You've framed support for Bush in the context of the middle east. This seems to be the one of 2 places he garners most of his support from. Either folks who for whatever reason, believe the Iraqi was the correct thing to start, or right wing religious fanatics who find joy in bush's constant reference to god.

Now I myself, wouldn't want to be associated with any group that also contains members of the religious right. But to each his own.

Not all are supporting bush. From new hamshire today:


President Bush visited New Hampshire today to talk about his proposed budget.

The right-leaning Union Leader ran an editorial today that concluded, "Mr. President, you are not fooling anyone. Stop these short-term political games and give us a budget that brings federal spending down to a sustainable level. Don't let the American people down by passing this problem on to our children."

The middle of the road Nashua Telegraph editorialized, "Your administration says the nation is still on course to reduce the deficit in half by 2009. It sounds much too good to be true. And while we're at it, some of those cuts, especially in Medicare and Medicaid programs, as well as for education, could impact our state budget severely. Lowering federal responsibilities by hiking state or local budgets is a deceptive way to achieve deficit reduction."

And the Portsmouth Herald ran an editorial saying "We are concerned about your priorities and find it hard to understand why you would seemingly sacrifice government aid to the nation's most needy for the sake of building up armed forces that are already the strongest in the world.... There is a trust issue involved here, Mr. President."



>OK, Perry, stand still and take both barrels:
>
>1) John's response was to Walter, who has demonstrated a marked lack of respect for anyone whose opinion differs from his. I'm with John - I don't give a flip how things are done in Europe and how Walter sees our media/politics thru his paranoic and Euro-tinted optics.
>
>2) Bush is paying far more attention to the international arena than Clinton did. Clinton had the chance to shut down bin Laden but didn't have the brass to do it. Bush is doing what he feels needs to be done in the defense of the citizens of the United States. Disagree all you want, but to label him in "denial" is idiotic.
>
>3) Bush is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and it is his war to run. IF he's done something illegal - and in my book that's a big IF - it is up to the courts and Congress to deal with it.
>
>4) You can wring your hands all you want, but the fact of the matter is we are the big dog on the block, and all of the little dogs are jealous. America-bashing is a spectator sport among European leftists and pseudo-intellectuals, it has been for many years and will probably continue to be so for years to come. It's nothing new since Bush got into office. I've had the pleasure/honor/unfortunate experience to visit Europe and visit with Europeans for many years, and there has always been a love/hate relationship between us and them. It ain't new.
>
>5) Your post regarding the deep south (and others) tarred you as just another generalist, IMHO. If you don't have the depth to realize that all Southerners aren't Bible-thumping madmen - just as all Europeans aren't foaming liberals - then there isn't much I can do about it. Is everyone from LA fuzzy-brained?