Not so much, apparently. How did Kerry not supporting Kyoto fly below the radar? Isn't Bush's rejection of Kyoto one the reasons that the lunatic fringe Progressives have such a rabid hatred of him? You know, the ones who think he clubs baby seals and is in favor of drilling in Alaska for oil just so he can pipe it direcly into the Arctic Sea? Don't tell the lunatics, but even this San Francisco paper finds itself in the uncomfortable circumstance of having to report facts that show Bush hasn't been the environmental disaster master he is painted to be:

More important, when Clinton left office in 2001, emissions were 14 percent higher than 1990 levels. Clearly Clinton was never serious about meeting the Kyoto goals. Clinton, no fool, knew how compliance with Kyoto would damage the U.S. economy.

Emissions have fallen during the Bush years to 11.5 percent higher than 1990 levels. Still, some environmentalists privately agree that it is not practical to expect the United States to meet the Kyoto goals -- although they believe Washington could do more to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.

Of course, in a impressive display of tortured logic, the author manages to still find fault with Bush and to make excuses for Kerry, as they endorse his love for nuance:

Kerry has been highly critical of Dubya's unapologetic rejection of Kyoto, which so incensed Our Betters in Europe.

In retrospect, I have to agree. President Bush could have just given the pact lip service -- as Clinton did -- and Europe would have been mollified. Or Bush could have sent the pact to the Senate, and watched both Democrats and Republicans reject it and take the heat of the (all-bow) international community. By being blunt, Bush unnecessarily alienated allies.

Ah, yes - let's return to an era of style over substance. If Bush had only lied about his intentions regarding Kyoto, France and Germany would surely be in Iraq, shoulder to shoulder with us, their beloved allies.