Some seven years ago, BushCO descended into Washington, driven into office by a media–push that nailed his opponent as 'Al Gore: the Liar', painting him as Clinton Twice, and it was done. (Upon deprecation of its own historically-neutral role in State Voting Cases, by the US Supreme Court)
The question posed now, for this first essay is this: what makes Bush's stance on Climate Change any different from that which he took against Saddam Hussein?
Justifying the war in Iraq, which circumvented sixty to nearly four hundred years of developed International Law, much of our modern era international structures having been expressly fashioned via American input and legal theory after World War II, Bush the Lesser turned toward his ideological lackeys, for the creation of his Bush Doctrine.
finds it totally acceptable as a first step for
anyone seeking deeper understanding
(especially if you go to the footnoted links for further reading)
The Bush Doctrine presented the premise that, when a nation has 'evidence' of imminent attack, international law cannot force that nation into a paralytic state, awaiting 'nuclear annihilation' or otherwise. Experts in International Law (“I-law”) universally attacked such an opened Pandora's Box, announcing that its implementation would also lead to imitation: a form of flattery otherwise occasionally denominated as 'Blowback' (which most often relates to Intelligence-efforts).
Bush, Cheney, and their admin–underlings, Rice, or Powell; in concerted effort these Neoconservatives trumpeted a theory that many Americans accepted in overwhelmingly strong numbers after September 11, 2001: fear of the unknown potential future actions of Saddam Hussein were sufficient 'imminent threat' to start an action, widely condemned around the world, to structure an invasion force, invade, conquer, and 'liberate'. The timing of their fearmongering, not incidentally, allowed a strong Republican increase in the 2002 Congressional elections.
The rest is history.
This presents the situation posed in our title, above: what makes Climate Change any different than Saddam Hussein?
Rephrasing: is hypothetical, yet unrealistic action taken by a despot, whom our CIA helped to attain his dictatorial powers, which provokes real action by a US president, any different from actions observed whose overwhelming data announces significant climatic shifts that will, more likely than not, return to any former state of equilibrium?
Bush took America and its taxpayers to the well, in hyped–out propaganda drives that have cost this country a better future, to create the paranoiac state of a perpetual War on Terror, with seven and five-year actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Similar actions, the Fear Campaigns, included the Social Security 'SCARE' of summer 2006, and the vastly more deadly Financial Crash of fall 2008.
Bush fought America and its taxpayers all the way, in denying action and evidence on Climate Change, asking for the sufficient level of proof that he could have demanded in Iraq, by supporting the UN Inspections under supervision by Hans Blix.
Imminent attack by a weakened Middle Eastern dictator – imminent climatic evolution?
“We don't have in our possession, sufficient confirmatory proof to act...”.
Such was not said, against Saddam, and the Bush Legacy is what it is, based on one man's claim of Leadership...