It is strange, isn't it? The fall of the Berlin wall led to a dozen democracies being established in Europe almost overnight. Today most of these are members of both the European Union and NATO, and they have passed the test. It looked like we were establishing a new spirit of cooperation, including most of Europe and North America.

But slowly, over the years, there was a growing resentment to the United States growing. The post-war alliance was eroding when the external enemy was gone. Not in Central Europe, where recent history has learnt them otherwise, but in Scandinavia, in Germany, in France. When you combine this with the US growing more inward looking and focusing on other continents, 9/11 led to something that surprised me. Not a statement of transatlantic solidarity - that came and went within days. No, 9/11 was followed by the strongest critisism of the US since the seventies. Add to this incompetent media in Europe that only hunt in packs and who feels that to ridicule George W. Bush is their main mission. Their reporting focus more on glee over the handling of Katrina in Washington than sympathy for the victims.

I think the political establishment in the US seriously underestimates the need for rebuilding a sense of trust with major European players.

Let me take the bookends tangent, and agree that these events and time periods do seem to have the beginnings and ends you mention. But take it one further. George senior was president during the fall of the Berlin wall, and his presidency was the first bookend coinciding with that of his son's, the second bookend. The 2 presidencies are different, but similar in the conservative flavor and how they represent a highly priveleged America few of us will see. They differ in that Senior was not re-elected, because of his mis-steps, and Senior also seems like a pretty smart guy. W was given a free pass for his mistakes last November (how many millions of voters regret their choice?) and W doesn't come across as the brightest bulb on the tree.
In sum: the 2 Bush presidencies match your bookends, forming their own bookends. Each one represents an era.

1. Colin is sad? Too bad, as ye sow, so shall ye also reap, etc. Gen Powell was a bureaucrat in uniform. Much of his record is grounded on a series of leadership platitudes he assembled for the edification of others. They work if one thinks an MBA is a leadership qualification. His counterpart was Gen de Chastelain, whose main qualities were his excellent public persona and his mastery of the bureaucracy.
As for the non-existant weapons, much of the background data was from his days at JCS: he was responsible in part for it. As for his speech on the weapons programs, I don't remember any one holding a gun to his head at the time. Nor did he resign in shame afterwards.
Or to sum in a different fashion, Chris as cartoonist is better than Powell as General/Sec of State.

Cheers

JM: I do not think I am indisagreement with the last point except in regards to relative degree and relation to what is otherwise better!

Gary: it's really about Babs, isn't it.

Regarding Babs and her remarks last week of Katrina refuges living the good life in the Astrodome: hey, YOU try it. Lose everything but what is in your pocket, and now you get a cot and blanket? The glue that holds the Bushies together: privelege and no clue what the average American's life is like.
BTW--the discussion and comments above, excluding me, showcase some serious brainpower. Alan connects some very smart people.

But we cannot pot worth crap.