the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

[Irvine511]

[q]The end of cowboy diplomacy
Why the 'Bush Doctrine' no longer works for Bush administration

Sunday, July 9, 2006; Posted: 12:46 p.m. EDT (16:46 GMT)

Time.com -- All the good feeling at the White House at President Bush's early birthday party on July 4 couldn't hide the fact that the president finds himself in a world of hurt.

A grinding and unpopular war in Iraq, a growing insurgency in Afghanistan, an impasse over Iran's nuclear ambitions, brewing war between Israel and the Palestinians -- the litany of global crises would test the fortitude of any president, let alone a second-termer with an approval rating mired in Warren Harding territory.

And there's no relief in sight. On the very day that Bush celebrated 60, North Korea's regime, already believed to possess material for a clutch of nuclear weapons, test-launched seven missiles, including one designed to reach the U.S. homeland.

Even more surprising than the test (it failed less than two minutes after launch), though, was Bush's response. Long gone were the zero-tolerance warnings, "Axis of Evil" rhetoric and talk of pre-emptive action.

Instead, Bush pledged to "make sure we work with our friends and allies ... to continue to send a unified message" to Pyongyang. In a news conference after the missile test, he referred to diplomacy a half dozen times.

The shift under way in Bush's foreign policy is bigger and more seismic than a change of wardrobe or a modulation of tone.

Bush came to office pledging to focus on domestic issues and pursue a "humble" foreign policy that would avoid the entanglements of the Bill Clinton years.

After September 11, however, the Bush team embarked on a different path, outlining a muscular, idealistic, and unilateralist vision of American power and how to use it.

They aimed to lay the foundation for a grand strategy to fight Islamic terrorists and rogue states, by spreading democracy around the world and pre-empting gathering threats before they materialize. And the U.S. wasn't willing to wait for others to help.

The approach fit with Bush's personal style, his self-professed proclivity to dispense with the nuances of geopolitics and go with his gut. "The Bush Doctrine is actually being defined by action, as opposed to by words," Bush told Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One in 2003.

But in the span of four years, the administration has been forced to rethink the doctrine by which it hoped to remake the world. Bush's response to the North Korean missile test was revealing: Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jong Il would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action. Instead, the administration has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's provocation.

The Bush Doctrine foundered in the principal place the U.S. tried to apply it. Though no one in the White House openly questions Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, some aides now acknowledge that it has come at a steep cost in military resources, public support and credibility abroad.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/09/coverstory.tm.tm/index.html

[/q]



now, i would never say "i told you so" ... but i knew it.

 

[maycocksean]

[q]


now, i would never say "i told you so" ... but i knew it.

Me too, Irvine. Me too.

 

[silja]

Hehe. Perhaps the Bush administration should be welcomed back among the many nations of this world who prefer to work together rather than issuing ill-fated ultimatums... well, maybe not yet.

 

[verte76]

I knew all of these plans would screw up. They've screwed up big time.

 

[financeguy]

Back to the pragmatism of the elder Bush admin, then.

Pity he didn't listen to Poppy in the first place.

 

[Irvine511]

Pity he didn't listen to Poppy in the first place.

if DC gossip is to be believed, the two don't speak anymore. the elder views the younger as having been willingly duped by the more fascistic elements of the Republican Party, the elements that he as a northeasterner had always resisted.

 

[STING2]

[q]
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/09/coverstory.tm.tm/index.html

[/q]



now, i would never say "i told you so" ... but i knew it.

You knew that Time Magazine would write such an article?


The fact is, as Colin Powell has stated, Bush Foreign Policy since 9/11 is not anything revolutionary and is simply a restatement of US Foreign Policy consistent with US Foreign Policy since World War II.

While the Iraq war has strained the popularity of Bush's Presidency, it has been very successful in achieving its objectives those being, the removal of Saddam's regime from power, dismantling any of the regimes WMD weapons or WMD related programs thus insuring that key UN Security Council Resolutions vital to the security of the region and the world are enforced, helping set up a new democratic government to replace the brutal and threatening dictatorship of Saddam. These objectives have been accomplished. The only thing that remains is the rebuilding of the Iraqi military and improvement of the internal security situation for the country.

The United States problem with North Korea is no different than it was in 1994 or 1998. North Korea developed its first two Nuclear Weapons in 1994 and had a successful launch of an ICBM back in 1998. Aside from calling North Korea a member of the Axis of Evil, there is little the Bush administration has done differently in response to North Korea's games over the past 5 years. So to claim that there was a revolutionary policy in place for North Korea and that the President has reversed it is absurd.


