If you think Bush is a good president, please state why

Remove all ads!

The Bush bashers have certainly had a field day here in the Alley. But I know there are members here who do support Bush and think he's a good president. Since, for the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone possibly could, I'd like to hear any compelling arguements anyone has to offer on their positive assessment of George W. Bush, his administration, and their policies. I truly do want to understand the other side of the issue. I ask that anyone who is pro-Bush to please participate.

I will provide my own personal assessment in a few days. I want this thread to be a learning experience for all concerned. I feel that too many people are so passionate about their own personal views and convictions, they fail to or refuse to see the other side of the arguement. This is a chance for the other side to be heard, and for the Bush-Bashers to see where the other side is coming from.

--

And if I may, I'd like to make one small request to the usual suspects (Ragusa, Chandos, Yago, etc.): You're all welcome to participate, but I don't think anyone here has any doubt at all where you stand on this issue. Please don't weigh in until at least a good number of Pro-Bush members have had their chance to speak, without being bombarded. There will be time for counterpoints later. Thank you.

--

Please begin.

NOTE: If you'd rather remain anonymous, send me a PM expressing your views, and I'll repost them with your name omitted.)

[ October 16, 2003, 02:16: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Very gracious, Death Rabbit! An irresistible invitation indeed - especially with the "Zuggtmoy Combat" WAV file playing in the background. I'm surprised there are no takers yet. I expect withering "Attacks of Opportunity" as the positions are laid out!

But up front, let me admit that I'm approaching this from the Copybook Headings perspective, with a focus on foreign policy. You may very well agree with everything I write (factually) and yet still claim that it condemns, not commends, Bush. Which is to say, I'm not trying to present a "straw man" that anti-Bush writers can tear apart (but feel free to do so!), nor am I pretending to represent the vast majority of Bush supporters. These are just my reasons for supporting Bush's foreign policy programme.

Let's look at how the geopolitical chessboard has changed thanks to Bush's aggressive policies:

Central Asia
Afghanistan was the graveyard of the USSR; today, after a brief and cheap war, the Taliban is out and the pro-Western Karzai is in. Central Asia was Russia's backyard; today the US has bases and influence in the region, which not only has oil and natural gas potential, but also is strategically important to both Russia and China. Russia, meanwhile, has quietly acquiesced to the US pulling out of the ballistic missile defense treaty, and has slashed its nuclear arsenal in partnership with the US. (Now they can only destroy the world a dozen times over instead of a hundred.) Compare the US' regional triumph to Russia's slog through Chechnya. It was only two decades ago that we worried about nuclear war with Russia, and only a decade ago that we fretted about whether we could safely expand NATO through Eastern Europe. Now we have the Baltic states joining NATO and Russia utters only weak protests, left with Belarus as its consolation prize.

East and South Asia
Bush's aggressive posture against North Korea has unified the region against Pyongyang. For the record, I supported the '94 Agreed Framework, because I believed North Korea would keep its end of the bargain. I was wrong - instead of squelching its nuclear program, the Framework ironically helped fund it. I objected at first, but in retrospect I see that Bush was right not to allow the Framework to continue - it was enabling, not correcting, the problem. Bush handled the spyplane incident diplomatically - remember this? - and both relations and trade with China continue to improve. Security connections with Thailand, the Philippines, and Australia have deepened. The US has also regained some of its past influence over Pakistan, while still improving relations with India - a difficult balancing act.

Middle East
Iraq was a true quagmire in the '90s - a perpetual, pricey "no-fly zone" and UN-endorsed sanctions that starved the Iraqi population, maintained by terrorist-inspiring bases in holy Saudi territory. Now our troops are mostly withdrawn from Saudi territory and our leverage over the kingdom has increased thanks to the liberation of Iraq's reserves and bases in nearby Qatar and the UAE. Iraq was won VERY cheaply - how cheaply, indeed, it is easy to forget - and is being held very cheaply, too. The Kurds and Shi'a have yet to revolt, defying fears that Iraq would split apart. Meanwhile, Syria has been badly weakened on the strategic level - the only question is when (or if) Bashar will finally realize just how weakened he is. Iran, too, has been dealt a strategic blow. Bush gets no credit for trying to fix the Israeli-Palestinian issue, though - he did move more aggressively than Clinton to grant the Palestinians statehood, but his moves here have been spectacularly unsuccessful. Yet Palestine is a small issue in such a large region, especially with the Iraqi distraction.

