bogus Associated Press story

[BT]

BLAME AMERICA FIRST: Check out this bogus Associated Press story. Key bit:


The United States is no longer bound by Kyoto, which the Bush administration rejected after taking office in 2001.


Er, no. The truth is as close as this entry from the not especially Bush-friendly Wikipedia:


On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[40] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[41] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.


Hmm. No Bush Administration rejection there. There is this bit, later on:


The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide[42]). . . . Despite its refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken some actions towards mitigation of climate change.


Read the whole thing, and note: The United States was never bound by Kyoto, and it was not "rejected" by the Bush Administration. Once again, a webpage by unpaid amateurs is more accurate and nuanced than an effort by the Associated Press. Anyone can make a mistake, but the AP's seem to lean heavily in an anti-Bush direction. (Thanks to reader Ronald Vogt for the AP story link.)

UPDATE: Ed Driscoll emails: "No wonder AP is trying to tie Kyoto in with Bush—because then the circle would be complete."

MORE: Greg Barto emails: "This is another example of why the AP can't keep relying on environmentalist stringers!" It was vouched for by Asst. Secretary of State Jamil Hussein . . . .

Bada bing


Embedded links here:
http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/01/post_1734.php

[Michael Tee]

ha ha ha, what happened, did you get tired of pushing that OTHER "bogus AP story," the one about the non-existent Iraqi official who turned out not to be so non-existent after all?

Boy, that one vanished pretty fast, didn't it?  How come you're not still flogging that one?  Arm get tired, flogging that dead horse?

[BT]

I understand both waldo and Jamil are still missing.

Let me know when you can produce them.

[Lanya]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html

Text of a Letter from the President to Senators Hagel, Helms, Craig, and Roberts

Thank you for your letter of March 6, 2001, asking for the Administration's views on global climate change, in particular the Kyoto Protocol and efforts to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.  My Administration takes the issue of global climate change very seriously.

As you know, I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because 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.  The Senate's vote, 95-0, shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0XPQ/is_2005_July_11/ai_n14739095

Bush rejects Kyoto Protocol-linked agreements at G-8 summit

And so on, using the search words "Bush rejects Kyoto Treaty. "

[Plane]

Has President Bush ever had the oppurtunity to sin a ratified Koyo treaty?

No , that it is not a ratified treaty is because of the Senate earyer than the Presidents tenure.

I agree with President Bush that the Koyto teaty is very badly made , but equal to President Bush my signature on it would mean nothing anyway.

This is just another lie about President Bush .

[Xavier_Onassis]

If Juniorbush wanted to sign the Kyoto Treaty, he would easily be given that opportunity.

This did not happen, because he said he was against it, and of course no one gave him that opportunity.

The lie that Bush's opposition to the treaty is insignificant, is therefore, another lie.

[Michael Tee]

<<As you know, I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because 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.  The Senate's vote, 95-0, shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns.>>

Missing from the "reasons" is the percentage of pollution contributed by the exempted nations, which would have given a truer picture of the effectiveness of the treaty in addressing actual pollution factors rather than irrelevant factors such as either land mass or population, one of which had to be the basis of his "80%."  Not exactly a lie, but not very straightforward and honest either, IMHO.  But compared to the whoppers he's told about why he had to invade Iraq, and his documented lies to the SEC investigators, that's almost a model of honesty and truthfulness.

[Amianthus]

If Juniorbush wanted to sign the Kyoto Treaty, he would easily be given that opportunity.

Why didn't Clinton sign it, then?

[Amianthus]

Missing from the "reasons" is the percentage of pollution contributed by the exempted nations,

China and India combined produce as much CO₂ as the US does. And they're not the only countries exempted.