I'm interested to know what people (especially residents outside of the U.S.) think about President Bush. As an American, I am ashamed to call him our president. I think he gives the impression that the U.S. is populated by a bunch of hick-cowboys. He has dangerously blurred the lines between the separation of church and state. The economy has struggled. He has absolutely no environmental programs in place. He has sent us into a war (in which we are spending nearly $1 billion per week on) under false pretenses. Here's one point that I haven't seen brought up before, and I just can't get it to add up. If Saddam didn't have WMD (and evidently he did not) why was he so reluctant to let weapons inspectors into his country?

Anyway, I know that Americans are pretty split over Bush. His approval rating for the last several months has hovered at just over 50%. I'm looking for opinions from other countries. What do you people think about the U.S., the war in Iraq, and specifically the president?

As a citizen of a weasel nation ;) I will make this short and sweet.
I fear Bush and his buddies have damaged Americas image in the world to no end. They continue to do so.
Insulting and alienating close allies, breaking international law, fooling around with the fragile unity of Europe, Guantanamo (the way the prisoners are treated there disgusts me), disregard for international treaties, the UNO and the International Court in Den Haag, Kyoto Protocol - it goes on and on.

It is so sad how he and his administration managed in no time to turn the global sympathy and support for the US after 9/11 into resentment by showing little to no skill in diplomacy and replacing it with arrogant behaviour.

And his quite scarry religious impetus is the very last thing we (the western world) need at a time in which the islamic world feels threatened in its traditional way of life. :(

Needless to say I have been against the recent war.

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000033#000000

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000098#000000

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000245#000005

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000341#000000

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000344#000000

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000420#000000

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000425#000000

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000455#000001

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000504#000000

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000523#000000

Edit - there are 150 topics dealing with Bush according to a quick search. The above are just some about him, no rhyme or reason as to why they were picked, that may answer your question.

Thanks Laches. I read through those posts. I wasn't necessarily looking to see all those anti-Bush comments though. I know the arguements that people make against him, and I agree with nearly all of them. What I want to know - and you don't necessarily get this from the newspapers, and other media - is what public opinion is of Bush in foreign countries. Not necessarily individual people's opinions, although they are certainly welcome to share. What do people in Canada, Europe, etc. think about Bush? Not individually necessarily, but as a whole?

Well, as your closest neighbour, Canada is probably one of your more sympathetic allies. We didn’t join the Iraq invasion, and even though I personally agreed with this, there were a lot of Canadians who thought we should have shown support for our “best friend”. Canada/U.S. relations are currently not the greatest; this is due in part by our decision on Iraq, but also in part to our idiotic prime minister’s seemingly total lack of ability when it comes to foreign diplomacy. Good thing he's resigning some time in the next 2 months.

Having said that, I think Canadians in general feel about the current administration much the same as everyone else – they are screwing up left, right and centre. The arrogance, ass-covering and incompetence being displayed is astounding. We don’t, however, extend those negative sentiments to the country in general, and certainly not to its citizens.

Ah, I see. I'm not sure if these sort of get what you're looking for:

The Forsa poll found 57% of Germans held the opinion that "the United States is a nation of warmongers".

Only 6% said they thought President George W Bush was concerned with "preserving peace".

There is a bit in there about the opinion on Bush:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2747175.stm

Unlike some others, I think that opinion on America in general is linked to opinion regarding the administration. I know there seems to be a strong correlation between decreasing poll numbers regarding the US and Bush at the same time. I believe there is a causal connection there as well. Despites some protests to the contrary - I think what the world says about the US in general is tied to what it thinks about Bush in the world's mind.

And, here is another:

Consider this: an opinion poll, taken a few days ago, asked people in Britain: who is the greatest threat to world peace: George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein? 45 percent said Saddam Hussein. No surprise there. But, get this, another 45 percent said George W. Bush.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/03/uttm/main542472.shtml

In short, I think the world doesn't like Bush. Part of that is justifiable and part of it isn't (he wasn't liked by some way before he had a chance to do anything for example because he hadn't toured through Europe for example; to me, it isn't particularly relevant whether a Pres has been to Europe prior to election particularly if he's spending time dealing with his neighbor Mexico but that's neither here nor there).

So, the world doesn't like Bush. And tied to that, it doesn't particularly like America. According to the polls and this forum anyways.

quite right Laches. I think one of the reasons is that most european countries from a default point of view, is against war except for under enforced circumstances.

Generalized I guess I don't like Americans, because the image I see of that people as a group is the image of their leader, Bush. Now, Bush I never liked in the first place (democrat here), and I thought Afghanistan war was understandable, and to some point acceptable as cause and reason pretty much went hand in hand.

