Bush is only the most recent and extreme of US practitioners of the "judge our words, not our actions" screed.

I tend to believe that much of the world hopes for a Soviet-style systemic meltdown in the US to defang our bellicosity. Of course that's a big uncertainty... it could lead to even more insane actions from Washington.

Posted by: Rouser | Jun 1 2007 3:40 utc | 1

I think the trust could be quickly regained, at least as far as Europe is concerned -- if the name was Gore, Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardsen -- heck, anything but Bush might garner some positive reaction.

Well, not "trust" exactly, but at least a reversal of the assumption that everything the "President" says is chocolate covered BS.

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Jun 1 2007 5:07 utc | 2

W/a resume like that he should command a high price from the oil cos. explaining how global warming is horseshit, or working for food cos. or monsanto et. al extolling virtues of poisoned food..

Posted by: jj | Jun 1 2007 6:09 utc | 3

Bush or no Bush, with the Internet & the new communications swarm, its a rapidly changing world -- heightened awareness & expectations.

The USA would do well to listen more. Mandela, in his sharp warnings to Bush before Iraq II pointed out the limitations of USA/UK power.

It starts at the top. Bill Clinton was a very good listener.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jun 1 2007 7:55 utc | 4

Yet again, I left my music at home yesterday and was forced to listen to an NPR in the car however, this interview w/Elizabeth Drew

Latest Nixon Biography Portrays an Isolated Leader

The biography Richard M. Nixon, the latest installment in the American Presidents Series, portrays the 37th president as a paranoid leader who abused alcohol and drugs, had few friends and was obsessed with his image.

Elizabeth Drew, the book's author, tells Robert Siegel that when she began the project, she thought that Nixon was an improbable president; when she finished writing, she believed him unfit for the office.

Was interesting, especially in light of the fact that they had just done a small bit on Fred Thompson's role in Watergate and now his possible seeking of the Presidency.

Then there is this..

Surely the real powers keep this nut insulated from hurting himself or others yes?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 1 2007 8:21 utc | 5

The commentators in Europe are somewhat furious about Bush's carbon "limits":
Bush kills off hopes for G8 climate change plan

George Bush yesterday threw international efforts to control climate change into confusion with a proposal to create a "new global framework" to curb greenhouse gas emissions as an alternative to a planned UN process.
...
Bernd Pfaffenbach, the chief German negotiator or "sherpa" on climate change was blunter. He told the Suddeutschen Zeitung newspaper that excluding the UN or weakening its role was a "red line" that Ms Merkel "will never cross".

"The leading role of the UN on climate change is non-negotiable," he added. Another German official described the proposal as a "poison pill" aimed at undermining G8 and UN efforts to tackle global warming. "With one stroke you say goodbye to the UN," the official said. "This is a fundamentally different approach, and I'd be very surprised if the other G8 countries abandon the UN course."

Environmentalists were also furious. Daniel Mittler, an analyst at Greenpeace International, said: "It's not even too little too late, but a dangerous diversionary tactic. He doesn't need to start a new process. There already is one. This is meant to slow down the UN process."

Posted by: b | Jun 1 2007 9:13 utc | 6

if GWB would paid more attention to the Constituition of the United States, rather than try so hard to be a war-President, he would be a much happier dude.

The renewable resources freely granted by the Constituition are far far more valuable than oil or empire.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jun 1 2007 9:13 utc | 7

After reading Uncle's link, it looks like we have White Heat's Cagney as current US preznit. Fun...

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Jun 1 2007 9:31 utc | 8

[Nicaragua's Foreign Minister Miguel] d'Escoto described the visit to Managua of a White House emissary - whom I'll call 'Rocky'. During their talks, he told us, he himself had repeatedly emphasized that, given goodwill on both sides, he was convinced that the difficulties bewteen the US and Nicaragua could fairly straightforwardly be resolved. ' "We understand," I said, "that you have certain security requirements in this region. That's fine. We can discuss all those. We are pragmatic people, and we want a working deal with the United States." '

Eventually (d'Escoto continued), Rocky took up the gauntlet. If they were hypothetically to suppose that this hypothetical goodwill might hypothetically exist, on what basis did the padre think negotiations might begin?

