In previous postings regarding the UN and the situation in Iraq, there seems to be a great divide between American Catholics and others outside the US. There also seems to be real animosity toward the current US president. One even stated that he views Bush as being sent straight from Hell (or something along those lines). But conservative Catholics in the US - more than not - see President Bush as a God-fearing good man. Although not perfect, he is seen as a real breath of fresh air considering the past administration and those who ran against him in the previous election.

I know much of this is based upon the left-leaning media reports that often are a far cry from being honest (especially to those who are pro-life and have power). My wife is from Colombia and her family tells us what is reported about Bush. They are shocked when they talk with us and find out much of what they are told is a total lie. And actually, if we just watched CNN or the major US network news sources and didn't really think about the contradictions reported, we would probably think the same. But many of the conservative US Catholics know better than to trust these as sources of news and have our ways of being better informed.

I would like to start a conversation to better understand this hatred for President Bush - who is Christian, pro-life, a man of character who stands behind his word and is honest. Why such hatred?

Here's a great article in an Italian journal that is a good starting point for the conversation: Bush & God: A Puzzle for the Church in Europe. I think he actually gets it, and he's not from the US.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), April 08, 2003

Answers

Great question Hollis. Not well founded in my opinion, but alas, I am American and Republican. I believe there are several factors at play here:

1. Bush symbolizes America since he is our leader. I suppose the 'transitive property of hatred' is at play here due to - misinformation; biased and/or liberal media with an agenda - envy - many countries/people find it very unsettling to adjust to a world where there is only one superpower

2. Bush is a Christian and his speech and conduct reflect as much - this troubles many people.

3. Bush is direct, honest and says what he means. While this is refreshing, it is troublesome to many (the French for example) and stands in stark contrast to Clinton, who was admittedly more articulate but clearly not as direct and unwavering.

4. Bush believes in peace through strength, like Reagan did. Only difference is that Reagan was not the perceived threat that Bush (the US) is since the former Soviet Union was present to keep us/Reagan 'honest'.

Actions speak louder than words. As the US (under Bush's leadership) continues to lead the world in promoting liberty and humanitarian efforts, hopefully the baseless criticism is stamped out and replaced with appreciation. For example, the Arab street will be muffled once they have no choice but to acknowledge that the coalition of the willing are liberators in Iraq, AND once substantive progress is made between in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 08, 2003.

Mr. Bush is not entirely pro-life, as he has admitted that abortion should be allowed for rare circumstances.

Besides that, actions speak louder than words, and I praise Mr. Bush for the excellent pro-life position he is taking at the UN, which is so incredibly pro-abortion. I think part of the reason why Mr. Bush is so hated in Europe, is because of the cut to the UN Population fund that supports abortion groups. I think roughly 50 million US dollars was cut from their budget each year, that pro-abortion governments in Europe promised to more or less make up the difference.

Also Mr. Bush is infinitly better than Clinton in this regard, as Clinton who said that abortion should be rare, did everything in his power to make sure it was not rare. Clinton was the Abortion President.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

Hi Hollis:

I am glad you brought this up. I just visited Christus Rex webside and was astounded at the unbridled hatred geared towards Bush. I just don't get it.

Does anyone know anything about Christus Rex. I thought it to be a conservative Catholic site . . . ?

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 09, 2003.

I'm not American but follow the political trends closely. I am puzzled like most Europeans why Bush gets so much flack. Yes he was weak on foreign politics but so was Clinton in the begining who incidentally passed the partial abortion act, which is abhorrent. In brief the baby's head is extracted and crushed and then the small child is removed. Claims are that the mother is spared any danger.

Bush reversed this and although he is a poor orator compared to Clinton he does come across frank and to the point. From an outsider's view the last gulf war gave economic stimulus to the US and Clinton road the cress only to leave corporate corruption and the slump that resulted for Bush jnr to deal with.

Most Europeans will always sneer at the US president partly because of envy and conceit of cultures but I have changed my mind and seen the foresight on issues like the gulf war. Containment was not working and to solve the question of the middle east the local bully "Saddam" had first to be dealt with.

France Germany & Russia stand to loose millions in economic participation in Iraq and it this reason as well as weakness in global power and not moral that they object to the coalition in Iraq.

