h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

As a citizen of the US I would like to say that as much as I despise
the environmental poicies of George Walker Bush He is still our leader. If the US survived 8 years of Ronald Reagan, it can survive this man, despite his efforts to be on both sides of the fence simultaneously. And this Earth is strong enough that when he leaves office it will still be here.

Well, Shagbark, I certainly hope you're right about the durability of both your nation and our planet! Beyond that, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.
If you're suggesting that non-Americans like myself have no business criticising the US President, then I would respectfully disagree. The fates of nations are intertwined, especially so in the area of environmental policy. That pollution that Dubya is permitting will damage the whole planet.
In general, the global influence of the USA in all areas of life is so vast that the rest of us couldn't ignore you if we wanted to - although, as many of my favourite bands, films, TV shows and online friends are American, I wouldn't want to!
Finally, in what sense is GWB sitting on the fence? He may sometimes have trouble with words, but his views seem all too clear to me!

I apologise if it seems that I am saying that the rest of the world
should not critisize our president. This is not what I meant.
Certainly his positions affect the whole world and anyone anywhere should be able to speak for or against them.
As to his being on the fence, I am recalling a speech he made in
a National Park out west.It had excerpts broadcast on American TV
where he was saying that there are ways to extract all the
resources our industry needs while still doing it in an environmentally friendly way. This have your cake and eat it too mentality worries me. I'm afraid the situation is more like
a comercial for oil changes I say a couple years ago where the
speaker said: "You can pay me now or you can pay me later."
I shudder to think what the price for saving the environment will be later but I fear that is when we will be paying it."

Exactly. The trouble is that the kind of corporate concerns who financed Bush, and who he's now trying to please any way he can, tend not to think beyond next year's share dividend. Long-term concerns about the environment would be seen as irrelevant in that context.
I'd say that the question is not so much whether repairing the damage to the environment would be more expensive later, as whether it would be possible later. How do you patch up a hole in the ozone layer?