A Key element of Clinton's Foreign Policy was spreading democracy around the world. This is simply not a new or revolutionary policy. The United States has always had strong elements of pre-emption in its Foreign Policy since World War II. From the 1950s to the mid-1990s, the United States kept B-52's in the air, 24 hours a day; 365 days a year, armed with nuclear weapons ready to strike any target on the planet it deemed necessary to destroy to insure security.

The United States has never had a foreign policy where it would wait on other countries to help act when its security was threatened. The United States has never had a foreign policy where it would not act unilaterally to protect its security. The United States always tried to mobilize support for its policies when it could, and the Bush administration has been no different in this regard, although some think the absense of France and Germany from Iraq makes Bush a unilateralist.


Yes, there are problems with in Israel, name a year since Israel became a country in 1948 when there has not been a problem.

Bush's foreign policy over the past 6 years is not the revolutionary new policy many in the media claim it to be. It is simply a restatement of elements that have been apart of US Foreign Policy since the end of World War II. So there has been no significant change recently really. The "Bush Doctrine" that TIME describes never existed.

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

So there has been no significant change recently really. The "Bush Doctrine" that TIME describes never existed.

the members of the administration don't seem to share the view you say they hold of their own policy ...


[q]"The Bush Doctrine is actually being defined by action, as opposed to by words," Bush told Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One in 2003.
[/q]



and more background:

[q]The Bush Doctrine was officially enunciated on September 20, 2002, in a policy document issued by the Bush administration and titled 'The National Security Strategy of the United States of America'. It originated from a set of foreign policies adopted by the President of the United States George W. Bush in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. In an address to the United States Congress after the attacks, President Bush had declared that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them," a statement that was followed by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The Bush Doctrine has come to be identified with a policy that permits preventive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States, a view that has been used in part as a rationale for the 2003 Iraq War. The Bush Doctrine is a marked departure from the policies of deterrence that generally characterized American foreign policy during the Cold War and brief period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine

[/q]

 

[VintagePunk]

The approach fit with Bush's personal style, his self-professed proclivity to dispense with the nuances of geopolitics and go with his gut. "The Bush Doctrine is actually being defined by action, as opposed to by words," Bush told Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One in 2003.
...
The Bush Doctrine foundered in the principal place the U.S. tried to apply it. Though no one in the White House openly questions Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, some aides now acknowledge that it has come at a steep cost in military resources, public support and credibility abroad.

I'm only surprised it's taken this long for many people to come to these conclusions. He manipulated the voting public into following him by using fear tactics, presenting himself as an avuncular protector, without whom the nation would be doomed. This is a vast oversimplification, of course, but I strongly feel that's the crux of it.

As for the administration, that's the best (worst?) example of group-think I've ever seen. A bunch of yes-men and women, all of them reinforcing the others' beliefs, no one to question, or to bring up different perspectives.

Am I surprised? Not at all. Am I a big enough person to let the Told You So train pass by without hopping on? Nope.

 

[Bluer White]

Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

The United States problem with North Korea is no different than it was in 1994 or 1998. North Korea developed its first two Nuclear Weapons in 1994 and had a successful launch of an ICBM back in 1998. Aside from calling North Korea a member of the Axis of Evil, there is little the Bush administration has done differently in response to North Korea's games over the past 5 years. So to claim that there was a revolutionary policy in place for North Korea and that the President has reversed it is absurd.

You bet.

I disagree with the premise of the Time article. Is the concept of pre-emption a failure because it hasn't been applied in every geopolitical situation? It reminds me of a baseball pitcher with the reputation of a blazing fastball, but then strikes out a batter with a 78 mph changeup. Would Time say the pitcher is getting weak because he didn't throw the same fastball every time?

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

I disagree with the premise of the Time article. Is the concept of pre-emption a failure because it hasn't been applied in every geopolitical situation?

it's considered a failure because Iraq is a failure on many, many levels, and Iraq was supposed to be the first example of the Bush Doctrine in action, with Iran and NoKo on standby with the understanding that they were next.

the policy has not done what Bush and Co. intended it to be able to do.

 

[BVS]

Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

it's considered a failure because Iraq is a failure on many, many levels, and Iraq was supposed to be the first example of the Bush Doctrine in action, with Iran and NoKo on standby with the understanding that they were next.

the policy has not done what Bush and Co. intended it to be able to do.

Exactly, why some can't see that is beyond me...

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

the members of the administration don't seem to share the view you say they hold of their own policy ...


