Bush Faces Increasingly Poor Image Overseas // reposted to European countries
Erik Tranevaarde
washington post is that:
a) this probably lead to the 911 events already in 2001
b) USA did nothing to get a better image, rther to worsen it
c) the general pictures is that USA is focused on money, is crual, violent,
uneductaed and has violent ways to solve most of the problems where the rest
of the world uses negociation and cooperation , partnership and
multilateralism
From my point of view I c an fully confirm that USA is seen as the biggest
danger for the world, and not only because it is planning war, but also for
issues like environment , economic stablility, security of food and genetic
manpulation etc ....
The world thinks the USA has technological means that pose a danger because
its tremendous lack of ethics and civilisation.
"Bush Busta" <Bush...@America.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
svck5voasnthicvi1...@4ax.com...
> Bush Faces Increasingly Poor Image Overseas
>
> Glenn Kessler and Mike Allen, The Washington Post, February 24, 2003
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55326-2003Feb23.html
>
> The messages from U.S. embassies around the globe have become urgent
> and disturbing: Many people in the world increasingly think President
> Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Iraqi President Saddam
> Hussein.
>
> U.S. embassies are the eyes and ears of the U.S. government overseas,
> and their reports from the field are closely read at the State
> Department. The antiwar protests by millions of people Feb. 15 in the
> cities of major U.S. allies underscored a theme that the classified
> cables by U.S. embassies had been reporting for weeks.
>
> "It is rather astonishing," said a senior U.S. official who has access
> to the reports. "There is an absence of any recognition that Hussein
> is the problem." One ambassador, who represents the United States in
> an allied nation, bluntly cabled that in that country, Bush has become
> the enemy.
>
> This shift in public opinion has presented the Bush administration
> with a much different set of circumstances than U.S. officials
> anticipated last September, when, in a bid to create a coalition to
> confront Iraq, Bush took the issue before the United Nations. It has
> seemed to embolden political leaders in Europe and elsewhere who have
> long been wary of military action. Although senior White House
> officials have insisted that U.S. policy toward Iraq will not be
> affected by public opinion, they acknowledged over the past few days
> that they need to confront the worldwide mood opposing a move to war.
>
> Polls have indicated that Americans are more likely to support an
> invasion of Iraq if they believe it has international backing. Antiwar
> protests were held in dozens of American cities at the same time as
> the protests in other countries.
>
> This week, the administration plans to begin a coordinated effort to
> draw attention to what one official called "the plight of the Iraqi
> people, with a focus on human rights and freedom and Saddam's
> brutality." As part of that initiative, the administration has
> scheduled a briefing today on Bush's plans for humanitarian assistance
> and reconstruction in Iraq, with participants from the White House and
> the Pentagon.
>
> Secretary of State Colin L. Powell embarked late last week on a series
> of media appearances in Germany, France, Russia and the Middle East to
> help explain the administration's urgency in confronting Iraq over its
> banned weapons programs. "We know that there is great anxiety, that
> there are many, many people who do not want to see war," Powell told a
> Russian reporter.
>
> Still, White House officials are unapologetic about their overall
> approach, which is based on forcing an early confrontation with Iraq
> rather than agreeing to the stated wishes of several European allies
> to allow U.N. weapons inspections to continue. White House officials
> even contend that they expected this change in momentum toward those
> opposing an early move to war.
>
> Bush, in his public comments last week, appeared to shrug off the
> protests.
>
> "History has proven that the closer you are to potential hostilities,
> the more vocal the opposition," White House communications director
> Dan Bartlett said. "There is always going to be a faction of people
> that don't agree. But I think anybody who gives a fair look at history
> on this will see that this president and this administration is acting
> responsibly and is attempting in every way possible to resolve this
> issue peacefully."
>
> Bush said Tuesday that he had no intention of recalibrating his
> approach based on last weekend's global protests. "Size of protest,
> it's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a
> focus group," Bush said. "The role of a leader is to decide policy
> based upon the security -- in this case, the security of the people."