Europe
Bush's policies have generated severe friction with many of our best European allies. A Gore presidency would have been more diplomatic and humble, and would have been able to secure strong European support for...doing nothing. Except maybe Kosovo assistance - wait, never mind, the Europeans are still insisting the US keep troops in the Balkans. (As well we should!) I've posted before on my francophilic disappointment in France's unCopybook behavior during the buildup to the Iraq invasion. Bush was not skilled enough to enlist European help - unless you count Spain, Poland, and Britain as European - but I doubt even Clinton or Gore would've been able to keep the Europeans on board for an Iraqi attack. Clinton could hardly convince the allies of the legitimacy of the UN sanctions or of the missile strikes. Bush failed to secure UN backing for the Iraqi invasion, but he did manage a UN blessing of the Afghan campaign, and he pushed the UN process to its breaking point - enough to keep even Tony Blair on board (who rightly blamed French, not American, intrasigence for its failure). Bush needs to work harder to patch up relations with Europe, but let's be brutally honest - while America and the Europeans were wrestling over the gun, Europe shot itself in the foot.

South America
Not so good here on the Bush scorecard - Bush has done little good by Vicente Fox, the White House moved too quickly to endorse the failed coup in Venezuela, Cuba remains Castro's fief, and the Argentina currency crisis was unnecessarily drawn out. But it's doubtful that Bush's opponents would have done better - Democratic candidates have called for rolling back NAFTA and Gore would have IMFed Argentina into the grave, while Bush has pressed ahead with bilateral free trade agreements with Chile (with others to follow). Bush has also committed military assistance to Colombia, which could prove important if Venezuela's Chavez tries anything foolish towards his neighbors.

Africa
Breaking long taboos, the US has taken a military base in French-dominated Djibouti, an excellent strategic position for monitoring the Persian Gulf and the East African region. Liberia's corrupt Charles Taylor resigned under US pressure, without the US having to commit to a troop deployment (so much for Bush as warmonger). Even French bastions like Cote d'Ivoire and Chad are experiencing pro-US rumblings. Bush hasn't done anything about the three million dead in the Congo, but neither has the rest of the world, excepting France's and Uruguay's minor efforts.

Conclusion
How much of this is due to Bush personally, and how much to the State diplomacy machine? Mostly the latter, certainly - I've great respect for the diplomats in the trenches who "make it happen". But Bush sets the direction, and he has steered far better than we could have expected from Gore (especially given his recent speeches) or any upcoming Democratic candidate. The US frittered away the first decade after the Cold War - now, at last, the juggernaut is on the move.

It should also be pointed out that we haven't had any major foreign terrorist attacks on American soil (the anthrax and sniper incidents were domestic) since 9/11. How much of this is due to the terrorists' ineptitude and how much to Bush's throttling of al-Qaeda is unclear, but surely the throttling is helping - and do we really think that Gore would have done a better job persuading the Taliban to keep al-Qaeda restrained?

Anyway, that's all I'll post for now, except to add that Bush's economic leadership has done wonders, too: Japan is still mired in recession, the EU is barely registering growth, and China is practically a neo-colonial adjunct of the Western economy. We're suffering ridiculous deficits, but so are France, Germany, and Japan - the difference being, we actually have economic growth to show for it. Should we really adopt the Japanese solution endorsed during the Democratic debates - raise taxes, erect trade barriers, and rely on government spending to stimulate the economy?

 

I find I trust Colin Powell. I would vote for him as President if given the opportunity. George Bush made him Sec. of State so that is one thing I like about Bush Jr.

 

Grey Magistrate, that is a very Roveish/ Rumsfeldish/Wolfowitzish chessboard view of the world and reality. Most people dont see the real world as a game of Civilization.
Pardon for interrupting the subject, keep it going.

 

Don't have any real disagreements about what you said except about afghanastan. The Taliban are still active and attacking regularly and the new administration is really only in control of Kabul and nothing else. Also, I would wait a bit before saying too much about Iraq, as the situation is very fluid there and could easily get much worse or get much better but I feel it is too far to say yet. Now, how about his domestic policies? Any takers?

 

What domestic policies?

I really have only one thing to say in his favor. Ousting Saddam was the right thing to do. I don't particularly agree with the methods, but the end justifies the means... or so we're told.

Sorry for being such a downer.

