It is hard to think of a better example of doublespeak. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal editorial on George W's climate change speech and came to the exact opposite conclusion of what really happened. I know the WSJ editorial page has been hostile to reality for years when it comes to climatology, but this goes beyond the pale:
The White House deserves credit for playing the political hand in front of it. It would have been easy enough to abdicate responsibility to the next occupant of the Oval Office, who will be far more likely to wave aside economic considerations in the interests of "doing something."
So let me get this straight: a president in his final year in office lays out a plan that calls for doing NOTHING about greenhouse gas emissions for 17 years ;;;;; and even then fails to call for a mandatory cap ;;;;; isn't abdicating responsibility and handing over the task to his successor? Incredible. It's hard to believe that the writer(s) who cranked out the editorial can sleep at night.
And to imply Bush isn't ready to "wave aside economic considerations in the interests of 'doing something'" is just plain bizarre. I guess those trivial items called the $9-trillion debt and the quagmire called Iraq are just figments of my imagination.
If I was a Wall Street executive who was spending good money on a subscription the WSJ, I'd think my intelligence had just been insulted.
- Log in to post comments
Right-wing partisan hack demented fucking wackaloons sleep great!
I find it interesting that this plan is getting any attention at all as a step forward. The Bush administration first laid out voluntary measures in 2002. The old toothless goals were actually more ambitious than the current plan. We were supposed to reduce greenhouse gases by 4.5% by 2012, the current plans has no reductions until 2025. What the hell!?
Hey, he did his part and he did it well. If it all turns to sh*t, then the fault will lie with his successor. But more importantly, his oil buddies are soooo happy at postponing any regulations not to their liking. It gives them more time to suck gravy from the trough.
Want to take a guess at what W's post-Whitehouse income will be, as he starts accepting astronomical honoraria for speaking to industry groups?
What if you were a spending good money on a subscription to the WSJ so they'd tell you what you want to hear? (And why else would you?)
I once got an advertisement for a subscription to the WSJ. I tried to bargain with them for a lower price for the paper without their editorial page since I found it worse than useless. I didn't want any of my money for a sub to go to those fuckwits and I also wrote that many others would like the same deal.
Alas, no response and so, no subscription.
In fairness to subscribers, WSJ has a reputation for excellent articles and moronic editorials. Many parts of the paper are worth the reading time.