<They believe that the Bush administration, with its unyielding focus on the war on terrorism and the primacy of U.S. interests, increasingly places little stock in the needs and opinions of other countries.

I would say that the “unyielding focus on the war on terrorism” is merely a greater issue than “the needs and opinions of other countries”. Less focus on the needs and opinions of other countries has not occurred, merely a heightened focus on the real trouble.

The overseas view is that the United States has disengaged from the world -- and the American insistence is that it has never been more engaged.

Well, if that don’t tie it up nice and neat...

We still have global terror and the “unyielding focus of Muslim extremist factions bent upon the destruction of all Western governments”. We still care, Raoul, and it’s a damned shame we’re concentrating on a much larger picture that Europe right now, but that’s the way it is -- and hopefully the way it will be, until that big picture changes for the better.

Problems that are considered important to the rest of the world -- such as the threat of global warming, the costs of globalization and the spread of infectious diseases -- appear to receive little if any attention from the administration, foreign officials complain.

Sorry, but that’s just too funny to be bothersome, particularly that global warming hits the top of the list. The “brown cloud of death”, reported over the Indian Ocean a few short weeks ago, I say is a likely start on fixing the global warming problem (El Niño starts somewhere around there, doesn’t it -- then feeds across Colombia and Venezuela to energize hurricanes, as well as North American droughts and floods?). But then that would mean getting Asia and Africa to start picking up after themselves. But, no, the only answer to the problem is to have the U.S. sign treaties where we would have to contribute funds to foreign projects, many of which have little to nothing to do with global warming.

I don’t think so.

European officials say they feel adrift and increasingly estranged from U.S. policy, especially on the Middle East and the environment. Latin Americans say they have been ignored despite the region's growing financial woes. Officials in Japan and South Korea say they are not sure whether they matter much to the United States any more.

You’d think these nations, with their long and fascinating histories, could see that far away from, and that far ahead of, these petty little squabbles. Europe’s estrangement on Middle Eastern policies would be far less noticeable, if that estrangement weren’t actually Europe’s toward the U.S. Latin America has been digging its own grave for decades, not just since last year. Japan makes a few stupid monitory decisions that just about bankrupt the nation, and we’re supposed to fly in with the aid. And we’re still in South Korea, supporting them to the fullest -- even through their many riots by the younger citizens who want us out.

Life goes on, pretty much as it has. The trend will change, once ROW gets back with the program of fixing the real problems. “With us or against us” is not the issue. “Against global terrorism or with global terrorism” is, and all this “I really don’t care one way or the other about global terrorism” is nothing more than the idiots of the world sticking their heads in the sand and hoping (praying to some mythical supreme being) that it’ll all just go away.

Well, it won’t, Raoul -- until either the West does, or the Muslim fanatics do.

Writing in The Sunday Times, Duncan Smith called for preemptive action against Iraq, saying Britain was at high risk from future missile attacks by Saddam. "We can choose to act preemptively or we can prevaricate," he said. "Intervening in Iraq is not about doing the right thing in the United States, it is about doing the right thing for Britain."

I thank you for that bit of clarity, Mr. Smith,
Dan