CONTENTS

THE UNSCHOOLED PRESIDENT

On May 31, 2001, George W. Bush began his education for his first European tour that would include visiting four countries in six days. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice compiled a group of European experts to teach the president. They included Michael McFaul of the conservative Hoover Institute, investment banker and former ambassador to France Felix Rohatyn, Timothy Garton Ash, and journalist Lionel Barber. "The visitors were sworn to secrecy, in part to avoid the impression that Bush needed remedial training." (Newsweek, June 18, 2001)

Many scholars warned the president of his "unilateralism" and his determination to disregard the opinions of other global leaders. Surprisingly, Bush acknowledged he had "gotten off on the wrong foot" with his European counterparts. Yet, he was adamant about his National Missile Defense system. (Newsweek, June 18, 2001)

On his five-day tour, Bush outlined a set of goals for United States engagement with Europe. First, he underlined his hope "to replace the Cold War security architecture with a new framework that would take into account the end of the East-West standoff as well as the emergence of new threats. Second, he committed his administration to lead an expansion of NATO that could eventually extend the security commitment of the United States to nations from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea." (Washington Post, June 17, 2001) But the unschooled president offered no details.

Bush's European trip occurred at an historic time. The once small sovereign nations had combined to form the European Union, a united community that often spoke with a louder single voice. It no longer was viewed as a small collection of countries that played a secondary role in global affairs. It saw itself as an equal partner, not dependent upon the United States. The EU included 15 nations: Austria, Belgium, Britain, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden. And the EU was considering admitting up to 13 other nations. It could add as many as five new members in 2004 and 10 within a decade. Its population was over 370 million people, larger than that of the United States. It already had major economic leverage as the source of about 50 percent of foreign investment in the United States, accounting for about 3 million high- paying American jobs, according to the EU office in Washington. As a regional power, the EU had a common currency and its own rapid-deployment force. (Los Angeles Times, June 18, 2001)

The gap between the two trans-Atlantic partners widened with the election of Bush. A conservative occupied the White House, while most of the capitals in the 15- member European Union were run by center-left social democrats. The governments in the United States and Europe disagreed philosophically on basics, ranging from the role of taxation and protecting wildlife to foreign aid for family planning and the role of the state in ensuring workers' rights.

Bush found no sympathy for his pet project on missile defense. His NATO friends feared that his project would encourage larger and more dangerous arsenals of offensive weapons and destroy the foundations of international arms control. He failed to convince European leaders that he made the right decision in rejecting the Kyoto agreement to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.

Europeans were puzzled by Bush's position on an anti-missile defense system and threats to abrogate SALT I; his anti-environmental stance including the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol; his refusal to ban land mines across the globe; his pro-life and pro-death penalty positions; his refusal to endorse an international court; and his hard-line stance with North Korea and Iraq.

In separate visits to Europe, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Powell gave conflicting accounts to their counterparts in NATO. Just weeks before his European tour, Bush took steps to restrict steel imports, exacerbating trade frictions with the European Union. The EU, meanwhile, challenged tax subsidies received by thousands of American companies, including Boeing and Microsoft, and threatened punitive tariffs on $4 billion of American goods.

Bush's decision to freeze negotiations with North Korea was enough to prompt the European Union to go it alone in trying to renew peace talks between the two Koreas. Bush was still trying to win the approval of European allies, Russia, and China on an American- British plan to ease United Nations sanctions on trade with Iraq in consumer goods while tightening a ban on military items. Other than Britain, few allies were interested in maintaining a hard line on Saddam Hussein.

Europe was also appalled by Bush's support for capital punishment, particularly in the wake of the execution of Timothy McVeigh. They were well aware that Bush was governor of Texas, the state that executed more prisoners that any other.

The European media castigated the inexperienced and arrogant American president. In Britain, The Guardian (June 11, 2001) called Bush "the strangest American president most Europeans have ever seen. Ronald Reagan was, by comparison, an open book, the doctrinaire cold warrior ranged against an evil empire. All Reagan's postwar predecessors were shaped the same way. Bill Clinton made a slow start as far as Europe went, and was first seen as an ingenue, but he fitted into a familiar picture. He badly wanted to get on with Europeans, and took an active interest in their problems. As a leading third wayer, he shared the social democratic sensibility that governed most of the EU during his second term." The article concluded, "Mr Bush is none of that. His mind has not been touched by Europe, either as a student or a politician. The world is more shapeless than it was for his ideological ancestor." (The Guardian, June 12, 2001)

The Guardian (June 13, 2001) also reported on Bush's appearance in Madrid, "And he smiled, benignly, because he knows that as the head of the world's only superpower, he will usually get his way, no matter how much Europe protests."