'Well,' d'Escoto said (this was before the Hague judgment), 'suppose we both agreed to abide by international law? That would be a fairly objective basis.'

'That's your problem, father,' Rocky told him. 'You're a philosopher. You won't concentrate on the facts.'

And what were the facts? D'Escoto, an excellent raconteur, performed Rocky's reply. 'These contras on your frontier, Padre. They give you lots of trouble, don't they?' Yes, d'Escoto had replied, but they wouldn't if you stopped funding them. 'There you go again,' Rocky said. 'More philosophy. You're hopeless, Father. The reality is that these people have been funded, are being funded and will continue to be funded. And they give you trouble. Those are facts.' He then said he thought Father Miguel looked pretty intelligent. 'And intelligent men don't want trouble. And you've got trouble.'

So what did he suggest, d'Escoto asked. 'It's easy,' came the reply. 'Just do as we say. Just do as we say, and you'll see how this trouble you've got will disappear. Overnight. As if by magic. It just won't be there any more. You'll be astonished. Just do as we say.'

--Salman Rushdie, The Jaguar Smile

As a nation, we're decades past caring whether we're liked or respected. We just want everyone to do as we say.

It's the attitude of a petulant child, and so I suppose it's no wonder we're led by one. I don't see - perhaps partly because I don't want to face - what it will take to turn it around.

Posted by: mats | Jun 1 2007 12:01 utc | 9

"What will it take to turn it around?" is indeed a key question.
I'm totally unsure about the answer. I just hope it won't need to go this far, otherwise we're all pretty much screwed.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Jun 1 2007 12:16 utc | 10

What do other nations see when they look to America?

They see see a national government wholly owned by Big Business, especially the petroleum and defense industries, and operated with corporate benefits first in mind. A government that rules over the land, instead of governing. Instead of managing. Instead of addressing current or pending problems, they address corporate prifitability.

They see a President who is merely a corporate spokesperson for Big Business. They see a President who does not lead, but only carries water for his rapacious corporate backers.

They see a Congress composed of people who got there via corporate donations and lobbyist perks, and who spend the bulk of their time in office fundraising from the wealthy and the corporations, letting corporate lawyers and lobbyists write the bills back in Washington. The politicians merely fly back to vote them into law -- without even reading them -- on the basis of political triangulation that has everything to do with Party advantage, and very little to do with managing and governing the nation.

They see a government where both Parties find the nation's Constitution "quaint" and disposable in every detail. Even habeas corpus, the very soul of the American Constitution, is left out on the curb with the other trash.

They see a nation that battles Evil in the world, wherever Evil can be found. They see a nation that defines Evil as doing something less than, or other than, what America's masters want done. That's what Evil is, to America, and America will make preemptive war on that basis.

They see a nation that has no need, and no use, for comity with other nations, nor any abiding respect for their sovereignty.

They see less and less reason to go along with any of this.

America 'jumped the shark' in December of 1999, when the Supreme Court voided the Constitution by selecting the nation's first Unitary Executive.

The odds of putting the Republic back on its original footings will require a great deal more than simply changing Presidents in 2008. Extensive, and specific, Constitutional safeguards must be put into place to repudiate and prevent any recurrence of the emergent corporatism has marked the Bush Administration. Such safeguards are highly unlikely to even be considered under the current Two Party system wherein both parties are owned and operated by corporate interests.

At this point, only national strikes to force such safeguards into place, and to dethrone the corporations as the real governance of the nation, will restore the Republic.

It has been said that America is a nation inhabited by cars, and people live there, too.

In the same way, America is a nation of large corporations, and people live there, too.

That's what they see.

