how some of the commenters here can go to all the trouble of putting together a 500-999 word detailed argument concerning something like, oh, I don't know, obstruction of justice in the case of L. Libby and the response will be, "no crime."

Similar responses to other well researched and thoughtful comments include:

Heh.

Bush told the truth.

Clinton did it, too.

As always, IOKIYAD.

(You get the picture.)

I used to think these rejoinders could not possibly pass the Turing test for AI and therefore were probably American Enterprise Institute bots running on an old 75Mhz DOS machine in somebody's closet.

I don't think that anymore. Instead I think they are the result of keystrokes emanating from Dick Cheney's office.

We're screwed.

Don't forget. They sent us that damn statue.

Yeah.

What's up with that?

I think that was the point he was making, that is, the same point you are making. (That France likes us, even in spite of our freedom fries.)

I cannot for the life of me understand half the comments arguing against Glenn's representation of U.S. standing in the world.

If the question is the validity of the Pew survey and the social dimensions it purports to measure, I would refer the reader to www.worldpublicopinion.org where they can find any number of academic and statistically rigorous surveys and opinions on all sorts of things including America's image in the world (which conforms pretty much to the Pew survey).

If the question is whether or not the Bush Administration has had a deleterious effect on our standing with other nations, I would suggest that there is a great deal more evidence available than an opinion poll to warrant such a conclusion. Whether it is a matter of degree or level, as Glenn puts it, depends on whether you are measuring in terms of 360 degrees, degrees of freedom, or quantum levels. How can anyone doubt, based on events in the world, that the majority of developed nations are separating themselves from their economic and security dependencies on the U.S. in a variety of ways?

And my own anecdotal opinion concerning the turning point was the reelection of George Bush in 2004. The fact that he was not defeated by a landslide told the world all it needed to know -- that when a choice had to be made between U.S. interests and human rights, Americans, both right and left, were prepared to vote with a single voice. After the 2004 election, as far as the rest of the world was concerned, our national motto might as well have read, "Hooray for US, and F U!", an opinion that has already been stated any number of times in these very comments.

Where nations are concerned:

1. They'll let you know in advance if they hear that you are going to be attacked by foreign terrorists.

2. If they have nuclear weapons, they'll point them away from you instead of at you.

3. They'll buy your stuff, especially their young people, and you'll make a lot more money than you would have otherwise. It's called culture.

4. They won't spit in your food before they serve it to you.

5. They won't get together with other countries and gang up on you economically, militarily or otherwise.

6. They'll cooperate with you on things like security, natural resources and treaties and such.

It's like my Dad told me, "People will usually stick up for a friend, but nobody will stick up for an asshole."

Remember what happened to the Bismarck after it sunk the HMS Hood. A bunch of smaller ships ganged up on it, blew it full of holes and sent it to the bottom of the ocean. Once the decision was made, it only took three days.

Also remember James Cagney's famous quote from the movie "The Public Enemy" as he falls into the gutter:

"I ain't so tough."

The very suggestion that we weren't the brightest, best and most beautiful collector's edition set of Barbie and Ken dolls ever seems to have lit the fuse on some very deep seated emotional issues on the parts of some of Glenn's readers.

Geez.

If it makes you guys feel any better here is a comment on the multi-polar world from one of our very own big time consulting companies, Accenture:

For the past 50 years economic power has been firmly rooted within the United States, Europe and Japan. As recently as 1990, the only emerging markets in the world’s top 10 economies were Russia and Brazil, in seventh and eighth place respectively. Today that list would include China as the world’s fourth-largest economy and by 2015 it is likely to feature India and South Korea. The world is moving from an era of geographically concentrated economic power to one characterized by multiple centers of economic and business activity.

http://www.accenture.com/Global/Research_and_Insights/Policy_And_Corporate_Affairs/Multi-PolarWorld.htm

If Accenture says it, it must be so. Those guys charge $400 bucks an hour for making a PowerPoint slide show.

If we think we can hold the whole world hostage by holding a gun to our own head, we're crazy. So we just better get over ourselves and start playing nice with the other kids on the playground if we don't want to end up a second-rate nation sooner rather than later.

Hi. Point taken.

(I love your accent.)

Does public/popular opinion influence the course of events in a region or nation's history?

To answer your question.

Yes.

A quote from "Young Frankenstein":

“A Riot is a Terrible TERRIBLE Thing … AND IT’S ABOUT TIME VEE HAD ONE!”

As far as I can tell, you come here nearly every day and say pretty much the same thing:

"I hate this blog. It tastes terrible. And the portions are too small."