[q]"The Bush Doctrine is actually being defined by action, as opposed to by words," Bush told Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One in 2003.
[/q]



and more background:

[q]The Bush Doctrine was officially enunciated on September 20, 2002, in a policy document issued by the Bush administration and titled 'The National Security Strategy of the United States of America'. It originated from a set of foreign policies adopted by the President of the United States George W. Bush in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. In an address to the United States Congress after the attacks, President Bush had declared that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them," a statement that was followed by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The Bush Doctrine has come to be identified with a policy that permits preventive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States, a view that has been used in part as a rationale for the 2003 Iraq War. The Bush Doctrine is a marked departure from the policies of deterrence that generally characterized American foreign policy during the Cold War and brief period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine

[/q]

Perhaps you forget that Colin Powell is on record as saying that Bush Foreign Policy is simply a restatement of elements that have been present in US Foreign Policy for decades. I'll take Colin Powell's stated view as well as my own any day over some unnamed sources who happen to be apart of the administration.

People at TIME magazine seem to have a very limited and narrow understanding of US Foreign Policy during the Cold War.

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

it's considered a failure because Iraq is a failure on many, many levels, and Iraq was supposed to be the first example of the Bush Doctrine in action, with Iran and NoKo on standby with the understanding that they were next.

the policy has not done what Bush and Co. intended it to be able to do.

Removed Saddam's regime, enforced UN Security Council Resolutions, and brought Democracy to Iraq. Rebuild the Iraqi military and improve the internal security situation and the job is complete. There was never any intention on the part of the administration to invade North Korea or invade Iran. An invasion of Iraq has always been a possiblity since 1991, and any study of the time period from 1991 through 2003 will show that. The military spent most of its time preparing for task involved with and operation that would expend 3 times as much fuel and ammo as Desert Storm in 1991 did with the long march from Kuwait all the way to Baghdad.

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Exactly, why some can't see that is beyond me...

Its clear that some on the left want Iraq to be a failure because of the political fortunes it will give them. But any objective study of such an operation will show that it is not a failure, unless you believe such an operation could be completed in under two years with no casualties as many on the left are claiming could have been done, but Bush somehow failed.

Key points, Saddam regime removed, UN Security Council resolutions in regards to WMD enforced, a new Democratic government is in place in Iraq. All of that in under 3 years. The rebuilding of the Iraqi military and the improvement of the internal security environment will complete the process.

 

[trevster2k]

I wanna pair of rose-coloured glasses too.

 

[BVS]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Its clear that some on the left want Iraq to be a failure because of the political fortunes it will give them.

Actually it's not what some want, it's just some call a spade a spade. Even many on the Right are admitting the failures of Iraq. Take a look around.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

It must be cold out there Sting.

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Perhaps you forget that Colin Powell is on record as saying that Bush Foreign Policy is simply a restatement of elements that have been present in US Foreign Policy for decades. I'll take Colin Powell's stated view as well as my own any day over some unnamed sources who happen to be apart of the administration.

and most in the administration never thought Powell spoke for the administration.

you need to dig deeper rather than simply rely upon quotes that Powell gave the media after his resignation.

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Its clear that some on the left want Iraq to be a failure because of the political fortunes it will give them.

you mean left-wingers like William F. Buckley, Pat Buchanan, Niall Ferguson, Andrew Sullivan, Mark Derbyshire, and probably Colin Powell?

and the majority of the American people as well.

 

[Harry Vest]

Hey guys (and gals) it's 2006 - they've got more than a full two years to go - THEY AIN'T DONE YET!!! Alot can happen in two years - in fact, alot can happen in a few minutes so quit congratulating yourselves for knowing this was inevitable. It ain't over till the fat lady sings.

 

[nbcrusader]

This isn’t the first, and certainly won’t be the last editorial trying to summarize the GWB years. It usually takes years, if not decades, to properly evaluate policy actions. Today, we want the results before our microwave popcorn finishes cooking. How can people accurately make such definitive statements regarding the success or failure of a policy when they haven’t lived to see the policy fully play out? I guess if we are truly to be cautious about making presumptuous statements, this is a good place to start.

 

[Irvine511]

This isn’t the first, and certainly won’t be the last editorial trying to summarize the GWB years. It usually takes years, if not decades, to properly evaluate policy actions. Today, we want the results before our microwave popcorn finishes cooking. How can people accurately make such definitive statements regarding the success or failure of a policy when they haven’t lived to see the policy fully play out? I guess if we are truly to be cautious about making presumptuous statements, this is a good place to start.

but there seems to be quite a bit of factual (not anecdotal) evidence behind this hypothesis. of course it's early, but i think it's entirely reasonable for a journalist to notice a trend (the toning down of the administration's rhetoric) and then investigate and analyze that trend. it's very well open for discussion, and it was on the news networks all day.

