You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
International-UN-NGOs
‘Bush greater threat than Bin Laden’
2005-09-25
I think we had a version of this a few days ago...
A panel reporting to the US State Department has warned that President George W Bush is seen in some Arab nations as a greater threat than Al-Qaeda founder Osama Bin Laden, a US newspaper reported on Saturday.
I'd call that a pretty accurate statement. Bush is much more of a threat to certain Arab states than Binny is. It's all connected with which side you're on...
The report by the congressionally mandated advisory panel, which found that “America’s image and reputation abroad could hardly be worse”, has been seen by senior officials but not yet released publicly, The Washington Post said. A fact-finding mission to the Middle East last year found that “there is deep and abiding anger toward US policies and actions,” according to the paper.
Those U.S. actions include throwing Sammy out, killing Uday and Qusay, and trying to let the Iraqis have some personal freedoms. They've been resisted tooth and nail.
The Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy cited polls that found that large majorities in Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia “view George W. Bush as a greater threat to the world order than Osama.”
Perhaps because he's looked upon the world order and found it riddled with brutality and corruption.
Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes, a longtime presidential adviser, prepares to leave this weekend on a “listening tour” of the Middle East. The panel’s report warns that televised images of US policy choices – such as in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the invasion of Iraq – reverberate across the Arab media and will “long haunt the image of the United States,” the paper said. The committee recommended a series of steps, including increased funding and staffing, to rebuild efforts to promote US culture and ideas – an essential task that it said has been eroded through bureaucratic shuffling and indifference.
I don't think the State Department has taken that particular aspect of the war as seriously as they could have. I've said, almost from day one, that we should be reminding our own people of the reasons we're at war. We should also be addressing the ridiculous statements periodically issued by the Learned Elders of Islam and the Sheikhs of Araby. We should also be pushing and explaining in excruciating detail the underlying idea of personal liberty. Instead, we've had periodic servings of warm milk. Ptui.
In much of the world, the report said, the United States is viewed as “less a beacon of hope than a dangerous force to be countered,” according to the paper.
I'm just not sure our enemies hating us is a bad thing...
Posted by:Fred

#9  â€œAmerica’s image and reputation abroad could hardly be worse”,

If it can't get worse, it can only get better. Best not to worry about it then.
Posted by: Baba Tutu   2005-09-25 18:31  

#8  Wow what a news flash!! this means that Dictators Dictator supporters, Islamic Radical Theocrat supporters, and thier general ilk dont like the idea of personal freedom democracy and the whole idea of allowing the ignorant/sinful peasants make decisions for themselves and of course the One Guy who whants to give them this power is consider a threat. Nawww Imagine That
Posted by: C-Low   2005-09-25 10:57  

#7  "This administration has the worst -- and most invisible -- public affairs instincts and operations in modern history."

[RANT]

This, more than anything else, is what vexes me about the administration's conduct of the war: despite our successes on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush and his advisors are passively letting the war be gradually lost, bit by bit, on the home front.

And I cannot for the life of me figure out why.

Are they completely unaware that public support is absolutely vital to the success of a war which they themselves have warned will be a "long, hard slog"?

Do they simply assume that the American people are savvy enough to figure it all out for themselves and keep themselves focused and motivated, and therefore don't need any reminders from the administration of what this war is all about?

Do they assume that Fox News, along with a tiny handful of right-leaning blogs, are sufficient all by themselves to keep up support for the war-- without any help whatsoever from the White House?

Are they too meek and timid to get in the Democrats' faces and denounce their vicious lies about the war for exactly what they are-- defeatism, sedition and treason?

Does their reticence come from some antiquated, "old-school" notion of "gentlemanly conduct" that prohibits them from fighting back?

Is their passivity the result of some political calculation by the allegedly diabolical genius of Karl Rove, that the Democrats are digging their own grave with their hysterical anti-war rhetoric and that it's best to just leave them alone?

What the hell is their damned problem????

I just don't understand it. And it bothers the hell out of me. There are other aspects of our conduct of the war which bother me, too, mainly the lack of apparent action on Iran, Syria, North Korea and Saudi Arabia; but the Bush administration's utter cluelessness on the domestic front bothers me more than anything else.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!!!

[/RANT]
Posted by: Dave D.   2005-09-25 10:56  

#6  These folks go to nations that supports terrorism and asks the families of the terrorist who the bigger threat is? Is there any suprise as to the answer? Did they invite Jane Fonda to tag along and pose on a ZSU also? WTF?
Posted by: 49 pan   2005-09-25 10:53  

#5  We are sending a woman to the middle east to listen? To who? Evidently to diplomats and other learned scholars and not to the average tribal leader, huh? Good plan. She can borrow my balto when she hits Yemen.
Posted by: beagletwo   2005-09-25 10:26  

#4  Phil! I thought you lived on another continent! But you have correctly devined the new WaPo. They have created a small, free paper called 'Express', which I sometimes read (past tense)on the train. But you are exactly right. They have three or four pages of news (some of which is 'read the full story in the Post') and the rest is Entertainment Tonight. And sports.

I feel SO uninformed about J-Lo and so many other people who I can't even name!
Posted by: Bobby   2005-09-25 07:50  

#3  Well said Verlaine. Many of us non-Americans (those who who some grasp of what is going on) wholeheartedly support the USA. Part of the problem is that the MSM has lost the serious news consumers and is going after the market segment that considers Entertainment Tonight as news.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-09-25 06:48  

#2  Ditto to all your comments, Fred. These reports that decry the poor US image abroad kill me.

First, as you point out, there's the little problem that, in fact, there are irreconcilable differences between not just us and our literal enemies but between us and many regular people who prefer institutionalized misogyny, racism, dictatorship, and religious tyranny to western concepts of an open society.

Second, AFAIK these "analyses" never even mention the largest factor in creating hostile mindsets: media disinformation, distortion, and inaccuracy (separate but kindred issues). I don't think there are any global surveys that attempt to ascertain the informational base on which their respondents base their (usually bizarre) opinions.

When you pair that "Bush is a threat to world peace" response with the information that the respondent hasn't considered the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, is unaware of the Somalia or Kosovo or Bosnia operations, is unaware of the key role played by the US in all global humanitarian relief operations, and is completely misinformed about US and enemy activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, their negative attitudes aren't much of a mystery -- or a reason for us to do squat.

Heck, huge swathes of America and most of Europe have preposterous misconceptions about US foreign policy, thanks largely to the media being completely off the rails -- why should the comparatively ignorant and unworldly Egyptian rank-and-file be any better?

And finally, I can only echo your complaint about the warm milk offered up -- intermittently -- as the only communication about our policies and the situation we face. This administration has the worst -- and most invisible -- public affairs instincts and operations in modern history. Some of us are pushing, at different levels on diverse topics, for them to come to their senses and push back, hard, on disinformation, as well as get the real stories out and frame the issues from the outset.
Posted by: Verlaine in Iraq   2005-09-25 05:48  

#1  I'm thinkin' a real, hard-hitting historical examination of Big Mo; life and times, the founding of Islam, and the establishment of the Caliphate. Followed by the sack of Constantinople, the Siege if Vienna...
Posted by: mojo   2005-09-25 02:54  

00:00