Posted by: Antifa | Jun 1 2007 13:13 utc | 11

Agreeing with Antifa@11 on corporates

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jun 1 2007 13:24 utc | 12

from what i can gather, the u.s. economy can be shut down rather quickly by a running interference at the ports in los angeles/long beach, where the majority of goods come into this country. security is pretty lax -- vessels under 130 ft are not required to get permission to enter the port & there's little, if any, to prevent infiltrating the long lines of trucks that deliever & take the countless TEU cargo. a sizeable flotilla of personal crafts from the ocean side, combined w/ a large procession of personal vehicles on the inland side, could virtually shut down a majority of the flow of goods in the u.s., causing losses on a major scale. and it's a nonviolent action. turn the port into a party cove.

Posted by: b real | Jun 1 2007 14:28 utc | 13

a sizable flotilla of personal crafts from the ocean side, combined w/ a large procession of personal vehicles on the inland side

you would soon have the Coast Guard sinking bass boats and National Guardsmen strafing Winnebagos.

no, that won't work. too many people in LA depend on that trade for their own livelihood. the rest of the country would blame kalifornian kooks for higher prices. everybody loses and the worst that happens is that somebody has to either wait a bit more or pay a little extra for some piece of consumer electronics from China or Singapore.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jun 1 2007 16:00 utc | 14

The ‘judge the actions not da words’ mantra is being implemented in France right now re. Sarkozy, the new Monarch. Pols who lost are afraid of looking like fools. Still, if the words are lies, they need to to be denounced, challenged, countered. Creating a public, official split between words and deeds is dangerous, if only because it is a public avowal that in ‘democracies’ ppl are sheeple and vote for words not outcomes. And where does that lead to?

Europe (note), in the shape of its overt or covert political discourse, and the opinions of its ppl, has gotten into the easy habit of blaming Bush junior for the slippage of the old world order. They would welcome, and instantly believe in a New Pres, a renewal!, a new leaf, etc. (Or would pretend to that in public.)

Gore would be ideal, both to those in the know, and those who only saw him as loosing against Bush. All America’s sins would be wiped away in about 3 weeks and a new era would begin, with rejoicing and satisfied sighs. Back to normal! Belief and aherence would be quasi instant.

Of course, this would only be a staying and holding action, ignoring history, and world affairs, energy first of all. Obama or Hillary would benefit greatly from that upsurge, but would soon turn out to be worse than Bush - with different discourse. The US cannot turn back (nor can Europe in its complicity) - it will not leave its bases in Iraq and elsewhere, etc. Look at Pelosi, for ex.

note. the EU plus AELE, Norway, Switz, Iceland; minus in part the last joiners, who through their history, natural greed, political cluelessness and but tentative status in the EU, may - insisting on may - tend to favor the US.

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 1 2007 16:17 utc | 15

this picture of Lieberman at an Iraqi market is priceless.

Sure Iraq is safe, everything is fine. I always go shopping wearing a helmet and bulletproof vest surrounded by many soldiers carrying automatic weapons. doesn't everybody?

Posted by: dan of steele | Jun 1 2007 16:59 utc | 16

only @ Xmas

Posted by: jcairo | Jun 1 2007 17:14 utc | 17

Think Progress compares reactions to Bush's "Carbon Tragets" in the U.S. press versus international. Conclusion:

The international press got it right. Bush did not mention the words “global warming” once yesterday, yet the U.S. media reported as if he did. Furthermore, Bush’s plan “listed no concrete targets or dates, no enforcement mechanism and no penalties for noncompliance. It also wouldn’t take effect until four years after Bush leaves office.”

Posted by: b | Jun 1 2007 17:41 utc | 18

Froomkin also demonstrates how the U.S. media failed to Bush's climate feint

Bush's proposal calls for a new round of international meetings that would nearly outlast his presidency. The purpose of the meetings would not be to set caps on emissions, but to establish what the White House -- uncorking a bold new euphemism -- calls "aspirational goals."

But a change in rhetoric was enough to generate some headlines about the administration's attention to the issue: Bush Proposes Goals on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, reads the New York Times headline. Bush Proposes Talks on Warming, says The Washington Post's front page. Bush offers to take climate lead, proclaims the Los Angeles Times.

