[FreeTheHostages]

No, no, quilla's right. Read this report again. Bush is conceding *nothing* re what to do. There are plenty of conservative responses regarding what to do. Drudge has overplayed this. God bless him but he's overplayed this.

[jeremiah]

I agree, he didn't put forth a plan to do anything about "global warming". He has codified the language with which the argument against it will be compared. He has alienated the anti global warmers, and caused them to be marginalized. Unless he comes out and denounces the report directly, he is behind the obvious next step. Sign the Kyoto Treaty, albeit modified slightly.

[colorado tanker]

"He's overplayed this." Yep. This is one of those bureaucratic reports that would never see the light of day but for someone digging it up. This is not a "White House" document, but is the third submission to the UN required by the Rio Treaty, submitted by the Dept. of State but undoubtedly drafted by EPA. It's just a bureaurcrat's report; it's not a policy document.

According to the Times story, the report has been sitting on somebody's desk in the White House for months. That somebody decided not to ship it back to EPA for rewrite, despite pressure to do so from the American Petroleum Institute. Gee, I wonder why? Can you envision a headline like "Administration orders EPA scientists to alter UN report on global warming under pressure from major oil company campaign contributors"? That would be a nice scandel, timed perfectly now that the Enron scandel is running out of gas.

The Times was tipped to the report and since they didn't have a scandel went with a story instead claiming a "stark shift" in US policy, despite the fact that the report reiterates President Bush's existing policy. The article is a transparent attempt by the Times to force a change in policy that has not occurred.

So Drudge and Rush overreact to a non-story. Or did they. We're entering the summer news doldrums. Bush-bash controversies generate lots of listeners and callers. Hmmm.