Leader of the Free World?

[BaliBabyDoc]

The hyperbolic title hasn't been very accurate since Gulf War I and GHWBush.

But I was thinking about it when I read this article about a commencement address by Bush at a Benedictine college . . . that's Catholic for those that don't know.

At first, I was just pondering why such a school (small liberal arts . . . heavy emphasis on liberal) would invite such a person as Bush (low academic achievement, war monger, weak post-natal social policies). Then I came to this line . . .

The invitation to Bush came from a former top adviser, Jim Towey, who ran the White House's Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives until he became the school's president nine months ago.

So it's quite obvious from one kool-aid drinker to another . . . keep the faith . . . pass the ammunition.

We will ignore for a moment that the school is located in Murtha's district . . . seriously . . . it's hard to make up stuff this good.

Towey has said he knew the invitation would draw protests but defended it as a memorable experience for students and the perhaps once-in-a-lifetime chance "to hear the leader of the free world" no matter what they think of him.

But is Bush the leader of the free world? Have most democracies followed his lead on Kyoto? (Granted, many didn't comply so the practical outcome is the same). Are they rushing to Iraq or even Afghanistan (outside of NATO)? Trying to cut family planning funds? Even Blair rejects the global war on terrorism/islamic facism . . .

The only people that Bush really 'leads' are the 30% of Americans that support his policies. And I'm inclined to believe they don't get out much.

 

[Farang]

Yes, he is. Many "free" nations followed us into Afghanistan, and the title of "leader of the free world" is mostly aimed at NATO countries because it was an us vs. them in the Cold War. South America, Africa, and Asia were pawns for the most part.

To suggest that everyone, "even Blair," has given up on the global war on terrorism is foolish. Southeast Asia, South America, Africa, and the Middle East all have serious problems with guerilla/terror groups, and are working hard to nuetralize them. ASEAN, for example, is teaming up to fight terrorism and recieving assistance from the United States, who is the leader in the fight against terrorism. Whether he is popular or not, Bush is at the head of the war on terror worldwide, and his policies directly impact localized efforts to fight terror. Just because Bush has low approval ratings for his handling of the Iraq war does not mean that countries all around the world have grown tired of seeing explosions on CNN and no longer want to fight terrorism. The explosions are happening in their own backyard and it is a much more serious issue to them than it is to you sitting in the comfort of your living room.

 

[CyberDuck]

(im a european)

Bush is not the leader, he newer was. He is just a puppy for the more skilled neocons like Cheney and Wolfowitz,. Its a very big mystery to the rest of the world how you managed to elect this monkey, not once (everyone can make a mistake) but TWICE!

Oh well, the lords ways are mysterious (or how you say it)

Regards

Jostein

 

[sandorski]

The US's "Leadership" role has eroded significantly under Bush. The $US has fallen significantly, London has become the "Financial Capital of the World", Foreign Economies are showing signs of strength independent of weakness in the US Economy(a phenomena not seen for a very long time), and the US Trade deficit remains near record levels.

Sure, everyone is in line to fight Terrorism within their own countries, but beyond that what does Bush have to show regarding World Leadership?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

future of the UK

Benn's speech appeared to reflect a shifting tide in British politics after the strongly pro-American policies of Blair, which antagonized left-wingers in his Labor Party. They hope Brown, if he takes over, will be cooler to Washington.
---
Benn reaffirmed Britain's support for the International Criminal Court, which the United States has refused to join to prevent U.S. soldiers or officials ending up in the dock. He also repeated British calls for the U.S. Guantanamo Bay detention center on Cuba for terrorism suspects to be closed.

Benn was speaking after attending weekend meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Washington, where he said the scandal over World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz's promotion of his female companion had damaged the institution.

My guess is that Brown and Benn will bring a significantly different policy than Blair. In essence, the UK really didn't follow Bush. Blair followed Bush. I doesn't matter how many times Blair says, "in my heart . . ." The UK itself NEVER believed.

Spain left long ago

Aussies largely participated in words
The typical Australian citizen did NOT support Howard's cheerleading or modest deployments to Iraq. In fact, the reasons they tolerated his policy: 1) few Aussie casualties and 2) things were going pretty well in Australia.

Only people like Howard believe such blather as

Blair's legacy would be "the courageous part he has played in the international fight against terrorism,' Howard said.

In fact, the only reason Blair is leaving is Iraq. Otherwise, he would have a tremendous domestic and foreign reputation that might keep him in office for as long as Labour didn't blow it.

So let's look at the rest of the countries that 'followed' into Iraq and haven't left yet:

1) UK . . . on the run . . . mission accomplished . . . Blair is gone. More damning, it was Blair that started withdrawing UK troops.
2) South Korea: Despite little domestic support, SK has troops in Iraq (non-combat) b/c of the DPRK.
3) Australia: Non-combat and out of harm's way. Likely will end with Howard's leadership.

The rest have less than 1k in support of Messopotamia. How is that leadership?
global security

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Farang
Yes, he is. Many "free" nations followed us into Afghanistan, and the title of "leader of the free world" is mostly aimed at NATO countries because it was an us vs. them in the Cold War. South America, Africa, and Asia were pawns for the most part.