 

While I am not enamoured with Bush, I have always felt that the US and the rest of the world should take a harsher stance toward the Middle East -- I think the western world is too soft on such nonsense. In addition, IIRC, Bush has been cutting taxes (it's been talked about in another thread) and I am a firm believer in less taxes for everyone!
I am also Right wing, and like such policies, but I am also not a full fledged expert on economics or politics, nor have I studied Bush's policies in depth.

 

GM,

Let me get this straight. It seems you like Bush's foreign policies because of all those good things he does, like warring, endorsing coups, screwing other's economy, militarism, inducing nuclear proliferation, transforming the already messy middle-east into an even bigger quagmire, waging proxy wars against allies, making international treaties obsolete and bring global diplomacy back to the rules of 1914, secure strategic places and resources by force...

That's a full conquest-of-the-world campaign there.

 

Oxymore, let's go through these one at a time.

Warring
Since Bush took office, several million have perished in the Congo, Russia has shredded Chechnya, Britain took over Sierra Leone, France hijacked Cote d'Ivoire, Burundi's civil war continues unabated, Zimbabwe is on the verge of famine, Venezuela's oil industry imploded in a way that badly hurt the US in the buildup to the Iraqi invasion, and North Korea has rattled every saber within reach. The US has not even suggested using military might in any of these cases - in fact, if anything, it's time the US started acting more aggressively towards Pyongyang.

Where has the US used military force? Afghanistan and Iraq are the two big cases. In Liberia, the US sailed ships offshore and sent a dozen Marines into the capital. In the Philippines, the US is limited constitutionally from providing too much direct military assistance. In Colombia, the US is providing training but not much else.

Endorsing coups
Like I wrote, the White House erred in endorsing the Venezuelan coup too early. This was the only coup that the White House endorsed - it has consistently attacked the rest, even ones (like in Africa) which were widely acclaimed by their own populations.

Screwing others' economies
Whose economy, exactly, are you referring to? Iraq? The invasion ended the UN sanctions and today the US is investing billions in the nation - not just palaces. Japan? The US still absorbs a huge chunk of Japan's exports. China? The US is a huge investor in China, and a huge consumer of its products. Europe? The Trade Towers attack hurt Europe's economy more than the Iraq invasion - Europe's current economic problems are largely structural.

And not that the Iraq invasion was primarily about oil - after all, Venezuela is a closer and easier target - but in cold commodity terms, Europe benefits more than America from Iraq's liberation. All that Iraqi oil is going to hit European shores first - the US still gulps most of its oil from the Americas (and, soon, Russia). Plus, Europe is donating less than a half-billion euros to the reconstruction - while still demanding that Iraq (re: US) pay for Saddam Hussein's palace-building debts. If anything, the Iraqi invasion reminds me of the crusade that sacked Constantinople for Venice's sake.

Militarism
Maybe you define militarism differently, but militarism is typically meant as an ideology that - as the name implies - exalts the military above all else. Maybe this is an accurate label for governments like Turkey and Pakistan, where the military has a socially-recognized, historic responsibility to rescue/sabotage the elected government. But America is hardly militaristic in that sense. The military is a powerful means, but not an end.

Inducing nuclear proliferation
Iraq had been trying to develop nuclear weapons for decades, halted only by Israel's reactor-attack and the first Gulf War. The same for Iran and North Korea - the latter, incidentally, which simultaneously researched nuclear weaponry and collected extortion payments to keep it from researching. If anything, Bush is working as hard as possible to block nuclear proliferation.

Well...it is true that Clinton imposed sanctions on India and Pakistan for their nuclear tests, and Bush who removed those sanctions. So perhaps you could argue that Bush is inducing nuclear proliferation because his policies are softer than Clinton's.

Transforming the already messy Middle East into an even bigger quagmire
The Middle East was already a US quagmire, as I wrote - we were trapped in the area enforcing the no-fly zone. The Iraqi invasion, hopefully, will end the cycle of poverty and violence induced by both Saddam Hussein and the unfortunate means used to contain him. The US is now more deeply committed, but there is also an end-goal in sight - so yes, it's even "bigger", but it's less of a quagmire.

Waging proxy wars against allies
What specific events are you thinking of? Did the US have a hand in fomenting unrest in Cote d'Ivoire or Chechnya? Proxy wars are very real and very dangerous - I'm not necessarily against them, but I don't see any US-sponsored proxy wars occurring today.