Then came the Iraq situation, and the cause and reasoning no longer seemed to make quite as much sense as previously. Which, from my perspective, makes the US as a nation lose a great deal of credibility.

Though the most americans I know "personally" over the net are the greatest bunch I've ever "met" :)

My personal idea of Bush.. a Texan Gunslinger.

I can give you a very general take on how Canadian perceive political figures and whatnot south of the border. Even then, its subject to great variety, exceptions, and individualities.

Canadians often express dissatisfaction with the leaders of the day. But we often draw some sort of consolation when we look southwards and realize things could be worse. Not to be insulting to American friends or anything, but I'm merely stating what I've observed.

Towards the end of his days as Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau was almost universally resented as a dismissive, high-handed and arrogant s.o.b. Nowadays, I totally respect the man as an intellectual and idealist of the highest order, flaws and all. But Canadians could look southwards and say, "Hey, at least we don't have Nixon."

Chretien is consigning himself to a similar fate. And yet Canadians still draw consolation from the fact that Chretien still isn't anywhere near Bush's class.

All around, I think Canadians for the most part look upon Bush as a source of amusement. Sort of like a mime show, or candid camera all on one person. Admittedly, the amusement is more easily felt for not being south of the border. But, from ongoing discussions that I've particpated in or listened to at a distance, we just don't take him seriously. He's seen more as a clown than a president.

A friend of mine once sent me an e-mail where photographs of Bush are shown alongside pictures of Chimpanzees such that the facial expressions are all but identical. Wow did I ever laugh my *** off!!

Bush for me is one the worst nation leaders ever. He managed to take a pretty good stance of the whole world towards USA to trash with just one move war without logic in Iraq. Maybe he is not able to keep up the standards of previous presidents, maybe he is just a puppet maybe he lacks brain, there can be a number of reasons for his failure. But his general attitude shows to me a guy who has a complex (best his father) and this complex is his nemesis. I want to say that my thoughts and feelings about Bush do not extend to the rest of the USA citizens, allthough i do hate the fact that the media manipulation have made a lot of US citizens see the world from a point of view i find terrifying. But again they are not to blame.
If Saddam didn't have WMD (and evidently he did not) why was he so reluctant to let weapons inspectors into his country?

I have a pretty good answer for this. If you remember the first weapons inspectors were forced to leave Iraq under the accusation of spying. More speciffically Saddam feared (maybe he had good reasons for this) that some guys that were there as weapons inspectors were undermining his regime and planned to topple him. He had said that there were USA spies within their ranks. He may have been right he may have been wrong, we will never learn, but i have heard in the news last week that a couple of months before the invasion he tried to contact USA administration giving nearly everything they wanted (as he did publicly by accepting any demand President Bush stated publicly too). He was hooked with his chair and was willing to do anything needed to keep the reigns of Iraq or at the worst (for him scenario) to be able to flee without the fear of having always someone hunting him. Anyway in the story the middleman was an American- Arab bussinesman who said on the TV that indeed he understood that the Iraqie side was pretty sincere and was willing to reach an agreement but Perle dismissed the whole issue without second thought.

I've been living in Europe for some time. To coin a phrase, the party is definitely over for Americans here.

Well, most of you probably know this already, but by all estimates here, Bush will probably win re-election next year, meaning we could be stuck with this guy through 2008. The United States does not have a constitution like Canada or Britain that allows for our President (or Prime Minister as the case may be) to be quickly replaced. Barring an impeachment (which requires the President to do something illegal), the President is there for four years after being elected. Sadly, moronic leadership does not qualify as a crime.

For those of you who are wondering why someone with the track record of Bush would get re-elected, I'll give you two reasons:

1. The economy after three sluggish years is finally turning around. The biggest indicator of whether or not a president gets re-elected is the state of the economy. The average person doesn't give a rat's ass about what's going on in Iraq if he can't find a job to support his family. So, if more people are finding jobs, and relate the improved economy to Bush's economic strategies, he will likely be re-elected.

2. He will probably wait until just before the fall elections (sometime next summer) to bring the troops home. The war is becoming less and less popular in the U.S., which is typical. Citizens of the U.S. are usually very supportive of a war, and even a high number of casualties in a war if they clearly understand what the war is accomplishing. However, I don't think anyone has a clear idea about what is going on in Iraq. If the goal is to set a government up in Iraq, and then get out, I can see no real progress in the last several months towards that goal - and that's why the war is unpopular. We don't mind sending our boys over to foreign shores, and understand that in war casualties are unavoidable. However, we don't accept seeing our soldiers die for what appears to be no reason.

