Interesting topic. A few comments.
First off, I didn’t vote for Bush, and don’t much care for his personal politics. That said, I do my damndest not to judge him personally as a human being…I don’t know the man, have no idea how much he honestly believes is coming out of his mouth, or what he truly believes is in the best interests of the country and not just the special interests that helped elect him (this being true of any politico, regardless of party or support).
In regards to his partying background…pull out the American twenty dollar bill, you’ll see someone who took his partying ways to the White House (yup, Old Hickory had to jump out a second story window to escape the high spirits of his own inaugural). And that particular gentleman’s behavior was probably much more grounds for Impeachment than anything Bill Clinton might have done (Trail of Tears anyone?). Bush, by the looks of things, has cleaned up his act. Which is probably good, because if he was a coke addict at one time, and he still was, well, you’d have to hope he wouldn’t give up Wyoming for a fix, and that would be bad. 
However, Bush’s past is as irrelevant as Clinton’s. If we’re going to critcize Bush, let’s do it in a more high minded fashion. The only reason anyone might get hung-up on Bush’s possible drug past was that he was the only candidate from either the DEMs or the REPs who wouldn’t answer the question right away on whether or not he did use drugs at some time. If Clinton’s avoidance of Vietnam isn’t what you consider a big deal, then neither should Bush’s partying ways be. Do it for what he does now, not what he did then. If his long seeming vacations aren’t to your taste now, you can call him on that. If you don’t think he works as hard as he should, you can call him on that. I wouldn’t call him on the old habits if he’s abandoned them.
I don’t know if he “stole” the election or not. I’m not convinced he wouldn’t have gone the same route Gore did contesting Florida…it was a very close state and very close election. I seem to recall one media recount that shows Bush would have prevailed if the recount just covered the counties Gore wanted recounted…but a statewide recount would have done the reverse. Don’t ask me where, and don’t quote me on that, though. There’s enough suspicious activity on both sides of the line in Florida if you know where to look. Gore may have kept asking for a recount, but his party wasn’t the one that bussed in paid protestors from across the Union to chant outside counting stations, his brother wasn’t the governor of Florida, and the Secretary of State in Florida wasn’t a high ranking member of the “Gore for Florida” election campaign. Either way, I think its safe to say God’s the only one who knows for certain whether the right man’s in the White House right now.
Now, as far as Kyoto goes, it is interesting to point out that the only two nations that have currently ratified the treaty that are even close to being fully industrialized are Romania and Mexico. It hasn’t been passed in Germany yet, or Britian, or a bunch of other places. The US, and by extention the Bush Administration, are the only real holdouts who say, “No, it won’t work.” though.
Yes, it is probably important to point out Bush is looking out for “American interests”, but my personal view is that given multinational corps. going over national boundaries, the Internet, and much quicker travel, the world is a lot “smaller” than it used to be, and many concerns don’t begin and end on any countries’ borders. We don’t need the rest of the world dictating policy for us, but we likewsie shouldn’t ignore it. Isolationism movements in the 20th century always turned around to bite the US in the ass sooner or later…it might be best to learn from those times.
Now, I have in front of me the August 6th, 2001 Newsweek. In there, Fareed Zakaria, who writes regular analysis of gloabal events, talks of the recent trend for other nations to “gang up” on the US. Zakaria cites this as normal, something that happened to Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union…it is natural for other nations to try and gang up on the most dominant or powerful nation, if not in the world, then in the region. As a further example, during the American Revolutionary War, France did come to the colonists’ aid…but Spain likewise declared war on England at about that time without coming to colonial aid. England being the heavy hitter on the block at the time, this is perhaps not so surprising that the Spanish saw an opportunity to hit them as well.
Zakaria, though, wonders about this and why it is happening now and not sooner to the US given how long it was since the Cold War ended. I’d love to be able to cut and paste this article here, but Newsweek’s online archive will only bring up old articles if you pay a small fee with a credit card I don’t have. And I’m much too lazy to type out the whole thing. So, I’ll sum up here.
Zakaria spoke to Henry Kissinger. Kissinger, a conservative, was of the opinion that while Bush is “right on substance” his fault comes in how he has been delivering his foriegn policy. Namely, Kissinger feels that Bush has been mostly making unilateral statements on such issues as Chinese relations, missile defense, and global warming. The American attitude is coming off as one of “Well, we’re going to do this anyway, so why should I care what you think?” Combine this with the election of more central/left governments in most of the nations in Europe compared to Bush’s right leaning, and you’re going to have some conflict on policy.
Now, Kissinger feels that the way to get back in the good graces is actually something Dave seems to suggest…that Bush fall back on tradional American diplomatic tactics and give other nations more of a say then they might legitimately be able to demand for themselves. Kissinger cites the formation of the Atlantic Alliance in the 1940s. European nations were comparitively weak after WWII, but were given a level of participation above and beyond what they could have rightfully demanded against a largely untouched by war US. Making unilateral statements like the Bush team has on Kyoto is one of the things that causes relations to go bad, even if our allies are still our allies. Making compromises and bringing participants to the table is a way to avoid that, and most indicators seem to suggest that Bush isn’t doing this as well as he could be.
Of course, all Presidents make mistakes. Most of the big ones come early on when they’re still feeling their way around. Clinton seemed to handle foreign relations pretty well…but, then again, early in his term, when he didn’t know jack about foreign policy, Clinton asked Richard Nixon to the White House for a weekend tutorial. Maybe it wouldn’t hurt Bush some to do something similar to avoid future mistakes while still pushing American interests.
Now, on the subject of “evil empires”…no, I disagree. Maybe Bush doesn’t represent my personal interests, but that doesn’t make the US an “evil” nation. Granted, Japanese Interment camps and Indian reservations show the US hasn’t always been a “good” nation, but currently we’re a long way away from legitimately evil empires like Nazi Germany or Stalin’s USSR. In many wars, the US is fortunate we can get away with having rather mediocre leadership…if you think of the Great Presidents of the US, many of them were made great by events beyond their control and how they handled them. Without the Civil War, Abe Lincoln would have been just another of a string of so-so Presidents we don’t remember all that well from the mid to late 19th century, wouldn’t he? Events make Presidents great in the annals of history, not personalities and oftentimes these events aren’t things controled by the President, be it war, economic depression, and other factors. And given American political, military, and economic stability as compared to less fortunate places, we should count ourselves lucky we have the luxury to worry about stuff like gun violence, abortion, and stem cells. When you’re poor and hungry, when there’s civil war likely to get you killed tomorrow, when you’ve never known electric lights or indoor plumbing, these issues don’t count for much.
We may not find out exactly what Bush is made of without a major, and I mean major crisis…and regardless of how you feel about him, I don’t think you want that to happen. Most of what we worry about now is really penny ante stuff compared to past woes like flu epidemics, state secession, and the fear that the new part of the country you’re moving to may have legitimately pissed off people already living there for centuries.
America may not be riding high among other nations, but the key to perhaps winning some of them over isn’t to let them dictate our policies, but rather to try and get them to compromise a bit more along the lines of our own (your guess is as good as mine what that means).
I’m sure all those western European countries were only thinking of us when they traded and when we put bases on their soil.