Making international treaties obsolete
Kyoto was slapped around by Bush, but Putin is dealing it the death blow. The ballistic missile treaty was between the US and the USSR, not the US and the world, and the US followed to the letter the treaty regulations for pulling out. The US has also been working overtime making international free-trade agreements. The international treaties that really matter - like, say, NATO - have only been strengthened on Bush's watch: the president has not pulled out of Kosovo, and NATO has been instrumental in Afghanistan.

Bring global diplomacy back to the rules of 1914
Compared to...what? The rules of the 1990s? - when the UN and the EU were powerless in the former Yugoslavia, when Rwanda shredded itself, and Iraq was slowly strangled? The rules of the 1980s? - when the US and USSR held the world hostage with the threat of nuclear devastation? The rules of the 1970s? - when the US and USSR engaged in proxy wars, and the USSR destabilized both Central Asia and Central America? The rules of the 1960s? - when we narrowly averted the Cuban missile crisis? The rules of the 1950s? - when the hollow UN "endorsed" a Korean "police action" that almost led to a US-USSR-Sino World War III? The rules of the 1940s? - when standard policy was to annihilate the enemy's cities to break their citizens' will? The rules of the 1930s? - when the oh-so-noble League of Nations pleaded that the world "give peace a chance", even as the Nazis and Soviets carved up central Europe?

Bush's policy ain't 1914, not by a long shot. But compared to the rest of the bloody century, give me 1914 any day.

Secure strategic places and resources by force
Yes, the Iraq war was about oil - but not to secure the oil for the US, but to keep Hussein from spending his oil revenues on destruction. There are scummier sadists in charge of other backwaters, but they don't have the cash to cause us trouble - and when they do, like in Afghanistan, they get squished. Hussein had already demonstrated over several decades (and wars) his commitment to spending his oil money on weaponry to fuel his expansionist plans.

If the US really wanted to secure strategic places and resources by force, there are two better and softer targets: Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

 

I guess our views differ by something large.

I call war, an action taken without international consent, against a sovereign state leading to an occupation. You seem to compare French and British involvement in Africa with the case in Iraq, while they’re imo to be compared with US involvement in Liberia. That is: limited number of troops, no occupation authority, seeking compromises between rebels and governments, preserving metropolitan interests in the process. Iraq was invaded, bombed and is now ruled by the coalition, its key industry sectors under full US control. Afghanistan is somewhat similar, with an UN mandate to go seek for ben Laden, the coalition deemed fit to invade the country, topple the leaders, construct pipelines and post troops capitalising on a then global empathy feeling towards the US. My point, Bush is waging major wars without even bothering to justify them and against world opinion.

Apart from the timing issue, you seem to think endorsing a coup in Venezuela against an elected president was the right thing to do, that’s beyond me.

Screwing other's economies: Right there in your above post: “Bush's economic leadership has done wonders, too: Japan is still mired in recession, the EU is barely registering growth, and China is practically a neo-colonial adjunct of the Western economy” Did I read that wrong? Or did you use the term “wonders” to qualify imparing foreign economies.

While it’s probably true that Iraqi oil will hit Europe’s shore first, it won’t be sold by Iraq at price determined by Iraq. Europe will most likely depend more or less directly on US controlled oil fields. That, in a way, is strangling European economy, an aspect of a proxy war. Therefore, it’s only logical Russia, France and Germany aren’t willing to pay the Iraqi bill ie pay for their own rope.

Militarism: Every time I see Bush making a speech, it’s on an aircraft carrier, or with a wall of grunts behind him ready to applause when the order is issued. Militarism has imo also to do with military spending and arm trade, fields in which the US is the world’s number one. Finally, relying on military power rather than diplomacy is militarism in my understanding.

About nuclear proliferation, while the aim of the mentioned policies is (or claim to be) to stop proliferation, the means used ie pre-emptive war, disregard of diplomatic ways and international law; the effect is just the opposite, many countries see how North-Korea was “spared” precisely because it has those kind of weapons that weren’t found in Iraq. The message is clear: WMD are a guarantee of national security, every state would wants to acquire them as a mean of protection (ironically) that’s how I think Bush is inducing nuclear proliferation. Developing more nukes in the US isn’t helping his credibility in the matter either.

Invading Iraq certainly didn’t bring any local sympathies towards the US, and resistance actions on the ground suggests the word “quagmire” even more now than before. Bringing Turkish troops near Kurdish areas certainly won’t help stabilise the region, neither will total support of Israel’s actions. It is my opinion, that the region, and also the world is a lot more “messy” now as it was before. (NOT meaning things should have remained as they were, don’t get me wrong)

From your post: “Even French bastions like Cote d'Ivoire and Chad are experiencing pro-US rumblings.” That’s where I smell proxy war.