Regardless, Bush will probably be president after next year.

Aldeth, I'm hoping you're wrong.

There is no realistic end in sight for this war, so if he pulls out early to sway voters, we'll be pretty well screwed internationally. As of now, they have no exit strategy they're discussing publicly. If they do pull out early, somebody's going to get screwed. But as long as the American people are pacified for the moment, somehow I don't think this will matter and Bush's numbers will go up.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CA01

Also, his approval ratings are about 50% right now and falling, despite the recent reports of economic growth and him taking total credit for it. Also, in the same recent poll I read (can't find the source) about 52% of voters said they WOULD NOT re-elect Bush, despite a lightly higher percentage who approve of the job he's doing. This says to me that even those who back him now think we deserve someone better.

And we do.

This says to me that even those who back him now think we deserve someone better.
I'm not so sure. Look at it this way - his numbers are where they were just before 9/11. There was a surge of support similar to the surge that occurs in any nation (UK is a good example) and now that surge has returned to where it was. It isn't that he is losing his supporters - it's that he's losing those people who were momentary supporters due to 9/11 but probably wouldn't have voted for him anyways. For example, he has 89% approval amongst Republicans still, 54% approval among Independents, and 23% approval among Dems. I suspect the drop has occurred with the Dems and to a lesser extent the independents.

One interesting thing to me from the poll numbers is the apparent development of a "9/11 generation" as I've seen it termed. Those Americans aged 18-29 have more favorable views of Bush than do Americans over the age of 30. Also, the 18-29 year olds have a higher support of the war. Another interesting trend is that there is a disappearing gender gap with the female support of the 'war on terror' and approval question within the margin of error of the men.

If the democrats lose their advantage with women it could spell trouble.

Some reasons for this I've heard are that with attacks in America women now see a more immediate threat where in the past they did not. Women tend to be more 'security' concerned than men and they now perceive a real threat. Also, with the younger group of 18-29 year olds 9/11 has become a defining event and there is no memory of Vietnam to obsess upon.

The birth of the South Park Republicans I've heard them called.

Here are some polls:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031105.asp

here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/ContentServer?pagename=polls&nextstep=chooseQuestion&interactive=n&searchPollId=2003300&pollType=National&questCategoryType=n&newsearch=&questCategory=&keyword=&pollDateRange=&startingRow=1)

[ November 14, 2003, 17:33: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

From the experience I have had with the people around here the most noticeable feeling people have concerning Bush II is disbelief. People just cant understand how a person that he can run the most powerful entity ever on the face of this planet. Heck, I stop and look behind the jokes made about Bush II the laughter dies in my throat. Bush II and his admnistration scares me, I was not fond of Clinton and American presidents are generally not very popular around here but those guys were atleast politicians, people you could understand if not agree with.
I do put a lot of the blame on the 9/11 attacks, those acts of terror brought out the worst in an administration with a very old fashioned and paranoid view of the world, even if some people in the administration (Wolfowitz) had been praying for a new Pearl Harbour so he could try out his theories on the international stage.
Bush II himself isnt really the problem, he is more or less just a recovering alcoholic and possible drugaddict who found religion and got his life somewhat straight but he had a name and that was all that matters.

Do you all think we will see Jeb for president 2008? George should repay the favour Jeb did him in the -00 election.

Some of the analysts here say he wont be re-elected. But things tend to turn out in an unpleasant way. So it will be Bush again. Depressing.

I would like to know why the US population would vote for him?

Economy is pretty much its own beast, if you know what I mean. Governments have little influence on it. They get bashed if it stagnates, of course, and will try to take credits when it prospers. Its understandable, not accurate. All they do is increase/decrease tendencies by making some right/wrong decisions. At least thats how I understand it.

More importantly - dont the US folks care about the way he messes with friends? Crappy foreing policy anyone?
Now, we are not the US but if our chancelor would endanger good relations with other nations like that he would be twisting in the winds real soon.

What about the false accusation of WMD in Iraq? He started a war because of this! All who had reservations about WMD and concernces about the aftermath of the war found themself labeled as wussies. When looking at Iraq today everyone who had reservations was right.

Doesnt the US care at all??
If thats the case then it reflects very poorly on a major part that society. :(

[ November 14, 2003, 18:21: Message edited by: Dendri ]

More importantly - dont the US folks care about the way he messes with friends? Crappy foreing policy anyone?
Now, we are not the US but if our chancelor would endanger good relations with other nations like that he would be twisting in the winds real soon.Heh. Then why isn't Shroeder twisting in the wind because he endangered good relations with the US? Because you happen to agree with what he did. Those that like Bush believe he did the right thing, and the price to be paid is acceptable.

