Given a document and an entity the task is to select the author's sentiment towards the entity. Sentiments can be Positive, Neutral and Negative. Select Positive if the article expresses a positive view towards the given entity or praises its quality or skills. Select Neutral if the document expresses no clear view towards the entity or has equal amounts of positive and negative statements or expressing some fact/quote by someone else. Select Negative if the article expresses a negative view towards like harsh remarks, criticizing entities action/decision etc. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity George W Bush ? After his reelection in 2004 , Bush sought major changes to Social Security , arguing a partial privatization plan could insure its solvency . 
The legacy of George W. Bush remains , much like his 2000 election , a subject of profound controversy , and any truly objective evaluation will likely be years in the future . 
The election of 2000 and the Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore remain two of the most controversial political developments in the last half-century . 
Some thought that President Bush should begin his term by trying to find common ground and avoid controversy to take some of the edge off the nation 's polarized politics coming out of the 2000 election . 
Instead , as one of his first actions , President Bush issued an executive order creating the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives , which further alienated some who thought government money should not go to organizations affiliated with churches . 
The Bush presidency transformed American politics , its economy , and its place in the world , but not in ways that could have been predicted when the governor of Texas declared his candidacy for America 's highest office . 
Within nine months of taking office , President Bush was afforded the chance to unite the nation after the terrorist attacks of September 11 , 2001 . 
By most accounts , Bush did a masterful job of speaking for and to the American people . 
As President , Bush became a lightning rod for controversy . 
Following an authorization from Congress to eliminate those who perpetrated the attacks of 911 , Bush ordered an invasion of Afghanistan . 
Those early successes , however , turned into the longest war in American history , and the President never was able to achieve the greatest symbolic goal of the effort , the killing or capturing of the mastermind of the attacks , Osama bin Laden ; U.S. special forces achieved that goal in 2011 under Bush 's successor , President Barack Obama . 
Following the 911 attacks , President Bush also presided over a restructuring of the American national security apparatus and the passage of the Patriot Act , which gave the government vast new powers in the effort to combat future acts of terror . 
Both efforts , especially the Patriot Act , sparked strong divisions within the American people throughout the Bush presidency . 
In 2002 and into 2003 , Bush used the fear of further terrorist attacks to argue for a preemptive war on Saddam Hussein 's Iraq under the rationale that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction . 
The last few months of the Bush presidency were marked by a major crash of the stock market , a controversial bail out of financial institutions and car companies , and a recession that would wipe out millions of jobs and impact the U.S. economy for many years . 
President Bush 's place in U.S. history will be debated and reconsidered for many years to come . 
On the domestic front , the Bush presidency scored early successes in gaining passage of large tax reductions and a major reform of the American educational system with the No Child Left Behind Act .
Positive

What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Kim ? The impetus for the talks came in  Kim âs annual New Yearâs speech on January 1  when  he  proposed direct discussions with Seoul âover the issue of improving inter-Korean relations by our nation itself â with the goal to âdefuse the current military tension.â  Kim  also welcomed the upcoming Winter Olympics as a âgood occasion for demonstrating our nationâs prestige â and said  he  wanted to send a delegation.
But while the bilateral talks were widely praised in South Koreaâs media  the US media seemed like a deer caught in the headlights from the first announcement of the breakthrough. Unclear how to respond to a possible outbreak of peace  the press immediately zeroed in on the section of Kimâs New Yearâs speech where he declared that his ânuclear forces are capable of thwarting and counteringâ anything from the United States.  Kim  also reminded Washington that the ânuclear buttonâ is on  his  office desk âall the time.â
Although the Supreme Leader left out some of the harsh anti-US language heâs used in previous declarations  the implied threat became the story for nearly every US media outlet covering his New Yearâs speech. At CNN  for example  reporter Brian Todd went on the air to warn Wolf Blitzer that the prospect of talks was dangerous because it could mask a North Korean military attack during the Olympics. In some broadcasts  Kimâs offer to talk  and Moonâs quick endorsement  were barely mentioned.
 Kim âs reference to  his  nuclear arsenal also drew a typical response from President Trump.  He  took to Twitter to declare that  he   too  had a âbutton â but it was âmuch bigger & more powerfulâ than Kimâs.  His  childish taunt quickly led to speculation about  his  state of mind and fitness to be president  a topic that dominated the White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sandersâs first media briefing of the year.
Asked at a press briefing at Camp David about the potential for negotiations with Kim  he replied: âSure  I always believe in talking.â¦ absolutely I would do that.â Trump âappeared to be strongly indicating that he would join talks with North Korea after the high-level inter-Korean talks  if the conditions are right â South Koreaâs liberal Hankyoreh concluded.
In the lead-up to the talks in Seoul  the mood was close to jubilant. âHopes are high that inter-Korean relations will improve â Hankyoreh reported on January 4. âSince  Kim  delivered  his  New Yearâs address on Jan. 1  North Koreaâs actions have been completely aligned with the Southâs response.â
The pace was set early on by The New York Times  in a front-page story on January 1 posted literally hours after  Kimâs New Yearâs speech .  It  instantly became the leitmotif for media coverage throughout the week.
Behind Kimâs New Yearâs declaration âlies a canny new strategy to initiate direct talks with South Korea in the hope of driving a wedge into its seven-decade alliance with the United States â reported Choe Sang-Hun and David Sanger  the latter a recipient of dozens of US intelligence leaks about North Korea over the years.
In the Choe-Sanger article  the Times cited Robert Litwakâa senior vice president at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars who is well-known in Japan and Korea for his hard-right views on security issuesâto back its claim that Kim is seeking to âtake the side of the South Koreans  against President Trump.â He was then given a large block of space on the Timesâs January 3 op-ed page to spell out his grave concerns for the wayward South Koreans.
âWashington and Seoul should not take Mr. Kimâs bait â Litwak argued. âInstead  the North Korean offer should be put to the diplomatic test through a united Washington-Seoul front.â
Yet despite the clear signals of disapproval from US hard-liners   the Moon and Kim governments pressed on   saying  they  would soon embark on âworking-levelâ talks to discuss the details of the Northâs participation in the Olympics  the family visits  and âsolve bilateral issues among  themselves  without relying on outsideâ forces  according to the Joongang Daily.
Positive

What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Thomas F. Veale ? In an email Thursday to  The Associated Press  Col. Thomas F. Veale  said the coalition reported to the Russians the buildup of the pro-government forces in the area before the attack  and communicated with them during and after it. The Russian officials offered assurances that they would not engage the coalition forces in the area   Veale  said.
âPro-regime forces initiated hostilities with artillery pieces (howitzers). Additionally  Syrian pro-regime forces maneuvered T-55 and T-72 main battle tanks with supporting mortar fire in what appears to be a coordinated attack on Syrian Democratic Forces approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) east of the Euphrates River de-confliction line in Khusham  Syria â  Veale  said.
Asked if Russia was responsible for not stopping the attack   Veale  said: âThe de-confliction effort has served its purpose. Just as the coalition does not direct the operations of the SDF  the Russians do not direct operations of the Syrian regime.â
 Veale  said  they  suspect the Syrian pro-government forces were trying to seize terrain from the U.S.-backed forces liberated from IS militants last year  including major oil fields in the area.

Neutral