NATO is a military alliance (some say, serving as the US colonial police force), things I was thinking about are more like the UN charter, Geneva convention, bans on torture... Also, saying “Russia is doing it too” is no excuse (one might consider that when the world’s first polluter ignores Kyoto, it’s not all that bad to ignore it as well) especially if you set the precedent.

Diplomacy of 1914 is when war was the answer to all problems, be them of intern or foreign nature. Before any international law was established, before anyone tried to settle conflicts peacefully. That’s where Bush is taking us, back to the old balance of power, except the balance is broken.

“to keep Hussein from spending his oil revenues on destruction”
Spend what oil? The oil that require insane amounts of foreign investment to be drilled now? To buy what weapons? Those that weren’t found? Seriously, just looking at whose hands is Iraq’s oil into now: American corporations with close ties to government officials. Makes me highly suspicious of the war’s motives.
My little conspiracy theories now: the US wasn’t a bystander in the crisis in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia is my bet on what country will be attacked next.

Not my definition of good foreign policies.

 

I was not wanting to jump into the fray yet. But like DR, I really wanted to see what kind of support Bush had with this community, and really, what he has done worthy of praise. So far, I would say, only GM is the only hardcore supporter on these boards. Where is Darkwolf when you need him?

 

I feel so lonely! Well, I appreciate everyone's patience while I string out enough rope for a good clean hanging. But I hope that no one walks away from this post thinking that I'm the stereotypical Bush supporter. Far from it! I'm in the minority, and I know it.

But first, an apologetic clarification. I originally wrote this...

...and Oxymore interpreted it to mean that the Bush policy is sabotage of the global economy, thusly...

That was my fault - I didn't compare the causes and clauses clearly. My intended point was that the global economy has been sick and sinking. Europe, Japan, China, and the US - the four major global economic powercenters - each adopted different policies. Bush's tax cut policy has worked (or, at least, it has so far) - the other policies haven't. (I have serious questions about China's statistics, banking system, and debt load, but that needs another post.) I didn't mean to imply that the Bush policy is to ruin our neighbors - quite the opposite, as the Bush administration has worked to stimulate the economies of Japan, Europe, Turkey, Argentina, Iraq, you-name-it. The only economy that Bush is deliberately sabotaging is North Korea's, by blocking their drug and weapon shipments.

I'm a follower of the gods of the Copybook Headings, not the gods of the Marketplace. But in America's case, the two go together most of the time.

I could go through the rest of your points step-by-step, Oxymore, if you're interested. But this one complaint was derived from my indirect diction, so I want to correct it lest anyone else get the wrong idea.

 

Sorry I misunderstood that part.

Perhaps you could PM about the rest. I'm trying to understand your position.

 

I have thought a lot about what sort of a person Bush is, and what his qualities are - if he has any. Actually, to my surprise, I found some.

That is, for foreign policy he focuses on the big picture - not that he has a choice considering his reported lack of knowlegde in geographical, let alone hisorical terms. Anyway, that explains his steady path (to disaster IMO) in foreign policy. It is really unfortunate that his primary priority is the war on evil. So the advantage of being focused is a two sided sort of quality.

His other strength is leadership. As the ongoing trench war between the neocon and realist fractions in pentagon, whitehouse and state department shows, there is no side of truly dominating influence - the president makes the last decisions, despite his utter dependence on his advisors, lacking knowledge. That strengthens the position of his advisors too.
This also bears the risk of manipulation by ideologues who bring up info either to please Bush or to make him decide as wished.

His first weakness is that he IMO has an inferiority complex resulting from the long shadow of his brilliant father, suggesting the will to prove himself worthy and to do something big, for once. And that IMO makes him suspect to fall for big ideas - in this particular case this is the neocon Great Strategy, maybe as a way to win the war on evil.

His second weakness is his reported impatience and temper.

His third weakness is his strong belief in god. I see a danger in defining a political problem around religious terms ... so to explain the terrorism problem by identifying the perpetrators as "evil people who hate our freedom" is simply unproductive, and doesn't contribute anything to a solution. I have no doubt Bush exactly and explicitly means it when he sais that. A belief too strong makes perhaps irrational seen from a more secular point of view. Insofar Bush's serenity, based on his deep belief, IMO is a scary thing, and I want to go further, an obstacle and a danger.