What about the false accusation of WMD in Iraq? He started a war because of this!First there were no false accusations. Iraq had them in the past, and was quite capable of quickly making more any time they wanted to. Second, the war was not started solely because of WMDs. If it were, the US would have to be at war with quite a few nations including itself. Those that support Bush support his decision to invade Iraq for the many reasons that it was deemed necessary.

Hm, I do not know, really, but I think maybe the situation is similar to the UK. The oppisition party, in this case the Tories, is just lying around in pieces, not able to do anything. That is, the tories just are weak for internal reasons and try to reform themselves, but just seem not to be able to do it. So I think it is of nearly no importance how bad Blair ever would look, because there's no chance for the Tories to gain anything from it as long as they are in "turbulence". And the lib-dems are still to small. So...

I think maybe it's the same in the US. It does not matter how bad Bush would look, there are propably too many voters for which the democrats are no viable option at all, i.e. there is nearly no working oposition. And as there's no noteworthy third-party, it would propably be quiet an unbelievable trick to pull for Bush to be not voted into office again.

@ Blackthorne

I dont get what you are trying to say here. Or maybe I do. Its a matter of perspective.

But: Bush (with his head full of funny ideas and dubious people like Perle & Wolfowitz 'advising' him) feels like some 'Gods chosen', goes against the UNO and int. law, implementing pre-emptive strike tactics and its Schröder, by refusing to give into this foolish adventure, who endangers something? Sure. That makes sense. "Do what you are being told or face the consequences"

That is a way to treat underlings, BTA, not equals. And some would do well to remember that.

By the way, not the disagreement between Bush and Chiraq/Schröder was so unheard of. The US and Europe have clashed on other occaisons, too. Rather all the insults and name calling are new. Remember Rumsfeld?

>Edit< Well, there are Americans who see things like Bush does and deem the displayed treatment of international opposition as adequat. Probably enough for another Presidency. That answeres my question, in a way.

[ November 14, 2003, 19:55: Message edited by: Dendri ]

@ Dendri

Maybe what BTA means is stuff like this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2923559.stm

Remember, you just said governments have very little effect on the economy.

I knew about the above off the top of my head because we talked about it a long time ago. Bush deserves more than a small portion of blame in the worsening diplomatic relationships between the US and abroad. But it is naive to think that it has been a one way street.

Actually, he's OK IMO and not as bad as I thought he would be. When he was first elected I thought he was just going to be some right wing clown, but then 9/11 happened which really tested him as a statesman. His response was both mature and restrained. He clearly stated that the enemy were international terrorists and not muslims and he condemned without reservation attacks on American muslims.

Afghanistan as a country had been completely subverted by Al-Qaeda for its own ends. Al-Qaeda paid the bills, and their Taliban allies did whatever they were asked. The allied war was swift and crushing and removed possibly the most reprehensible regime in the world. Americans and Britons should be proud of this achievement, not ashamed.

As for Iraq, I personally was surpised that no WMD were found, given that Saddam carried on his WMD programs under the noses of weapon inspectors during the 1990s. But who cares anyway? For once in our lives, some democratic governments were willing to act to depose a tyrant. The worst dictators should no longer feel safe to act as they please within their own borders. That they were able to do so until now was a legacy of cynical cold war politics, where the Soviet Union and US each had their client despots. A world without Saddam, his sons and his generals is a brighter place. America and her allies are still fighting an insurgency in Iraq, but don't imagine that it's a popular one. I'm certain that the Iraqis will be damned glad to see the back of the Americans, British and the rest - who wouldn't be? - but I'm equally certain that they will embrace liberty if given the chance.

As for his economic policies, they're standard rightwing stuff as far as I can tell (lower taxes, reduced government spending, etc.). Good reason to vote him out of office if you don't agree with them, but no good reason to hate him.

Remember: you live in a democracy; if you despise your president just vote against him.

@ Laches

I have been editing my post before I saw your answer. :)

On topic:
You are right. And I never said that the governments opposing the war havent made mistakes.

But what did you expect? Bush rushed this war, saying that no matter what others (UNO, Europe) want - this is whats going to happen. He pushed Schröder & Chiraq to the wall. Then there were these outrageous comments of some of his administration.

Dont you think they had this NO WAY-attitude because of the blatant arrogance that was shown?