Bush was not only bombarded by the media, but several European leaders wasted no time in criticizing the American president. European leaders spoke condescendingly of the American president. The European press depicted him as a "cowboy hayseed." A CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll found that 46 percent of respondents said foreign leaders do not have much respect for Bush, compared with 40 percent who said foreign leaders respect him. In February, 38 percent said Bush did not command respect from world leaders, while 49 percent thought he did. (USA Today, June 8, 2001)

Bush chose to visit Spain first. Conservative Prime Minister Maria Aznar was the closest head of state in ideology to him. Also, Bush also had an opportunity to underscore the importance of Spanish language and Hispanic culture in the United States, where Latinos would be crucial in the 2004 election.

Before departing for Spain, Bush gave an interview to Spanish television and pronounced Prime Minister Aznar's name as Anzar. "It's a great honor to travel to Spain and visit the King and also Prime Minister Anzar (sic). But I have to practice the very pretty language, and unless I practice, I am going to destroy this language." In the White House press center in Madrid, the American flag was hung upside down.

In a press conference with Aznar, the American president once again displayed his ineptitude. On several occasions, he referred to the prime minister as president. And in an attempt to show off his Spanish, he repeatedly tried out various phrases, but he frequently mispronounced words, placing the accent over the incorrect vowel. When he was given his first question in Spanish, he grabbed for his earpiece within 20 seconds to get the English translation. (New York Times, June 12, 2001)

Bush's favorite phrase, especially when struggling with a question, was "freedom-loving" people. He used it again as he dismissed the anti-ballistic missile treaty that did so much to prevent mutual mass destruction during the Cold War. The treaty was "a relic of the past -- it prevents freedom-loving people from exploring the future," he said. (The Guardian, June 13, 2001)

Bush's first stop in the six-day trip was in Spain where hundreds of demonstrators, viewing him as an imperialist, waved banners and shouted slogans outside the American embassy. The demonstrators' causes included the Kyoto accord, the death penalty, and trade sanctions against Cuba. "The Yanqui needs Vietnam medicine," the crowd chanted in Spanish, referring to American humiliation in the Vietnam War. They also shouted "Bush assassin" and "We want to see Bush underneath a missile."

Bush's arrival in Brussels was marked by a gathering of about 100 protesters blowing whistles and shouting "Bush go home" outside NATO headquarters. Police erected barbed-wire barricades around the fortress-like NATO facility. Among the signs greeting the American president outside the NATO headquarters was one pronouncing "Bush + Sharon = Guerre/World War." Banners proclaimed "George W. Bush: Outlaws not welcome," and "Save the Climate. Stop Star Wars." Greenpeace protesters delayed his appearance by blocking the airport entrance. At one airport entrance, about a dozen Greenpeace demonstrators, wearing white jump suits, chained themselves together in front of a gate. Throughout town, the authorities responded to threats of unrest by blocking off streets with barricades, snarling traffic throughout central Brussels. (New York Times, June 14, 2001)

President Jacques Chirac of France, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany, and Prime Minister Wim Kok of the Netherlands all criticized his positions on global warming and missile defense. The Council of Europe was so underwhelmed that the American president was in its jurisdiction that by midweek the front page of its Web site had no mention of his presence. Instead, the major news was, "Parliamentary Assembly to Observe Elections in Bulgaria." (Los Angeles Times, June 15, 2001)

In environmentally-friendly Sweden, Bush was met by thousands of anti-American protesters in Gothenburg. Activists gathered outside the Radisson Hotel where he was staying and lowered their trousers to register their disgust. The protesters destroyed two police cars and hurled stones and bottles at officers who surrounded a school where activists were staying. They carried out mock executions in a homemade electric chair, dumping "dead" bodies into a funeral van. The demonstrators chanted, "Get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged." They marched through the streets portraying Bush as Darth Vader above a warning, "Say no to Son of Star Wars." (Los Angeles Times, June 15, 2001)

