Great article! Just one question: given the type of President Bush is and given what the Democrats are offering, how can you be intellectually honest and say you don't know if you will vote for him??!! Really, what Democrat candidate has a single policy that you or me or anyone who leans to the right, would be comfortable with? Your piece summed up multiple reasons why we all should and will vote for him next year.

- R. Oresteen

There are other candidates. Sure, only Republicans and Demos have a chance. But a vote for a libertarian or other conservative party, if in enough numbers, might bring the Republicans back a bit to the right. Our children are going to have huge taxes now thanks to that prescription drug "benefit". And Bush is the one pushing for it. Not to mention massive deficits are back.

I'm not american, but i think there are many valid reasons for anyone to seriously dislike or hate bush. Mainly my problem with him after watching for a couple years now is that he bows to the polls day in and day out. You can watch his so-called policies shift with every new media event. But that is only what he says of course... which apparently doesn't have much to do with what he will actually decide. Ample of evidence of that is in his accouncement is which he declared that he was running for president (i know thats old news but its still the most black and white example of my statement). I could see how terrorism-related atrocties could change one's mind, especially for someone who is supposed to be the most powerful man in the world.

I believe that his decision making process is severely hampered by the people who helped him get elected to office; mostly right-wing hawks and pundits. You can basically tell whos personal mouthpeice he is for the day easily. I figure he owes much to these guys that got the funding and support of the republicans. Mainly Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Pearle, Paul Wolfowitz use him to grab whatever power they feel like. I would mention John Ashcroft, but he seems more like a tool to appeal to the so-called Christian Conservatives. Of course this is my opinion, but it seems apparent that once these guys got him to office and had the chance (major terror attack) they made sure he was doing the job they intended to have finished at the end of the first gulf war. These guys were seriously pissed at GWB's father. Of course for leaving iraq way too early (which i believe as well). Anything social of political they have contributed to is at a contrast with any of the values bush said he shared. I mean most of these guys waited 10+ years after having a plan to be able to carry it out. By that i speak of the book i think is called "America's new role in the 21st Century". Which is basically a vertex of the goals the extreme right-wing hawks and the values of a french philospher ( i again forget his name but i will look it up if anyone here does not know of which i speak) who inherited his views from the nazi's failed attempts of capturing europe. He did not support the genocide or anything like that but argued for control of the media and propaganda and ideas that only an elite few can know whats possibly good for all people. Thats were the idea of pre-emptive strikes come from. If you read the "America's new role in the 21st Century" you will see extreme parallels between the ideas of Wolfowitz and the historical documents of the nazi party in mobilizing a country into an offensive powerhouse. Now if you look at the measures the white house is still trying to get through congress the issues that they push the strongest are the same issues that Wolfowitz is trying to absolve of in his literature.

Now for bush, if you eliminate the specific ideas that come directly from wolfowitz, take out bush's ideas on military budget and defence spending based on what Pearle has lobbied on for the last 2 years you dont have bush ponying up for many strong issues with his own voice. Now i know that someone of his importance has to make sacrifices and comprimises. But does he have to comprimise to to the hawks, or bow out to the money every time. His biggest moral stance that i have seen was when he asked that the country pray. He seems to flip flop to much to hate him for any good reason but that reason itself. If you hate him your actually just hating the people that lobby to him, his military advisers, and the guys that got him there in the first place.

In my opinion if it wasn't him it could have been any other down-home sounding boy with a shit-eating grin and a couple dollars in the piggy bank. Also i dont think much of anything wrong in the states is much of his own fault since he obviously hasn't learned disipline or responsibilities from his upbringing. I believe it is more a shortfall of the democractic/capitalism ideology. Also i thought republican were all about making money and saving it, not blowing it on whatever will get the polls in their favor.