For a more pointed view of Bush's statement, let's travel across the Atlantic, where the style of journalism is less constrained than in the States.
...

Posted by: b | Jun 1 2007 18:17 utc | 19

..."we should not be judged by our actions, only our words."

Indeed...

"We Can't Spy...If We Can't Buy"

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 1 2007 19:41 utc | 20

@b

'President Gore' is a very bad idea. I'm not saying Gore couldn't win. Indeed, he could, if drafted on the second ballot of a deadlocked Dem nominating convention. But Gore is a machine pol with delusions of grandeur IMO.

W.

Posted by: Wolf DeVoon | Jun 1 2007 21:47 utc | 21

what a ridiculous little man liebermann is - he is elmar fudd on ecstacy

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 1 2007 23:04 utc | 22

some supporting documentation for my hypothetical in #13. from carolyn nordstrom's book global outlaws: crime, money, and power in the contemporary world

Researching an illusion

In exploring the world of ports in Los Angeles, I often drove and walked for hours without direction, taking the routes, byways, and back roads that defined "the end of the world." Leaving the main thoroughfares, I would try to make my way to the water -- the routes from land transport to sea lanes. It is the anthropologist's lot to be cursed with curiosity: how do things move, who moves them, and how? But sometimes, I was simply curious how far I could go from public roadways to the private universe of shipping -- from land to sea. What, and where, is security? How far, as an unidentified person -- possibly a shipping agent or a terrorist -- could I get across the so-called protected zones of the USA borders? I often made it to the water and to ships, and back, without being stopped. Even those berths with wire fences and closed gates guarded by security personnel asking for identification were surprisingly easy to enter: I had mastered such enclosures at the rail yards in my hometown by the age of ten.

Once, driving toward a large industrial loading and berth area, I got caught in what seemed an infinite line of trucks, each carrying one container to be loaded on an outgoing vessel. They coursed nose to tail from the main roadway through the berth gates, across the long expanse of port compound to a point beside the ship, where the crane operator removed their payload and swung it onto the ship. An empty truck is an anomaly in commerce: it is a red mark in the company financial ledger; so the trucks snaked back out in a long line to collect a payload of incoming cargo to carry out across the industrial landscapes of America. It was like being caught in rush-hour traffic on a congested interstate, with one difference: the truckers never stopped. This was efficiency at its best; flow uninterrupted. Remember that a typical large ship carries six thousand or more TEUs. Each container must be carried to the crane to be loaded, one by one, on the ship. Each truck can carry one container. The equates to a line of thousands of trucks. Per ship. In a port with dozens of ships a day. In a world where holding a ship in port more than a day disrupts a long chain of commerce spanning across countries.

Ad it is here, caught in one of these lines, that one can best see why inspections are rare: hold up one line of trucks, on train, one ship, and a global supply chain feels the ripples. So much so that in a line of trucks, no one stopped a lone female in a rental car to find out why she was here, or why she drove all the way to the shoreline past all security checks and got out to walk freely amid the bustle and cargo of the "secured" wharf.

Questions are impediments -- they hold up the flow. Checkpoints, barriers, and authorization points are merely bigger questions: bigger impediments to the whole point of ports.

When I asked a group of longshoremen about security, they scoffed:

Security?

Just add two and two. We have a couple dozend ships in here every day. We run five to six shifts; each with a turnaround of fifty-five hundred containers. That's five thousand gateways [entries and exits] a day.

In all this, there's no staging area. This is the largest and most sophisticated port in the USA, and we don't have a staging area for trains, trucks, and cargo entering and exiting...

We let all truckers into the terminals...

The longshoreman paused for effect:

No supervisor. No oversight. The truckers have access to all parts of the terminal. We have four to five hundred truckers per terminal. Add it up.