While Bush met no resistance from demonstrators in conservative Warsaw, once again they appeared in Slovenia for his visit with Russian President Vlaimir Putin. Slovenian police arrested more than 20 people at the American embassy and beat Italian activists trying to enter the Balkan country to join protests during the Bush-Putin meeting. Later, riot police faced off against nearly 1,000 anti-globalization protesters who had marched to the Russian embassy. And police brought in armored cars and a water cannon to control the demonstrators. Shortly before the two presidents arrived separately at Ljubljana's airport, 22 members of Greenpeace were arrested after five of them jumped the fence at the American embassy. Outside the compound, the other activists chained themselves together and held up a banner reading: "Stop Star Wars." (Canadian Press, June 17, 2001)

According to the Kyoto Protocol, the United States would have had to reduce its emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Bush argued that the Kyoto treaty would have had a devastating effect on the American economy and was unfair because it excluded developing countries, including India and China. The Europeans, however, pointed out that voluntary efforts have failed. They also frequently noted that the United States was responsible for 25 percent of the planet's carbon dioxide emissions while representing just 4 percent of its population. (Washington Post, June 9, 2001)

In an attempt to find a middle ground, Bush told European allies that he wanted to spend millions of dollars on research into the causes of global warming and technologies to reduce it. But he refused to back down on his opposition to mandatory controls on emissions of greenhouse gases. The president repeated that the Kyoto agreement on cutting carbon emissions was "unrealistic." And he proposed new research, saying the science of global warming remains unproven. (New York Times, June 13, 2001)

The European Union reasserted its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol and rejected Bush's initiatives on climate change as short on action. The EU urged him instead to change his mind and to support the Kyoto treaty. In a joint statement with the European Commission, the Swedish EU presidency said that it regretted that Bush opposed Kyoto's targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Swedish Environment Minister Kjell Larsson said the EU ministers confirmed that they fully backed the Kyoto Protocol and were ready to proceed with its ratification. (Radio Austria, June 13, 2001) Larsson said in a statement, "We regret that President Bush continues to reject the Kyoto protocol. We cannot accept this." Margot Wallstrom, the EU environment commissioner, said, "We think it is time to move on from analyzing the issues towards action." (The Observer, June 13, 2001)

European Union leaders rejected Bush's rejection of the 1997 Kyoto treaty to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and representatives of the country's leading utilities signed an agreement that was aimed to phase out the use of nuclear energy within 25 years by shutting down the country's 19 atomic power plants. While Bush argued that greenhouse gas reduction measures and economic growth were contradictory -- and nuclear power was necessary to meet increased American energy demands -- Germany was trying to prove the opposite. Jörg Haas, an environment specialist with the Berlin- based Heinrich Böll Foundation, said, "For one, Germany is the first really big industrial country that's giving up nuclear power, and secondly, it's the country with the most ambitious climate- protection program. I think we can be proud that we are showing that this works." (Christian Science Monitor, June 13, 2001)

Bush and leaders of the 15 EU clashed sharply in Gothenburg. The Europeans said they would implement the Kyoto climate treaty without the United States. Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson said, "The European Union will stick to the Kyoto Protocol and go for a ratification process. The U.S. has chosen another policy." They expressed complaints about protectionism in Bush's recent moves to defend the U.S. steel industry. And others were miffed by a call from Bush for expansion of the EU as well as the NATO military alliance. (Los Angeles Times, June 15, 2001)

The Europeans accepted the overwhelming scientific consensus that man-made gases were heavily responsible for the warming of Earth's atmosphere. They believed that the consequences were likely to be calamitous unless the industrialized world committed itself, as it did in the Kyoto Protocol. They also agreed to push ahead with ratification of the accord by the end of the year.

But Bush continued to question the science, insists that mandatory reductions in emissions would undermine the American economy and overstated the obstacles presented by developing nations like China. However, he tried to temper the hostile feelings: "We do agree that climate change is a serious issue, and we must work together. We agree that climate change requires a global response, and agreed to intensify cooperation on science and technology." (Los Angeles Times, June 15, 2001)

"THE SON OF STAR WARS"

