Pat Buchanan: Might the Arabs Have a Point?

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.

Your just jealous you can't think and write as well as Pat. He's a breath of fresh air making cogent arguments, something that the Democrats can't do.
But this article is the worst he's written. He's right on in his assessment of what the people problem is in Iraq and the failure of Karen Hughes to have success addressing it.
But when he swings over to Jerusalem, he's dead wrong. Why do you get so snoody? Easier on the brain? :^}

ducky dear, I'm no more "jealous" of that old, bitter, anti-Semite Pat B., than I am of OBL.

He doesn't write "cogently" and he can't sell his books. But thanks for at least disagreeing with his crazy views about Jews.

I thought you went to bed with a good nite a while back.

He does write books, lots of them, each one despite the best efforts of the NYTs makes the top ten.

Not to mention being an adviser to three Republican presidents.

A simple class of reading comprehension, would do you a world of good; ducky. :-)

Pat writes books that wind up in the remainder bin, almost as soon as they're printed. And no, they don't land on the N.Y.Times top ten list; not in hard cover nor paperback, anymore. And I really need to disabuse you of yet another error. The N.Y. Times Book Review Section may ignore many books, vis-a-vis having them reviewed, but they can't ignore sales figures and place just anything they please, on their top 10 lists. I've been reading the N.Y, Times Book Review section since I was 10; I know whereof I speak. You don't!

David Gergen has "advised many presidents; GOPers and a damned Dem. Do you also idolize Gergen? Pat wasn't an "adviser", per se and only crazies would listen to Pat now. If the shoe fits; ducky............LOL

No, Gergen is a puppet, Pat is as much an independent thinker as Rush, if not more, and on the cutting edge. Even if you disagree with him, he writes the 'truth ' as he sees it. And he's 85% right, but sinking by waving the white flag to Islamist terrorism.

The MSM, with the NYTs in the lead, plugs a slew of anti W books. Pat and Coulter don't get that level of positive exposer. Yet they rise to the top.

The NYT 'lies' ALL the time, and book sales is no exception. You can't have it both ways. Better to rely on Amazon as an indicator. Even then, "It Takes a Village" is still pulp.

in hoc signo vinces wrote: "If we announced tomorrow that we were withdrawing our troops from every post around the world and letting the Chinese take over...with the comment that "The Chinese will ensure you have human rights, freedom, and such." I wonder what the worlds reaction would be."

That's a thought, I would love to see the "PANDELIRIUM" at the United Nations!

Israel is not the problem, despite what arabs claim. Radical Islam is a supremacist political system and no more a "religion" than Nazism was and IS (and yes there are Nazis who revere Adoplh Hitler, doesn't mean we should "respect" their religious views)."

If they can tag you as an infidel (anyone who doesn't follow True Islam) then you are in their gun sight, it's just that they prefer to kill, given the chance, certain kinds of infidels first like Americans in general, Christians and Jews everywhere. Eventually, again given the chance, they will get to the other "infidels" and countries like France who try to appease these radicals are delusional.

Gergen is a puppet?

Pat is "an independent thinker"?

You have some real problems, there, ducky. Pat is about as "original" as the white supremacists are and he isn't "right" 85% of the time, either. Just because YOU agree with Pat 85% of the time, that doesn't make Pat and you correct!

What you said, ducky, is that the N.Y. Times keeps Pat's books off their best sellers' lists; which they do not! Now, you are changing the story, to reviews and publicity. No wonder you imagine that Pat writes cogently! LOL

Sheeeeeeeeeesh...the N.Y. Times Sunday Book Review section can't "lie" about which books are in the top ten! That would be easy to dispute, with sale figures.

And since many people, like me, don't buy books on line, but in book stores, Amazon's lists don't indicate an absolutely correct sale of books.

You're hilarious.

And no, they don't land on the N.Y.Times top ten list; not in hard cover nor paperback, anymore.
Why the qualifier?

Amazon's lists don't indicate an absolutely correct sale of books.
Another qualifier? But based on the sample size of Amazon, it can't be sneezed at. The N.Y.Times on the other hand relies on shady Publishers and soliciting Book Stores who benefit from the hype.

Either way you cut it, Pat sold a pile of books, with enough articles and transcripts for more.

I'll bet even you, prolific reader, has read his books. I suppose there are more successful non fiction writers. Could you name a few?

I'm so glad that you find facts "hilarious" and your own erroneous claptrap, so invigorating; ducky. LOL

Gee...Hitler sold and still sells a LOT of books. Does that make Hitler's book factual and "special"?

The anti-Semitic diatribe, "THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION" was a world wide best seller and Henry Ford used to buy that spurious POS in vast quantities; putting one in each glove compartment.

Only mental midgets buy Pat's books, now, and agree with him 85% of the time. ;^)

You would be wrong,then, ducky...I have NEVER bought any of Pat Buchanan's books and have NEVER read one. I know what he writes, because a lot of his garbage gets posted to FR.

ROTFLOL...you think that book stores profit from "profit" from what the N.T. Times has on it's Book Review Section, but not from Amazon's lists? Hello...........? Anyone at home, in your head?

Anyone at home, in your head?
I sometimes wonder, :'/

There you go again. Henry's Fords did not have a glove compartment, Maybe a door pocket. I happen to own a 1931 1 1/2 ton Ford truck and in my days went through 2 31 coupes, w rumble seats. The dash board was the gas tank- with no glove compartment. You probably always rode in the rumble seat

Giving away a propaganda book with an auto is not a sale. It's hate mail.

Hitler? I thought we were talking about contemporary US writers. What makes you think that your infallible NY Times had a handle on sales figures of Kampf and Protocols?

Oh, so it wasn't a sale, when Henry Ford purchased all of those books? LOL

Sweetums, I'm far too young to have ever ridden in a car that had a rumble seat and nobody I knew collected cars as lowly as an old Ford. Just how OLD are you?

Seeing as how enamoured of Hitler, and Germany, dear old Pat is, I just thought that I'd throw that in, to keep him company. Threw in the old POTEOZ as well, since Pat does a pretty good mimicry of them, when he talks about the Joooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos.

OK. You lose, going forward

I think Rushdie's new book may be what is needed to confront the Arab's (Islamist) real point of contention with the west. Which is Pat's concern.

It's on another thread right now.

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.