PCP, I think your comment is strengthening Draginol's stance. I wasn't able to follow any argument at all that you put forth for hating Bush. When you talk about "the people who put him there", I guess you are talking about his cabinet members. I think he has the best staff there could have been. Cheney, Powell, and Rice are incredible minds with diverse backgrounds. I think more highly of them than of GW.

When you say he waivers to polls, what example do you give?

I don't think all that highly of GW as a man. He is one of those guys I would have stayed away from in school. Rich, irresponsible partier. He seems like a good family man these days. He has a job that I would never want in a million years. People used to hope their child would grow up to be president. I certainly hope mine don't. Too many crazies out there with hate in their hearts that want to destroy or even kill the president.

I say again, as I say to most US issues, put up or shut up. If Americans don't like Bush, give us a better alternative. I don't see anyone doing that currently. They can whine all they want but it won't do a darn bit of good. I still think that people should respect their president whether they like him or not. By not respecting him, you disrespect the majority of your country too. Show how you feel at the polls, see how it turns out, if you don't like the result, do something to change it next time. In the meantime, be respectful.

As a non American I have a very different view of Bush. What I see in particular are his international policies and in this area he is particulary weak. Let me give some examples

- Terrorism - This has been Bush's major foreign policy, but many countries feel it's been lost. The war against Iraq was not about terrorism. There was NO link ever proven between Iraq and terror. Terrorism is now being used as an excuse. It's sad when you look back at old news reels and see the arguments changing month by month. There were many good reasons to invade Iraq, but terrorism was not one of them. If Bush was serious about Terrorism he would have finished the work in Afganistan and worked on a middle east peace plan first instead of diverting resources to Iraq. I do agree that this is a war that has to be won, but Iraq will now seriously lengthen this war by creating years more hatred to overcome.

- NATO - Bush blocks every attempt by the EU to form a defense force. Why? Because he does not want it detracting from NATO. It makes European countries feel like they are states of the US with no right to their own defense policies. Maybe he should accept that the EU has a right to have it's own defense force and just ensure that it's well integrated with Nato?

- Economics - Whatever about internal American economics (which doesn't affect me), Bush's international economic policies have been very protectionism and anti-free trade. Bush is days away from a major trade war on steel tariffs, and only 2 months away from an even bigger Government tax incentive trade war. These policies are likely to cause severe damage to the world economy. I do agree with you point about China though, it's doing the same thing worldwide. The US needs to band together with the EU and submit a complaint to the WTO. That's what it's for!

- Rule of Law - One of the major causes for non Americans to dislike Bush is his polices on global emissions and the Kyoto accord. Over 100 hundred countries have ratified this accord but the US refused to either ratify or be bound by it. The US agreed to international laws on these issues and then just flaunts them when they don't suit. How can anyone every trust the US when they know that the rule of law means nothing to the US on the international scene? The same is true for the international court of human rights. Not only does the US refuse to accept it (despite being a signatory to treaties which should force it to accept it) it actively tries to bribe countries to exempt US servicemen from prosecution.

I have no reason to hate Bush. But his international polices generate a complete lack of respect. I have no respect for someone who thinks the world is their personal sandbox and makes no effort to get along with other nations.

Maybe Bush is jsut what America needs. I don't care, but if his international policies don't change America will suffer from major backlash in international opinion.

Paul.

Terrorism:
The war in Iraq is about terrorism. Just not in the way you're thinking. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, true. But the "root cause" of terrorism is Islamic extremism coming from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, an Egypt. What country is right in the middle there? Iraq. IF the United States can put together a stable democratic country with liberal (classic liberal) ideals then it may serve as an example to other countries in the region on how their people might find a better way to live rather than wanting to kill westerners.

NATO: I don't think Bush or the US would have a problem with a seperate EU force IF the NATO members were pulling their own weight. But as it is, the US is the one pulling almost all the weight so it's kind of insulting for the EU to go and try to have a second military force. The EU should either support NATO or get rid of it and pay their own damn share of the military cost.