"A confident President Bush declared that he was overcoming European fears over his plans for a missile defence shield yesterday as he held his first meeting with fellow NATO leaders in Brussels." (www.telegraph.co.uk) His claim was almost immediately challenged by European leaders. The president used words like "pleased" and "great discussion" and "broad agreement" and "open and constructive reactions" when describing his meetings with the other NATO leaders. (Washington Post, June 14, 2001) Bush tried to dispel the notion that he was acting aggressively and unilaterally in his decision to deploy the National Missile Defense system. In an attempt to buy support of his European allies, the president said, "I hope that the unilateralist theory is dead here today. Unilateralists do not come to the table to share opinions. Unilateralists do not come here to ask opinions." (www.telegraph.co.uk)

In Brussels, NATO leaders clashed over Bush's "challenge to three decades of conventional wisdom about European security." The heads of France and Germany contradicted Bush's declaration that there was a "new receptivity" to his plan for a missile defense shield. The strongest expression of that opinion came from conservative French President Jacques Chirac who said after a NATO meeting that a missile shield represented a "fantastic incentive to proliferate" weapons because terrorists or hostile states would build more arms in an attempt to trump the new defenses. (New York Times, June 14, 2001) Chirac claimed that the shield would deter nuclear proliferation by making it pointless, insisting that it would instead be an "incredible invitation to proliferation" He said that countries hostile to the United States would redouble their efforts to develop bigger and more powerful missiles to penetrate the shield." (www.telegraph.co.uk)

"The son of Star Wars" was hit with more opposition. His pet project, the National Missile Defense system, was first castigated from German chancellor Gerhard Schröder and Prime Minister Wim Kok of the Netherlands. Schröder said, "We still see a host of issues that need to be clarified, and therefore we must and indeed will be continuing intensive discussions on this subject." However, Bush administration officials cited a long list of allies whose leaders indicated an interest in the plan: Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Italy, Britain, Turkey, and Spain.

The Bush administration claimed that five countries remained open to NMD: Britain, Spain, Italy, Poland and Hungary. Britain Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "We understand entirely, and indeed share, the American concerns that there are highly unstable states who are developing nuclear capabilities. We have got to look at all the different ways, including defence systems, that we can deal with that threat." (www.telegraph.co.uk) But in private, British government officials believed that Bush would move ahead unilaterally with deployment of the missile shield anyway, so there was little point mounting a futile campaign of public opposition. (The Guardian, June 14, 2001)

However, The Guardian reported that Blair was for the first time facing party pressure to oppose Bush's anti-missile system. Eighteen union general secretaries warned that Bush's scheme would "immense damage to international treaties covering weapons of mass destruction." They added that if the United States were to unilaterally abrogate treaties when it was expedient to do so, "international confidence in treaties as a system of resolving problems will be considerably undermined." They concluded that it would be "wholly inappropriate for our government to support this initiative and strongly urge it not to do so." (The Guardian, June 14, 2001)

In an attempt to sell the National Missile Defense system to his European allies, Bush claimed that he need the shield to protect the United States from the launch by small rogue nations such as North Korea and Libya. But the president refused to say that it would be impossible for a rogue nation to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile without the United States knowing precisely where it came from. Any small country that launched one against the United States would face certain and total annihilation.

Furthermore, Bush claimed that while the threat of retaliation deterred the Soviet Union when it had thousands of missiles and warheads, it would not deter some small country with only three or four. But it would be more likely that, if some small country wished to inflict damage on the United States, it would simply load a warhead on a rusty freighter and detonate it in the harbor of an American city.

In addition, the implementation of a missile shield around the United States would raise the prospect of a first-strike. Consequently, other nations -- allies and enemies alike -- would likely proceed to increase their nuclear arsenals. And the arms race would be renewed.

Finally, by threatening to scrap SALT I, Bush's credibility would be jeopardized. Why would the European Union, Russia, and China trust the American president, if he were to arbitraily disregard bilateral agreements?

