• Home
• Articles
• Support
• About
• Links
Times Watch for June 4, 2003
It’s Still All Bush’s
Fault
America can’t win, according to the Times. Reporter Christopher Marquis’ Wednesday article on a Pew Research Center poll begins: “The war in Iraq may have been a military success, but it has only deepened international skepticism toward the United States, its global policies and President Bush, with even military allies voicing growing disappointment or suspicion, a new poll has found.”
Marquis’ article, “World’s View of U.S. Sours After Iraq War, Poll Finds,” is accompanied by a chart illustrating the results of poll Question 33: “How worried are you that the U.S. could become a threat to your country someday?” Over 70% of respondents in Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia and Turkey say the prospect worries them.
With the top-of-the-page chart, the Times hypes the fact that some countries consider the United States a threat. Yet the paper downplays the fact those same countries support terrorists who threaten the U.S. “Large majorities in Indonesia, Jordan and the areas administered by the Palestinian Authority expressed at least some confidence in Osama bin Laden, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks,” states in the story’s tenth paragraph.
Marquis also soft-pedals the hostility of Muslim nations toward Israel the poll reveals, and conjures up a question the poll didn’t ask. He writes: “There are strong doubts among Muslim populations over whether Israel and a Palestinian state can coexist in a way that meets the Palestinians' needs. Eight in 10 Palestinians are dubious, but two-thirds of Israelis believe it is possible. Outside the Muslim world -- especially in North America and Europe -- there is a consensus that the aspirations of both nations can be accommodated. ”
But the actual question in the Pew poll (go to page T-152) says nothing about a “Palestinian state” or “nation.” (Wishful thinking by the Times?)
Meg Bortin of the International Herald Tribune (which is basically the international edition of the Times) also has an article on the poll. It’s considerably more forthright about the results, starting with the title, “Muslim’s Lament Israel’s Existence.” Bortin writes: “Muslims lined up strongly behind the opinion that ‘the rights and needs of the Palestinian people cannot be taken care of as long as the state of Israel exists.’” That’s a more accurate and much more grim view of the hostility in Muslim’s nations toward Israel’s existence, one that the over-delicate wording of Marquis’ story obscures.
For the rest of Christopher Marquis’ report on how the world views the United States, click here.
Perhaps Elaine Sciolino has been covering France too long. Sciolino’s Tuesday article on the Group of 8 summit in Évian-les-Bains, France, “U.S.-French Détente: Leaders Lower Voices,” employs the trope of sophisticated Europe versus simplistic Bush.
Describing the meeting of President Bush and French President Jacques Chirac, Sciolino likens Bush to a moralizing father: “Despite the warmth and exchange of compliments, both Presidents held fast to the strong views they brought to the meeting. Mr. Bush sees the United States as a superpower that can go it alone if necessary, both because of America's overwhelming military might and his personal conviction that America knows what is best for the rest of the world.”
Sciolino contrasts that with the more nuanced view of France (and the rest of the world): “Mr. Chirac, by contrast, like the German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, and Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, sees the world as a place with multiple centers of power. This ‘multipolar’ world, as Mr. Chirac and his foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, put it, needs to operate as a global power, limiting in a firm but friendly manner United States interests and influence. Mr. Chirac emphasized that point at a news conference today. ‘French-American relations are 200 years old, and believe me, they will continue to flourish in the spirit of cooperation,’ he said. ‘That does not exclude the fact that we have different visions of the world.’”
For the rest of Elaine Sciolino’s article on the G-8 summit, click here.
Some people never learn. Wednesday’s column by Maureen Dowd, “Bomb and Switch,” takes its spin from a Vanity Fair interview with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz which has already been shown to be full of misleading quotes.
Dowd writes: “In a Vanity Fair interview, Paul Wolfowitz said another ‘almost unnoticed but huge’ reason for war was to promote Middle East peace by allowing the U.S. to take its troops out of Saudi Arabia -- Osama's bête noir. But it was after the U.S. announced it would pull its troops from Saudi Arabia that a resurgent Qaeda struck a Western compound, killing eight Americans.”
Dowd is taking her spin almost verbatim from Vanity Fair, whose text reads almost the same: “’Almost unnoticed but huge,’ he said, is another reason: removing Saddam will allow the U.S. to take its troops out of Saudi Arabia, where their presence has been one of al-Qaeda's biggest grievances.”
According to Vanity Fair (via Dowd), Wolfowitz is claiming that one of the biggest reasons for war was getting U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia. Wrong. What Wolfowitz actually said, according to the Defense Department, which wisely taped the interview:
“There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed -- but it's huge -- is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.”
To be charitable, one can say Dowd is confusing cause and effect. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz wasn’t citing leaving Saudi Arabia as a reason for the Iraq war, but was making a comment on post-war arrangements in the Middle East caused by the war’s successful conclusion.
For the rest of Maureen Dowd’s column on Wolfowitz, click here.
E-mail Times Watch Director, Clay Waters, with Times Watch feedback at cwaters@mediaresearch.org