Kyodiots go fishing

Liberal leader and dogmatic Kyodiot Stephane Dion had his chance, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in the House, to “fish or cut bait” after the Conservative government’s Throne speech Tuesday in Ottawa.

Dion was in over his head, dropping his tackle in the water as he back-pedalled, huffed and puffed with all the righteous indignation he could muster. Obviously Kyoto isn’t as important an issue to force an election or stake your reputation on, as Dion's Liberals, after all their emitted hot air, made it out to be.

After a decade, Dion and his Liberal majority government 'couldn't get it done ' (as Ignatieff put it) when they had the chance to; now, they 'couldn't get it done' again when they had a chance to, against a minority government. This Liberal hypocrisy has wasted so much time and money.

Dion’s Kyodiot dogma was (is?) so ingrained that he even named his dog Kyoto. It might be time to put the old dogma out of its misery. After this performance, Dion might soon find himself with a lot more time on his hands to actually go fishing.

Dear Captain Kyoto, can we now say: Kyoto Kaput?

Let’s put Dion’s dismal performance after the Oct.16, 2007 Throne speech in context to this story, “Stephane Dion's Kyoto problem”, which ran in the National Post on Feb.5, 2007:

“Stephane Dion, the Liberal leader, is in full-fledged denial of the obvious.
Last summer, he admitted to National Post columnist John Ivison that if he became prime minister, Canada would remain part of the Kyoto treaty through to when it runs out in 2012, but that it would never meet its emission-reduction targets. Specifically, Mr. Dion told Mr. Ivison: "In 2008, I will be part of Kyoto but I will say to the world I don't think I will make it." However, now that Mr. Dion wants to convince voters he is Captain Kyoto - the most environmentally committed politician in the country's history - he is claiming that he meant something completely different, and that he can still reach Canada's Kyoto targets providing he becomes prime minister in 2007.
For years, the Liberals -- who signed Kyoto in 1997 and ratified it in 2002 -- struggled with how to reach Canada's mandated target of a 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (not pollution) below 1990 levels. They never settled on a plan. Meanwhile, they watched as emissions rose to nearly 30% above 1990 levels.
Internally, many in the Liberal government admitted this country would never meet its Kyoto commitments. But publicly, no minister ever conceded that fact. They all clung to the charade that somewhere over the next hill or around the next corner lies a new technology that would enable Canada to dramatically reduce emissions without cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs and devastating the economy.
So Mr. Dion's admission of last summer was a stunner, so much so that Mr. Ivison checked his tape of their conversation against the tape made by Mr. Dion's staff to make certain he had heard the new Liberal chief correctly. He had.
However, since becoming leader two months ago, Mr. Dion has invested so much of his public image in his unwavering belief in the science of climate change, and in Kyoto as a necessary step to reversing global warming, that he cannot afford to have voters thinking that just seven short months ago he was prepared to admit Kyoto was a bust. So on Thursday, in a letter to the editor, Mr. Dion claimed Mr. Ivison had misinterpreted his words. Mr. Dion now maintains that he did not mean Canada would fall short of its Kyoto goals. Rather, he claims he meant that Canada would not be able to meet its targets in 2008 if he did not become prime minister before that time. (Of course, even if he doesn't become PM till 2008 or thereafter, Canada would still meet its Kyoto target, we are told - -just not until 2012.)
All of this serves to remind us of Bill Clinton's response under oath that the answer to a question asked by federal investigators depended "on what the meaning of 'is' is." Mr. Dion's meaning last summer was clear. There was no ambiguity. He is running from that confession now merely to save the cornerstone of his strategy for the next federal election.
Just how far Mr. Dion is prepared to go to capture the "green" sentiment of voters may have also been revealed, inadvertently, on Thursday by Ontario Liberal MP Mark Holland, the party's natural resources critic. Speaking on the nationally syndicated radio talk show Adler Online, Mr. Holland told host Charles Adler that the Liberals were prepared to place severe restrictions on the development of Alberta's oil sands in order to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas released in the mining process. "We're going to say [that] you cannot exploit that resource," Mr. Holland admitted, "[that you cannot] go in there and pump it out as fast as you can to give it to the Americans and sell out our national interests and blow apart our emissions targets."
Talk about a "hidden agenda." Mr. Holland's remarks revived the twin spectres of the Liberals' National Energy Program of the 1980s and their vehement anti- Americanism of the past decade, in one swoop. Meanwhile, Mr. Dion's denial of an obvious admission showed his party still has trouble giving voters the straight goods. All of this should give voters plenty of food for thought in the next election.”
*
Yeah, we just got a good look at the menu. How many versions of the truth are in this Liberal broth? It's enough to make you sick.