldn't be too hard to find. And this thing about Carter is interesting. Unfortunately, the writer is hardly impartial given his previous books championing the right wing. Carter's peace and humanitarian efforts are legendary, and he sets the perfect example for all ex-Presidents to follow.  http://www.cartercenter.org/activities/activities.htm

I don't think you want to get into the Presidents that really assisted Dictators now do you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, really assisted dictators. You mean, who propped up local pro-western pawns during the Cold War to prevent Soviet expansionism, the way JFK and Reagan did. As opposed the the implicit assistance that appeasers like Carter gave by looking the other way when their friends' obvious flaws were on display.

In a way, Carter is an ideal ex-President (with emphasis on the ex) - he sets the benchmark for what a President ought not to be, and what happens when the wrong guy gets elected. (Though, to be fair, Ford probably wouldn't have been much better.) Legendary, indeed, in the sense that legends are like myths - a kernel of truth painted over with layers and layers of wishful romanticism.

Good call on Bush Sr. He was a one-hit wonder in office, and it doesn't surprise me that his post-presidency musings didn't make much of a splash. Of the Fox newscasters I like Brit Hume the best, but even he has a tendancy to fluff his research when it suits his views to do so.

[newbie]

Oh, really assisted dictators. You mean, who propped up local pro-western pawns during the Cold War to prevent Soviet expansionism, the way JFK and Reagan did. his views to do so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually I was referring to CIA sponsored dictatorships in Guatamala, Chile, Iran, Iraq, Philippines and Indonesia to name a few.

[BHS]

Oh, really assisted dictators. You mean, who propped up local pro-western pawns during the Cold War to prevent Soviet expansionism, the way JFK and Reagan did. his views to do so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually I was referring to CIA sponsored dictatorships in Guatamala, Chile, Iran, Iraq, Philippines and Indonesia to name a few.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I go by the assumption that the CIA is a-political and works for the general American interest. Perhaps that's naive of me. In any case, the CIA's foreign influence has seriously waned since the end of the Cold War, which suggests to me that my arguments above still hold. Off of the top of my head -

Guatemala - don't know anything about it (infoplease suggests it's a democracy though, so I guess the CIA aren't propping up the dictatorship anymore)

Chile - Augusto Pinochet voluntarily stepped down in favour of a relatively successful democracy, so I guess the CIA aren't propping him up either. (Aside - you don't see this type of thing happening too often in dictatorships that were propped up by the French, for instance.)

Iran - the Shah was pro-Western and presumably received assistance from the CIA when needed, though I don't think he was"propped up" by them. The Mullahs are decidedly anti-Western and were never a client state of the CIA, unless you're counting the whole Contra fiasco as "propping up" the theocracy. They were clients of the Soviets and maintain a distant friendliness with the Russians. In neither case is a dictatorship in the traditional sense involved.

Iraq - Yep, the CIA (the whole American government, really) helped Saddam, in the interest of keeping the Soviets out of the oil-rich Middle East. Didn't work. Anyway, the American influence evaporated after the annexation of Kuwait and the "propping up" vacuum was filled by the Europeans between 1990 and 2003.

Philipines - Ferdinand and Imelda were undoubtedly atrocious. However, when they were overthrown in favour of democracy the CIA didn't lift a finger (or, perhaps, they just didn't have their hearts in defending the Marcos). They're fickle that way. (Note: Wikipedia suggests that Marcos was a dictator only between 1972 and 1981, when he ended the authoritarian regime and was re-elected. There's that wacky dictator-to-democrat thing happening again. He has ousted in 1986.)

Indonesia - Suharto (am I thinking of the right country?) was a total thug. Also, a good friend of our own beloved dictator-wannabe Chretien. The CIA should be villafied for supporting him, though again, in light of the Cold War, it was either our bastard or theirs. Suharto died a few years ago and his son has since been imprisoned for life for fraud (I think). I don't know much about the current situation in Indonesia, except that when food aid was sent to Banda Aceh province after the tsunami the local bureaucrats forced aid organizations to pay hefty import fees. I don't think the CIA was involved.