Display:
First data point:


Bush rates poorly in survey while Putin gains status

PARIS: President George W. Bush is widely unpopular, President Vladimir Putin is gaining admirers, and Iran should be penalized if it does not cease its uranium enrichment programs, according to an international survey conducted by Harris Interactive in the United States, France, Germany, Britain, Spain and Italy.

(...)

According to the 2007 survey, whose results are being released on Friday, Bush's best score internationally was in the United States but still only 36 percent. His worst rating was in France - with 89 percent giving a negative response. Eighty percent disapprove of him in Spain and 71 percent in Britain.

Second data point:


The US Senate has confirmed Michael Mukasey as the new attorney general

The vote came despite misgivings from some senators who were unhappy at his answers over what constituted torture in the questioning of terror suspects.

Mr Mukasey refused to be drawn into a condemnation of so-called waterboarding, a controversial interrogation technique.

The vote was carried by 53 to 40 in the Democrat-controlled Senate, and Mr Mukasey will replace Alberto Gonzalez.

Third data point


France divided as Sarkozy woos US

That Nicolas Sarkozy is France's most pro-American president in generations - in fact, come to think of it, ever - there is no reason to argue over.

It is the one point on which both he and his enemies would agree.

A man who declared his intention on going to Washington of "reconquering the heart of America" - and who in his speech to Congress cited Elvis Presley, Charlton Heston and Neil Armstrong as his heroes - is clearly not lukewarm about "les Etats-Unis".

The question is what it all signifies.

For supporters, Mr Sarkozy is quite properly correcting a historic imbalance in French-US relations - bringing to an end the knee-jerk hostility of his predecessors, both Gaullist and Socialist.

But for his critics, the president's admiration for America is a dangerous obsession.

They see France abandoning its duty to provide the world with an alternative conception of power, as their besotted leader realigns foreign policy behind the dreaded George W.

So, if I get this right:

  • Bush is universally despised and mocked. Even the US media recognise this;

  • despite this, elites and politicians are bending over to align themselves on him and on his policies - Europeans asskissing him and talking tough on Iran, Afghanistan, War on Terror; Democrats supporting his torture-supporting new AG; pundits explaining blissfully how this is all the reasonable thing to do;

  • in particular, the notion that good policies can only come from being a macho, posturing tough guy willing to use force and sacrifice (brown) children and (poor) soldiers heroes is praised to high heaven; in fact, our wimpy, latte-drinking, yurpeen way of life is made possible because of the manly men who work hard killing people to protect us, and that's a good thing provided only that we don't dare compalin about it, because that would be treasonous ;

  • and, of course, the problem is with the silly extremists who find the attitude of our elites and pundits criminal, cowardly and undemocratic.

This is the "we're the good guys we can do no wrong" mindset - with the definition of "good guys" being the West, meaning the government of the USA and those that support it unquestioningly.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Nov 9th, 2007 at 05:22:00 AM EST
And let's not miss:
For supporters, Mr Sarkozy is quite properly correcting a historic imbalance in French-US relations - bringing to an end the knee-jerk hostility of his predecessors, both Gaullist and Socialist.

What knee-jerk hostility would that be? A failure to go along with every whim of the US? The clear-headed insight that the Iraq adventure was a bad, bad idea in oh so many ways? The insistence that any eventual invasion of a sovereign nation ought to be based on credible intelligence, not cherry picked facts to support a predetermined will, for such an operation to be legitimate? A requirement that working with the international community means an actual dialogue, rather than a unilateral dictation of the terms? The sense that while bombing and destroying might be easy, building and rebuilding a successful state is rather more difficult? Some basic skepticism about assertions of Iraqi WMD that was never supported by evidence? The refusal to step away from an inspection programme that by most indications was working?

But no, any opposition to US policy could be nothing but hostile, knee-jerk anti-Americanism!

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Fri Nov 9th, 2007 at 05:36:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And Bush not guaranteeing France any payback of their loans and multinational contracts with Iraq unless they entered the 'coalition of the killing' provided even greater ammunition to reject the US intervention.
by An American in London on Fri Nov 9th, 2007 at 08:35:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
elites and politicians are bending over to align themselves on him and on his policies - Europeans asskissing him and talking tough on Iran, Afghanistan, War on Terror; Democrats supporting his torture-supporting new AG; pundits explaining blissfully how this is all the reasonable thing to do;

this brings up the same question i had when i read this article in the Salon:

Can Merkel Stop Bush? Iran Crisis To Top Agenda of US Trip - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

During a visit to Washington in October, [Karl-Theodor Freiherr zu Guttenberg, a young parliamentarian and member of the conservative Christian Social Union (CSU)] noticed a troubling change in the mood among his counterparts in the US Congress whenever the subject of Iran was brought up. "The language has become sharper in the United States," he said, "and not just among the so-called neocons. Even Democrats are beginning to talk about a military strike."

Is anyone able to explain the inexorable slide by Democrats -- and European politicians -- into Bush's black hole?

I think you put your finger on it with the word wimpy: Everyone is afraid of looking like a wimp (everyone except Dean, Kucinich, Paul, Obama, Edwards).  And even when the great brute loses, even if they are disgraced, they yet retain some visceral appeal, our primal attraction to the hero, the protagonist, to the sheer demonstration of power.

At the same time, overt, non-compromising confrontation is so much more appealing and intuitive than the hard to follow, drawn-out process of trying to understand an adversary's position and coming to some mutual understanding and peaceful compromise.  Even liberals are not immune to its seductiveness.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Fri Nov 9th, 2007 at 07:21:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
At the same time, overt, non-compromising confrontation is so much more appealing and intuitive than the hard to follow, drawn-out process of trying to understand an adversary's position and coming to some mutual understanding and peaceful compromise.  Even liberals are not immune to its seductiveness.

Well... you see there are two adversaries here. The Republicans and the Iranian government. For some odd reason many Democrats are applying the latter to Repubs and the former to Iran. This is irrational as with regard to Republicans they are in a zero-sum game and with regard to the Iranian government they are not (there are win-win situations).
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Fri Nov 9th, 2007 at 10:13:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/9/1086/12629 in an extended version.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Nov 9th, 2007 at 11:03:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series