David Arian, president of ILWU Local 13, a Los Angeles longshoremen's union, voiced the same concerns:

Security? You can put any spin on it you want to. But do the math. President Bush talks about his commitment to security -- and the ports are the way all international people and goods enter the USA. This government has spent $43 million in three years on port security here in the USA. They've spent $5.4 billion a month on Iraq.

I spent more than a week prowling the Los Angeles/Long Beach roadways and docks. Each time I wandered unimpeded through inspection sheds, terminals, staging grounds, stacks of containers, and docks, I thought about how dangerously easy it would be for me, for anyone, to pop open containers and take or add something, pass something onto a ship, exchange something with someone else in the area, smuggle, plant a bomb. If I were bent on destruction I could shut down the port, and in doing so disrupt the supply chain across the entire country.

"No one really gets the true role of shipping in our lives," said Art Wong, of Long Beach Port Authority. He's right; most of us take it for granted, little recognizing that the world's economy rests on shipping. Stop the flow, and the world economy is crippled.

next, she records the response to a question on port security directed at "the executive director of marine exchange of southern california, which oversees the radar surveillanc of all ships entering and leaving the los angeles/long beach port areas. they log all shipping information and supervise routing."

Here in the USA, we go to Wal-Mart, to JC Penny, to Home Depot, and it's magic: the stores are filled with everything we need, and more. Everything is just there -- it is magic. We don't think about it. But sometimes I go to places like Wal-Mart and just walk the aisles, turning over merchandise and looking where it comes from. Most everything says Made in China, Made in Korea, Made in Anywhere But Here. Most consumer good are outsourced today, they come in from overseas. Think pipelines -- flows of goods -- made up of fleets of ships. There are no parts, no necessities, at hand's reach; you have to start down the production line at the factory to get anything. Stop a ship, and you send ripples throughout the entire USA; 62 percent of all containerized cargo from the Pacific Rim and 42 percent of containerized cargo of the world is coming into Los Angeles/Long Beach. Sneeze here, it sends ripples through the whole country. ... Let something disrupt shipping and the country would be in a panic.

In an effort to bring order to chaos, every ship entering the harbors of Los Angeles/Long Beach has to check in with the Marine Exchange, which operates like the sea equivalent of air traffic control. But in fact, "every ship" does not mean every ship. Aschemeyer scoffed at the word security:

Ports were never designed to be secure. Indeed, as nodal points of trade, they function best when truly open. And then the word comes out to make the ports secure. OK, how? A craft less than 130 feet long doesn't have to check in with Marine Exchange. Within a hundred-mile range of these two ports there are 250,000 registered recreational crafts. And how may unregistered ones, the captain mused -- perhaps twice as many? Boats, he noted, are probably the most unregulated industry, especially those designated "recreational." You can buy a sixty-foot yacht and take off without any tests, license, or registration -- something impossible for a car, train, or aircraft.

Posted by: b real | Jun 2 2007 3:15 utc | 23

The color of blood, the color of resistance, the color of Iraq

Posted by: Rick | Jun 2 2007 3:51 utc | 24

Dude, You're Awesome said Rob Vos, the Director of the Development Policy and Analysis Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), told correspondents at a {UN} Headquarters press conference.

More precisely,

The United States dollar is facing imminent collapse in the face of an unsustainable debt, the United Nations warned today.

Drinks up, Americans...

Posted by: jj | Jun 2 2007 4:00 utc | 25

Speaking of Crime, Money & Power in the current Am. political world, they reach their apotheosis in the person of the Repugs Drag Queen du jour, Rudi Giuliani. Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, who was born to write about him, gives a rundown.

Posted by: jj | Jun 2 2007 4:09 utc | 26

Just out of curiosity--during all the power plays between the "Holy" Roman church and the "Holy" Roman Emperors, like who anointed whom and all that shit--how much difference did it actually make to the peasants?

As the multinational corporations stop pretending that they ever once relied on charters issued by national governments, at what point do we stop worrying about elections and start paying attention to shareholders meetings (where our pathetic amount of power is more evident)?

