W is the President of the US. He can’t miss, no matter how he handles himself. I predict that his trip will be reported as a glowing success.
Well, now, THAT’S worthy of debate. If he maintains his stance of “We’re the USA! NUMBER ONE! We’re a-gonna do WHATEVER WE WANT! Star Wars! Acid rain! We’re a-gonna do it ALL!” I think he’d have a pretty darn good chance of further alienating a united Europe, who seem to see him now as a sort of a talking orang-outang in a suit.
Puking on a Prime Minister would reflect badly on him, too.
Hey, we’ve all been there and done that, right? 
well, I suspect he’ll have to do better than this
Blinding himself to the concept that his own statement means that this one nation is responsible for 20% of the emissions.
Ike gee, that’s not fair, his daddy puked on a Japanese official IIRC…
Wait a minute, Ike! Aren’t you the one who asked us to stop with the jokes and start debating?
I predict that not only will the trip be “successful,” (whatever that means) but the spin will be: “Anyone could have done it.”
especially since the report he commissioned shows that it’s worse than expected, tho’ the statement contained in that newstory "The results are hard to ignore. " apparently underestimated Mr. Bush.
december:
So you’re saying that puking on a Prime Minister would not reflect poorly on the President? Sh-ya, right.
Oh, poor thing, you really don’t know? Bush is Middle America, in all its nose-up-its-butt doggy arrogance, its ignorance, & its excess. You know how bad you think it is? It’s worse. The American heartland is so George W. Bush it’s not even funny.
It gets worse–even some of the people who voted for Al Gore are more like Bush than they’d like to admit. It’s just, if you’re, say, poor & black in this country, voting Democrat is a reflex.
No, no, no, Bush is no aberration. He was electable for a reason.
BUSH IS AMERICA :shudder:
Oh don’t be ridiculous, everyone knows it’s the Belgians.
That’s what they want you to think.
'Nuff said.
Ulp. My native optimism got hold of me for a moment there. You’re more right than I feel comfortable admitting.
Ukulele Ike dressed up as an elderly lower middle class English lady circa 1969, in a suspicious voice: …why did you say Bavaria?
Manhattan dressed up as an elderly lower middle class English Lady circa 1969: I panicked.
originally posted by sailor:
Well, I’ve been living in Gothenburg, Sweden, for about 10 years now and I have to say that pretty much agree with ya, sailor, Gary Kumquat’s objection notwithstanding. The anti-American sentiment over here is so strong that it sometimes even worries me a little bit.
Bush and his good-ol-boy image doesn’t help matters at all. People here often look askance at me and wonder what the hell kind of country I come from that could elect a man like that as president. I’m afraid that I’m often at a loss for words in such situations.
It’s especially infuriating here in Sweden, a tiny country who’s security, both economically and politically, has been guarenteed by a world order enforced through US military power. It seems to me very hypocritical to be so sweepingly, vindictively cynical against the US while basking in the sunshine under its hegemony. It’s one thing to be critical of a country’s politics; it’s another thing to dis it’s culture, it’s people, it’s pastimes, etc, etc…
Anyway, Bush as president only reinforces the bad, stereotypical image of the US that most Europeans-on-the-street have concerning our country.
Bush is coming here to Gothenburg in connection with a meeting of EU. They’ve closed off half the city; lots of protesting has been planned. Some of the protestors are promising civil disobedience, and one group seems to be planning to try to make their way past the police by force. I don’t know if it will turn violent, but it might.
For what it’s worth, there have been a lot of complaints about the high-handed, arrogant manner in which the American contingent has handled the arrangements. If you like, I’ll keep y’all posted as things develop.
Gary Kumquat,
>> And who is this mysterious they you refer to? Sinister shadowy forces?
I think it was quite clear from the context I was referring to foreigners in general (and maybe Europeans more in particular you might construe). Does it really require an explanation?
