It has been obvious to many who have not visited the region as well.
In a different context, a 2 state solution has been tried before (read: India/Pakistan). It does not solve any problems, and rapidly degenerates into a 3 state (Bangladesh) and eventually into multiple states. Neither India, nor Pakistan are free of centrifugal forces.
American interests are served by reduced CO2 emissions in the world. And so, Bush's deal did serve American interests. But I will admit that you have been ideologically petrified into a state where that can never be regognized, and are therefore entitled to spew nonnsense.
Either that, or perhaps you have trouble accepting that global warming is linked to CO2 emissions.
So, what you are saying is that while Russian and Chinese (or French, whatever) companies could work without liability clauses, American companies need special protection that should have been negotiated in advance ?
Perhaps you are not aware that the larger issue is some certifications that the Obama administration needs to issue. Seems like you are fairly well connected there...perhaps you should take it up with them.
The agreement is an excellent deal for all CO2 emitting nations...because it means India will emit less CO2 in the next 20 years. I thought that point should have been obvious to everyone ~ it was even obvious to Bush.
Actually, the US needs to lean on itself, to allow US companies to bid for the nuclear plants in India. There are certain steps that the US (read: Obama administration) needs to take before that can happen. You could perhaps also point to a lack of a nuclear liabiliy bill in India (somethign which is being corrected now), which American companies do not like. In any case, I am not sure how that constitutes a FAIL, but if it does, I am not sure how that constitutes a FAIL for Bush.
And, I would be very interested in any sourcing you can provide on Chinese nuclear reactors in Indian.
Because, you know... that would be strange (to say the least).
Let us compare this to Bush's signature achievements.
(a) Clear Skies Initiative
(b) Healthy Forests Initiative
(c) No child left behind
(d) Middle Class Tax Cuts
(e) Dept of Homeland Security
Of course, the picture changes when you look at the details behind the pseudonyms, doesn't it.
Obama's list is similar. Take credit card reform, for instance. It prevents credit card companies from interest rate gouging....unless they send you a written notice on a piece of mail that can resemble junk mail, and you opt out by replying via US Mail using very specificv language.
Recently, I heard a fairly unique (and insightful, in my opinion) description of the problem by a very savvy tech investor from HongKong.
The crux of the problem is that there is a huge mismatch of savings between the US and the far-east (overconsumption/undersaving in the US, underconsumption/oversaving in China etc). This gives rise to a giant pool of (saved up) money that will wreak havoc, no matter how tight the regulations are, and how good the regulators are. Money does not like to sit around without collecting interest, so this money will find clever (i.e., financial innovation that is always one step ahead of the regulations) ways to securitize things that will result in "sham" growth.
The growth is sham because at the end of the day, you cannot create value in excess of GDP growth; it is far easier to create sham value (i.e., bubbles) and pull out before the markets collapse.
And so, while firing the regulators and tightening up the regulations may make us feel good, it will not do one bit to alter the underlying problem...