2005: the year America learns the meaning of "A-nuff"

There he was at last, standing in front of a banner emblazoned with the seal of the "Western White House - Crawford, Texas." We'd been wondering why we hadn't heard from George W. Bush. It had been days since the Tsunami struck and all we'd heard was that he was busy at his ranch clearing brush and riding his mountain bike ... and, we were reassured, "monitoring developments." Finally, here he was at last.



So what finally moved him to speak out? Was it the mounting death toll?

No.

Maybe the home videos graphically illustrating the violence with which the first wave crashed ashore?

Nope.

Perhaps the first aerial photos showing the extent of the devastation?

No, not that either.

Or the story of the retired American couple who held for dear life onto a tree until she could no longer hold on and lost her grip and then he let go too to be with her?

No, even that didn't move the leader of the free world to come forward.

What finally moved the diminutive POTUS to address the public was his annoyance at what he seemed to see as veiled criticism of his masculinity by Americans and the rest of the world as they complained about the inadequacy of his piker's pledge of financial support to help with Tsunami disaster recovery.



"Americans are a generous people. Last year alone the United States spent $2.4 billion for disaster relief alone," Bush said. Then, after pausing for emphasis, he repeated the number, this time syllable-by-syllable.



"Is that enough? I guess I'm not in a position to know," he concluded using his fingers to place quotation marks around the word "enough," however, still stuck in his syllable-by-syllable cadence, he slipped and pronounced it "A-nuff."



In the end, does it really matter that George W. Bush doesn't know when "enough is enough?"



In fact, in today's world, it does matter. And it ought to be a concern for each and every American, even the most conservative Red State residing Republicans who are now eagerly bashing as ingrates all who dare question America's largesse. Here is why:

According to research conducted by the Global Market Institute, foreign consumers in droves are turning against U.S. brands and companies. One third of all consumers in Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom said that U.S. foreign policy, particularly Bush's "war on terror" and the occupation of Iraq, were a real turn-off and that they were shying away from U.S. goods as a result. In fact, twenty percent of respondents in Europe and Canada said they consciously avoided buying U.S. products as a protest against those policies. Brands most closely identified with the U.S., such as Marlboro, America Online, McDonald's, American Airlines, and Exxon-Mobil are particularly at risk, but the trend is spreading. According to the Financial Times of London consumers in Europe and Asia are becoming increasingly resistant to having "brand America rammed down their throats."

So how about this scenario for 2005: What if the world concludes that U.S. Imperialism is actually the greatest threat to world peace. And what if they decide that a dramatically weakened U.S. would actually make the world a much safer place?



Of course they'd know that they wouldn't stand a chance directly challenging the largest and most violent military force ever assembled in human history. But recognizing that the value of the U.S. dollar is already at record lows and losing value each day, might they consider what would happen if they simply decided that they didn't want to buy U.S. stuff anymore?



What would happen in 2005 if the rest of the world finally said, "enough is enough?" Would that be "A-nuff" for Mr. Bush?



Global Market Institute (WA) - World Poll: Half of European Consumers Distrust American Companies