 

[maycocksean]

Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

I'd take issue with a couple of points:

dismantling any of the regimes WMD weapons or WMD related programs thus insuring that key UN Security Council Resolutions vital to the security of the region and the world are enforced, helping set up a new democratic government to replace the brutal and threatening dictatorship of Saddam. These objectives have been accomplished.

This is a serious misstatement because it implies that caches of WMD were found. They were not nor were any programs foudn in place to build such weapons. This statement also implies that the invasion of Iraq took place with support and under the guidance of the UN Security Council. It did not. It also implies that the new democratic government is secure and stable. It is not.

The only thing that remains is the rebuilding of the Iraqi military

You make it sound as if this is just a minor "clean up job" that we can take care of quickly and easily.

A Key element of Clinton's Foreign Policy was spreading democracy around the world. This is simply not a new or revolutionary policy.

Yes, but not through military means--i.e. moving into a country and trying to remake it from the inside out.

The United States has always had strong elements of pre-emption in its Foreign Policy since World War II. From the 1950s to the mid-1990s, the United States kept B-52's in the air, 24 hours a day; 365 days a year, armed with nuclear weapons ready to strike any target on the planet it deemed necessary to destroy to insure security.

Again this is a far cry from actually invading a country.

The United States has never had a foreign policy where it would wait on other countries to help act when its security was threatened. The United States has never had a foreign policy where it would not act unilaterally to protect its security.

This statement suggests that we invaded Iraq because it posed an threat to our national security, and indeed that was the rationale given when we went to war. However, here's the problem, it wasn't certain that Iraq WAS a threat to national security when we attacked. There was no certaintity that Saddam actually still had any operational WMD program going. The supposed link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was tenuous at best. We have NOT had a policy of going to war based on such a shaky foundation in recent history.

It is simply a restatement of elements that have been apart of US Foreign Policy since the end of World War II.

There ain't nothing simple about it. I think the best you could argue is that Bush's policies are drastic reinterpretation of U.S. Foreign Policy since the end of World War II.

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

and most in the administration never thought Powell spoke for the administration.

you need to dig deeper rather than simply rely upon quotes that Powell gave the media after his resignation.

TIME needs to dig deeper if they really are interested in writing and objective article on US Foreign Policy. Colin Powell stated these things while he was in the administration as since he has been outside it. He was the Secretary Of State. He was in charge of the Iraq and Afghanistan policy. He succeeded in getting another UN resolution authorizing the use of force, despite the fact that the many in the administration already felt they had such authorization. When it came to Foreign Policy, Colin Powell was the administration to a degree despite all the myths that have been spun by the media. Can you name one person in the administration who specifically supports the claims of the TIME article?

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

you mean left-wingers like William F. Buckley, Pat Buchanan, Niall Ferguson, Andrew Sullivan, Mark Derbyshire, and probably Colin Powell?

and the majority of the American people as well.

The majority of the American people supported the invasion of Iraq and re-elected the Bush administration despite one of the strongest attempts to unseat a President in modern times. Colin Powell designed the policy, and still supports the use of force to remove Saddam from power. Pat Buchanan has always been an isolatinist and was against the use of force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991. Sure, you can always get a handful of people that side with the other side of the isle on any issue.

 

[STING2]

but there seems to be quite a bit of factual (not anecdotal) evidence behind this hypothesis. of course it's early, but i think it's entirely reasonable for a journalist to notice a trend (the toning down of the administration's rhetoric) and then investigate and analyze that trend. it's very well open for discussion, and it was on the news networks all day.

The trend is the way some in the media attempt to view a policy they don't support. As soon as they think they see some blood, they are going to pounce on it and run with it for all it is worth. To hell with rational and objective analysis.

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

I'd take issue with a couple of points:



This is a serious misstatement because it implies that caches of WMD were found. They were not nor were any programs foudn in place to build such weapons. This statement also implies that the invasion of Iraq took place with support and under the guidance of the UN Security Council. It did not. It also implies that the new democratic government is secure and stable. It is not.



You make it sound as if this is just a minor "clean up job" that we can take care of quickly and easily.




Yes, but not through military means--i.e. moving into a country and trying to remake it from the inside out.



Again this is a far cry from actually invading a country.



This statement suggests that we invaded Iraq because it posed an threat to our national security, and indeed that was the rationale given when we went to war. However, here's the problem, it wasn't certain that Iraq WAS a threat to national security when we attacked. There was no certaintity that Saddam actually still had any operational WMD program going. The supposed link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was tenuous at best. We have NOT had a policy of going to war based on such a shaky foundation in recent history.