Two interesting links about Bush, in person and policy, here and here.

 

Regarding the psycho-analyses....stuff you may also want to read this, from the same Newspaper:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/mandelson/story/0,7369,438059,00.html

 

I know there are more Bush fans here than just Grey Magistrate, though his illustration so far has been more than helpful thus far.

I sincerely hope that BTA, Jack Funk and Mathetais would participate, as IIRC they all support Bush, and none of them are lacking in the explanation department. I may send them all PM's and humbly request they participate, since I haven't seen any of them around here for the last few weeks.

Once again - please - Bush critics, please reserve your comments for the time being. The last thing I want this thread to turn into is a mud slinging, and I can see that may be starting already. I feel there is much to be learned here.

 

I remember that I regretted it when Clinton was elected instead of old George Bush Sr. - I always considered him an excellent foreign policy president.

And as he's a smart, subtle and polite person he found his way to speak out what he thinks about his son's foreign policy: He honoured Edward Kenndy, an outspoken opponent of Bush's war on Iraq with his 2003 George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service. Kennedy was described as a man who "consistently and courageously fought for his principles," and as an "inspiration to all Americans."

Seems as if daddy feels he can't say this about his son. And I agree with him.

 

I suspect, Ragusa, that your unusually self-contradictory post was intended not as a shallow personal attack on the president, but as a subtle device to manuever the discussion towards a look at Bush's domestic policy, in which case I applaud your creativity. We've been lingering on foreign policy too long!

That said, I do want to respond, especially to the bit about Bush's "serenity". (And not just because my ToEE rogue is named Serenity.)

First, you criticize the president for his "reported" (good qualifier!) lack of knowledge of today's politics in historical terms...then later on criticize him for defining politics in religious terms. Strikes me that maybe the president is viewing the problem in even deeper historical terms than the secular perspective permits.

Second, for a fella who is so bent on staying in command, Bush must have a lot of humility to condescend to utter dependency on his handpicked advisors. But it's a disciplined dependency - even Bush's critics give the White House credit for running a tightly (maybe TOO tightly) disciplined operation. That's one reason that the Plame affair has gotten so mileage - it's one of the few times in three years that a Bush staffer has slipped the leash.

Third, George HW Bush was indeed a brilliant man, for whom I've the highest respect. But you suppose that the current president has an inferiority complex because of that very brilliance?!? That's a stretch. What evidence of such a complex is there, except that the current Bush happens to favor big ideas?

Fourth, I fail to see how you can reconcile an image of a Bush who is burdened by both excessive temper and undue serenity.

Fifth, your judgement that a strong belief in God is a weakness is misplaced. Does piety negate political competence? - or competence in any field, for that matter? Is religious sincerity - that is, belief that actually affects how an individual deals with reality - automatically suspect? Look at the Iraq-Iran war: one leader was avowedly zealous, the other proudly secular, but both found justification for their mutual slaughter. Or the Nazi-Soviet secular conflagration. Or suppose that Bush were, instead of Protestant, a zealous Catholic - so zealous that he submitted to the pope's calls against an invasion of Iraq. Zeal cuts both ways, for war and peace. I'm sure that your real problem is not with religious piety per se but with Bush's policies, but a careless reading might assume the inverse.

Maybe you could be more specific when you claim that "serenity" is an "obstacle and a danger". An obstacle and a danger to what? Would existential angst be a better tactic to convince the world of our good intentions? Maybe an atheistic will-to-power ideology?

Finally, a question from your claim that it is "unproductive" to call terrorists "evil people who hate our freedoms". Is there a more productive definition available? "Misguided people who are in despair from poverty" - oh, wait, but even though half the world lives on a dollar a day, precious few of them turn to terrorism. "Ignorant people who..." - oh, wait, a lot of these terrorists are well-educated, while most of the world's uneducated aren't terroristic. "Nationalists bent on avenging their homelands" - oh, wait, there are wounded nationalist groups all over the world, but only a scant few use suicide attacks. "Religious fanatics who..." - oh, but there are Islamic suicide terrorists (al-Qaeda) and secular suicide terrorists (Tamil Tigers) but no Christian or Hindu variants. Is there something wrong with supposing that maybe, just maybe, there's something qualitatively different about someone that would make them fly a plane into a building instead of writing a bitter letter to the editor? And why not call that qualitative something "evil" or "hate"?

But maybe that's off-topic...