>> Where the hell were you travelling to? And who are these affronted countries? Are you sure you’re not being just a little paranoid here? Let’s be honest here - all countries criticise the dealings of other countries. It’s not as if the USA is the only nation to draw flack.
Well, I have travelled most of Europe and parts of Asia and I do like to follow the local news and public opinion in Europe and China. Yes, let’s be honest here, all countries criticise the dealings of other countries but the USA seems to draw a disproportionate amount of popular dislike for the only reason that it is more powerful. I have seen this repeatedly.
The point of this thread, as I understand it, is to debate whether Bush being the president will help or hurt during his foreign visits. My answer is that if you think of him as a crude Texan, Billy’s image as a crude Arkansan was even worse, so I guess Bush can’t be worse off. And, as I have mentioned, foreigners who dislike the USA are not going to change their stance even if mother Theresa were appointed president and wheeled into the oval office.
>> I don’t think you need to sound quite so persecuted
You are barking up the wrong tree here as I am not an American nor do I feel persecuted. (Unless you count not getting laid often enough as “feeling persecuted”)
In summary with respect to the OP: while the young Bush is definitely not his father when it comes to foreign relations, he can’t do worse than Bill Clinton. You just have to find solace where ever you can find it.
Oh, intercourse the Illuminati.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/585107.asp about the trip. It seems Bush relies on C. Rice and C. Powell much as Clinton did on M. Albright. Surrounding yourself with capable people is half the job.
Newsweek has an article dealing with US-European relations and with anti-americanism in Europe.
The point is that in Europe you see violent anti American demonstrations and they expect the US to take it in stride but I can imagine their outrage if their leaders were received likewise in the USA.
In general I find their criticisms quite without substance, just like a childish rebellion against the stronger one, knowing full well he is your friend. If any of these countries was attacked they’d be begging the US for help, not any other country. Europe and north America share common interests, common culture and it is silly to try to seek for confrontation. Since WWII Europe owes a lot to the US and I think we should try to be first and foremost, friends, and resolve our differences amicably. Anti american sentiment in Europe is IMHO, not only unjustified, but unhelpful.
You can be first and foremost friends, and then talk about your differences. But you do not receive your friends at your home with insults. At least I don’t.
No…it’s whether the President of the United States should rely on “personal charm” rather than sound policy during diplomatic visits to Europe. Alternately, whether Bush has sufficient reserves of “personal charm” to adequately buffalo the Europeans. Also, commentary on the old guard bureaucratic left-leaners meeting with a Trilby-in-drag whose Svengalis are adamantly anti-govermnment and pro free-market, often to the point of disregarding environmental issues or the welfare of their fellow human beings. Witty barbs about the little dildo are another plus.
Certainly a completely incoherent Foreign ‘Policy’ and a self-serving domestic agenda but ‘charm’ is not something I readily associate with Mr Bush. Even if he does rustle up a lil’ Texan sweet talkin’ it really isn’t going to get him very far – European leaders are in no mood to listen to the bollocks he conjured up today:
“Even with the best science, even with the best technology, we all know the United States cannot solve this global problem alone.” – Alone ??? – we’re the ones still on course with Kyoto.
“Although the US was the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, countries from the developing world - which were exempted under Kyoto - also bore heavy responsibility”. He singled out China - the second largest polluter - and India.
China and India…errrr …he names the worlds two most populous countries - it’s not entirely surprising they emit a substantial amount of gasses. However, we’re talking about first world responsibilities (in leadership, in technology, in setting standards) and, in any event, those two countries come at least mid table per head of population in greenhouse emissions. Number games, Mr Bush, and you can shove 'em up your Texan borehole.
IMHO, even if the official public presentation is hale and hearty he’s going to have a bruising time of it with the politicians while the protests are also going to be particularly ugly.
I really don’t think he’s ever experienced anything approaching that which he is about to encounter. Welcome to Grad School, Mr Bush.