I am not the Administration. Nor was Gore part of this administration when he insisted that the Kyoto Protocol would not be put in front of the Senate until there was more accountability for growing economies.
And my point was, that there are better reasons than this to care for the environment that don't include Al Gore's unnecessarily exaggerated effects that even the ICAA in its worst case didn't promote.
If this were true then there would be no reasonable way for you to believe that the Rs would block such legislation. Bush may veto, but they are all "scrambling" to disassociate themselves with that, they'd help them overturn the veto. In fact if they are "swimming like mad" they may even propose the legislation themselves.
I already did. The ICAA reports, worst case, a rise in water levels of 23 inches. Al Gore promotes the much more excitable result of 20 feet "or more" in his movie.
Then their "scrambling" and "swimming" aren't true. You can't have it both ways.
Only by those who are doing what you promoted stopping in another thread. They attempt to keep it in what I call the "sideline" effect.
If they were "swimming desperately to avoid" and "desperate to evade" and all the things you said then they would not be "obstructing" this.