Not content with simply remaining outside the international agreements on climate change, the Bush administration is now trying to block other countries from making progress without it.

The American delegation staged a dramatic walkout last night in a bid to scuttle the entire U.N. climate change conference in Montreal. The theatrics were billed as a protest of Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin’s harmless remarks from Wednesday. (Martin said, “To the reticent nations, including the United States, I say there is such a thing as a global conscience, and now is the time to listen to it.”) Compounding the embarassment, the U.S. delegation actually had to first walk in to the negotiations before they could “walk out,” because they hadn’t been regularly attending the meetings.

U.S. frustrations aren’t based in substance: the U.S. delegation rejected language that was lifted directly from the G8 communiqu© that President Bush himself signed in July. Rather, the problem is that this week’s negotiations reinforced that the Bush administration is more isolated than ever in dealing with global climate change. Simply put, the U.S. delegation recognizes that the rest of the world is making progress, and it is pulling out all the stops in order to keep that from happening.

– Ana Unruh Cohen, in Montreal
Ken Gude, in Washington

UPDATE: Read more

Reporters Tom DeFrank and Dana Milbank were on MSNBC last night discussing the Rumsfeld resignation rumors. (On Thursday, DeFrank reported in the New York Daily News that “White House officials are telling associates they expect Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to quit early next year.”)

They both said that Rumsfeld would have been fired long ago if things hadn’t been going so poorly in Iraq. Firing Rumsfeld now would simply be too embarrassing for the administration. It’s the key to Rumsfeld’s success: he’s so incompetent, it’s impossible to let him go –

(Quicktime)

DeFrank:

MATTHEWS: Is Rumsfeld in trouble?

DEFRANK: Well, I think he’s in trouble, but I think he’s been in trouble for well over a year.

MATTHEWS: With the president?

DEFRANK: Yes, but the president as we all know, is a very loyal guy. With rare exceptions, he doesn’t like to get rid of people when they’re under duress. And I think had Rumsfeld not been under such criticism a year or so ago, if the Abu Ghraib prison scandal had not broken, I think Rumsfeld would have been gone long ago. But I think now it appears that he’s on the glide path waiting for a graceful retirement after the first of the year.

Dana Milbank: Read more

with Donald Rumsfeld, the AP reports.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), yesterday on the Bill Press Show: “I’ve spoken to Joe Lieberman and he knows he’s out there alone. I mean, literally alone. Joe is a fine man, he has strong feelings, but he’s just alone. Even Republicans don’t agree with Joe.” (Audio here.)

First Lady Laura Bush is a committed soldier in the war on Christmas. In this clip from a video recently published on the White House website she packs in three references to “the holidays” in 15 seconds:

If Ms. Bush watched more Bill O’Reilly she’d know how offensive her remarks were to Christians:

GUEST: “Season’s Greetings” and “Happy Holidays,” Bill, does not offend Christians.

O’REILLY: Yes, it does. It absolutely does. And I know that for a fact.

Transcript: Read more

Vote HERE.

Yesterday on PBS’ Newshour, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said no administration official made any predictions about the length or cost of the war in Iraq:

I was very careful. I never predicted any number of deaths or the cost or the length because I’ve looked at a lot of wars, and anyone who tries to do that is going to find themselves wrong, flat wrong…I don’t know anybody who had any reasonable expectations about the number or the length of the war or the cost of the war. I just don’t — no one I know went out and said these are how those three metrics ought to be considered. And you can take it to the bank.

The truth is, Rumsfeld and other top administration officials made predictions on all three metrics. You can take that to the bank –

Length:

Rumsfeld, 2/7/03: “It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

Cheney, 3/16/03: “I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months“

Cost:

Daniels, 12/30/02: “The administration’s top budget [Mitch Daniels] official estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion… Mr. Daniels declined to explain how budget officials had reached the $50 billion to $60 billion range for war costs…” [New York Times, 12/31/02]

Casualties:

Q: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

Cheney: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. [Meet the Press, 3/16/03]

“I submit to you — and if you go on the internet and you look at the right-wing websites and compare them to the left-wing websites — that the far left in this country, the zealots — I mean these are zealots — are Nazis and this is what the Nazis did.” (Video at Crooks and Liars)