I know that the US is the current power of the globe but it was not very smart to be so obvious about it. That is what diplomacy is about.

@BTA

True, WMD were not the ONLY reason the U.S. went to war with Iraq, but they were the MAJOR reason. We were told that Iraq posed an immediate threat to U.S. interests and those of our allies due to the development of biological, chemical, and possibly nuclear weapons. My job is as a chemist for the DoD, and I work on the Elimination of Chemical Weapons Program. And I can tell you, dead as leather, that WMD were the main reason. In fact, there was talk about the possibility of sending consultants in after the war to help destroy/neutralize these weapons they were supposed to have.

That's another thing that annoys me. The spin-doctors that the Bush administration has become. Now we went to war in Iraq "to liberate the Iraqi people from an oppressive dictatorial regime". Puh-lease. Tell me the people of the U.S. don't have that short a memory. There are many dictatorial regimes in the world, many of which are a hell of a lot closer than Iraq, many of which would be a whole lot easier to topple that Iraq, and we don't do a damn thing about them. The only item beyond WMD that was a reason to go to war with Iraq was supposed connection between Iraq and terrorists, which have also been proved to be false.

As for his economic policies, they're standard rightwing stuff as far as I can tell (lower taxes, reduced government spending, etc.). One of the reasons Bush may lose some Independents is because he has only paid lip service to some of the above. Of course there have been tax breaks. However, over the last two years the government has grown by 27% according to some preliminary estimates. During the last fiscal year federal discretionary spending grew by 12.5%. Now, there is the war of course. But, non-military discretionary spending is up 8.7%. This doesn't sit particularly well with some fiscal conservatives who, other than abortion folks, may be the largest single issue voting block around.

Libertarians for example (small 'l' not big 'L') generally have the option of eating **** sandwich A or **** sandwich B. Either way they have to eat **** but sometimes one sandwich has more bread to cover the taste with. In the last election, Bush was the **** sandwich with more bread. This election he may lose the prized title of 'best tasting **** sandwich in town.' Libertarians (small 'l' not large 'L') make up a significant part of the Independent voting block and if the election is as close as the last one may actually influence the result if they're sufficiently tired of Bush's **** and want to try someone else's ****. Sometimes I look at the possibilities and I say - Oh ****.

Edit for Aldeth:

That's another thing that annoys me. The spin-doctors that the Bush administration has become. Now we went to war in Iraq "to liberate the Iraqi people from an oppressive dictatorial regime". Puh-lease. Tell me the people of the U.S. don't have that short a memory. You need a subscription for the NY Times (it is free though):

"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [at his American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time." -- New York Times editorial, February 27, 2003.

@Laches :lol:
Libertarians for example (small 'l' not big 'L') generally have the option of eating **** sandwich A or **** sandwich B. Either way they have to eat **** but sometimes one sandwich has more bread to cover the taste with. In the last election, Bush was the **** sandwich with more bread. This election he may lose the prized title of 'best tasting **** sandwich in town.' Libertarians (small 'l' not large 'L') make up a significant part of the Independent voting block and if the election is as close as the last one may actually influence the result if they're sufficiently tired of Bush's **** and want to try someone else's ****. Sometimes I look at the possibilities and I say - Oh ****.
That is one of the funniest and most insightful expostions of the dilemma that faces us independent voters. I remember Ross Perot :mommy: . Thank for the laugh, now I've gotta get back to my lunch, and no, it's not a ****sandwich.

@ Laches - just to echo Hacken Slash - :lol: :lol: :lol:
I think you summed it up perfectly. :thumb:

That is a way to treat underlings, BTA, not equals. And some would do well to remember that. Let me explain a very generalized perception of Europe here in America.

You watch our movies. You listen to our bands. You copy our styles. You copied our form of government. You enjoy all the modern inventions that America has provide: telephones, computers, automobiles...etc.

When someone comes along and runs over France...we kick their asses. In fact, your militaries are essentially OUR militaries.

Yet, Europe remains mystified and dumbstruck when America gives them an order. What a bunch of ungrateful children.

Granted, this has all been over-simplified but I think it is very indicative of the popular image of Europe here in America.

@ LNT - How to win friends and influence people . . .

Back to the topic of Bush, though: Considering he's not about reducing the size of government, as one of those who are registered independent and who is libertarian (with that small "l"), I'll likely go democrat next year on the theory that, while my government is getting bigger, more of my rights are likely to be protected, and Bush hasn't been shrinking the government anyway.

What a bunch of ungrateful children. Ah, the “ugly American” rears its head.

