Everyone I met in Turkey hates American foreign policy. Nobody I met in Turkey hates Americans. How is this possible? It seems that George W. Bush is the Jesus Christ for our [American] times, taking all of our sins upon his shoulders. The Turks with whom I spoke blamed George W. personally for all of the harm done by the 300 million people here in the U.S. As far as I can tell, George W. never does anything except ride as a passenger from speaking venue to speaking venue. Therefore, the things of which the Turks are complaining must have been done by at least some of the rest of us, yet W. personally gets 100% of the blame.
George W. does not simply follow Jesus. He is Jesus.
Well, since George Bush created the policies that created these problems (or that it was done in his name and he’s not repudiated the policies), then he does have responsibility. He either make the policies, or hiried the people who made those policies.
Of course, anyone implementing those policies or supporting them shares that responsibility.
But note, this kind of stuff started happening when he took office. Figure it out. Sure, the Turkish people have it simplified, but not all that wrong.
This matches something my wife noticed in another area of the globe where she spent signficant time. Everyone I met in North Vietnam seems to really like Americans. They celebrate their victory over us and don’t blame us at all, it was our government’s fault. For them, the people of course don’t have input into what the government chooses to do. So why blame the nice visiting Americans?
Every once in a while though, I wonder whether their perception of our system of governance is more true than our own.
I’m sure you were getting an earful from the Turks about the House Resolution on the Armenian Genocide. Although Bush opposed it, were they blaming him for it being approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee?
Why should the Turks be any different than Americans? Bush is blamed by the far left and much of the media for everything bad that happens in the world. Think about how ridiculous it is to blame a single man for the weather. Yet we have large groups of people who seriously suggest, and believe, that Bush is responsible for weather events like Katrina. Not just the handling of the evacuations. No, the actual hurricane is deemed to be his fault!
It’s impossible to have a serious discussion about the Bush presidency in America. Bush is just a man, another president, one who makes good decisions, bad decisions, and decisions which are good and bad to different groups of people. But you can’t sit down and have a conversation about his decisions as president. You can’t rationally consider their context, their effectiveness, possible alternatives, etc, because if you bring up Bush you’re bound to run into someone who thinks he is the anti-Christ.
It will be 20 years before America is capable of calmly, rationally analyzing the Bush administration. And I don’t think he will be considered a demon under any calm, rational analysis. He will be seen like every other president as one who made both good and bad decisions, all of which need to be understood in context.
But he is a demon now in the eyes of the world because that is exactly how he is portrayed at home.
I know several native Turks and they feel exactly as the Turks Phil met.
However, let them have issues with other countries where do they come for help first? U.S.A. and President Bush.
In my opinion, pure, unadultered jealousy and envy are the most common denominators here.
Many foreigners still see America as a “land of opportunity”. Also, they often see “wealthy” Americans in their own country as an “opportunity” as well.
They may like America and Americans (see prior) but they don’t necessarily like our politics (at a given moment in time).
Bush was installed in office by BIG OIL with the sole purpose of increasing their profits and extending their reach, no matter what the cost. He has done a good job for them.
Daniel – I agree, anyone who blames bush for the existence of hurricaines must be a real nut job. However, there is reasonable evidence that global warming increases the severity of hurricanes, and Bush’s record on global warming is exceptionally poor. Katrina obviously would have happened anyway – Bush can’t exactly roll back global warmining the way Brownie can roll back his shirt cuffs… speaking of which, Bush also chose to put a lawyer with a background in in arabian horses (and not a particularly successful tenure even there) in charge of FEMA. If I were a bush defender, I’d definitely prefer to think about the nut jobs who blame Bush for the weather. They’re a pretty easy group to refute. But there’s a lot of extremely legitimate criticism directed toward Bush about Katrina.
All administrations make good and bad decisions, but c’mon, dude, this one was a doosie.
You are right. We are all to blame. We elected him twice (more or less). Winston Churchill nailed it: “The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter.” Of course, that might be the biggest argument *for* democracy as well…
One thing that I like about GWB is that he’s placed women and black people in higher positions in government than anyone before him, e.g. Powell, Rice. I’m glad he finally admitted that global climate change is real and that our actions are a factor. I can’t think of another thing I like about him at the moment though. I gave up on him after writing a dozen letters asking, trying to reason, and pleading with him not to invade Iraq.
Geoff B – there is no evidence that global warming increases the severity of hurricanes. The time during which we have been scientifically observing and recording hurricane strength, and the temperature shifts which have occurred during that time, have both been too small to determine a trend either way.
There are theories that a warmer Earth will yield more severe hurricanes, and theories that it will not. There are computer projections which are touted as evidence, but the computers just predict what they are programmed to predict based on the theories of the developers who coded them. Either way, as you admit, there was nothing Bush could have done with regard to global warming that would have affected Katrina in the least.
The only currently available, realistic option to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a complete shift of all fossil fueled electrical power generation to nuclear. This option is hardly even discussed, and is not pushed by the UN or most environmental groups. I have no doubt that if Bush tried to push it, he would be shut down hard by Congress. The solutions which Bush has rejected are simply feel good measures which would not affect global CO2 emissions, or the projected temperature growth curve, by more than one or two percent.
So is Bush’s record on global warming exceptionally poor? If he does not have the political power to implement the one option which would actually help, and he rejects all the expensive options that will not help, then I would say his record is exceptionally good. Regardless of the beliefs or reasoning behind his decisions, his decisions have blocked the do nothing proposals that would cost us money. He could improve his record by pushing nuclear power. But there’s not much he can do there other than start the discussion and try to educate the nation through speeches. Americans have an irrational fear of nuclear power, and it will take a lot to get them past that.
As to FEMA, I will be the first to criticize Bush for appointing people to positions they are not qualified for. It is a very clear flaw in his administration. But I cannot blame Bush or his appointee for all of even most of went wrong during Katrina. Mayor Nagin and governor Blanco deserve most of the credit there. Still, his tendency to appoint based on personal impression rather than professional qualification is one of his more dangerous flaws.