Would flip-flopping on a campaign pledge sound better?

It's sort of an uphill struggle that wingnuts like to engage in every so often in defense of Bush's global warming policy when they try to maneuver responsibilty for "rejecting" the Kyoto protocol away from Bush to the 1997 Sense of the Senate resolution. Captain Ed reitterates this today:

Once again, the AP has failed to report the history of this treaty correctly. While Bush does not support the Kyoto approach, he had nothing to do with rejecting the pact. The Senate rejected it in 1997, almost four years before Bush took office. When Al Gore pushed Bill Clinton to sign the treaty, the Senate reacted by passing a resolution informing Clinton that Kyoto would not get ratified.

While we're nit-picking around, uhm, the Senate didn't actually reject Kyoto either because it was never brought to them for a vote.

What Bush did do, however, was refuse to work on Kyoto altogether. A number of Senators aren't around anymore (it's now 10 years after the resolution and Democrats have the majority) and we really don't know how the Senate would respond to Kyoto today. Bush, however, is still the decider and thus it's technically more accurate to describe Bush as rejecting Kyoto.