For One Visit, Bush Will Feel Pro-U.S. Glow
As Bush completes his European tour, he is finally going to visit a part of Europe in which he is welcome. Indeed, welcome appears to be an understatement of how the Albanians feel about the President of a country who once had a man named Clinton rescue ethnic Albanians from the Kosovo war. Thousand of Albanians have been named Bill and Hillary and, after the Bush visit this Sunday, some expect a glut of children to be named George.“Albania is for sure the most pro-American country in Europe, maybe even in the world,” said Edi Rama, Tirana’s mayor and leader of the opposition Socialists. “Nowhere else can you find such respect and hospitality for the president of the United States. Even in Michigan, he wouldn’t be as welcome.”
Indeed the country is so eager to make Bush welcome that it's parliament recently passed a law allowing “American forces to engage in any kind of operation, including the use of force, in order to provide security for the president.”One newspaper, reporting on the effusive mood, published a headline that read, “Please Occupy Us!”
Apparently hotel rooms in the capital have become scarce as Albanians flock to Tirana to prepare to welcome their hero. Indeed, they are so pro-American that when James A. Baker visited as secretary of state in 1991 he was literally mobbed in a country where it was debated whether or not to have a referendum declaring the nation America's 51st state.
“The excitement among Albanians over this visit is immeasurable, beyond words,” said Albania’s new foreign minister, Lulzim Basha, during an interview in his office, decorated with an elegant portrait of Faik Konica, who became the first Albanian ambassador to the United States in 1926. “We truly believe that this is a historic moment that people will look back on decades later and talk about what it meant for the country.”So there we have it, a Muslim country that George Bush can visit and be welcomed in. Of course, this welcome that he will enjoy is based on the actions of Bill Clinton rather than on his own, but who can deny little George his nice day out in a European nation that loves him?
For one glorious day George will get to feel the kind of adoration that Clinton enjoyed whenever he travelled in Europe. If Bush had employed similar policies then he too would have enjoyed this kind of welcome throughout the whole of Europe. As it is, George will have to take solace from Albania alone.
Click title for full article.
8 comments:
For one glorious day George will get to feel the kind of adoration that Clinton enjoyed whenever he travelled in Europe.
Anti-Clinton protests erupt into riots in Greece
...he too would have enjoyed this kind of welcome throughout the whole of Europe
Europe has a long, deeply entrenched anti-American history, so really I don't think anyone here cares.
Europe has a long, deeply entrenched anti-American history, so really I don't think anyone here cares.
Then why was Clinton so loved over here? If we are such deeply entrenched haters of all things American?
Then why was Clinton so loved over here?
Over where? Certainly not in Greece and Serbia.
And are you denying that Europe has a history of anti-Americanism?
I've told you before that Europeans aren't anti-American, but they do tend to be anti-Republican, especially when they perceive the Republicans to be unilateralist.
New survey of four European countries finds many Europeans disapprove of Pres Bush's foreign policy and see his decision-making process as unilateralist; surveys of public in Britain, France, Germany and Italy find at last 73 percent of those polled say Bush makes decisions 'entirely on US interests' without considering European interests; surveys find vastly more Europeans liked former Pres Clinton's foreign policy than like Bush's.
I've told you before that Europeans aren't anti-American, but they do tend to be anti-Republican
There is quite a body of academic work on European anti-Americanism and I have yet to read anything that indicates it's a Republican thing. For one, quite honestly, I don't think most of you understand the nuances of our system to the point where you could distinguish an American Democrat from an American Republican. I know you have your caricatures and fantasies of both, but I suspect reality is a bit different.
But to my point, there has been much written academically on the history of European anti-Americanism. If you can get through it, this paper by Andrei Markovits is worth a read. You should like him, he seems to be an anti-Bush liberal. Here's another, written for an academic journal.
in Britain, France, Germany and Italy find at last 73 percent of those polled say Bush makes decisions 'entirely on US interests' without considering European interests
While I don't dispute the poll numbers, I would think it obvious that much of what is in Europe's best interest is often therefore in our best interest, so all-in-all it seems a silly question. Now it goes without saying that the US President should be making decisions base on what is in the best interest of the US.
surveys find vastly more Europeans liked former Pres Clinton's foreign policy than like Bush's
I'm surprised they had to take a survey to come up with what should be a statement of the obvious. Of course I really shouldn't be commenting on the results of a survey gleaned from an abstract of an article that I don't have access to read. Still, that Europeans don't like us being "unilateralist" (that is, not asking for their permission to undertake actions in our interest) is no surprise and I wouldn't be shocked to find a survey spell that out.
I notice that the paper you referred me to is a study of European anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, which made me shut the page immediately. You seem determined, just as supporters of Israel are, to see any criticism of your country as somehow indicative of the hatred of the person raising the question, naturally assuming that the actions of your country are beyond reproach.