Economics: This is propaganda. Bush put a modest steel tarriff up. How can any European complain about that when Europe has the most protective farm policies in the world?

Kyoto: Failed before Bush become President. Same with the ICC. These are two examples of where people are grasping at excuses to hate Bush. Neither Kyoto or the ICC would have passed congress and the ICC would have been illegal to boot. Kyoto would have damaged the US economy while exempting the world's largest growing polluter - China. Kyoto was, simply put, a joke.

There is no such thing as international law in some binding sense unless a country willingly signs over to it. The US didn't ratify Kyoto or the ICC. Therefore it is not bound to them. It's as simple as that. Given the experience of the UN, the US is smart to work to ensure that its people are not affected by the ICC.

I don't see any way for the United States to "suffer" international backlash because I don't see Europe as being actually serious on these issues. Just chattering. And realistically, it's basically Europe that's leading the anti-Bush nonsense.

Jill User : he obviously did not get help from the 3 you mention to get him elected. I am talking about where his fundraising comes from and people who wrote his speechs, devised his war-strategies, and spread through propaganda through his public office. Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Richard Pearle, Paul Wolfowitz. All neo-conservatives in their late fifties that have been bitter and hostile since Bush Sr. Left office. Even before that.

hey! george bush is doing a good job. what if you bacame prez and the 9-11 thing happened??? what would you do? i think that he did a good job with all.

Draginov : as for economics go , the first thing they did after iraq was "successfully" captured was change the oil trade dollar from the euro to american dollars which iraq had changed 2 years ago. I'd actually say that withstanding the economy is probably better for iraqi's then it has been in years.

But on a global scale of economics this is bad for every single country but the united states and possibily any of those within nafta. A huge economic problem that has yet to be payed due attention is america's problem with writing blank cheques. Basically after WWII American Currency had become the stablest currency from lending much money and raw materials, weapons of war to countries throughout europe. America's help in the war was not without a fee. (thats the reason for the so-called Pearl-Harbor conspiracy in which the general in charge of the fleet that was later destroyed by the japanese was told to either keep his ships there or resign. Any good navel commander would see that keeping their ships in such close proximity to japanese planes' range was a surefire way to attract an attack. Especially less thes 10 days after cutting their oil supply. Before this time many american's at home did not want to be involved in a war. But the easy attack of the japanese gave the pro-war people in the us a good reason to enter the war; and now they could begin to establish the military-defense powerhouse and drop a few nukes to show everyone who was in charge. Now as i said earlier, after the war thanks to the help they received much of europe was in debt to the USA. Either way to stop the nazi's europe needed canada and american's help.

So now with America being the only dominant country that wasn't a dictatorship they had the stablest economy in the world. A position that before WW2 was held in europe. Now fast-foward to the formation of OPEC in 1972 and they people had to decide on what i believe in called a De-nero currency which is should be based on the stablest currency. So then oil was traded in American dollar. A dollar is basically just a cheque that says the (american) tresury owes you one. If all oil is to be sold in american currency, then of course the rest of world is going to sell their products for that same currency. This produces an ease of trade. Now if everyone is always buying and selling products using the american cheques, that means the cheques are not going to come back to the united states. Now add that to the emerging competition coming from countries due to globalisation and couple that with the horrible state of the stock market 2 years ago and the USA has a major problem on its hands. The treasury theoretically could print any amount of money between 1972 and 2000 and not have to worry about the ramifications of that. If read a fine paper like the economist or any other global money mag you'll find that american money could inflate in value and virtually have no consequence to the domestic economy there.

Now in 2000/2001 the European Union was gaming steam and soon they had their own currency, which was deemed ok to use as a standard with opec. Now this leaves the states in a very precarious position. What is going to happen with all this money thats been floating around the globe for the last 30 or so odd years? We'll its going to come back. That begins with deflation of the value of the dollar - which has been going on since about halfway through 2001. This is only 1 major reason for the economical problems the US is now facing. Now myself and many other foreigners believe that economics are the main reason for most stuff. It's sad but outsiders seldom are able to see attacks on iraq and afganistan as only revenge attacks. We see revenge on terror everyday in israel. It is not the same thing going on in iraq.