Posted by: catlady | Jun 2 2007 4:27 utc | 27

Northrop Grumman wins Navy assault-ship contract

http://tinyurl.com/2nlev7

Northrup Grumman, you may recall, was involved with the
abortive Coast Guard Deepwater $24B fleet expansion.
The Coast Guard recently testified that none of the
Northrup Grumman ships were serviceable for duty, and
would be mothballed.

http://tinyurl.com/32ebaq

"The Treasury is being looted here. The taxpayer is being
fleeced," Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-Mass. and spokesman for
Bath Ship Works), said in a House hearing into Deepwater
earlier this year. Nobody did anything about it.

So the Navy gives Northrup another ship contract! It's all
about admirals looking for a double-dip retirement with a
Defense contractor. Grand larceny defense profiteering in
time of war is a high crime and treasonous felony.

Is this a great country, or what!

"That's one small step for man,
and one giant leap for aerospace-defense welfare."

Posted by: Rick Nelson | Jun 2 2007 4:44 utc | 28

Robert Weissman reviews United States Since 1980, a book by Dean Baker on the rise of the fire-breathing oily megamultiarmasauruses and other corporate shibboleths that are now trampling the world.

Baker will be speaking at an upcoming conference in Washington DC, presented by Ralph Nader: Taming the Giant Corporation.

Posted by: catlady | Jun 2 2007 21:43 utc | 29

Lt. Gen. Sanchez speaks out:

The man who led coalition forces in Iraq during the first year of the occupation says the United States can forget about winning the war....

Sanchez, in his first interview since he retired last year, is the highest-ranking former military leader yet to suggest the Bush administration fell short in Iraq.

"I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time," Sanchez said after a recent speech in San Antonio, Texas.

Posted by: Bea | Jun 3 2007 20:23 utc | 30

British Army Commander Rose concurs with Sanchez:

LONDON - There is "no way" the war in Iraq can be won by the United States and its allies, a former British Army commander said Friday as he called for the troops to be withdrawn.

General Sir Michael Rose, who commanded the United Nations Protection Force in Bosnia-Hercegovina from 1994 to 1995, said coalition forces in Iraq were facing an impossible situation.

"There is no way we are going to win the war and (we should) withdraw and accept defeat because we are going to lose on a more important level if we don't," he said.

Though the coalition could not simply "cut and run," Rose said announcing a withdrawal date would help to dampen down the violence between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions.

"Give them a date and it is amazing how people and political parties will stop fighting each other and start working towards a peaceful transfer of power," he said....

The retired general who has written a book on the American War of Independence, made comparisons with the 1775-1783 conflict between Britain and the Thirteen Colonies.

He said: "How was it a small and extremely determined body of insurgents, thieves and deserters could inflict such a strategic and potentially disastrous defeat on the most powerful nation in the world?

"The answer will be familiar to anybody who is looking at what is happening in Iraq today...."

Posted by: Bea | Jun 3 2007 23:08 utc | 31

Bea, to your 30 and 31, add this:

Mercenary firms fear bloodbath in Iraq

MERCENARY chiefs are urgently reviewing rules dictating when they can use force in Iraq, amid growing fears that another confrontation between private security operators and police could explode into a bloodbath.

Days after four British bodyguards and their client were snatched by bogus police from the streets of Baghdad, the bosses of private security firms have admitted there is now a "serious risk" of shoot-outs between "mercenary" officials and Iraqi security forces.
(snip)

No matter though, the military is still in it for the long haul.

Zones for Iraqi industry to support US military

After years using outside contractors to tend to the needs of its Iraq bases, the US military is now building zones outside its army posts so Iraqi businesses can actually benefit from their presence.
(snip)
The idea is comparatively simple and mirrors the support industries to be found outside US bases in South Korea and Germany. It will involve building a protected area for Iraqis to provide products, services and maintenance.
(snip)
"We are thinking big but starting small," Anderson said.
(snip)

Posted by: Alamet | Jun 4 2007 0:36 utc | 32