THE VIEQUES SCAM. To persuade NATO allies, perhaps, that he was not the imperialist envisioned by many, Bush announced that the Pentagon would halt all military exercises and aerial bombing runs on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques by May 2003. That reversed the Navy's long-running insistence that no other locale was suitable for battle simulations. Bush told European leaders in Sweden, "My attitude is that the Navy ought to find somewhere else to conduct its exercises, for a lot of reasons. One, there's been some harm done to people in the past. Secondly, these are our friends and neighbors and they don't want us there. (New York Times, June 14, 2001)

But what Bush did not say was that his political decision came after the arrest of protesters seeking to block the exercises. Two months earlier, 180 protesters, including four prominent New York politicians, were arrested for disrupting the Vieques exercises, and more arrests seemed likely in coming days. That cost him vital support among Latinos. But the White House claimed that political factors did not influence Bush's decision. Reverend Al Sharpton was serving a 90-day prison sentence for protesting on the island, while three other politicians received 40-day sentences: New York Assemblyman José Rivera, City Councilman Adolfo Carrión Jr., and Roberto Ramirez, the Bronx Democratic Party Chairman. Bush's announcement appeared to halt Puerto Rican plans to hold a referendum in July on the Navy's operations on the island which contained 33,000 acres and has about 9,300 residents.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: BUSH'S NEW CHUM FOR FOUR YEARS Bush's least leg of the four-nation trip was reserved for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Bush said that he offered Putin "logic" in urging Russia to agree to set aside SALT I. But Putin rejected the unschooled American president, cautioning Bush about developing a missile defense shield without Moscow's consent. Putin lectured the American president that such an action could seriously strain relations between the two countries. The Russian president stressed that the 1972 ABM treaty was the "cornerstone of the modern architecture of international security." When Bush emphasized his support for the eastward expansion of the NATO, however, Putin stressed Russia's concerns about the alliance moving so close to its borders. (Los Angeles Times, June 17, 2001) Putin insisted that abandoning the 1972 treaty would only make it easier for third countries to develop nuclear arms. And he warned that it would be foolhardy to expect missile defense to provide true security: "It's like a bullet hitting a bullet. Is it possible today or not? Today experts say that it is impossible to achieve this. And the experience of the real tests demonstrates that today it is impossible." He also warned the United States that any attempt to impose its will on the rest of the world would backfire. "When we hear that some program or other will be carried out ‘with or without us' -- well, we cannot force anyone to cooperate with us, nor will we try to. We have offered to work together. If that is not needed, fine. We are ready to act on our own." (Los Angeles Times, June 19, 2001)

Once again, Bush tried to use his charm, something that may have worked for him in the oil business or as a governor. After spending only two hours with Putin, the American president said, "I looked at him in the eye, and I can tell that he's an honest man" and "trustworthy." Again, Bush claimed victory, saying, "Everybody is trying to read body language. Mark me down as very pleased with the progress and the frank discussion." The American president added that he came away with "a sense of his soul." Had Bush been a Democrat, Republicans would have repeatedly castigated him for cozying up to the former KGB chief and taking a soft approach on Russia. Instead, GOP leaders applauded their president. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden Jr. said that he would not trust Putin and he hoped the Bush remarks were more style than substance. (Los Angeles Times, June 19, 2001)

Later, Bush spoke of his European trip as if he were one of the great leaders of the world. The presumptuous president said, "I went to Europe a humble leader of a great country, and stood my ground. I wasn't going to yield. I listened, but I made my point." On another occasion, the unseasoned Bush said that Ronald Reagan himself "would have been proud of how I conducted myself." (Washington Post, July 3, 2001) But when one pages through European history books, he or she reads of a wide range of leaders — from the great to mediocre ones. Bush could never compare to any.

Putin's had a totally different spin on their relationship. Whereas he said that he respected the American president, Putin pointed out that their positions varied considerably. Putin described Bush as "a nice person to talk to ... a very attentive listener, and very interested. I found him an enjoyable conversationalist and an enjoyable man." But Putin insisted that on matters of substance, they mostly agreed to disagree when it comes to assessing threats and formulating defenses. Putin said, "We so far do not have a common position."

The Bush administration continued to brush aside warnings by Putin that he would upgrade his country's strategic nuclear arsenal if the United States deployed a missile defense system. On June 23, Putin issued the warning again, threatening a nuclear buildup if the United States abandoned the ABM treaty. Putin commented, "This means that all countries, including Russia, will have the right to install multiple warheads carrying nuclear weapons on their missiles." He said that for Russia, installing multiple nuclear warheads on existing missiles "is the cheapest response." (Associated Press, June 28, 2001)

However, Powell seemed almost dismissive of the Russian leader's stand when asked in an interview with the Associated Press. Powell responded, "I am not in charge of Russia but I don't think that's what they would do." He said that he was confident that Putin would not try to expand Russia's strategic force once he realized the cost. Powell added that Putin also would come to realize that an American missile defense was not a threat to Russia. (Associated Press, June 28, 2001)