>
> Analysts and U.S. officials suggest a number of reasons the president
> has become the subject of such vitriol overseas. Some of it stems from
> personality: Bush's blunt manner and frequent references to religion
> appear especially grating to European ears, these analysts and
> officials say. But much of it is rooted in substantive questions about
> the role of U.S. power in the world and whether Bush is properly using
> it in his battle with Hussein.
>
> "The debate [overseas] has not been about Iraq," a State Department
> official said. "There is real angst in the world about our power, and
> what they perceive as the rawness, the arrogance, the unipolarity" of
> the administration's actions.
>
> But, pointing to Bush's seemingly dismissive statements about the
> protests, the official said the concerns reflected in cables from
> American "overseas posts" appeared to have little impact on White
> House decision-making.
>
> Indeed, since the demonstrations, Bush has not acknowledged the
> concerns of the protesters or the fears they expressed, and he has not
> tried to counter their arguments that U.N. inspections must be allowed
> to continue.
>
> "Democracy is a beautiful thing, and that people are allowed to
> express their opinion," Bush told reporters Tuesday. "I welcome
> people's right to say what they believe. Secondly, evidently some of
> the world don't view Saddam Hussein as a risk to peace. I respectfully
> disagree."
>
> Bush's unyielding rhetoric contrasted sharply with the approach of
> British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose approval ratings have plunged
> because of his hard line against Hussein. During a news conference on
> Tuesday, Blair said that he does not "pretend to have a monopoly of
> wisdom in these issues," and that it is important to "have a dialogue"
> with opponents like the 1 million people who rallied in London in the
> largest political demonstration in that nation's history.
>
> "There was a huge emphasis, I thought, by people on the march about
> the consequences of war, their fear about that, and I think it is
> important that we address that better," Blair said.
>
> White House aides argue that an overwhelming case for action against
> Hussein has already been made. "At every step of the way, this
> administration has gone to unprecedented lengths to explain the threat
> -- even to the point of the secretary of state going before the U.N.
> Security Council and delivering classified information for the whole
> world to see," Bartlett said.
>
> Joseph Cirincione, director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the
> Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, believes world opinion
> shifted dramatically against Bush when, after the new year began, he
> signaled he was not committed to supporting continued inspections.
> Cirincione said U.S. allies had been relieved when Bush appeared to
> embrace resolving the issue through the United Nations last fall. "It
> now appears to be an elaborate con job," he said. "Other leaders feel
> manipulated and deceived."
>
> Helmut Sonnenfeldt, a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and a
> staff member of the National Security Council during the Nixon
> administration, said there has been a natural progression in attitudes
> overseas. "It was antiwar, not anti-American. Now it's anti-Bush, not
> anti-American," he said. "That image is stuck in people's
> consciousness."
>
> Another senior U.S. official acknowledged the administration has had
> "a rough week or so."
>
> "That is a byproduct of a policy that is, let's face it,
> controversial," the official said. "You are dealing with such a wide
> array of allies and a wide array of their own concerns."
>
> One official said that Bush took the Iraq question to the United
> Nations last September in part to be responsive to allies who were
> demanding that he do so. But, the official continued, Bush went to the
> world body with a full awareness "that our allies in Europe and
> developing nations look to the U.N. not only as a sounding board but
> as a point of leverage" against the United States.
>
>
> --
> "New rumors that Saddam Hussein is planning to flee to a castle in Libya
with 10 billion dollars. Now
> President Bush doesn't know whether to nuke him or give him a tax cut."
>
>
> --
Craig Kilborn
>
BG
"Erik Tranevaarde" <E.t...@hokil.nl> wrote in message
news:3e5a3...@news.nntpserver.com...
I am personally delighted that Bush is seen as such a threat by leftists
worldwide. Clinton's popularity with them made me quite ill.
James Acker
> I am personally delighted that Bush is seen as such a threat by leftists
> worldwide. Clinton's popularity with them made me quite ill.
>
>
Well geez fella...you shoulda said something sooner. For gods sake, you know
your health and your little tummy aches are WAY more important than actually
trying to do some good in the world. Tell you what, we'll just forget about
diplomacy, seeing what other countries that are affected by our decisions
think, we'll just bluster and kill anybody we want to whenever we feel like
it.....and if anyone asks we'll just let them know that this makes Ol'
Cletus happy.
