President Bush's Bad Reputation

Around The World, People See The President As An Extension Of America's Arrogance

(CBS)  Just back from Southeast Asia, President George W. Bush will travel to the Middle East this week. But wherever he goes, Bush encounters hostility.

In Southeast Asia, Bush tried very hard to win over his hosts. He played native instruments, watched native dancers and even tried on native clothes. But Bush's earthy diplomacy conducted mid-munch at the G-8 Summit in July or his unsolicited shoulder rub of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, hasn't played well around the world.

From Britain to China, Bush is the "go-it-alone cowboy" to much of the world, leading the United States in the direction he wants, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

"He is too arrogant about the image of the U.S in the world," a young man in Beijing China told CBS White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.

The natural extension of this negative view of Bush in the eyes of the world is a negative view of the U.S. That view is not just isolated to the Muslim world, where 30 percent of Indonesians and Egyptians polled had a negative opinion of the U.S., but to 23 percent of people in Spain. Less than 50 percent of those polled in France, Germany, Russia and China had favorable opinions of the U.S.

Andrew Kohut, who conducts the annual Pew Institute Global Attitudes Survey — a study of anti-Americanism in 16 nations -- says the study shows broad dislike driven by the war on terror.

"This sounds very strange to an American ear but when we go out and we question people, the depths of concern about American policies put us on a plane with the real bad guys of the axis of evil," he said.

"The United States is seen as conducting a unilateral foreign policy. There's resentment and suspicion in American power now that America has been on the defensive in the war on terror — "go it alone" at a time when America is unrivaled militarily. Many people around the world think Americans do what they can do, what they want to do, and they're not taking into account our interests or the interests of other people."

Anti-Americanism isn't static. In Asia, America's image rose markedly after U.S. aid poured in following the 2004 tsunami. It isn't permanent, either. Just five years ago, for instance, international opinions of the U.S. were much more sympathetic. Many people around the world wanted to help the United States after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

The president would argue that those attacks changed everything, but world opinion is a bit more discerning. Polls show that in much of the rest of the world, there was general approval for one part of Bush's response to 9/11; The war in Afghanistan made sense and seemed proportionate. But Iraq is a different story in the eyes of the world, said London School of Economics professor John Cox.

"I don't think there's much recuperable there," Cox said, "until the situation in Iraq is recovered and we have a new president in the White House. It is very difficult to think of a fundamental renaissance, if you like, happening without it."

Polls suggest that humility would most help America's image, something espoused by then-Governor Bush as a candidate for President in 2000.

"If we're an arrogant nation they'll resent us," he said then. "If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us. Our nation stands alone right now in terms of power. And that's why we've got to be humble. One way for us to end up being viewed as the 'Ugly American' is for us to go around the world saying, 'We do it this way, so should you.'"

[weknow2]

We know. Now shut up and impeach him.

[cbgb31]

It's already the case: everybody is paying the bill
for Bush's stupidity (look at oil price). Check first the US debt and then try coming back and say that the US is "paying the bill".

Posted by abbe7 at 09:12 AM : Nov 27, 2006

That doesn't make sense. The fight against terrorism is more important than the national debt. Not being attacked is important. The ecnomomy is important. It's all tied together.

[cbgb31]

cbgb31
This war that "we" have to fight, when do, or did, you deploy? It's so much easier for us to fight a war when "we" send others to do it. Fearless leader thinks he's a war hero now because he volunteered to go to Vietnam last week, albeit 30 years after the war.
Posted by firststate at 12:28 PM : Nov 27, 2006


OK, you're starting to bug me. We have a military. "WE" deploy that military to fight on behalf of the citizens of the United States of America. I believe we are fighting a good cause and that Iraq will be a democracy one day. It's your problem if you disagree with me.

[linux4ever]

[part 2]

If Bush were willing to run a truly independent and public investigation, that would help understand his actions a great deal - but instead, he goes on and wiretaps anti-war protesters, and passes laws that allow him to detain opponents indefinitely (contrary to popular belief, the Military Commisions Act is not limited to "enemy combatants", can also use it against US citizens who stand in the way of his agenda). Those are not the actions of someone trying to fight a crime (like, e.g. terrorism), they're much closer to the actions of a criminal.