Four days later, Russia test-fired a 26-year-old ballistic missile, hinting the weapon could gain new life as a "hydra-headed" countermeasure if the United States pressed on with NMD. Moscow also threatened to stack multiple nuclear warheads on its missiles as a countermeasure, if Bush proceeded to implement his missile shield. The Stiletto, referred to by NATO as the SS-19, was built between the mid-1970s and 1980s, capable of carrying a payload of more than four tons. A Russian Strategic Rocket Forces official told Reuters the Stiletto could be re-equipped to carry up to six warheads. Only the even older SS-18 Satan missile, which could carry 10-12 warheads, was larger. The Satans were about to be scrapped altogether under the START 2 which was signed in 1993. Russia's most modern strategic missile, the Topol-M, was more mobile than the older generations of rockets, but only carried one ton of payload. It could also be refitted to take more than one warhead.(Reuters, June 27, 2001)

Putin said that START 2 would be automatically void if the Bush administration unilaterally abrogated SALT I. If the United States deployed a missile shield, he said, no missile defense system would be able to counter multiple warhead rockets for decades. (Reuters, June 27, 2001)

During the first four years of the Bush administration, the White House refused to openly criticize Russia’s approach to democratic values. Putin reduced press freedom and cracked down on political opponents at home while working against pro-Western forces in neighboring countries such as Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova.

Bush continued to ignore these issues and instead tried to build a “strategic partnership” with Moscow to fight terrorism and weapons proliferation. In fact in 2001, Bush had said that he looked Putin in the eye and saw his soul. But nearly four years later -- in the winter of 2004 -- Bush began having second thoughts. Putin’s announcement that he was moving ahead with a nuclear arsenal and an anti-missile system, Bush believed, was a direct challenge to the United States. Then the rift between Bush and Putin widened over presidential election in Ukraine.

Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, whom Putin favored, was elected amidst charges of fraud. The United States and the European Union favored the pro-Western Viktor Yushchenko and rejected the results as rigged. Some high-level Bush administration officials suggested that it was Russia’s secret police that used dioxin to poison Yushchenko. After public protests, the Ukraine Supreme Court overturned Prime Minister Yanukovich’s victory. (New York Times, December 12, 2004)

As the gulf between the United States and Russia widened, the Bush administration issued a broad review of its Russia policy that began leading to a more confrontational approach toward Moscow over its treatment of neighboring countries and its own citizens. (Los Angeles Times, December 12, 2004)

THE EUROPEAN UNION AND NATO

The EU-U.S. summit had the tone of a clash of two global rivals when Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson astounded American officials by stating that the EU's new mission in the world was to serve "as a balance to U.S. domination." The EU already had turned to Central and Eastern Europe in a bid to expand its union.

Bush responded to the EU's attempt to become a global superpower. He was clearly irritated at EU attempts to undercut American policy around the world, such as its involvement in the Middle East when it tilted towards the Palestinian side and gave Yasser Arafat preferential treatment in Brussels. Bush simplistically uttered, "Europe and the United States need to speak with one voice, and only one voice." (New York Times, June 16, 2001)

When asked if the United States felt threatened by the EU's officially stated ambition of displacing the country as the world's leading economy by 2010, Bush gave what seemed to be a sarcastic smile. He said, "I appreciate good competition. I believe competition brings out the best in nations, and in people. I don't view the European Union and its consolidation as a zero-sum game for the United States. I believe the stronger Europe is, the better it is for America." (New York Times, June 16, 2001)

National Security Council advisor Condoleezza Rice maintained that the ABM treaty -- the cornerstone of national security between the two nations -- was antiquated. Speaking on "Face the Nation" (June 17, 2001), she said, "It makes no sense that a treaty in 1972 reflect the state of U.S.-Russia relations. ... I dare anybody to say that what keeps Russia and the United States from going to war is the ABM treaty. That simply doesn't make any sense."

