Poll from the Guardian on Bush Visit

SOMEBODY'S CATCHING ON: "The director of Amnesty International USA warns that the left must confront terror with the same zeal that it battles Bush -- or risk irrelevance." Indeed.

Jeff Jarvis rounds up some advice.

UPDATE: Apparently, the head of Amnesty in Britain hasn't caught on, as she's slouching toward irrelevance with another bit of foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism:

THOUSANDS of people will take to the streets in Britain next week to voice their anger, frustration and political opposition to President George W Bush's policies.

Some [Like the American head of Amnesty! -- Ed.] will criticise these protestors, writing off their views as knee-jerk anti-Americanism. But the critics should think before condemning them.

Why? Because after almost three years of President Bush's "war on terror" many would argue that the world is now a more dangerous and divided place than it was immediately after 9/11.

Two years and two months is "almost three years?" Well, Amnesty has never, at least lately, let a fear of exaggeration get in the way of a good anti-American line. This doesn't seem to reflect British opinion, though:

More than half of Labour supporters back US President George Bush's state visit to Britain, according to a survey.

They were among an overall 43% of voters who told pollsters ICM they welcomed the visit - some 7% more than the 36% who said they would prefer the President to stay away. Twelve per cent were undecided.

The survey, published in The Guardian as Mr Bush flies to the UK, contradicted the widely-held assumption that the visit will damage Prime Minister Tony Blair.

It recorded improved ratings for the Prime Minister personally, as well as a slump in opposition to the war in Iraq.

And it indicated that public opinion in Britain is overwhelmingly pro-American, with 62% of respondents agreeing the US was "generally speaking, a force for good", compared to 15% who described it as "an evil empire".

Heh. Iraqis are marching against terrorism, and antiwar sentiment is slumping. "Irrelevance," indeed.

Why are you so surprised to find that Britain is overwhelmingly pro-American?

To be pro-American is a completely different thing from being pro-American policy in Iraq.

I'd unhesitatingly describe myself as pro-American, despite being increasingly troubled by the Iraq situation. The USA is the world's most powerful democracy, and for over 200 years it has to varying degrees stood for all the great liberal virtues - free speech, freedom of religion, the rule of law, democratic government, to name but four. Eventually the USA entered WW2, and as a result the free world prevailed for the next 60 years and counting, thanks to American military and economic power to back up its commitment to basic freedoms. If faced with a choice between US domination and Soviet domination in the Cold War, I'd choose American domination without blinking.

But that still allows me to say that George W Bush is one of the weakest American presidents of all time, and his policy in Iraq is increasingly being shown to be fundamentally flawed. Am I still pro-American? ABSOLUTELY!

And I think you'll find that most British, Europeans, Japanese and Australasians would agree, even if they disagree strongly with the policy in Iraq. America is part of the free world, and is respected and supported by most free world citizens as far as one can tell.

America, to us, is like an extremely annoying big brother. Like a bull in a china shop, from time to time he does great harm to little things. But when cornered in a dark alley, that's the big brother you want on your side, and when all is said and done, he's your brother, damn it. Family. One of us. Always there to help when needed. Looks after his little brothers. Plays a mean game of basketball on the driveway after school. How could you not like your big brother?

I am mystified why you would call Bush a "weak" President. You may hate him for a lot of reasons, but you cannot fairly call him weak.

A strong President has a very clear well thought out vision, and carries it through. Look at Johnson with the Civil Rights Act, FDR with the opposition to Hitler, Lincoln with the prosecution of the Civil War.

A weak President reacts to circumstances with ill considered vision and exhibits a sense of panic in changing course from time to time. Bush had little or no interest in foreign affairs until 9/11, then reacted with ill considered vision that has squandered the worldwide public sympathy for America after that tragedy. Now the administration seems to be floundering around trying to work out what to do with Iraq after much of the "planning" has gone awry.

In other words, you can be a weak President while still trying desperately to appear to be firm and decisive. Bush has all the hallmarks of a President with little real idea, trying to look like a man of action, and bit by bit failing in the process.

If you want an historical parallel, I'd nominate Anthony Eden, the British Prime Minister who got Britain into the disastrous Suez campaign in 1956. It was the wrong policy, decisively carried through to the point that the PM had to resign and the country had to spend years trying to restore its reputation. By contrast, Eisenhower during that period had a pretty clear idea of the right thing to do, he remained calm and sensible, and ultimately resolved a dangerous situation. Eisenhower was the strong leader, while Eden, despite committing troops, looked weak.

I think you make a very interesting and valid point.

>America, to us, is like an extremely annoying big brother.

I might add that during the cold war, America's "little brothers" eagerly clung to our leg for protection from the threat posed by the Soviet Bloc. But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we're just not needed anymore. And as a result, our little brothers are now thumbing their noses at us on a regular basis. Little brothers tend to do that. I imagine the annoyance goes both ways.

Interestingly, at the last climax of the Cold War in the early 1980s, when Reagan was busy basing nuclear cruise missiles in Europe, the popular mood in Europe was swinging very strongly against America. I was travelling for 6 months in Europe at the time and was very struck by how many people were opposed to this escalation of the confrontation. So no, I don't think the "little brothers" clung to big brother's leg all the way through the Cold War.

