Floyd Brown's Oct. 3 letter sings the standard refrain about Bush-haters. It's a common theme in letters to the editor in the newspapers I read from Aiken, Augusta, and Columbia. Writers who are critical of the president and the war in Iraq are described as being full of hatred.

Of course, such language may simply be a way of abusing political opponents, but to the extent that it is sincere, I believe the accusation is mistaken and rests on a confusion.

I doubt that there are many of his critics who actually hate the president. They deplore his policies, especially his lethal foreign policy, and they feel frustrated and helpless to do anything about it. Moreover, they are appalled at the president's evident ignorance, dullness and consistent (and often comic) clumsiness in speaking. Finally, they are embarrassed, and even ashamed, before the rest of the world that we have such a man as our president.

But hatred? No. Bush is typically perceived by his critics as a pathetic and weak, even a tragic, figure. He is seen as a man who has risen further above his abilities than perhaps anyone in the history of American public life. He is taken to be a mere tool of his handlers, the real agents and thinkers behind the scenes - some of whom might be deserving of hatred if anyone is.

Naturally, President Bush himself is not liked or respected; who could like a puff-chested swaggerer who is brave enough to face audiences only of supporters, or respect a man who has caused the completely unnecessary deaths of thousands of innocent people? But he is more likely to inspire exasperation, dismay and ridicule than hatred.

Greg Weis, Aiken, S.C.