OK, although this arose from a political speech at a political convention, there is actually an important point that, were it no longer overlooked, should logically have serious policy consequences one way or the other. Former President Clinton premised his argument against President Bush -- it seemed more that than a pitch for Kerry -- at Monday's opening night session of the Democratic National Convention on a claim now de rigeur among Europeans: "after 9/11...[the President] and his congressional allies made a very different choice" than "bring[ing] us together...and unit[ing] the world in common cause against terror." Instead, as the saying goes, Bush squandered unprecedented goodwill toward the U.S. Despite the serious charge and the setting calling for a serious speech, Clinton specifically indicted Bush's "withdrawing American support for the Climate Change Treaty" as behind some allies impeding other U.S.-led efforts (note the capitalization drawn from Clinton's released text, in lieu of the K-word, Dems having also dropped support for Kyoto from their platform; strong letter from the French to follow, no doubt).

Now, this raises a question of basic competence and awareness. President Bush "withdrew our support from", though regrettably never went so far as to actually withdraw from, Kyoto by merely saying mean things about it. As such, it may be open to rhetorical distortion, but not to serious debate, that as a matter of fact, law and policy, President Bush has merely maintained Clinton's position of refusing (for over 3 years of the latter's presidency) to send the treaty to the Senate for a vote. We continue our involvement, however, sending 28 State and EPA officials to the June "Subsidiary Body" talks in Bonn. How, precisely, do the parties differ on this significant issue?

But, here's the kicker. This so-called withdrawal of support came on March 17, 2001. Six months before we were attacked, announced by Vice President Cheney on MSNBC and to our allies by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. By 9/11 the Sturm und Drang had subsided, only to be revived, post-facto, to justify French and German shenanigans at the UN. Either Kyoto is or is not a desirable policy option. The parties do, or do not, differ on this. As with the science, however, we never seem quite able to actually have that debate.