Posted on 01/16/2006 1:26:24 PM PST by Hal1950
Karen Hughes, President Bush’s newest undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and the caretaker of America’s image abroad, has her work cut out for her.
A Zogby survey of 3,900 Arabs in Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates has uncovered massive distrust of U.S. motives in the Middle East.
Unkindest cut of all, Arabs would prefer that President Chirac and France lead the world rather than us, and, rather than have us as the world’s lone superpower, they would prefer the Chinese.
While Arabs are not as rabidly anti-American as in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, still, by 77 percent to 6 percent, they believe the Iraqi people are worse off today, and by four-to-one, Arabs say the U.S. invasion has increased, not decreased, terrorism.
Designed by Arab scholar Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution, the survey reveals pervasive cynicism about the stated goals of George W. Bush. When asked, “When you consider American objectives in the Middle East, what factors do you think are important to the United States?” the Arab answers came as follows:
Fully 76 percent said the Americans are there for the oil, 68 percent said to protect Israel, 63 percent to dominate the region, and 59 percent to weaken the Muslim world. Only 6 percent said we were there to protect human rights and another 6 percent said to promote democracy. Asked directly if they believe President Bush when he says democracy is our goal, two of every three Arabs, 78 percent in Egypt, said that, no, they do not believe Bush.
Asked to name the two nations that present the greatest threat to regional peace, 70 percent named Israel, 63 percent the United States, and 11 percent Britain. Only 6 percent named our bête noire Iran.
Asked to name the foreign leader they disliked most, Sharon swept top honors with 45 percent. Bush took the silver with 30 percent. No one else was close. Tony Blair came in a weak third. Only 3 percent of the Arabs detest him most.
While only 6 percent agreed with al-Qaeda’s aim to establish an Islamic state and only 7 percent approve of its methods, 20 percent admire the way al-Qaeda “stood up for Muslim causes” and 36 percent admire how it “confronts the U.S.”
Favorite news source? Sixty-five percent named Al-Jazeera either as their favorite or second favorite. What Fox News is to red-state America, Al-Jazeera is to the Arab street.
America’s standing in the Arab world could hardly be worse. And the questions the survey raises are these: Do we care? And, if we do, do not the Arabs have a point? Has not U.S. behavior in the Middle East lent credence to the view that our principal interests are Israel and oil, and, under Bush II, that we launched an invasion to dominate the region?
After all, before liberating Kuwait, Secretary of State Baker said the coming war was about “o-i-l.” And while we sent half a million troops to rescue that nation of 1.5 million, we sent none to Rwanda, where perhaps that many people were massacred.
If Kuwait did not sit on an underground sea of oil, would we have gone in? Is our military presence in the Mideast unrelated to its control of two-thirds of the world’s oil reserves?
If human rights is our goal, why have we not gone into Darfur, the real hellhole of human rights? If democracy is what we are fighting for, why did we not invade Cuba, a dictatorship, 90 miles away, far more hostile to America than Saddam’s Iraq, and where human rights have been abused for half a century? Saddam never hosted nuclear missiles targeted at U.S. cities.
And is Israel not our fair-haired boy? Though Sharon & Co. have stomped on as many UN resolutions as Saddam Hussein ever did, they have pocketed $100 billion in U.S. aid and are now asking for a $2 billion bonus this year, Katrina notwithstanding. Anyone doubt they will get it?
Though per capita income in Israel is probably 20 times that of the Palestinians, Israel gets the lion’s share of economic aid. And though they have flipped off half a dozen presidents to plant half a million settlers in Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank, have we ever imposed a single sanction on Israel? Has Bush ever raised his voice to Ariel Sharon? And when you listen to the talking heads and read the columns of the neocon press, is it unfair to conclude that, yes, they would like to dump over every regime that defies Bush or Sharon?
Empathy, a capacity for participating in another’s feelings or ideas, is indispensable to diplomacy. Carried too far, as it was by the Brits in the 1930s, it can lead to appeasement. But an absence of empathy can leave statesmen oblivious as to why their nation is hated, and with equally fateful consequences.
