Chciałabym prosic NIE o przetłumaczenie tego na polski tylko o przeczytanie i streszczenie w paru zdaniach czego dotyczy ten fragment. Z grory bardzo dziękuje
Its still down to george Bush
Weakended and chastened the president has one last chance to prove his worth in 2007 argues john micklethwait.
It is hard to be optimistic array of problem- from a nuclear – armed north korea to growing Islamic militancy to the wreck of global trade talks- but also because of the likely dearth of political leadership. Two veterans of the world stage, Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair, will step aside leaving Europe even more introverted. Japans Shinzo Abe will be concentrating on upper House elections. In china, Hu Jintaos main attention will remain focused on his the sense of drift and weakness felt more keenly than in Washington, Bush, after all, was a president who wanted to change things. At home he puched through huge tax cuts and tried to create a period of conservative hegemony. Abroad, after the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 he set about reordering the world, sending troops into Afghatinstan and Iraq, trying to establish a Bush doctrine based on pre-emptive force and exporting democracy. Millions of people around the world may have loathed mr Bush for his actions, but it was hard to accuse him of lack of ambition.
Yet what has he to show for the blood, treasure and political capital he has spent? Not only has world turned out to be a little more complicated than Bush presumed; his administration has hitherto proved woefully incompetent at executing his dreams. As a result, bush is prospects in 2007 look, at first sight, pretty glum. Having deservedly lost the Republicans grip on Congress, the president would seem to have given up the chance of any big domestic initiative. Abroad, things look even grimmer, with American troops bogged down in Iraq and Afghatnistan and the unappetizing issues of North Korea and Iran to deal with.
So it would not be surprising if Bush chose to bunker down in 2007, treating the rest of his presidency as a damage-limitation exercise. But it would be deeply wrong for him to do so- for two reasons. First, his position is not as weak as it seems. And second he still has a chance to establish a more useful lagecy.
At home Bush is bruised, but hardly out of the battle. Despite the Republicans battering in the mid-term elections, America remains a country where conservatives outnumber liberals handsomely. One area where Bush can both unite his party and make up for past sins is government spending. In his first six years in the White House Bush made no attempt to rein in Congress. Now with the Democrats likely to lavish ever more on boondoggles, he has a partisan reason to be tough.
But it is in foreign policy that his best hope of redemption lies. Once again do not underestimate Bush strength. If the past six years have proved that America is a less dominant force than the neoconservatives hoped, they have also reinforced the indispensability of the world only superpower:nothing meaningful happens without America. And, thought it may be to credit, bush will have experience on his side. He is set to become the most experienced voice around the g7 table.
That is not to deny the toughness of the task that Bush faces. With Iraq he as to mix resolution- America suely must keep its troops there throughout 2007- with contritions: he owes Americans and iraq a frank wxplanation of the mistakes made. The best chance and to be frank it is not a good one- of steering North Korea and Iran into line is to increase the size of both the sticks and carrots on offer. Bush will probably have to offer more fulsome security guarantees to the loathsome regimes in Pyongyang and Tehran. That will stick in the great democratisers gullet but it is worth doing it if secures a verifiable and to their bomb-builiding.