This is why, rather than debate specific points, you would like to move all discussion onto abstract points such as anti-Americanism in Europe for anyone who questions the shocking unpopularity of President Bush (A strange notion as this unpopularity is also present within all polls within your own country) and anti-Semitism for anyone who dares to question the policies of Israel.
You have hit both these tired points before. Both are a way of avoiding debate rather than engaging in it, and both are a cheap attempt to avoid having a discussion by immediately attacking the motives of the person who raises the points. If you are going to continue using this cheap way of avoiding actual debate then I am going to cease all discussions with you.
I take your point that an American President is, of course, there to look after American interests. However, when one leads the free world there are actually other considerations to take into account.
Clinton was popular because he chose unilateralism only when he felt he had no other choice in order to protect America's interests. Bush seemed to choose unilateralism as a matter of course. One cannot lead the world whilst only ever looking after your own interests.
surveys find vastly more Europeans liked former Pres Clinton's foreign policy than like Bush's
I'm surprised they had to take a survey to come up with what should be a statement of the obvious.
Why do you find Clinton being more popular than Bush in Europe "a statement of the obvious"? If Europe was so "entrenched with hatred" of all things American, why didn't that hatred extend to Clinton? And isn't the fact that Europe didn't hate Clinton proof that we react to policy rather than an indication that we are simply entrenched anti-Americans?
You seem determined, just as supporters of Israel are, to see any criticism of your country as somehow indicative of the hatred of the person raising the question, naturally assuming that the actions of your country are beyond reproach.
No, however I also don't choose to view such criticism in a bubble either.
This is why, rather than debate specific points...
You stated how loved Bush would be in Europe if he was some kind of Clinton clone. Aside from pointing out that Clinton's presence was enough to trigger riots in some European locations (although accepting the obvious that he was more popular across Europe as a whole), I stated my belief that for the most part I don't think Americans really care what you all think of our President. We know that anti-Americanism has been present in Europe to varying degrees for quite some time and because of this and other reasons I believe we generally discount your opinion on our or our President's popularity.
If you are going to continue using this cheap way of avoiding actual debate then I am going to cease all discussions with you.
I'm sorry if you deny the anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism on your continent, but I'm not going to let you dictate to me what facts I do or do not raise just because you might find them unpleasant. I quite honestly was not even trying to raise any issue of anti-Semitism in this case. That said, had you read the papers, I suspect they may have made you uncomfortable and you would have dismissed them anyway. If you care whether or not people taking a look at your blog might feel that you are anti-American and/or anti-Semitic (and I'm not labeling you as such here), it might be worthwhile to educate yourself on the subject. In any event, do what you feel you have to.
If Europe was so "entrenched with hatred" of all things American, why didn't that hatred extend to Clinton? And isn't the fact that Europe didn't hate Clinton proof that we react to policy rather than an indication that we are simply entrenched anti-Americans?
These questions were answered by my links, but if you choose not to read them, oh well.
Anti-Americanism (and anti-Semitism since you brought it up) in Europe are both well documented and well studied by academics. You can choose not to believe them if you want, but that's just denial. I lived in Europe for years (mostly the UK although other places as well), and while I was mostly treated well and have many great memories, I also know what I witnessed and experienced first hand.
You stated how loved Bush would be in Europe if he was some kind of Clinton clone. Aside from pointing out that Clinton's presence was enough to trigger riots in some European locations (although accepting the obvious that he was more popular across Europe as a whole), I stated my belief that for the most part I don't think Americans really care what you all think of our President.
Don't you realise how you changed the entire subject there? We were debating whether or not Bush would be more or less popular if he behaved more like Clinton did and you have started discussing whether or not Americans care. What do the opinion of Americans have to do with this discussion? We are talking about the opinion of Europeans, not of Americans.
If you are going to continue using this cheap way of avoiding actual debate then I am going to cease all discussions with you.
I'm sorry if you deny the anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism on your continent, but I'm not going to let you dictate to me what facts I do or do not raise just because you might find them unpleasant.
You just don't get it do you? It's nothing to do with me finding what you say "unpleasant", it's the fact that your debating style is a complete fucking cop out.
You don't defend against any accusation concerning American foreign policy, because you have developed an answer that the reason anyone in Europe might object to any specific American action is because of their vehement anti-Americanism. It's not even a theory you can articulate as you keep asking me to read someone else's paper on the subject.
Your entire argument is a cop out. And it gives you an easy answer and saves you having to think. It's also too boring to continue arguing with someone who has given themselves such a cop out response.
I enjoy debating with people on here, you are not debating.
You have effectively the same answer to every point. "Oh, they've hated us for years. End of subject"
Dull, dull, dull....
Post a Comment