There ain't nothing simple about it. I think the best you could argue is that Bush's policies are drastic reinterpretation of U.S. Foreign Policy since the end of World War II.

UN Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized the use of military force to bring Saddam into compliance with all UN Security Council resolutions Saddam was in violation of. It was passed in November 2002. The invasion started in March 2003. In June 2003, the UN Security Council passed UN Security Council Resolution 1483 authorizing the occupation.

If the operation was not supported by the UN, where is the UN resolution or attempt at one to condemn the invasion and call for the withdrawal of UN forces? Why would the UN Security Council Resolution approve the occupation as they did with UN Security Council Resolution 1483 if they thought the invasion was illegal?

Remember how the UN responded to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? They passed a resolution condemning the invasion and called for the immediate withdrawal of all Iraqi forces.


As for WMD, it was never incumbent upon any member state of the UN to prove that Saddam had WMD. It was incumbent upon Saddam to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD per the ceacefire agreement he signed onto in March 1991 at the end of the Gulf War. The primary responsiblity of the UN Security Council in regards to Saddam's WMD was to INSURE they Saddam's regime was verifiably disarmed and that has been accomplished. There was no requirement for anyone to find exibit A under Building B, or this piece of equipment or that.

I did not say that the new democratic government was secure and stable. I did say it exist. I then said that the internal security situation in the country needs to be improved. Rebuilding the Iraqi army is going to take some more time, but some of the biggest hurdles are already out of the way.




Ah, but the Clinton administration did use military force to bring about a change in the political situation in Bosnia and Kosovo. Bosnia is still developing toward a democracy and Kosovo will likely become and independent democracy in the near future. It would not have happened though without the use of US military force in the begining though.


The primary reason for the US invasion of Iraq was to remove Saddam's regime because it had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD, it was not to build a democracy although the removal of the regime made it a necessity.

The criteria for whether or not there would be further military action against Saddam after the 1991 Gulf War was whether Saddam would verifiably disarm of all WMD. Saddam's failure to comply with the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement, made the invasion a necessity in order to insure the security of the region and the world. Look at it from the perspective of a country like Kuwait. Look at what happened in the 1980s and early 1990s. There could be no margin of error given what Saddam had done in the past. With a 400,000 man military and crumbling sanctions and embargo, the international community needed to act fast in order to prevent a worse situation than the crises of 1990/1991.

The invasion followed the policy that was outlined by the 1991 Ceacefire agreement under which Saddam was required to verfiably disarm of all WMD or face renewed military action to accomplish that objective.


Colin Powell was at the head of US foreign Policy for four years and has more experience in US foreign policy than most people in the country. He stated that there were no drastic or revolutionary changes to US foreign policy. It was merely a restatement of the policy with most of the elements that had been followed since World War II. The United States has always sought to hit terrorist before they could hit the United States in a multitude of ways. The policy on Iraq followed the strategy that was developed back in 1991. The United States was not going to let Iraq invade another country in the region before it would respond. The criteria for whether or not there would be further military action was Saddam's compliance or lack of compliance with the UN resolutions.

 

[BVS]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctr

The majority of the American people supported the invasion of Iraq and re-elected the Bush administration despite one of the strongest attempts to unseat a President in modern times.

But we're talking about today. The tide of support has turned.

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctr

But we're talking about today. The tide of support has turned.

Even today, around 40% of the population according to most polls still think removing Saddam was the right thing to do. As early as last August, it was above 50%. Once US casualties start to drop significantly, and the situation in Iraq continues to improve, the poll numbers will snap back to where they have been for most of the past three years. Once US troops are able to fully withdraw from Iraq, you'll find fewer and fewer people even admitting that they opposed the operation in the first place, much like we found with the 1991 Gulf War and the Democrats, most of whom opposed removing Saddam's military from Kuwait.


Speaking of today, here are the latest Gallup poll numbers and its not good news from Democrats who stake everything on poll numbers:


"Bush Job Approval Edges Up to 40%
First time since February that Bush approval in the 40% range"

"PRINCETON, NJ -- President George W. Bush's job approval rating has edged up slightly higher in Gallup's latest poll, and is now at 40% for the first since early February. The July 6-9 poll finds 40% of Americans approving and 55% disapproving of the job Bush is doing as president. After averaging 42% approval in January and early February, Bush's ratings began to decline in mid-February, ultimately dropping to his administration's low point of 31% in early May. Since that time, Bush's approval ratings have shown a slow, gradual improvement."



At this rate, Bush will be back up near 50% by the time of the November elections, the democrats last chance to actually win anything before Bush leaves office.