So what if they (and we) watch your movies, etc.? It’s not as if they (or we) get them for free; the U.S. reaps economic benefits from all this. As for as military assistance, the U.S. chose to get involved; it could have just as easily declined. Yes, assistance is often requested, and yes, the U.S. usually comes through, but in those situations the rest of the Western world supports the action. The U.S. also chose to get involved in Vietnam, so participation is not always positive.

Yet, Europe remains mystified and dumbstruck when America gives them an order. Now there’s the kicker – what right does the U.S. have to give an order to any sovereign nation? Make a request, of course, call in favours, sure, but an order? Come on. And if the rest of the world disagrees with the request (or ignores the order), then did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, it’s the U.S. that’s in the wrong? Of course not; you instead choose to be offended.

L.N.T.'s post reflects precisely the kind of attitude that often turns the rest of the world off; I hope that it is the opinion of only a vocal minority. However, is it any wonder that international support for the U.S. is waning at a time when it should instead be growing?

Edit - based on D.R.'s post below, if L.N.T.'s post is not reflective of his own attitudes, then I redirect my comments towards the "general American" of whom he speaks.

[ November 15, 2003, 00:33: Message edited by: Splunge ]

To LNT's defense, before people start pummeling my buddy...
Let me explain a very generalized perception of Europe here in America. Maybe I was the only one who caught this - I speak fluent smart-ass. ;)

@ BTA

First there were no false accusations. You must not be watching the same news that I do. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have all repeatedly asserted several "facts" that have come to be proven false.

Vice President Cheney
Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention
August 26, 2002

"But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons."

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

NBC Meet the Press with Tim Russert
September 8, 2002

"What we have seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest, if you will, if I can put it in those terms, is that he now is trying through his illicit procurement network to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium. Specifically aluminum tubes."

Secretary Powell
FOX News Sunday Interview with Tony Snow
September 8, 2002

"There is no doubt that he has chemical weapons stocks… With respect to biological weapons, we are confident that he has some stocks of those weapons and he is probably continuing to try to develop more… With respect to nuclear weapons, we are quite confident that he continues to try to pursue the technology that would allow him to develop a nuclear weapon… So there's no question that he has these weapons, but even more importantly, he is striving to do even more, to get even more."

This is NOT true, nor was it ever (http://www.creativeresistance.ca/world-awareness/2002-sept06-the-time-to-stop-the-war-on-iraq-is-now-scott-ritter.htm)

From a former weapons inspector, and a Bush republican:

As of December 1998 we came close to zero level in terms of Iraq's ability to produce or maintain weapons of mass destruction. Biological and chemical weapons must be produced in industrial facilities possessing the highest level of technology. Iraq would have had to procure much of this from abroad to reconstitute facilities.

I know that sanctions are a sieve. But I worked with the best intelligence agencies in the world. If Iraq were to attempt to acquire this equipment they would be detected. Even if they got it and attempted to reconstitute a biological, chemical or nuclear factory, it is detectable.

The Bush administration has such a hunger for war with Iraq. They are desperate for any evidence to justify war with Iraq. If the US had any credible information it would be on the front page of every American newspaper tomorrow.
Secretary Rumsfeld
The New Republic (June 30, 2003)
September 26, 2002

In Washington on September 26, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed he had "bulletproof" evidence of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

ABC "This Week with George Stephanapolous"
March 30, 2003

"If you think – let me take that, both pieces – the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

President Bush
United Nations General Assembly, New York
September 12, 2002

"U. N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio
October 7, 2002

"In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions."

Interview with TVP, Poland
May 29, 2003

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories… They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."


I would love to hear any compelling arguement for why I'm crazy for thinking the Bush administration has deliberately misled us as a nation, exaggerated and hyped intel to play off our fears, and push a war that was clearly not necessary given the speed with which Iraq was taken and the total lack of any WMD, their most compelling form of evidence, whether Bush fans would like to admit it or not.

The entire administration needs to go. Sorry.

I think the major problem we have with Bush here in Europe is that he has no European counterpart. In the past, the president of the Soviet Union was the deterring counterpart to the American president, the final thing to consider in every equation. Before, every time the US decided to do something major, they had to consider; how will the Soviets respond to this? Can we do this and get away with it? Now this is history. The present Russia is not even remotely interested in any sort of major war campaigns, with or against USA, but is centering on its own problems and trying to fix the country itself, something long, long neglected.

