More than four in five disapproved of Bush's positions on the Kyoto treaty on global warming

lol, not a single one of their countries ratified the Kyoto Treaty either.

Who cares?

So the POTUS is making decisions in the best interests of the United States. Gee....imagine that!

And the Europeans are pissed off at him because of it. Gee....imagine that!

Most Europeans give Bush poor marks; Polls show most think decisions based entirely on U.S. interests

President of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA!!! HELLO!?!?!

The EU can kiss our ass.

Clinton was a puppet for China; at least we've got our own puppet now.

I'm pissed that French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin doesnt think of my interests as a US citizen!!! Damn Frenchie

No shiat? I thought we should bend to the will of the pussys that we have bailed out twice now. farking Retards. We are not a global community, and I say look out for number 1.

Yes, it's quite a shock to them I'm sure, after 8 years of Clinton selling out U.S. interests.

The nerve!


benjamin

fark you Eurotrash socialists!

As a european, I give Bush two thumbs up. He's very entertaining.

Oh, people, what are you talking about? Bush's foreign policy has been wonderful! So what if he's had one of the largest protests in history in Genoa, violent riots all over europe, managed to get the Chinese and Russians to sign a ballistic missile alliance against the United States (something that they wouldn't even do during the *Cold War* - Bush managed during peacetime), and at the home front, had some of the worst nepotism and class segregationist policies this century, all for reasons yet to be discerned...

We should all love him for it!

-= rei =-

If the French are mad, doesn't that mean we are doing something right?

lol @ rei!

Bush makes decisions that affect the entire world, thanks to the immense military and economic powers that back him up. So far he's been making decisions affecting the world in a bad way. Of course we're gonna critisize him for it.

Rei: None of those protest were directly against Bush or the US and those punks with no agenda would have been there if Mickey Mouse was President.

Clutch: You're wrong.

Smeagol: Tell me I'm wrong with no explanation.

Rei... please fill us in on this statement... what policies are you talking about?

"had some of the worst nepotism and class segregationist policies this century,"

Rage: Yes he is.

Rei: What do you mean, "...for reasons yet to be discerned." We all know the reasons: Bush is the Devil and he is out to get you.

Akazanar: Rei's refering to the different races and women that Bush has put in high positions. Even though Clinton's advisors were mostly white males and Bush is doing the opposite, she can't accept it because he's a Republican.

Besides the fact that he should act out on our interests first, I fail to see any major difference between Bush and Clinton's foreign policy.

Wow, I thought I would say something original, but I can't.
The Euro's are sad now, since we don't have a sell-out pres who was more entertaining than he was a pres. The last 8 years was a joke and the country is worse off, not better. Despite the cheers when the pres... er, Mrs. Clinton said are you better now than before. The people the dems promote to are mindless lemmings, just look at the box office profits.
Thank Goodness for Bush. He (and his father) has placed minorities and women in authority. How is this nepotism and segregationist?

Why do europeans care if Bush makes decisions only in the US interests? They should just basically admit that they are incapable of surviving without US assistance, surrender and become states.

Basically what I see here is europe saying in one breath, AMERICANS SUCK, AMERICANS SUCK.. SAVE OUR ASSES SAVE OUR ASSES... Everyone hates the US until the fartknockers need assistance or money or protection.

EUROPE SURRENDERS!!

So when Americans are asked if German Chancellor Schroeder makes decisions based on German interests, what do they say? Does Germany care?

How 'bout French President Chirac? Does he think of the world or France first? (lemme see, didn't they opt-out of NATO during it's most dangerous years? Why was that?)

But...our Euro-friends are happy that we are in Kosovo. Why is that? Can't our Euro-friends take care of business in Euro-land? Or is it that they would rather spill US blood 'cause Euro-blood is too precious (and enlightened)?

I suppose that unless or until Euro-interest in the US is based on something more substantial than "what have you done for *us* lately", I'm not really interested in what they think about how we conduct our business....

The fact is, that every country makes decisions based on that countries own self-interest. Trying to convince someone to do otherwise is the first (and most obvious) trick of the con-artist.

Eaton: The major diffence is that Clinton took campaign contributions from China. This is probably the worst thing he ever did but it didn't involve any sex so nobody cares.

Machtyn: This president is just as entertaining as the last one, keep 'em coming!

so if i understand the Eurotrash right, the US should listen to the Europeans on policy, even though Europe can't go more than 80 years without starting a war?