We certainly don't hate America or Americans in general, but some of us are starting to doubt their sanity for not making a much stronger case for impeachment, especially considering there was a strong impeachment movement against Clinton (did Clinton's impeachable offenses drag his country into a disaster that cost thousands of lives?) for far less.

[linux4ever]

Here in Switzerland (and I'd bet it's the same in most other parts of the world), pretty much nobody hates Americans. But pretty much all of us hate Bush, not because he is taking unilateral decisions, but because he is taking WRONG unilateral decisions, such as going to war over nonexistant weapons of mass destruction when everyone who has been paying attention knew they didn't exist.

If Bush took the right decisions unilaterally (say, ending the genocide in Sudan, or doing something about the Israel/Palestine conflict that is acceptable to both sides), the situation would be very different.

[continued]

[linux4ever]

Here in Switzerland (and I'd bet it's the same in most other parts of the world), pretty much nobody hates Americans. But pretty much all of us hate Bush, not because he is taking unilateral decisions, but because he is taking WRONG unilateral decisions, such as going to war over nonexistant weapons of mass destruction when everyone who has been paying attention knew they didn't exist.

If Bush took the right decisions unilaterally (say, ending the genocide in Sudan, or doing something about the Israel/Palestine conflict that is acceptable to both sides), the situation would be very different.

9/11 is another topic -- we wanted to (and still want to) help the United States find the terrorists who started this whole mess, but without a sufficient and public investigation, we can not support or approve of any wars against an alleged perpetrator, especially not when some of the unanswered questions point at a cover-up at best and inside assistance at worst (Why did NORAD stand down? How did Bush see the 1st plane hit live on TV? Why didn't the secret service rush in to protect Bush, given his location was publically known AND close to an airport, when the situation placed both Bush and the children in the classroom in danger? Why did WTC building 7 collapse? None of those questions are addressed in the 9/11 commission report.).

[continued]

[plane51]

America's involvement in Iraq needs to end.The war is going no where.We are not winning, so President Bush start downsizing the troops and come up with a timetable for withdrawal.I am not anti war but did'nt we learn anything from vietnam?Dont try and make the mistakes of President Johnson in the 60's.Admit that going to Iraq was a bad idea and fix it with a timetable withdrawal.

[firststate]

cbgb31
This war that "we" have to fight, when do, or did, you deploy? It's so much easier for us to fight a war when "we" send others to do it. Fearless leader thinks he's a war hero now because he volunteered to go to Vietnam last week, albeit 30 years after the war.

[patriotic9]

jh6379
Thanks for helping me.Now those people who were not paying attentions to those CAPS will concentrate on them after you raised this point.I highly appreciate it.

[patriotic9]

abbe7
People effected by Tsunami were the victims of a natural disaster and helping them could make United States winning hearts and minds of the people,whereas sending money to the EUROPEAN INVADERS in PALESTINE who were brought into PALESTINE after WWII to occupy their land by force because of the RACIST and UNJSUT IDEOLOGY that human beings not being crated equally but created as GOD-CHOSEN or GOD-NEGLECTED on the basis of the RACE or FAMILY they are born in,and that's why either being PROMISED a LAND in the MIDDLE EAST or NOT BEING PROMISED A SINGLE PENNY,has just caused HATRED,TERRORISM and 9/11 AGAINST OUR NATION.If we look at AMERICAN INTRESTS,we don't find an example of BAD INVESTMENT like giving more then $3B to the EUROPEAN INVADERS IN PALESTINE form our TAX PAYED MONEY for the killing and occupation of the land of those people who give us OIL in cheaper prices and in return seeing our men and women dying in WORLD TRADE CENTER.
Eventhough,giving aid to tsunami victims was a JUST CAUSE,but I think we should've taken care of our own people in NEW ORLEANS first then help somebody else.

[abbe7]

cbgb31

"Let's stop sending aid all over the world and really give them reason to hate us. Let the EU start footing the bills, we've got a war to fight."