The end result is this. America stands alone as The Power of the world. France and Germany can protest and do whatever they want, but in the end, they have no influence whatsoever that would enable them to move Bush an inch from his position unless he wanted to move himself. Russia, even if it wanted to get into the argument, won't - as it has nothing whatsoever to gain from opposing USA. As long as the communist government was in power, Soviet Union's antagonism to USA was something they did not need to see any profit in - it was a daily fact of life, as USSR hated everything the rotten capitalistic USA was and stood for. But today, Russia is just another country trying hard to get on the missed train of rotten capitalism, too busy running to catch it to be able to do anything else. And Bush knows that very well.

So, in my opinion, the biggest problem Europeans have with the US is the feeling of being powerless. We can only sit and watch what the US decide to do. The old attack bulldog that Russia used to be is now lying very still and only watching, doing nothing - considering whether even growling too loud would bring unwanted consequences. To put it metaphorically, most of the world* has been turned into a theatre, where the US is now the solo performer, and everyone else only gets tickets to see the show (and licence to clap to the performance, if they are obedient enough). This is what bothers people. History has proven thousands of times over that absolute power also corrupts absolutely, even if it starts with the best of intentions.

*(Apart from anywhere near China, North Korea, somewhat Russia and a few other places, of course. But Bush is smart enough not to go too near anywhere there anyway.)

Remember: you live in a democracy; if you despise your president just vote against him. We tried that - the supreme court appointed him anyway.

That is one of the funniest and most insightful expostions of the dilemma that faces us independent voters. Try a real independent: Vote Nader!

ALdeth, to answer your original question is in fact quite difficult. When President Bush came to address the Australian Parliament, it really seemed such a rushed, surreal event. He whizzed in, whizzed out, didn't see anyone outside the government officials that pretty much smothered him, and he did not really have anything new to say about any topics that affect Australians. It really seemed too quick. I have absolutely no way of judging or understanding much about him except what comes from CNN or other US news services anyway, since Australian media was either as tight lipped as the security or basically repeating what US news says.

I can't understand why there was such an intense level of security and why he seemed so distant and "anti-social". I also expected that someone in his position would have had a much more profound impact on Australia, but it seemed that most people had forgotten that he even came a few hours after the address he made, perhaps it was becaue he actually did leave?

Ummm. I dunno?

I would love to hear any compelling arguement for why I'm crazy for thinking the Bush administration has deliberately misled us as a nation, exaggerated and hyped intel to play off our fears, and push a war that was clearly not necessary given the speed with which Iraq was taken and the total lack of any WMD, their most compelling form of evidence, whether Bush fans would like to admit it or not.
I still claim the war was necessary and that the presence of WMD was immaterial. I also deny that WMD was the most compelling evidence for a war. But I've laid out my beliefs too many times in the past on these boards, so if you're curious you can look it up.

We tried that - the supreme court appointed him anyway.I don't know why, but this oft-appearing nonsense always makes me grit my teeth. If the race was not so close, the supreme court would not have had to be involved, and the whole hanging-chad nonsense would not have happened. To say that one was appointed when the two top competitors had nearly the same vote count is pure obfuscation.

What is nonense is that anyone would believe that Shrub was really elected to the high office of President. It just so happened that his brother was governor of the highly contested state and that he had stacked the deck by hiring a firm from Atlanta with the task of singling out minorities by claiming they could not vote because they were supposed "felons." Florida is so locked down it's not even funny. The cronyism that is rampant in this dishonest and vile administration extends from the likes of K. Harris to the judges who happily declared Shrub our prez. If anyone has to grit his/her teeth, it's those of us who still believe in fairness and a democratic process where the body electorate still want legitimate representation by a real president, but instead are forced to bide our time until the corruption is gone, like the cancer that it is, from our once great nation.

And nearly the same votes? Al Gore won that by 500,000 votes. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/

[ November 16, 2003, 04:34: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Chandos, my friend...please abandon your electoral conspiracy theories...I know that it is a typically conservative source...but the accounts are ironclad...check out THIS (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200310150822.asp) .

Please don't go on with this worn out lament. The Carter / Ford election was actually decided on a smaller portion of popular vote, and Hayes / Tilden established the authority of the Supreme Court in this matter.

And, if there truly is any basis in what you say about Dubya getting elected because of the influence of his brother, then that only confirms the old addage to "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" :D . You can either complain about this, or accept Richard Nixon as President in 1960...take your pick.

HS - Keep in mind that the SC also said that it was not setting a precedent with its astounding ruling in the 2000 election. They were very careful to say that it only applied in the case of their Shrub vs Gore. Amazing.