January 16, 2006 Issue
I might have spoken too soon....
Pat loves the sound of his own voice more than his country!!
I wish Buchanan would just shut up, he is an embarrassment to conservatives. He has never actually accomplished anything and the only reason the leftist elites like him is because much of the time he agrees with them.
Pat is just pathetic.
*ping a ling*
I'd say more .. but there are rules about language around here
Yes, and yes.
I just turned to AirAmerika to see what is going on...
and Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schulz of Florida...was basically spouting the same stuff as Pat...
I don't get it! Even some Jews are so blinded by their hate of George Bush...that they don't see what he is trying to accomplish...
And, to the poster that complained about the $$$$ we spend in Israel..the alternative is inconceivable...
1. I am ashamed to admit that at one time I supported Pat Buchanan. But he has proven to be swayed by the gusty winds of the Euro-press against Israel, thus he is of unreliable character. For God gave Israel to His people, and through King David, He claimed Jerusalem as His home city. God warned of dividing Israel's land to deliver it into the hands of Israel's enemies. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has brought God's wrath upon the United States of America by "urging" Ariel Sharon to give up the Gaza Strip, and any part of the West Bank. We have begun to see the immediate result of that action here and in Israel.
2. I am not convinced that the reason we went to war in Iraq was strictly for oil.
But just think about it. America without oil can be brought to it's knees, be made vulnerable to the whims of our enemies, who hide behind gauze curtains, if not iron curtains these days. So, to cut off our oil is a serious threat to this nation, is
it not?
3. I hope that Israel gives no jurisdiction over any of Jerusalem to the Palestinians. If you think you've seen bad times before, I say you have not seen anything yet. So pray that Israel seeks a much higher counsel than that of the U.S. regarding Jersusalem. Matthew 23:38, 39; 24:3; Psalm 132:13; 137:5.6; Chronicles 6:6.
You are stronger than I am!
Oh, give me a break! I'm not Jewish. Like Buchanan, I was raised a Roman Catholic, so if there was any "brain-washing" done, I received much the same as he did. Yet I am able to clearly see Buchanan's ugly anti-Semitism for what it is.
Pat Buchanan is out of his era. He belongs back there in the 1930's with the rest of the Hitler-admiring crowd let by Father Coughlin. Anyone who thinks Buchanan has "courage to rise in the face of AIPAC," belongs right back there with him.
Yes.
Within the constraints of common decency, it doesn't cover the true scope and breadth of his vitriol.
well I guess Pat is pandering to a certain side of the aisle.
For as much BSing he does about him being a "true conservative", he certainly mirrors what some of the most strident leftists say these days.
Culteral reasons.
Some religious reasoning too.
He was brought up and raised in what he calls or considers a traditional background, but at that time, there were large pockets of wasp anti-semetism.
His isolationist views also affect his views of WW 2, and his belief that the US should never have gotten involved in it.
While he does not believe Hitler was a good guy or that the holocaust was a good thing, he feels that what Germany did was none of our business, and what happened to the jews did not concern us (he also has a conpsiracy theory about japan).
It should be noted, that while he worked for Nixon (another anti-semite), he had a good relationship with Kissinger to some extent.
Pat also puts himself in the realpolitic category.
He did also briefly work for President Reagan where he resigned/was fired.
Pat is not a nice man
This poll was most likely done with the Arabs that agree with the President of Iran, wanting to kill all the Jews and who also want to kill Americans
Anyone that would agree with those people .. IMO are disgusting
In one of his books, he explains why the germans blamed the jews and why anti-semetism existed.
Its not very pro-jewish in its explanation.
Pat is no longer worth reading or listening to.
He does not know or wishes to ignore the history of this region and the people of islam, "the religion of peace".
His writing is nonsense and despicable.
I was raise a Roman Catholic also and never taught to hate the jews
I guess Pat's forgets .. Jesus was a jew also
Sorry. I wasn't meaning to offend.
I think of Pat as incredibly stupid. You just name the issue and he's Mr. Stupid.
I disagree with everything that he is about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.