Also, US aid for the tsunami in Indonesia = one day of war in Iraq. I don't say it, the American Red Cross gave the numbers. Take the 20 richest countries in the world, and sort them by "aid over the world per capita", guess the US rank ...
(again from the US red cross): 20th.

Besides this, I love Americans (most of them, I mean).

[patriotic9]

huskerarmy
"itis not your whiteman's burden to save the world from it's inferior self"
You are right.It's not justified for another country to INVADE or BOMB UNITED STATES for the LIBERATION of those INNOCENT YOUNG AMERICAN BOYS who have been SEXUALLY MOLESTED and SODOMIZED by the AMERICAN HOMOSEXUAL PEDOPHILE PRIESTS in the AMERICAN CHURCHES or to liberate them from WILD ANIMALS like REPUBLICAN FOLEY.

[abbe7]

cbgb31

"Let's stop sending aid all over the world and really give them reason to hate us. Let the EU start footing the bills, we've got a war to fight."

It's already the case: everybody is paying the bill
for Bush's stupidity (look at oil price). Check first the US debt and then try coming back and say that the US is "paying the bill".

[huskerarmy]

"The United States is seen as conducting a unilateral foreign policy..."

"Gee imagine that when the global concenses foreign policy was working so well for us."

Which "global concenses" policy are you referring to? When will you righties understand that itis not your "white man's burden" to save the world from its inferior self?

[patriotic9]

jh6379
If this would be failure of BUSH,he would have resigned after loosing so many soldier's lives and limbs in a war which only benifited ISLAMIC RADICALS or ARAB OIL BUSINESSMEN by increased OIL PRICES.Only group got benifited by BUSH's policies are our OIL COMPANIES.I don't think BUSH or any other AMERICAN can betray the whole nation for the profits of a very few people in the country.

[patriotic9]

It's not the failure of BUSH,but it's the failure of the RADICAL,NON-SENSE,BASE-LESS,RACIST,UNJUST and THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD,BACKWARD CHRISTIANITY from which Bush had interpreted all his INTERNAL and FOREING POLICIES.Bush is aware of the falsehood of CHRISTAINITY that's why he doesn't discuss about GOD or REFRENCES FROM BIBLE any more like he used to do in his early days presidential speeches.BIBLE BASHING CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS wanted us to invade IRAQ for the 2nd COMING OF CHRIST.Jesus didn't come back but the ISLAMIC RADICALS have become so strong and powerful as a result of this war like they were never before and now we are seeing DANGER of the emergence of a HUGE OIL RICH ISLAMIC EMPIRE from IRAN in the EAST to LEBANON in the WEST ruled under those AYATOLLAHs who call us THE GREATEST SATAN,unfortunately at the price of our TAX MONEY and OUR SOLDIER'S LIVES.
It would be much better if these HOLY,GOD-LOVING RELIGIOUS PEOPLE remain in theier churches,SEXUALLY MOLESTING and SODOMIZING YOUNG LITTLE BOYS then to come into POLITCIS and SCREW UP the WHOLE COUNTRY.

[pjw4crcc]

I wonder what "70% or 77%" of the world have a positive view of the U.S.? It sure ain't THIS world! The Pew Research Center has been tracking this number since 1999, when roughly half the nation's sampled had a favorable attitude, to today - where five nations rose above the 50% threshold - and only India was "strongly favorable" (presumably because we've decalred war on their historic Islamic foes). See http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247
Pew's polling also reveals that most Americans have a more negative view of the rest of the world than any other nation sampled. This seems to reflect a culture of self-centered nationalism that precludes effective interaction on the world stage, other than at the point of a gun. "...we've got a war to fight." And that "war" was declared by whom against whom? I've yet to figure that out...

[firststate]

He'd be pathetic if he weren't so smug.

[firststate]

I think fearless leader got another saying confused, the one that goes something like it's better to say nothing and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[cbgb31]

"The United States is seen as conducting a unilateral foreign policy..." Gee imagine that when the global concenses foreign policy was working so well for us.