With iraq back in the oil trading game with the american dollar as its trading currency the US is once again in the power position. Venezula (sp?) is a good example of what i am talking about. Soon after the formation of a new european currency venezual's president soon announced they, they 3rd (i believe) largest oil producer in the world would swtich over to it as well. Now what do you see in the American media after this guys statment? You see major strike-ups and protest's against him with nbc and cnn broadcasting the opinions of the unions down there as true. Now the unions that led these people to strike against a president that was elected by 60% of the people (the poor) were union leaders based in the states. In any other part of the world you could see this was obviously bogus. The south amerian countries need to do anything they can to get their countries out of poverty and political corruptness. Now if you take the idea of the millionare corporate strategist's in washington trying to sway their power over this relatively small oil producing country you could see what was at stake in iraq. Now if these guys are contributing the funds to bush i wonder what they want in return? Now im not a sucker for the democrats either (which are not left-wing at all), cause they are willing to bend over backwards for so much as a dollar in their name. Just look at Dennis K. ties with the e-vote companies for info on that.

Now even if you dont beleive any of the shit about the american dollar and european dollar fighting for control of the market look at this so-called defence spending being done under GWB's good name. Do a favour for yourself and find the top contributors to GWB , and the companies that the neo-conservative's run as well as their ties to various forgein and domestic factions of mercanaries. If you look at the correlations between the people that pay money for these guys to run for office, the companies they represent and the kind of defense solutions such as guns, new forms of mobile artillery units, and he money that is spent on these programs. It's a little to close for comfort between all of these guys. Richard pearle is a great example of that. If you dont know who he is or what his background is, and you're arguing about this topic i suggest you go and read so right and left wing publications about him. But stay away from anything conrad black owns such as the Jerusalem Post and so forth because they both sit on the board of directors of many of the same publications and companies. Take a look at http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/26/perle/index_np.html for a good read on him. Now try and find other any non left leaning papers against him and express an opinion of himself. Kind of funny that he works on the Defence Policy board but also is the chairman of a company that produces weapons that are recomended by the DPB. That's just another example of how bush doesn't represent himself.

Now as far as "Cheney, Powell, and Rice" being superb people to run a country i suggest you are joking, or maybe ill-advised. Now rice has been reduced to a job of denying, denying, denying. NO bush didnt do that, no we arent responible. She had a chance to be great but now she will just be remembered as another beurocrat afraid to stand on her own two feet for feer of falling to the bottom. Cheney is a pure business man and if you find any examples of him doing actual good with his job then state it here. Now i really feel sorry for powell forced to wreck every alliance he has ever created with the foreign powers. He says he "can't read this bullshit", but i think he has shown time and time again that he is very good at reading bullshit, especially term papers based on the posilbility of yemen selling iraq uranium. A report that was reported as false by the IAEA within a day of him stating that. Now you think the white house could have found out of that at least a day before they went to the UN with that 'damning evidence'. But no, they dont care if people know its real. Thats all you can really say for what powell has done in the last 2 years. Could have been a great president, but with his relations in tatters would you want him to represent america to foreign powers?

Now i think the best reason to really hate bush, especially if i was american aside from all his help in letting people like his good friend kenny lay get away with fleacing an entire cities (ok enron) pension plan away from the people on the bottom who earned it, aside from all of that shit that so easy to pin on him. The reason to really dislike or hate him is that he is a traitor. He gave away an american diplomat's wife's identity as that of a CIA agent. Now that fighter for democracy and all that is good (i hold a very high esteem of your cia, and fbi) has his wife and anyone else in his family at risk. Now this is an issue that no one will like, the right or the left. But it isn't going to go away soon. If you dont know what im talking about in this last paragraph you should feel morally obligated to read about it if you support this man. He betrayed one your own and didnt so much as think a second thought about it. Throw away all the corporate misfunding, his youth hoolaganism, his mismanagment of the tax breaks and poor if any kind of handling of economic policies and even his view on the war or anything do with terrorism, and you still have left the one valid reason to hate him. His betraying of a Diplomat and his CIA-agent wife.

if you dont want to read that entire comment just read the last paragraph. thats all that really matters.

