More Weirdness in the White House

MORE WEIRDNESS IN THE WHITE HOUSE….Even by the standards of the Bush administration, this is too weird for words:

Bush-administration officials privately threatened organizers of the U.N. Climate Change Conference, telling them that any chance there might?ve been for the United States to sign on to the Kyoto global-warming protocol would be scuttled if they allowed Bill Clinton to speak at the gathering today in Montreal.

….?It?s just astounding,? the source told New York Magazine. ?It came through loud and clear from the Bush people?they wouldn?t sign the deal if Clinton were allowed to speak.? Clinton spokesman Jay Carson confirmed the behind the dustup took place and that the former president had decided not to go out of fear of harming the negotiations, but Carson declined to comment further.

What was it that Teresa Nielsen Hayden said a couple of years ago? Oh yes, here it is: “I deeply resent the way this administration makes me feel like a nutbar conspiracy theorist.”

Apparently this threat really happened. But why? Why would even the pathological image fetishists who protect George Bush for a living object to Bill Clinton repeating his well known views in favor of controlling greenhouse gases? It makes no sense.

Nor does it make any sense that anyone would do anything except laugh at this. The article speaks of “frantic back-channel negotiations,” as if the conference organizers seriously thought that maybe the Bush administration would support the Kyoto protocols if only they kept Clinton off their stage. That makes no sense either. Bush would sooner rip off his own fingernails than sign up for anything that even resembles a global-warming protocol.

I’m stumped. Can anyone offer up an explanation that’s even remotely plausible for this?

Support Nonprofit Journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works—and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, I’ll make a donation