'kay?
BG
"James Acker" <jac...@online.no> wrote in message
news:P3u6a.26196$CG6.4...@news4.e.nsc.no...
> >
> > I am personally delighted that Bush is seen as such a threat by leftists
> > worldwide. Clinton's popularity with them made me quite ill.
> >
> >
>
> Well geez fella...you shoulda said something sooner. For gods sake, you
know
> your health and your little tummy aches are WAY more important than
actually
> trying to do some good in the world. Tell you what, we'll just forget
about
> diplomacy, seeing what other countries that are affected by our decisions
> think, we'll just bluster and kill anybody we want to whenever we feel
like
> it.....
. . . kind of like China did to their protesting kids in Beijing?
Johnny Hallyday
> washington post is that:
>
> a) this probably lead to the 911 events already in 2001
> b) USA did nothing to get a better image, rther to worsen it
> c) the general pictures is that USA is focused on money, is crual, violent,
> uneductaed and has violent ways to solve most of the problems where the rest
> of the world uses negociation and cooperation , partnership and
> multilateralism
>
> From my point of view I c an fully confirm that USA is seen as the biggest
> danger for the world, and not only because it is planning war, but also for
> issues like environment , economic stablility, security of food and genetic
> manpulation etc ....
>
> The world thinks the USA has technological means that pose a danger because
> its tremendous lack of ethics and civilisation.
You thought the same thing about Pim Fortuyn in Holland. Is that why
the Left in Holland had Pim killed?
tj bandrowsky
Please.
EUROPE HAS NO CIVILIZATION BECAUSE IT HAS NO CHILDREN.
This is the voice of Europe in 100 years
[[[[[[ s i l e n c e
As far as Asian civilizations, are the Chinese ones to talk about
civilization, after all didn't they threaten Taiwan with an invasion
if they held, gasp, an election!
And of course the French have no problem siding with a bunch of
murderers in Rhwanda and the Ivory Coast. And the Russians are doing
a bang up job carpet bombing Chechnya.
You know what this is, if you ask me, its the United States acting to
protect the middle east from those Vichy Thugs in Paris.
tj bandrowsky
eat and the European answer is use more pesticides instead of
skillfully genetically engineering plants to not need them. Europe's
answer to world hunger is to let people starve because "man is a
virus", or some other existentialist crap like that.
2) Preparing for war. Europe is only interested in its own safety and
could care less about helping people to be free or liberated.
Europe's answer is always "wait for the dictators to die", because
Europe only cares about freedom unless it is convenient.
You know what, it was stupid to free Europe from the Nazis because the
truth of the matter is most Europeans think they were probably better
off under a united Nazi Europe and didn't give a shit about freedom.
That is why the entire occupied west for the most part rationalized
all of their collaboration with Berlin. For every resistance fighter
in Europe, there were 1000 Europeans that were quite ready to suck it
up to the fucking Nazis.
Europeans are all whores.
glitter
> Tremendous lack of ethics and civilisation?
>
> Please.
>
> EUROPE HAS NO CIVILIZATION BECAUSE IT HAS NO CHILDREN.
>
> This is the voice of Europe in 100 years
>
>
> [[[[[[ s i l e n c e
>
>
> As far as Asian civilizations, are the Chinese ones to talk about
> civilization, after all didn't they threaten Taiwan with an invasion
> if they held, gasp, an election!
>
> And of course the French have no problem siding with a bunch of
> murderers in Rhwanda and the Ivory Coast. And the Russians are doing
> a bang up job carpet bombing Chechnya.
Murderers in Ivory Coast ?
> You know what this is, if you ask me, its the United States acting to
> protect the middle east from those Vichy Thugs in Paris.
Well, I remember how the USA protect democracy on Chile ( the 9/11
1973 exactly), in Greece, Brazil, cuba etc ...
My god, how wonderful it was.
tj bandrowsky
> Murderers in Ivory Coast ?
Oh, have you read the papers? The French unilaterally invaded the
Ivory Coast and have been their for some months.
>
> Well, I remember how the USA protect democracy on Chile ( the 9/11
> 1973 exactly), in Greece, Brazil, cuba etc ...