Having viewed the news of repression from Saddam, I can say your government was correct in proceeding, the UN failed in Kosovo and Rwanda and the US knew the UN would dilly dally over Iraq.

I am grateful for the US decisive action and hope Bush jnr can prove his strengths for the US economically.

-- Claudia (c4leftwich@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

A point about Pres. Bush's oratory skill versus that of Clinton. Clinton certainly was a much better BS'er, but serveral of the speeches given by Pres. Bush (after 9/11, the last state of the union, and others) were marvelous both in content and delivery. Pres. Bush is a great orator when it really counts.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), April 09, 2003.

What's wrong with this picture? I think I agree with everything written thus far - hmmm, puzzling :)

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 09, 2003.

"You don't need to be smart to be president" --Republican Congressman J.C. Watts - said at a February campaign appearance on Bush's behalf. Washington Post, 6/11/00

"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." --U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 2000

"Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning" --Florence, SC, Jan. 11, 2000

"Actually, I -- this may sound a little West Texan to you, but I like it. When I'm talking about -- when I'm talking about myself, and when he's talking about myself, all of us are talking about me." --Hardball, MSNBC, May 31, 2000

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it." --Reuters, May 5, 2000

"I think we agree, the past is over." --On his meeting with John McCain, Dallas Morning News, May 10, 2000

"Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is sometime until we get an objective analysis." --Meet the Press, April 15, 2000

"I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California." --Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2000

"We want our teachers to be trained so they can meet the obligations; their obligations as teachers. We want them to know how to teach the science of reading. In order to make sure there's not this kind of federal cufflink." --Fritsche Middle School, Milwaukee, March 30, 2000

"The fact that he relies on facts -- says things that are not factual -- are going to undermine his campaign." --New York Times, March 4, 2000

"It is not Reaganesque to support a tax plan that is Clinton in nature." --Los Angeles, Feb. 23, 2000

"I understand small business growth. I was one." --New York Daily News, Feb. 19, 2000

"How do you know if you don't measure if you have a system that simply suckles kids through?" --Explaining the need for educational accountability, Beaufort, S.C.,Feb.16, 2000

"The senator has got to understand if he's going to have he can't have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road." --To reporters in Florence, S.C., Feb. 17, 2000

"If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign." --Hilton Head, S.C., Feb. 16, 2000

"We ought to make the pie higher." -South Carolina Republican Debate, Feb. 15, 2000

"I've changed my style somewhat, as you know. I'm less, I pontificate less, although it may be hard to tell it from this show. And I'm more interacting with people." --Meet The Press, Feb. 13, 2000

"I think we need not only to eliminate the tollbooth to the middle class, I think we should knock down the tollbooth." --Nashua, N.H., as quoted by Gail Collins, New York Times, Feb. 1, 2000

"The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case." --Pella, Iowa, as quoted in the San Antonio Express News, Jan. 30, 2000"

"This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you do when you run for president. You gotta preserve." --Speaking during Perseverance Month at Fairgrounds Elementary School in Nashua, N.H.

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." --Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000

"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --At a South Carolina oyster roast; quoted in the Financial Times, Jan.14, 2000

"There needs to be debates, like we're going through. There needs to be townhall meetings. There needs to be travel. This is a huge country." --Larry King Live, Dec. 16, 1999

"The important question is, How many hands have I shaked?" --Answering a question about why he hasn't spent more time in New Hampshire; quoted in the New York Times, Oct. 23, 1999

"Keep good relations with the Grecians." --Quoted in the Economist, June 12, 1999

"When it is all said and done, I will have made more money than I ever dreamed I would make." --Source & Date unknown (please email us the source if you know)

"I don't remember debates. I don't think we spent a lot of time debating it. Maybe we did, but I don't remember." --On discussing the Vietnam War as an undergraduate at Yale, in the Washington Post, July 27, 1999

"Put the 'off' button on." --South Carolina, February 14, 2000

"I did denounce it. I de-I denounced it. I denounced interracial dating. I denounced anti-Catholic bigacy... bigotry." --Referring to his Bob Jones University visit and the subsequent criticism, Virginia, February 25, 2000

"We believe in opportunity for all Americans: Rich and poor, black and white...." --From a speech at Bob Jones Univ., in South Carolina, 2/2/00