Added: That is an intersting comparision - Nixon and Bush II. I think you are on to something, HS. Really, I don't mean that in my usual sarcastic tone either. If there was a recent past president I would have liked to met in person it would have been Nixon. I have an odd sort of interest in him, because he was so well read and he enjoyed writing and debating with both admirers and critics. I think he would have really liked a board such as this. His book _No More Vietnams_ was well-written. If you have not read it, then I would definitely recommend it. Although there was much that I did not agree with in its take on the Vietnam days.

[ November 16, 2003, 05:31: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Yes, almost the same votes: the difference is about half a percent. I'd say given all the ridiculousness in Florida that the margin of error on any election is greater than that. Most of the time it doesn't matter

Your own link even shows that Bush won 9 more states and 5 more electoral votes. In my book, if it comes down to one state's electoral votes, it doesn't matter who was elected, they were both wanted equally by the people of the nation. You might as well flip a coin.

Appointed. :rolleyes:

Yes, appointed. We can argue this all day/night and we both know that neither of us will budge on this issue. That's half a million people, BTA.
And if some of us had not voted for Nader, you would not even be thinking about how close it was. Shrub would be back on the ranch and only a problem for us here in Texas. But we've seen worse. Of course, you have Arnold. :p

The point is, you don't know if it was half a million people because you have no idea of the error rate.

Besides, you know as well as I that the popular vote is meaningless. It's the electoral vote that counts, and it came down to one state's electoral votes. Once again: So close that it doesn't matter.

You can say "appointed" until you're blue in the face; the reality is that they both had nearly half the votes apiece, so half the nation wanted one and half the other. It was way too close to call accurately, so to imply that Bush was "appointed" as if the supreme court made a decision contrary to the will of the people is ridiculous.

Thanks, BTA. If I'd said that it would have sounded "pissy" :D .

Chandos, I am forwarding a "Nixon's the One" lapel pin to you for you to wear to work on Monday morning.

And you can grit your teeth until they fall out, but I'm still going to defend our tradition of "free elections" and the notion that our institutions should be democratic instead of the kind of cronyism that pervades our halls of government currently.

HS - You have a Nixon badge? Now, that takes some courage.

Edit: I'm sure the Founding Brothers would not agree with your notion that the popular vote was "meaningless." But then there was a time when our nation was governed by giants instead of the pygmies we have now.

[ November 17, 2003, 06:08: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

@ Lokken - Texas Gunslinger - that was exactly the term I was looking for. Nice call.

@ Laches - I do read the New York Times, daily. My point wasn't that Bush doesn't want to set up democracy in Iraq, or even that he didn't mention that previous to the invasion. However, that was never the focus of the war in the first place. On the list of all the reasons for going to war, liberating the Iraqi people and setting up a democracy in Iraq was certainly not on the top of the list. Yes, he mentioned it before the war. It only became his primary platform however, after no WMD were found, and the ties to terrorists never materialized.

I find it somewhat ammusing that you take the word of the New York Times as gospel, but for some reason think that someone such as myself who works for the Department of freaking Defense would have no clue as to policy or what was expected to be done/found in Iraq following the war, especially considering I work in the Program for the Elimination of Chemical Weapons.

Read that last paragraph again. Now ask yourself who likely is more privy to U.S. policy in postwar Iraq.

Aldeth, I hear what you're saying, believe me, and I have always been pro smash the middle eastern troublemakers, but on the other hand, I'm not even sure Bush knows what his policy is . . .

As for the election, Chandos, you've got to admit that it's not as if it were a great injustice had occurred -- it was a kissing close election, and it's sure that a large number of Americans favored each man -- the system worked as best as any system could, and the Dems lost. Life is full of these disappointments -- for me, it's that a Liberal Government is always elected in my country because of a horribly uneven population distribution.

I'd lay odds that Bush gets re-elected.

As for Nixon, He deserved to be impeached, but I have a nasty feeling thatif the full behaviour of many past presidents were to be revealed, we would see that many of them deserved impeachment as well . . . .

I find it somewhat ammusing that you take the word of the New York Times as gospel, but for some reason think that someone such as myself who works for the Department of freaking Defense would have no clue as to policy or what was expected to be done/found in Iraq following the war, especially considering I work in the Program for the Elimination of Chemical Weapons.
Your initial post created a false dichotomy of sorts. My quote was regarding that. Multiple reasons were advanced for the war. Indeed, that was part of why the administration was so roundly criticized prior to the war.

I'm sure you're a good chemist but I do think the words of the president as reported prior to the war laying out the reasons for war should be lent some consideration.

You seemed to present a false dichotomy initially. You have subsequently backed off of that somewhat. Fair enough.

As an aside - don't take it personally when someone responds to your posts.