The hypocrisy of this is astonishing. Because right-wingers didn't care for Clinton's personality, they decried him as being a terrible president, even though crime rates and unemployment went down, terrorist plots were foiled, and our economy boomed. My father, a lowly blue collar man, even enjoyed his first pay raise in 12 years. But for a left-wing to dislike Bush's personality, and decry him as a poor president because crime rates and environmental pollution have been driven up, while major oversights lead to the success of the attacks on 9/11, and the middle-class becoming but a vapor due to the tax cuts... well thats just too much, isn't it?

Draginol,
to reply to your response.

- terrorism. As I said there were many good reasons to invade Iraq and setting up a stable democracy in the middle east is definitely one of them. Pity Bush wouldn't admit that as the truth instead of WMD excuses and terrorism links, my respect for him might then increase a bit. It's the lies and constant alterior motives to those stated that leave no trust (even if those alterior motives may be good ones).

- Nato. Bush clearly stated in the UK last week his opposition to a EU defence force. He felt it detracted from Nato. The problem with Nato is that the US and the EU have totally different views on what it's size and strength and use should be. Many countries in the EU want a force of their own design which they can then send on whatever peace keeping missions they see as important. We all know that the US spends more on defense and has a greater military focus to diplomancy than the EU. Why should the EU have to meet the US's requirement of 'support' for Nato. This is the exact problem and your comments on this just enforce the point.

- economics. How can you say this is just propaganda. What planet do you live on? Do you honestly believe that China, Brazil, India, Russia and the EU are all overreacting. The steel tariffs of 30% are only the tip of the iceberg. That's but 2.2 billion dollars in tariffs from the EU. The US is looking at 40 billion US dollars in WTO approved relalitary tariffs worldwide by the end of next year over a wide range of seperate issues. Wake up, there is a world outside of the US and it's very angry with Bush.

- Kyoto. Kyoto has not failed. Over 100 countries have not only ratified the treaty but are trying hard to meet the goals (various levels of success and failure). Same with the ICC, it is up and running.

- Law. By international law (which the US has indeed ratified within the auspices of the UN) both the Kyoto acccord and the ICC are legally binding on ALL countries once ratified by agreed upon majorities. The ICC has reached this level and is in place, the Kyoto agreement is awaiting on the US or Russia to ratify to come into force. For the US to ignore these but still abide by the same laws giving it a security council seat and veto rights, not to mention trade agreements is hypocracy. These laws exist. Go read about them.

Bottom line is no-one on the planet can trust anything Bush says as he's willing to ignore international treaties when it suits him. I had not realised how sheltered you are in the US to honesty believe that the economic issues are just propaganda and that the US has no internation law obligations. Wow.

Paul.

"Throw away all... and you still have left the one valid reason to hate him. His betraying of a Diplomat and his CIA-agent wife."

And where the hell did you find out that Bush himself leaked this information (which, whoever did it, was harmless anyway since the woman is an analyst at CIA headquarters--NOT AN AGENT)? It's pretty sad that your "one valid reason to hate him" is a beaten//dead horse that never panned out to anything, and eventually dropped from the news because THERE WAS NOTHING TO IT to deserve all the damn fuss.

good job assgfdss, i have no idea where pcp got that info but he must be high.

um. your commander and cheif shouldn't be such an ingrate that he even has to deal with problems like the one i mentioned about the cia agent.