"We must all hear the universal call to like your neighbor just like you like to be liked yourself." --George W. Bush puts an interesting twist on Jesus Christ's proverb: "Love thy neighbor." (Quote is from the Financial Times)

"I would have said yes to abortion if only it was right. I mean, yeah it's right. Well no it's not right that's why I said no to it." --South Carolina, February 14,2000

"My [tax cut] plan is realistic because it avoids meaningless 15-year projections." --George W. Bush goes to extraordinary lengths to defend his tax cut plan. (Quote is from a Bush speech in Iowa, 12/1/99)

"The fundamental question is: 'Will I be a successful president when it comes to foreign policy?' I will be, but until I'm the president, it's going to be hard for me to verify that I think I'll be more effective." --New York Times, 7/28/99

"There ought to be limits to freedom" --at a Press conference at the Texas State House, May 21, 1999, referring to GWBush.com

"We have struggle to not proceed but to preceed to the future of a nation's child." --Journal Gazette 11/12/00

"My opponent seems to think that Social Security is a federal program. I believe that money is yours and you should be able to invest it yourself." -The final Presidential debate

"Down in Washington they're playing with Social Security like it's some kind of government program!" -NBC Nightly News (Date unknown, anyone out there know?)

"The reason we start a war is to fight a war, win a war, thereby causing no more war!" --The first Presidential debate

"They said, 'You know, this issue doesn't seem to resignate [sic] with the people.' And I said, you know something? Whether it resignates [sic] or not doesn't matter to me, because I stand for doing what's the right thing, and what the right thing is hearing the voices of people who work. --Portland, Ore., Oct. 31, 2000

"It's your money. You paid for it." --LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000

"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet. -Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000

"If affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm for, then I'm for it." --The Presidential Debates. St. Louis, Mo., October 18, 2000

"It's going to require numerous IRA agents." --On Gore's tax plan, Greensboro, N.C., Oct. 10, 2000

"I don't think we need to be subliminable [sic] about the differences between our views on prescription drugs." --Orlando, Fla., Sept. 12, 2000. He then repeatedly mispronounced the word after his press conference.

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully" --Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

"Will the highways on the Internet become more few?" --Concord, N.H., Jan. 29, 2000

"It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas." --Beaverton, Ore., Sep. 25, 2000

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..." --Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect

"They misunderestimated me." --Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

"That's a chapter, the last chapter of the 20th, 20th, the 21st century that most of us would rather forget. The last chapter of the 20th century. This is the first chapter of the 21st century." --On the Lewinsky scandal, Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000"

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." —LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000"

"There's a huge trust. I see it all the time when people come up to me and say, 'I don't want you to let me down again.'" — Boston, Massachusetts, October 3, 2000

"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question" --Reynoldsburg, Ohio, October 4, 2000

"You teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test." --February 21, 2001 - President Bush at Townsend Elementary School, touting his education reform plans.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 09, 2003.

And there's more to the puzzle . . . U.S. marines have discovered an underground complex south of Baghdad that contains a nuclear weapons development project with lots of nuclear material present. That would place the Iraqi's far ahead of everyone's wildest projections of their nuclear capabilities. At the very least, that's the "smoking gun". It would also warrant the gratitude of the entire world to President Bush for pre-empting what could have been a nuclear Iraq within a very short time period. History may never record what could have been, but I am more and more convinced that President Bush was indeed acting as inspired by the Holy Spirit in this war. I believe we have witnessed a hugh work of grace folks.

Just my opinion.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

Kiwi,

My point still holds - when it counts, Bush is a great orator - one of the best. On another note, I would much prefer Bush as president of the US than just about any very articulate English professor in the US or just about anywhere else. But I'm from Texas and am "articulately challenged" as well. So I guess I'm too ignorant to know better.

CHARACTER DOES MATTER!

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), April 09, 2003.

