LIMA, Peru _ These days in Latin America, friendship with President George W. Bush does not win a lot of votes.

        I have noticed during recent trips in the region _ particularly Argentina, Bolivia, Mexico and Peru _ that so-called anti-Americanism in many parts of Latin America is aimed at the U.S. president rather than the American people.

        In other words it's anti-Bush not anti-USA.

Three examples:
1. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said that "if there's any president in this world who shows a great resemblance _ even physically, even in the expression of his eyes _ to Adolph Hitler, it is Mister Danger (Bush)."
2. In a recent interview, Bolivian President Evo Morales told me: "And Bush? You tell me, how many military bases does he have in the world and where is he committing massacres every day?"
3. Ollanta Humala, one of the two top candidates running for president in the upcoming elections in Peru, proclaimed himself "anti-imperialist," and assured me that here in the 21 century "imperialist pressures" from the Bush administration isn't acceptable.

        In conversations with other politicians, journalists, scholars, students, friends and, of course, a legion of taxi drivers, the central theme has been their rejection or all-out loathing of Bush. But it is nothing personal; none has ever seen him in person.

        It has to do, however, with a clear repudiation of the U.S. leader's actions, starting with the war against Iraq. Latin America has a long history of American invasions and interventions, and in many cases, the war in Iraq is seen as one more occupation. This is especially so since it was never proved that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or that Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United
States.

        Add to that the pictures and recent videos of American soldiers torturing detainees in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, accusations of abuse and detention without trial of hundreds of prisoners at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo, and almost 30,000 civilian deaths in Iraq (according to iraqbodycount.org), and Bush's image plummets.

        The United States, rightly, set its sights on the Mideast after the 2001 terrorist acts. But it is hard to understand why Bush then stopped looking south where some of his best friends and allies were. Mexican President
Vicente Fox was ready to provide great support. However, the United States never forgave Mexico (and Chile) for voting against the war in Iraq in the U.N. Security Council.
Then, the promise of negotiating an immigration agreement between Mexico and the United States never materialized.

        This was seen as a yet another snub. And to cap it all, the proposal to erect a wall on a third of their common border was seen as a colossal insult. And although Bush had nothing to do with it _ it was, after all, a proposal that originated in Congress _ neither did he, a former Texas governor, come right out to oppose constructing such a wall. Nor has anyone heard any criticism from him
regarding immigrant hunters on the border taking justice into their own hands.

        Other than Cuba, all the new left-leaning governments that have emerged in Latin America (Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay and Bolivia) and those that could soon come to power (Peru, Nicaragua and Mexico) have Bush, ironically, to thank.
Nowadays it the custom to criticize Bush and his war decisions because it generates sympathy from millions of Latin American voters. Attacking Bush or assailing his advice is part of Latin America's left-wing strategy to win
elections.

        One clear example is Bolivia. After a former American ambassador asked the Bolivian people not to vote for Morales, they did precisely the opposite.

        Except for Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, I haven't met another Latin American president or presidential candidate who brags about friendship with
Bush.

        All that, however, could be offset by a vigorous and visible American policy in Latin America. But no such thing. Bush has rarely traveled south of the border. The last time was a trip to Argentina and he didn't venture out of his hotel in Mar del Plata. And there hasn't been anyone who speaks strongly and staunchly on his behalf _ and in Spanish.

        Tossing Latin America into oblivion will carry an enormous price for the United States. It will be at least a decade before this new generation of anti-American leaders leaves power and before we see Latin Americans warming up to the United States again.

        The irony, however, is that Latin Americans love everything American: They listen and dance to American music, learn English, use American computers and its Internet, send their children to American universities,
play its videogames, go north to work, buy American cars, manage their own companies like American executives do, vacation in U.S. cities and amusement parks, admire America's freedom of the press and separation of powers, study the country's democracy, appreciate Americans' directness, laugh at how they mock their politicians, dress like them, try to copy American athletic success, are impressed by American inventions and military might _ and
imitate their way of living, shopping and eating. In short, they want to be like Americans: winners rather than losers.

        Latin America is not anti-USA.

        If the U.S. government wishes to get closer to Latin America, a vast fertile ground exists: its young people. It's often hard to tell the difference between Latin American and American young people. But there has to be a real desire to connect. That's what is missing.