> My god, how wonderful it was.
1) The sanctions should be lifted on Cuba and we should kick Fidel
out.
2) Chile was a mistake but the guy was a communist.
The thing of it is that the United States some bad things in the early
1970s and before in order to safeguard a Europe that did absolutely
nothing in its own defense against Soviet aggression.
To justify some of those bad things, a notion of real-politik was born
where dictators would coddled to if they were willing to not side with
the Soviet Union. Many of these dictators were in the middle east.
These compromises undermined American values both home and abroad.
Now that the cold war is over, it is high time that the United States
live up to its original Wilsonian promise as a spreader of liberty
throughout the world. That means that the United States must topple,
like dominos, every dictatorship on the planet, starting with the ones
it so wrongly helped foster - like the one in Iraq.
I find it odd that the European answer for peace is to let the
suffering of the people continue? How long should the people of Iraq
live without democracy? How are they going to get it? Again, these
are questions that do not bother the left, or the european
conscienceness. That the issue of Iraq liberation and Iraqi democracy
is not even addresssed or raised by the French or the Germans only
proves to me how little they care about freedom around the world.
Frankly, I think that because the Europeans are so depopulated, they
want the rest of the world to be in bondage to preserve their own
standing. For this reason, as always, Europeans are the biggest
slavers in human history and always will be.
glitter
> >
>
> Oh, have you read the papers? The French unilaterally invaded the
> Ivory Coast and have been their for some months.
The french haven't invaded Ivory Coast.
The question was first, " Are the French working with mass murderers
in Ivory Coast".
It seems that the french intervention prevent a major bloodbath out
there.
>
> >
> > Well, I remember how the USA protect democracy on Chile ( the 9/11
> > 1973 exactly), in Greece, Brazil, cuba etc ...
> > My god, how wonderful it was.
>
> 1) The sanctions should be lifted on Cuba and we should kick Fidel
> out.
I hope that the USA would have better hope for Cuba than the
before-castro period.
> 2) Chile was a mistake but the guy was a communist.
The guy was suspected to be a communist. So, between 8'000 and 15'000
ppl died. In one word nothing, right ?
> The thing of it is that the United States some bad things in the early
> 1970s and before in order to safeguard a Europe that did absolutely
> nothing in its own defense against Soviet aggression.
What agression ?
>
> These compromises undermined American values both home and abroad.
> Now that the cold war is over, it is high time that the United States
> live up to its original Wilsonian promise as a spreader of liberty
> throughout the world. That means that the United States must topple,
> like dominos, every dictatorship on the planet, starting with the ones
> it so wrongly helped foster - like the one in Iraq.
Well, looks like what I thought when I was 8 years old.
The problem is the "speader of liberty". I hope that the future iraqi
gov could be free to sell all his oil to France.
> I find it odd that the European answer for peace is to let the
> suffering of the people continue? How long should the people of Iraq
> live without democracy? How are they going to get it?
I would be curious to see your reaction if the war against Iraq
provoke the exod of hundreds of thousands of ppl.
> Again, these
> are questions that do not bother the left, or the european
> conscienceness. That the issue of Iraq liberation and Iraqi democracy
> is not even addresssed or raised by the French or the Germans only
> proves to me how little they care about freedom around the world.
So if you think that it's only for the liberty and absolutely not for
oil, why everyone think that it would be right to prevent Elf to gain
a share of Iraqi oil ?
Elf is not in charge of the french foreign affairs.
You may answer "Elf ask the french gov to do all they can to prevent a
war in Iraq"
But I may argue that american oil compagnies ask the bush
administration to do all they can to prevent a total french and
russian domination on the iraqi oil.
Neither points can be 100% certain (unless you're a fan of Mr Powell
proofs).
>
> Frankly, I think that because the Europeans are so depopulated, they
> want the rest of the world to be in bondage to preserve their own
> standing. For this reason, as always, Europeans are the biggest
> slavers in human history and always will be.
Mean europeans vs the great and wonderful americans :-)))))))))))))))
We stole precious iraqi oil in exchange of useless foods and futile
medicine.
tj bandrowsky
> there.
