WHY EURO-WEENIES HATE GEORGE BUSH.
President Bush will be facing demonstrators in England today.  No big news.  American presidents face demonstrations everywhere they go .. .even in this country.
I think, though, I have a bit of a handle on why so many Europeans literally hate George Bush.  I can explain it with this scenario:
You're walking down the street when you notice a house on fire.  The flames are just beginning to lick at some windows.  From inside that house you hear screams.  A mother is pleading for someone to come help her look for her babies.
You're frozen with fear out there on that sidewalk.  You know there are children in that house, and you know the mother is in there trying to save them.  You know they may all die, but you can't move out of your tracks on that sidewalk.  You're afraid.  After all, what if you get burned trying to save those people?  What if you die?  Maybe the flames will die out on their own?  You're perfectly willing to stand in the yard with a garden hose trying to contain the flames .. but actually going in there?  No way!
While you're standing there doing nothing, here comes this swaggering American in a cowboy hat.  A damned Texan.   The Texan sees the fire, hears the screams for help, throws down his hat and runs into the house.  Minutes later he emerges with the woman and her children.  They're safe.
What about you?  You feel like a coward.  That Texan has made you feel small .. he took your manhood.  He showed you for the coward that you are in front of all of those people who were watching the spectacle.  Those people know that they were more like you than like the Texan; after all, they stood by you in doing nothing.  God, you hate him so.  You hate him because he displayed the courage you only wish you had.  Oh, you're glad he rescued that woman and her children; but why couldn't it have been you?
Suck it up, Europe.  It's not like this is the first time Americans have had to do the job you should have done in the first place, and it probably won't be the last.


http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html          





     
         

OWN3D!!!!!

It's not like this is the first time Americans have had to do the job you should have done in the first place, and it probably won't be the last.

This dude sounds like a douchebag.

The real reason is that Bush is neither an internationalist, nor a progressive socalist.  This makes him a strange outsider (being a Texan makes it worse, and who can blame this thought ).  We voted him in, so we are outsiders as well.  They loved Clinton because in him they saw hope in us getting with 'the program', but their hopes were dashed with the election of Bush.  This is the reality.

It's got nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with a status quo political system.  

Besides, many European countries have indeed semt troops to Iraq.  Personally, I don't believe in this 'with us or against us' philosophy, as that seems to be a bit immature.  

DP, I think you're right, but so is Mr. Boortz.

BOTH are 100% right...

Well the truth is President Bush is a great leader, and the other countries are either with us or against us. That is not immature that is just the way things are. People complain about the U.S. but then want us to save thier butts when they are in trouble.

I think if the US declined to intervene internationally there would be no one to fill the void.....no one has the ability AND the guts (political will) to project power and they come as a package, you don't rent them to the World Court or the UN at the whim of feckless leaders.

Quoted: Well the truth is President Bush is a great leader, and the other countries are either with us or against us.

Bush is a decent president (especially after Clinton), but a great leader he's not.  At the end of the day, he's still a politician dishing out spin like any other.    

The with us or against us concept is incompetent international policy.  There IS such a thing as being in disagreement, without being an enemy.  I'll acknowledge that the French did seem to overstep the boundary.  You are losing out on having lots of decent friends if you put people in the friend or enemy pile based on whether or not the are in agreement with you on every topic.

Make no mistake, we would still be treading water on Iraq if we left this to the UN (or France and Germany, if you like).  You may argue that it seems a better outcome than what we have but there was NEVER an intention to use force in the UN.  Only the presence of troops in Kuwait gave ANY urgency to Hussein complying and at that it was half-hearted and deceitful (and maybe an insane deathwish of sorts).

France and Germany should have been more forthright and BEGGED US  not to send troops to the ME but their game got called.

Quoted: This dude sounds like a douchebag. The real reason is that Bush is neither an internationalist, nor a progressive socalist.  This makes him a strange outsider (being a Texan makes it worse, and who can blame this thought ).  We voted him in, so we are outsiders as well.  They loved Clinton because in him they saw hope in us getting with 'the program', but their hopes were dashed with the election of Bush.  This is the reality. It's got nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with a status quo political system.

I read a really good essay about anti-semitism in history throughout history, and the author reached the same conclusion you did about why the Europeans are so anti-American.  Like the Jews who keep to themselves, do things their way, refuse to blend in, and worst of all; believe they've got a handle on the Truth, they've been hated throughout history.  By the Romans, Greeks, Islamists, Europeans, and Christians.

It was hoped that Israel would solve the problem of anti-semitism but all that has happened is that Israel became the Jew of the international community.  It doesn't do what Europe thinks it should do, etc.

The essay ends by saying something like "I am sure American readers find these attitudes familiar, and they stem from the same root".  Just like you say, Driftpunch, Clinton and his lackeys were willing to go along with Europe's program and fantasies about international law superceding nation states, he was very worldly with no religious convictions, was much more comfortable talking about problems then actually  facing them with action.  So he was adored by Europe.

During the 1990's, Israel was willing to go along with Europe and entered into the Madrid and Oslo peace talks, which was Israel's unwitting the equivalent of having to wear a yellow star so the authorities wont give you trouble.  Then in 2000-2001, the world really started to go against the US and Israel, and Europe is screeching again that we're not adopting their values, and directs a lot of hate towards us.

Frankly, I'm getting really sick of them. Here's the essay, "On Hating the Jews: The inextricable link between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism" www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004310

Quoted: DP, I think you're right, but so is Mr. Boortz. BOTH are 100% right...

Yep, you hit it right on the head.

If you think boortz is a douchebag, you need to listen to him.

He is one of the best libertarians out there, and he backs this political stance very well.

Go to www.boortz.com and check him out.

His daily notes are a great read, similar to the WSJ's best of the web.

TXL