For the last time, the US Senate killed the Kyoto Treaty. As soon as I brought up that inconvenient fact, you said that somehow XO's were used to enforce it. When I said that XO's that are not based on laws can be overturned in courts, you changed the topic altogether. Even if you find an XO that was overturned, it doesn't mean that you ended Kyoto. The US Senate can still ratify that Treaty. Winning one game in the post-season does not mean you win the World Series. Ask anyone here who is not a bona-fide Bush-bot whether I am being unreasonable.
On a more important note, if you were so convinced that Bush has killed Kyoto with his bare hands, you should be able to cite the XO right away. You don't need to do any research because you have must already done it to reach that conclusion. If you haven't and need to look up, why are you so convinced that he was the one. Doesn't make sense.
"On a more important note, if you were so convinced that Bush has killed Kyoto with his bare hands, you should be able to cite the XO right away. You don't need to do any research because you have must already done it to reach that conclusion. If you haven't and need to look up, why are you so convinced that he was the one. Doesn't make sense."
There's no need for you to beg and plead. If you want *me* to do your homework for you by showing you at least one Clinton XO that forced federal agencies to behave as if the U.S. Senate had ratified the Kyoto Global Warming treaty (even though it never did), then *all* that you have to do is to commit to giving President Bush full and complete credit for killing that treaty (as soon as I deliver the evidence).
If you can't make that commitment, then why should I spend any time at all on you. After all, if you aren't going to give credit even when evidence is given to you (and to this point you've certainly not wanted to give any), then why *should* I waste my time with you?