- What do you think of the Kyoto Protocol now, given that, despite signing it, you didn't push hard for it's passage, and didn't even officially submit it to the Senate?
- If you still think the Protocol is viable, why didn't you push hard in your remaining 3 years in office to get it ratified?
- The Senate endorsed a resolution ... a bipartisan resolution ... by 95-0 (!) advising against signing any agreement that a) would demonstrably harm the U.S. economy and b) did not include large developing economies like China and India. If you now believe that the Bush administration should sign the agreement, and the same Senate should ratify it, what has changed to satisfy a) and b) above?
- Do you believe the projections of $400B and 5 million jobs in economic damage if the U.S. were to sign on? If you do, and you still endorse the treaty, why do you want to damage the U.S. economy? If you don't buy those numbers, then how much damage do your economists predict?
- If you don't think the Bush Administration should sign on, why did you negotiate it and sign it in the first place?
- Do you think the Chinese, who've been exempted from the protocol despite being the second largest producer of greenhouse gases, are right to call for the U.S. to sign onto the protocol, hurting our economy while leaving theirs unaffected? Do you think the Chinese may have ulterior motives for this call?
- If President Bush and the Senate are wrong, is British PM Tony Blair also wrong?
- Was the Kyoto Protocol in reality just a big wet kiss to the left-wing anti-capitalist environmentalists when you needed them? And an ill-advised wet kiss, at that?
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Here Are Some Questions ...
... for former President Clinton.