"I would like to start a conversation to better understand this hatred for President Bush - who is Christian, pro-life, a man of character who stands behind his word and is honest. Why such hatred?"

i cannot understand why feelings should sink to the level of hatred, and this is just wrong, but i can in my own mind see some of the factors that might foster a degree of mistrust on the part of non- Americans.

the false basis of this mistrust (that is, the one that simply does not sustain itself) is the President's unfortunate propensity to gaffe. he is not only prone to mere malapropism, but he has on several occasions he has accidentally overstepped the mark. his comment that the invasion of Iraq was a crusade, a comment that he swiftly retracted btw, is the best example i can provide.

it is possible to conclude that someone who cannot acurately express himself in his mother tongue except when he is operating within the prescribed bounds of a prepared speech, ie when he is just reading an autocue, is not so intellgent. that then leads to a complete mistrust of everything he says. note that it would be uncommon in any part of the industrialised world to find an inarticulate leader. when you are used to silky-smooth leaders, you may feel inclined to look down your nose at the leader of the world's greatest power who should in fact be super- silky smooth.

however, against this, one must say that stupid people do not make it all the way the Oval office. one must assume, therefore, that here is a man of at least well above-average intelligence and one must also acknowledge that whilst a low IQ may render a man inarticulate, the opposite is not true. whether or not President Bush is dumb is not to be determined by the regrettable throw-away comments. there is no meaningful evidence to counter a claim that he may even be the brightest of the bright intellects in the White House.

the more sustainable objection to Bush is not actually directed at Bush but at the administration. it begins with an analysis of the why's and wherefore's of the invasion of Iraq. it requires an analysis of the precise reason for that invasion. there is a lot of mud here.

the official US position (correct me if i am wrong), as it has been portrayed in the media, is that the invasion is designed to take away Saddam's WMD's before he passes them to terrorists. evidence of this not only comes from the horse's mouth, but also from the UN resolutions which are specifically directed at WMD and do not mention human rights for Iraqi citizens.

the liberation of Iraq is, therefore, a fortunate consequence of the invasion; but it cannot be said to be the reason for it. if Saddam had openly and honestly handed over his WMD's, then the War would have been avoided. Saddam would have been free to further murder Iraqis.

most worringly, hiding behind the invasion of Iraq is the Project for the New American Century, and the idealism promoted by, in particular, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. PANC calls for American dominance of world affairs (using military force if needs be). this ideology was hatched many years back by Cheney and it represents a great threat to every other industrialed nation. on 9/11 it became US policy.

PNAC is the best basis of the allegations of imperialism and colonialism. PNAC is manifest in the various statements by various of the administration and in the administration's attitude (Powell excepted): Rumsfield did not see a need for British support; Bush always was going alone; it was onlly because of Blair that the US even bothered with the UN route; Perle and others have launched vicious attacks on the UN.

on account of PNAC, non-US leaders see a new Rome in the making. it makes them very nervous and it should. the strength of PNAC is shown by the way it cut through the European Union, the UN and NATO like a knife through butter.

somewhat ironically, IMHO the man on the street is largely unaware of this and his objection to the US is based upon other (IMHO some quite dubious) considerations: - the US assertion that Saddam is supplying terrorists - this looks odd when you consider that the intelligence agencies could not prove a link between Saddam and 9/11 or Bin Laden or Al Quaeda: the war was then hastily re-designated as preventative, on the basis he was going to supply terrorists at some point in the future. this smells. - few if any serious commentators now think that oil is a prime- mover (although the Palestinians and other Arabs mistakenly this is the reason) - but much US dissent is caused by this false story - few serious commentators think this is personal feud between the Bush and Hussein families, but many people are willing to take this view. - some people just naturall support the underdog. the US can seem like a big playground bully. this is just emotive.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 10, 2003.

REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES - Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century - A Report of The Project for the New American Century - September 2000

"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. "

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 10, 2003.

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives2/2003b/040403/040403s.htm

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 10, 2003.

it is possible to conclude that someone who cannot acurately express himself ...leads to a complete mistrust of everything he says

How do you jump to that conclusion? Some of the most honest people I know are not all that articulate and some of the most articulate people I know (especially those in politics and mainstream media) I have absolutely no trust in. Why? The mistrust is due to them either being very wrong or willfully being deceitful on many matters (those screaming "quagmire" after a week in Afghanistan and AFTER 2 DAYS in Iraq; those claiming that Saddam had no WMD, those who said the Iraqis did not want the US to liberate them,.... the list is quite long for just the last 3 weeks!).