After the Cold War, NATO expanded in 1999 to include the first members of the former Warsaw Pact -- the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. Russia opposed the eastward expansion of NATO to include several former Soviet satellites, including the Baltic states, which would bring the Western security alliance to Russia's borders. And Putin made it clear that Moscow had no aspirations of joining the union. (www.msnbc.com, June 18, 2001)

For months, the Bush administration had sent mixed signals to allies in NATO regarding American troops in NATO. Sometimes, the White House said that peace-keeping troops would remain in the Balkans. And on other occasions, NATO members were told that American soldiers would be brought home. Finally, Bush offered what appeared to be a definitive response to his NATO counterparts, saying that the troops would not be withdrawn from the Balkans unilaterally. The president said, "We came in together and we will leave together. It's the pledge of our government. It's a pledge that I will keep." (New York Times, June 14, 2001)

When asked in Spain on his position on the death penalty, Bush responded that it was the will of the American people. He justified the execution of the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, saying: "Democracies represent the will of the people. The death penalty is the will of the people in the U.S." (The Guardian, June 13, 2001)

According to Bush's reasoning, just under two-thirds of Americans support capital punishment. Then according to the president's reasoning, should he not support Roe v. Wade? Even more Americans on pro-choice than they are advocates of the death penalty. And according to Bush's reasoning, Al Gore received more popular votes than he. So should not Al Gore be president?

Bush's position on the death penalty also left many people surprised and confused when he stated that he opposed the execution of those who were mentally retarded. "Well, we should never execute someone who is retarded," the president told European reporters. "And our court system protects the people who don't understand the nature of the crime they committed nor the punishment they are about to receive." (Los Angeles Times, June 14, 2001)

However, Bush advisers said that he was not signaling a change in policy. They claimed that Bush and other Texas authorities used a different definition of mental retardation than is common elsewhere. During Bush's two terms as governor of Texas, the state executed at least two inmates whose very low I.Q. scores defined them as retarded.

Jim Marcus, executive director of the Texas Defender Service -- a nonprofit group that handles capital cases -- said that Bush does not understand the law. "I think he's just sort of confused. A lot of people confuse the question of whether we should execute the mentally retarded with the question of whether we should execute people who aren't competent to stand trial. That seems to be what he's doing here." (Los Angeles Times, June 14, 2001)

Johnny Paul Penry, a retarded Death Row inmate, was spared by the United States Supreme Court in November just hours before his planned execution. Penry, who raped and stabbed a woman with a pair of scissors, had I.Q. scores that ranged from 50 to 63, well below the I.Q. of 70 that was commonly accepted for one to be mentally retarded. Penry was described as having the mental capacity of a 6-year-old. The Supreme Court overturned Penry's death sentence for a second time because Texas jurors failed to fully consider his mental retardation as a reason to spare him. (Los Angeles Times, June 14, 2001)

Trans-Atlantic relations remained tense for over three years. Bush claimed that he was willing to mend fences with his European allies and returned to Europe in February 2005. He claimed he wanted to move ahead and to forget the tensions of the past. But he had said that so many times that few believed he was credible. Most Europeans still believed Bush was a unilateralist who had no intentions of working with them.

Bush missed a key opportunity to hold Putin accountable for his attacks on democracy. Over the course of Bush’s four years in the White House, Putin slowly chipped away at his democratic country, as he systematically destroyed Russia’s democratic institutions.

While in Moscow, Bush said, “I think the most important statement that you heard and I heard was (Putin’s) statement when he declared his absolute support for democracy in Russia and they’re not turning back.” (New York Times, February 25, 2005)

Putin seized the country's largest private business, the oil company Yukos. Putin came down on the press with an iron fist, seriously restricting the independent news media. He also selectively prosecuted some of Russia’s political opposition. Putin also appointed regional governors rather than have them selected by popular vote. Russia forces continued to regularly violate the basic human rights of Chechen civilians. (Freedom House, February 18, 2005; New York Times, February 25, 2005)

Meanwhile, the number of Russian spies in the United States continued to rise. In 2001, the Bush administration expelled 50 spies in retaliation for the discovery that FBI counterintelligence agent Robert Hanssen had been spying for Russia for 21 years. Russia used liberalized immigration rules for Russians, instituted after the Cold War, to install “Nonofficial cover” agents known as NOCs. By the end of 2004, the number of Russian spies in the United States was equal to the number that had been deployed by the former and larger Soviet Union. (Time, February 7, 2005)

Russian increased the number of NCOs in the United States in an effort to uncover secrets about American military technology and hardware; dual-use technology such as new lasers; and the Bush administration’s plans and intentions regarding the former Soviet states, China, the Middle East and United States energy policy. (Time, February 7, 2005)