What the hell are y'all talking about? Bush doesn't make DECISIONS. He just reads off a card, which I'm sure they have to make very colorful and bright just so they can keep his attention. Jeez.

und das und zwei und drei Wenn er nicht fur Amerikaner war, wurden wir alle Deutsch im Augenblick sprechen

Yawn.

The important thing about this one is that the "photo of the day" NEEDS to be photoshopped.

I don't understand the logic behind blaming OUR president when two other world leaders sign a ballistic missile alliance against us. BLAME THEM!!!

Pretnar:
Do you know why they signed it? For one reason only: Bush's stance of "We're building the SDI whether you like it or not".

As to my earlier statement about nepotism and class segregation:

Nepotism: How does high levelgovernment appointments for Rehnquist's son, Powell's son, (Scalia?)'s son, even a college friend to an ambassador's position. Does that count?

Class Segregation: This is inherent in human societies. There are numerous laws that have been designed to dissolve this. Higher top bracket income taxes, the estate tax, antitrust legislation, and a whole host of other issues designed so that families can't just pass on power indefinitely. Bush has taken *very* hardline stances against all of these, in addition to doing everything possible to support CEOs (such as appointing a cabinet with a record number of CEOs)

-= rei =-

did you just wake up or something Pretnar?

they are ONLY signing it because of the missle defense thing BUSH wants to do. if it wasnt for that they wouldnt have any need for such a treaty.

China would not have the ability to get its missiles over the Pacific if SlickWillie had not sold them the technology for some campaign cash. But they have not had a successful test of their ICBMs. And Russia is in talks with the US about eliminating 50% of both countries missile stockpiles and has been since Rumsfeld was confirmed as SecDef.
So eliminated 50% of the nukes Russia and the US has ain't too bad in my book.

Thoguh >forcing other countries to sign treaties against us <

Kinda makes it even more important to implement a missle defense, huh?

Or are you suggesting that building more and bigger offesive weapons is better: better to blow up the adversary.

I mean, that's the state the old ABM treaty forces *us* into, innit? Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)

Whoopeee we're all gonna die!

Good eye, GreenLight...god I wish I had more photoshop time..

Do the words "provide for the common defense" mean anything to you people?
Holy Christ. . .

Rei: Are Bush's appointment's worse than Clinton's hillbillies and morons?

Is it that bad to include CEO's that have made millions of dollars? Can't they make us successful too? The US gov't needs to be run like a biz, we waste way too much.

The USA for its early adoption of the prevalent capitalist system and its anbundent mineral and human wealth is currently the most powerful, single governmental entity in existence. With such power comes responsibility, not only to the citizens of said entity, but also to the neighbours and most importantly to the successors.

President Bush has sold out to the big lobbying groups in such an amazingly unapologetic way (look at the way he has permitted mining in some of you most beautful, untouched, wilderness areas after the oil companies funded his campaign and cronies, despite advice from EVERYONE to the contrary, except of course the mining corps.) that I find it unbelievable that he is not more greatly reviled in his own country let alone the rest of the world.

And to top it all he appears to have all the intellect of my pet cat, and far less grace. I can't believe that in a country so besotted with the idea of democracy and the idea that anyone can become President, that you actually lack the imagination to vote on anything other than the candidates parentage.

Whether or not you voted for him (go ahead and whine if you want), whether or not you think he's smart, whether or not you think he sold out, etc. US presidents are supposed to look out for the US, not for Europe.

Wagoneer: Nice smear tactics about Clinton. However, they're not true. Johnny Chung, a Taiwanese-American, accepted money from a chinese official (not the government, it was private money), to give to Clinton's campaign; he gave part of the money, and kept the rest. There is no evidence that Clinton had any knowledge of the source of the contributions; he was not charged with anything, while Chung was sentenced. Clinton had been in support of including China in world affairs; that is why it was so embarassing when Chinese spies were found (now, watch as (s)he accuses Clinton of letting the spies in ;) ). The chinese were capable of hitting the US well before Clinton's presidency began, btw. The chinese invented the DF-4, a 13,000 mile ICBM, in the early 1970s. Concerning decreasing stockpiles, Clinton had many meetings concerning this (and was actually well-receieved. If bush wants to reduce stockpiles, he'll have to destroy *many* more US missiles than Russian missiles because of his SDI
insistance. BTW, destroying nuclear weapons is actually a red herring - we have to destroy our old missiles anyways, because of concern about their safety. Its just a political maneuver; my roomate was involved on dismantlement projects in various parts of the USSR.

-= rei =-

Dirsty, you have just insulted my cat. She is WAY smarter than Bush.

I like lettuce.