To suggest that everyone, "even Blair," has given up on the global war on terrorism is foolish. Southeast Asia, South America, Africa, and the Middle East all have serious problems with guerilla/terror groups, and are working hard to nuetralize them. ASEAN, for example, is teaming up to fight terrorism and recieving assistance from the United States, who is the leader in the fight against terrorism. Whether he is popular or not, Bush is at the head of the war on terror worldwide, and his policies directly impact localized efforts to fight terror. Just because Bush has low approval ratings for his handling of the Iraq war does not mean that countries all around the world have grown tired of seeing explosions on CNN and no longer want to fight terrorism. The explosions are happening in their own backyard and it is a much more serious issue to them than it is to you sitting in the comfort of your living room.

You're confusing two different ideas there, fighting terrorism and following GWB. I'm not sure if you're a flaming Republican or not, but it's quite the popular position with them that the two are interchangeable...but I think we both know that's not quite true. While I think terrorism is a big issue for most countries (and most people in the US, for that matter), I don't know how popular the GWB approach to fighting terrorism is.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Farang
Yes, he is. Many "free" nations followed us into Afghanistan, and the title of "leader of the free world" is mostly aimed at NATO countries because it was an us vs. them in the Cold War. South America, Africa, and Asia were pawns for the most part.

To suggest that everyone, "even Blair," has given up on the global war on terrorism is foolish. Southeast Asia, South America, Africa, and the Middle East all have serious problems with guerilla/terror groups, and are working hard to nuetralize them. ASEAN, for example, is teaming up to fight terrorism and recieving assistance from the United States, who is the leader in the fight against terrorism. Whether he is popular or not, Bush is at the head of the war on terror worldwide, and his policies directly impact localized efforts to fight terror. Just because Bush has low approval ratings for his handling of the Iraq war does not mean that countries all around the world have grown tired of seeing explosions on CNN and no longer want to fight terrorism. The explosions are happening in their own backyard and it is a much more serious issue to them than it is to you sitting in the comfort of your living room.

You're confusing two different ideas there, fighting terrorism and following GWB. I'm not sure if you're a flaming Republican or not, but it's quite the popular position with them that the two are interchangeable...but I think we both know that's not quite true. While I think terrorism is a big issue for most countries (and most people in the US, for that matter), I don't know how popular the GWB approach to fighting terrorism is.

I never linked supporting fighting terrorism with supporting Bush. What I am saying is that the policies of the United States affect the fight against terror more than any other single factor, and as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. war policy, Bush is the leader of the global war on terror whether you support him or not. Today the "us" is the free world and the "them" are the Islamo-fascists, and so the President is still the "leader of the free world."

I think you're confusing being the "leader of the free world" with being the winner of some global popularity contest.

 

[Termagant]

Bush is a piece of garbage, a complete fool, he doesn't fully comprehend what his actions even do. Silly idealists defending the "office" and "hallowed prestige" of the President of the United States don't understand how much disdain Bush has brought on the office. Many foreigners didn't even like him before September 11 occurred. After the attacks they "were kindred spirits" with Americans but didn't like their leader, and of course weren't prepared to crucify radical Muslims as was required. After Iraq the world didn't know what to think. Was Bush really that manipulative with Americans are or Americans just clueless? A combination of both is the likely answer.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Farang
Yes, he is. Many "free" nations followed us into Afghanistan, and the title of "leader of the free world" is mostly aimed at NATO countries because it was an us vs. them in the Cold War. South America, Africa, and Asia were pawns for the most part.

To suggest that everyone, "even Blair," has given up on the global war on terrorism is foolish. Southeast Asia, South America, Africa, and the Middle East all have serious problems with guerilla/terror groups, and are working hard to nuetralize them. ASEAN, for example, is teaming up to fight terrorism and recieving assistance from the United States, who is the leader in the fight against terrorism. Whether he is popular or not, Bush is at the head of the war on terror worldwide, and his policies directly impact localized efforts to fight terror. Just because Bush has low approval ratings for his handling of the Iraq war does not mean that countries all around the world have grown tired of seeing explosions on CNN and no longer want to fight terrorism. The explosions are happening in their own backyard and it is a much more serious issue to them than it is to you sitting in the comfort of your living room.

You're confusing two different ideas there, fighting terrorism and following GWB. I'm not sure if you're a flaming Republican or not, but it's quite the popular position with them that the two are interchangeable...but I think we both know that's not quite true. While I think terrorism is a big issue for most countries (and most people in the US, for that matter), I don't know how popular the GWB approach to fighting terrorism is.

I never linked supporting fighting terrorism with supporting Bush. What I am saying is that the policies of the United States affect the fight against terror more than any other single factor, and as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. war policy, Bush is the leader of the global war on terror whether you support him or not. Today the "us" is the free world and the "them" are the Islamo-fascists, and so the President is still the "leader of the free world."

I think you're confusing being the "leader of the free world" with being the winner of some global popularity contest.

My point was that I don't think the rest of the world takes the same ridiculous black and white us vs them view of the war on terror. The fact that other countries are also dealing with Islamic terrorism does not mean they are taking direction from the United States on how to do so, and most have made it clear that they vehemently disagree with a lot of our policies in that regard. The fact that we are the most powerful country engaged in loosely the same activity does not make us the leader.

Bush's lack of appeal in the rest of the world is about something much deeper than popularity. It is entirely possible to follow someone you don't really like as long as you respect them, but I think it's pretty clear that Bush long ago squandered any respect the US had in a lot of the rest of the world.

 

[theeedude]

He's leader of the free world like the World Series is the baseball championship of the world.