There was widespread support for the eviction of the Iraqis from Kuwait in 1990-1991 during Bush snr's Presidency, and a lot of headscratching when the allied forces did not keep driving into Iraq. There was also widespread support for actions against Serbia, in Bosnia, and of course in Afghanistan, during the 1990s and in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. I think there was even support for the ill starred invasion of Somalia - worthy aims, good idea, didn't work.

It's Iraq that has made American's little brothers stop and ask whether big brother knows what it is doing.

>There was also widespread support for

>actions against Serbia, in Bosnia, . . . .

How can that be? The UN never approved this military action against another country in Serbia or Bosnia. I thought it was really bad and wrong and horrible to engage in military action without UN approval, so how come these were ok?

>It's Iraq that has made American's little brothers stop and

>ask whether big brother knows what it is doing.

You pretend to speak for huge numbers of countries with this pseudo-objective tone you take but you don't speak for anyone except yourself, motivated by nothing more elevated than your trite leftist ideolgy.

You just got done saying that Europeans started disliking America when Reagan was "busy putting cruise missiles in Europe." Then they loved us again when we had Clinton doing great things in Bosnia and Somiia. Now they hate us again that we have Bush.

So all you are really saying is that everyone loves America when we have liberal Presidents, and hates us when we have conservative Presdients. You're only talking about yourself and your desire that the U.S. adopt your ideology - and if you think anyone is going to be bullied into thinking: "Oh, the pyells of the world will only like us if we vote Bush out of office and elect a nice Democrat to please him," you're fucking dreaming.

No, you dummy. You keep trying to find all kinds of desperate devious motives in the posts of others.

I pointed out that on at least one occasion during the Cold War, in the early 1980s, Europe did not appear to be very supportive of the USA. I could equally well have pointed out that during the 1950s and early 1960s Europe seemed to be very supportive of the USA.

In short, there is no absolute link between the Cold War and European support for America. It so happens that on at least one occasion (the early 1980s) there was a republican president. There wasn't an awful lot of support for Jimmy Carter, and he was a democrat, so it's not directly linked to the party of the president.

The irony of calling me a "leftie" is almost hilarious. In my country I'm regarded as a reasonably conservative person. Many of my friends, who are within the normal liberal spectrum, are far more left than I am, and when we get to them we haven't even BEGUN to get into the lefties.

Only a right wing American could call me a leftie. That's probably because just about everybody on the planet is more left wing than you.

>Interestingly, at the last climax of the Cold War in the

>early 1980s, when Reagan was busy basing nuclear cruise

>missiles in Europe, the popular mood in Europe was swinging

>very strongly against America. I was travelling for 6 months

>in Europe at the time and was very struck by how many people

>were opposed to this escalation of the confrontation. So no,

>I don't think the "little brothers" clung to big brother's leg

>all the way through the Cold War.

Of course there were many groups opposed to the missile deployment because they had a different opinion as to whether they would actually make them safer or more of a target. And they made valid arguments. Obviously the "democratically elected governments" of these countries thought that ultimately they would make them safer or they wouldn't have agreed to let them be deployed in their countries.

But I disagree and maintain that overall they very much clung to and depended on us for protection. We wouldn't have had so many troops stationed in Germany, for example, if there wasn't fear on their part of being literally run over by the Soviet Bloc's tanks. Any time any issue regarding weaponry, building/testing bombs, or deploying missiles comes up, it always has and always will bring out "anti-war" groups who will protest it.

On a side note: I also thought it somewhat amusing not too long ago when thousands and thousands of South Koreans were protesting America and demanded we leave their country. When Donald Rumsfeld (and I'm not a fan, by the way) made some ambiguous comments that many interpreted as him "considering" withdrawing some or all of our troops (and not just moving them south), the protests dropped significantly and many older South Koreans (who had memories of he Korean war and were more likely to view the North as more of a threat) held some pro-American rallies.

>

>There was widespread support for the eviction of the Iraqis

>from Kuwait in 1990-1991 during Bush snr's Presidency, and a

>lot of headscratching when the allied forces did not keep

>driving into Iraq. There was also widespread support for

>actions against Serbia, in Bosnia, and of course in

>Afghanistan, during the 1990s and in the immediate aftermath

>of 9/11. I think there was even support for the ill starred

>invasion of Somalia - worthy aims, good idea, didn't work.

Like I said previously, there are always anti-war protesters for any military conflict. The first gulf war and the Kosovo war were no exceptions. But I also believe that a big part of the protests against the current war in Iraq had as much to do with the average European's dislike for Bush (if not more) as it did the war itself. The senior Bush was much more diplomatic and respectful to our allies and friends, and actually took the time to consult with each of them one on one to gain their support. Bush junior approached the current war in a very arrogant and unilateral manner with very little regard for the concerns of our friends. And Rumsfeld's public comments often made things even worse.

It shouldn't have been that difficult to get support for a war to remove a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein who most agreed (at least at the time) did have weapons of mass destruction. I guess this supports others' conclusions that many of the anti-Americanism isn't necessarily anti-American as much as it is anti-Bush.