Where was the security council approval? Surely if the French
activities in Africa were so genuine than France could easily obtain
approval from the Security Council for all of its activities, yet, it
has not. Yet, for all of Bush "the cowboy", he seems to be making an
extra effort to get the Security Council on board. If anything,
Chirac wants to have the right for France to be a Cowboy and thinks
only the United States should have to go through the rule of law.
> I hope that the USA would have better hope for Cuba than the
> before-castro period.
Before Fidel Cuba was better than today's Cuba.
>
> The guy was suspected to be a communist. So, between 8'000 and 15'000
> ppl died. In one word nothing, right ?
Ok, so the worst case of stupid American intervention cost 15,000
people their lives. On the other hand, the worst case of stupid
European non-intervention cost how many people their lives in Kosovo?
Or gee, what about Czechoslovakia in 1938?
> What agression ?
Let's see, no American troops in Europe in WWII means all of Europe
becomes a satellite of Stalin. But if you forget the Cold War we
could remind you of the Soviet "crackdowns" in Hungary, Poland,
Czechoslovakia.... of brutal effectiveness of the Stasi in turning
East Germany into a Russian puppet, of the Gulags and the wholesale
looting of eastern Europe by the Russian occupation.
But if the Soviet Union was no threat, as you say, and European
independence was never in doubt, as you seem to indicate, than it
stands to reason that there is absolutely no need for NATO. After
all, if all America wants is oil, the Russians have it and the French
don't. So, maybe, Putin would make a better leader of the French than
Chirac after all.
Quite frankly, since the cold war has ended, I've found that I
actually like the Russians more than I like the French or the Germans
anyway. The Russians DO things.
> Well, looks like what I thought when I was 8 years old.
Such cynicism and hopelessness is the sterling proof positive in
Europe's catastrophic decline. "oh, we can't do this. we can't do
that. the americans suck." It's high time you slugs get over world
war II and do something useful for once. Do something. Anything.
But you can't because Europe is always about depressed pessimism.
> The problem is the "speader of liberty". I hope that the future iraqi
> gov could be free to sell all his oil to France.
Screw the French.
> I would be curious to see your reaction if the war against Iraq
> provoke the exod of hundreds of thousands of ppl.
Translated: "Oh my god, everyone will leave the combat zone during a
war, so lets leave them as slaves instead."
My reaction would be, we should do all that we can to ensure they have
plenty of food and potable water, and, when the war is over, they get
to go home a free people. My reaction would be that we must spend
lavishly to build Iraq up.
> So if you think that it's only for the liberty and absolutely not for
> oil, why everyone think that it would be right to prevent Elf to gain
> a share of Iraqi oil ?
I would think that Iraqi oil should go straight to the spot market
where it would be available to everyone, either French, British, or
American.
> Mean europeans vs the great and wonderful americans :-)))))))))))))))
:-) More accurately. Europeans are so lacking in any confidence or
ambitition that they use international cooperation as an excuse to
avoid making decisions of any kind. That's why the resolutions
without deadlines, etc. If anything, this American intervention in
Iraq should help Europe discover a "super-national" identity. I don't
think France, Germany and Russia would be so cozy if it were not for
Clinton and then Bush. If there was no bellicose America over the
last 12 years, then Europe would probably be gearing up for another
war! That's why I think the United States should --completely---
withdraw from NATO.
Of course, the United States is sliding towards Civil War II, so,
probably by the time Europe has its next big war America will be in
the middle of something even worse.
> We stole precious iraqi oil in exchange of useless foods and futile
> medicine.
Until Saddam f--- up and cheered Sept 11 and began paying the suicide
bombers in Hamas, most Americans would have been content to lift the
sanctions completely. In fact Bush actually floated the idea as a
trial balloon in 2000. The funny thing is that Europeans don't want
the sanctions to actually be lifted, because they prefer a prostrate
Iraq. The american answer is to go in there, get Saddam out, get Iraq
rolling again, with sanctions, stick around for a decade and rebuild
the place, and then offer them statehood. If they don't want to be a
state, we leave. If they do become a state, then a fundamentalist
Islamic Arab could run for President of the United States!
:-)