I am very proud of President Bush. He is restoring honor to the US presidency and stands up as a real leader (along with PM Tony Blair) amongst a group of spineless, greedy group of dishonorable world so- called "leaders". Listening to an exiled Iraqi last night on the news who spoke of the betrayal that the Iraqis had felt for so many years that the world community had betrayed them by ignoring their horrible situation under Saddam contrasted to the thousands of Iraqis on the news shouting their thankfulness to Pres. Bush and the US for having the backbone to do that which should have been done decades ago!

Yes, I am proud of President Bush - verbal blunders and all. If we just had more like him in positions of power throughout the world!

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), April 10, 2003.

Hollis,

i think that we are in agreement that President Bush is no slouch!

but what is your thinking on the "Project for the New American Century"? is this real? do you think that non-Americans have anything to worry about? do you think that this might have had an influence on the decision to invade Iraq?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 10, 2003.

(topping)

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 14, 2003.

x2

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 15, 2003.

I've never heard of "Project for the New American Century". Please enlighten me.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), April 15, 2003.

x3

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 15, 2003.

Jmj

Message to Hollis and Ian ...
Hollis, I agree with your analysis completely. I was disappointed by the gaffe in Ian's statement.

Ian [you're writing from a British Commonwealth nation, aren't you?], you seem quite learned and a skillful writer, but partially lacking in facts on the subject of Iraq. I found out why you could have been so badly misled when I had the shock of looking at your linked article. You must be unaware of the fact that you are reading (and linking) one of the worst publications in America, the "rag" that I call the "National non-Catholic Reporter." The "NCR" is a lay-run, rejected-by-bishops, hotbed of religious dissent and hatred of all things conservative in politics. Don't expect to find accurate, complete, "fair-and-balanced" articles in the NCR.

Ian, apparently by not going to news sources that give a complete and accurate picture, you were led to make the following incorrect statement:
"... the US assertion that Saddam is supplying terrorists - this looks odd when you consider that the intelligence agencies could not prove a link between Saddam and 9/11 or Bin Laden or Al Quaeda: the war was then hastily re-designated as preventative, on the basis he was going to supply terrorists at some point in the future...."

Correction: Directly after September 11, 2001, President Bush declared a "War on Terrorism," not a "War on Bin Laden/Al Qaeda." You must have missed the fact that the people of the civilized and courageous nation(s) of the world have embarked on a years-long (perhaps decades-long) effort to eliminate terrorism worldwide. Thus there never was a need to firmly tie Al Qaeda [no "u"] to S. Hussein. There only was a need to show any kind of willingness of the Iraqi regime to help terrorists. This was easily accomplished, even to the point of showing the presence of Al Qaeda personnel operating in Iraq (contrary to your contention). [If you are unaware of the links between S. Hussein and terrorism and you wish to become informed about them, you should have no trouble tracking them down through careful google.com searching. (If you come up dry, let me know.)]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 17, 2003.

dear John

yes, indeed, there can be no doubt that Saddam is (was!!) a sponsor of terrorism.

my concern is the "Project for the New American Century" - which suggests an intention on the part of the US to use military force, where that is necessary, to further US interests. there appears to be no moral caveat to this strategy or the related tactics.

i have yet to see a post that acknowledges that PNAC even exists.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 17, 2003.

Jmj

OK, Ian. I will be happy to be the first to acknowledge that the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) exists. It has an address in Washington, D.C., and numerous very well-known leaders/co-sponsors.

I have read parts of a letter that PNAC wrote to President Bush just nine days after Al Qaeda's infamous 2001 acts of war against humanity. PNAC is a group of private citizens that has every right to petition the president to do what they recommend.

Ian, I think that you exagerrated what PNAC stands for when you stated that the organization "suggests an intention on the part of the U.S. to use military force, where that is necessary, to further U.S. interests. there appears to be no moral caveat to this strategy or the related tactics."

Because of my strong familiarity with the beliefs and high character of some of the co-signers of the letter to the president, I can assure you that there is no way that they would promote the indiscriminate "use [of] military force ... to further U.S. interests." According to my reading of the letter, there is no proposal to use force other than to clean up the terrorist mess on planet Earth.

My point is this ... There are lots of other "U.S. interests" around the world besides destroying terrorism -- e.g., trade, immigration, makeup of foreign governments. But in none of these would PNAC recommend the "use [of] military force ... to further U.S. interests." Please don't panic!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 19, 2003.