American presidents have come and gone, some leaving a footprint on the sand, others passing readily into historical oblivion.

Who remembers the presidents between Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt? What's there to remember about Ford except perhaps the wisecrack that he couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time? Who cares about Carter, his record since leaving the White House more memorable than his presidency?

The world started taking an interest in US presidential elections after the Second World War when, with Europe in ruins, the US was the big guy around the block. The other big guy of course being the Soviet Union. But to a large extent this interest was academic. It was good to know what was going on. But it really made no difference to the rest of the world whether a Kennedy was going to be US president or a Nixon. That is, not until now.

Whichever way one looks at it, the Bush presidency represents a bizarre phenomenon. Here's a president who was elected not by a majority of Americans but by a majority in the US Supreme Court. If the august justices sitting on the bench had not ruled in his favour, Al Gore and not George Bush would be US president.

But of greater relevance to the rest of the world is something quite different. The Bush administration today is not simply an American problem but a threat to world peace, a far bigger threat than Al Qaeda.

Two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, attacked and devastated not because they were any threat to America but because they were soft targets, easily attackable as a demonstration of American power.

It's now pretty much in the open that soon after the Twin Towers attack there was a debate within the Bush administration as to what to do. Some of the armchair warriors holding forth, most of them Vietnam draft dodgers in their time, favoured attacking Afghanistan. Not that any link had emerged between the Twin Towers and Osama bin Laden. But that was hardly the point. The Bushites wanted a war and the only question was against whom.

When the focus shifted to Iraq, there was no way Saddam could have avoided a war. He could have committed hara kiri and Bush and faithful Blair would still have invaded his country.

It was nothing about democracy or ridding Iraq of a tyrant. Only congenital dupes will have fallen for that one. And as we are increasingly seeing, it was certainly not about weapons of mass destruction (WMD). None have been found simply because there weren't any to find.

Much anguished hand-wringing is going on in London these days, and to a lesser extent in Washington, over the doctored intelligence provided to justify this war. Strange that the Brits and Americans should only now be waking up to something the rest of the world suspected right from the start.

And Wolfowitz, deputy guru at the Pentagon, says WMD was chosen as an excuse for "bureaucratic" reasons because this was one issue everyone could agree on.But what do we have now? A messy occupation. American soldiers are being fired on and they are firing back, killing more Iraqis. This was supposed to be a cakewalk to freedom and democracy. But the people of Iraq have only exchanged one tyranny for another. The old tyranny at least gave them stability, order, jobs, education and health care. The new tyranny has yet to go beyond mass humiliation, devastation and anarchy.

None of this is really the fault of the American people. They were conned into this war just as they were conned into the Bush presidency by their own Supreme Court. The vast majority of Americans are not even aware of the neo-con right-wingers who wield power in Washington and who've written this administration's agenda.

But ignorance is a poor shield when so much is at stake. The US is the most hated country in the world today, not because of the American people but the arrogance and hubris of the guys dressed up as warriors and running the show in Washington. They have insulted their own allies. Ask France and Germany. They are treating Saudi Arabia, their oldest Middle East ally, with suspicion.

Calling for regime change in Iraq was one thing. But some of the neo-cons have been calling for regime transformation in Saudi Arabia. Now they are training their guns on Iran.

The American Empire built on the ashes of the Second World War was held together by American power and a sense of shared values between the US and its allies. Much of the world was wary of Soviet-style communism and the strongest bulwark against the spread of communism was the United States. But the strongest element of the New American Empire arising from the rubble of the cold war is a fear of crossing America's path.

The majority of Arab and Muslim countries were deeply perturbed by the run-up to the Iraq war but chose to remain silent for fear of offending the US. Now that the US has turned its attention to Iran and its ayatollahs, again, for much the same reason, not so much as a squeak is coming from fellow Muslim countries.

A grim irony is at work here. The US is feeding a sense of helplessness across the world of Islam and then wondering why the region is such a fertile breeding ground for suicide bombers.Pat Buchanan assures us--Pat, the Nixon speechwriter and maverick presidential candidate--that the influence of the neo-cons is on the wane.

Writing in the New Conservative he says: "...for a movement that is Small in number and utterly dependent on its proximity to power, the neo-cons have made major mistakes. They have insulted too many US allies, boasted too much of their connections and influence, attracted too much attention to themselves, and antagonized too many adversaries. In this snake pit of a city, their over-developed penchant for self-promotion is not necessarily an asset." (Fine writing, isn't it?)

Furthermore, "By now, all their columnists and house organs-Commentary, National Review, the New Republic, the Weekly Standard - are known. Their front groups - AEI, JINSA - have all been identified and bracketed. Their agents of influence - Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Bolton, Wurmser, Abrams, et al - have all been outed. Neoconservatives are now seen as separate and apart from the Bush loyalists, with loyalties and an agenda all their own."

May the Good Lord indeed have it so. The Neo-cons need to be stopped in their tracks. But this still leaves us with Bush and his top guns. Stopping them from doing more mischief is more a world than an American necessity. One Bush term is all that the world can afford. A second would be a disaster.

Who'll do the stopping? The challenge rightfully belongs to the Democratic Party but the Democratic Party these days is like a dog rolling over, waiting to be tickled. All the candidates vying for the Democratic nomination are eminently forgettable. So no danger from that quarter.

For my money the only politico in the US who can effectively challenge the Bushites is just one Democrat, Hillary Clinton. She says she won't stand, at least not next year. So that's that. But between now and the beginning of next year should enough pressure pile up to make her change her mind, the Bushites will have something to worry about. Otherwise they'll be plaguing the world for four more years, a prospect enough to daunt the stoutest heart.

Clinton himself is experiencing a sort of popular comeback since leaving office. We all know he couldn't keep his trousers up, his biggest failing. But looking back, one can only smile at him: naughty Clinton. The US economy was doing well and his nation was at peace. Now the world has to put up with Bush and his cabinet, described by one San Francisco Gate columnist as "quite possibly the least sexually tempting, most ogre-like cadre of bitter sagging hawks and scowling civil rights stompers in the history of humankind."