0.cached.png
By Newsweek Editors
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
In his Feb. 1 Web-exclusive commentary, "Battleground of Ideas," Shadowland columnist Christopher Dickey says President George W. Bush has come to be seen in the Mideast as a caricature who talks about "strength and determination [while] projecting an image of stubbornness and confusion." The State of the Union speech defines the way an administration wants to see its world, Dickey says. "But its narrative is so foreign to the thinking of most people in the Arab world that they've come to hear Bush's language as a kind of code: 'liberation' means occupation, 'freedom' means war, 'victory' means victims, 'reconstruction' means chaos, 'democracy' means following directives from Washington." Readers respond:
Linda from Aurora, Colo., writes: "Those in the Arab world are not alone in seeing Bush as stubborn and confusing. I think more and more Americans are also seeing him as such, in addition to being dishonest. His story is ever-changing, and that has eroded his credibility here and abroad. It has also eroded the credibility of the United States across the globe."
Yolande, writing from Port of Spain, Trinidad, agrees: "It is painful to see the country losing credibility at an alarming rate, worldwide, in countries rich and poor, developed and developing. America under Bush is seen as ruthless, bullying and dictatorial, not really interested in true democracy but in other nations following its decrees. Truly, there is no longer a superpower to whom the world could rely in times of crisis. America has lost it."
Read More on News
Mike from Cleveland presents a different view: "I wonder about your assertion that anything the U.S.A. supports becomes unpopular in the Middle East. By extension, are you suggesting the U.S.A. not voice support for anything it wants, or even to support the opposite of its desires? I sympathize with your viewpoint that the world is far more complex than the worldview our present administration projects, but I don't clearly see what you are recommending our country do."
But in Denver, T.J., who says he is a veteran of Iraq, disagrees. "I have noticed an implied rhetoric from the current administration that shows an ignorance of Arab culture and a disregard for their views," he writes. "I learned a lot about the culture and our societal differences while in Iraq, and I hope that somehow our government will recognize these and make decisions that are grounded in acceptance and humility. The arrogant, imperialistic approach has done nothing but fuel anti-American sentiment and certainly has not made America a safer place, nor the world a better place."
George, a Vietnam-era veteran from Anchorage, Alaska, poses a similar view. "This is very hard for me to express," he writes. "I [have] always had a great deal of pride in being an American. I am, as of right now, still proud. I was also a Republican until 1999 … Mr. Bush and his cronies, I feel, are an embarrassment to the ideals and makeup of our great nation. Americans are not just deceived but boldly lied to. Before we can get respect from the world, we have got to clean up our own mess. I think the president means to do the right thing, he is just caught up in his own image of glory and power. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about staining a young lady's dress. Mr. Bush, however, is killing a lot of people with his spin. Can't we as a nation take our place among the proud who walked before all of this mess?"
William from San Diego is on Bush's side. "It isn't about the Arab people. It is about the American people," he writes. "Our president looks out for the United States, our allies and our best interest."
Dalthon from Austin, Texas, agrees. He says he "didn't see Mr. Bush's confusion." He continues: "I believe we will leave Iraq in a better place soon."
Tale of Two Presidents
Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey, in their Feb. 1 Web-exclusive column, describe the president's State of the Union message as a "Tale of Two Presidents." "One was gracious about his opponents, seeking common ground for the sake of the nation's future. The other accused his critics of being isolationists, pacifists, protectionists and unpatriotic," they write. "One wanted the downfall of tyrants and dictators; the other wanted the downfall or transformation of elected governments in Iran and the Palestinian territories." Readers weigh in:
Douglas, who did not give his hometown, writes that Wolffe and Bailey "just don't understand about the presidents who seek to defend the United States and who believe that the country is a wonderful and powerful force for good in the world. The basic premise is--if anyone seeks harm to the nation or its allies, then they should be regarded as potential or real enemies and their ability to harm us should be eliminated."
But Carolina from Scottsdale, Ariz., disagrees. She congratulates the authors on their analysis, adding, "I'm just a housewife in Arizona, but my e-mails to him criticizing his war policies started on the day after 9/11 and have continued ... Today, I have a very hard time believing anything he says."
Mark from Germantown, Wis., commends Wolffe and Bailey, but says they overlook one of the reasons Bush may seem like two different presidents. "This country is and has been divided into two polarized camps--roughly 50-50," he writes. "Bush cannot afford to ignore the other side. The people on the 'left side' are his constituents as much as the people on the 'right side.' The authors summarized the president as being two-faced; I say that the president is trying to be conciliatory and unifying."
Ken, who did not give his hometown, writes: "Thank you for finally pointing out what many Americans already know, but since 9/11 have been to afraid to say because of not wanting to sound unpatriotic. I started to think I was the only one that noticed his constant contradictions. I wish more journalists and politicians would point this out to the American people."
Rick writes: "My patience has worn out on Democrats and Republicans. I honorably served my country, in return I would expect the same. I will no longer vote for a Democrat or Republican … The arrogance of both parties does not reflect the majority of Americans views, hopes and dreams."
Phillip from Los Angeles challenges Wolffe and Bailey for a better strategy. "The column … was a poor partisan tirade, which I believe is the heart of the issues currently attacking our society's values," he writes.
The Case for Joe Biden
Guest commentator Ron Goldstein argues his case for the Democrats' best chance in 2008 in his Jan. 31 article, "The Case for Joe Biden." Goldstein calls the senior senator from Delaware "tough, compassionate, [and] experienced," though not dismissing his 20-year-old "black mark" (when he lifted portions of a speech by a popular British politician during another presidential campaign). Readers respond:
Rita from Chicago writes: "I've long admired Sen. Joe Biden, ever since the Clarence Thomas hearings and his sensitive treatment of Anita Thomas. I have always been favorably impressed by his ideas, vision for America and humanitarianism. Senator Biden is a very real and decent human being. America could not ask for a more able and qualified president."
Clifford, who did not give his hometown, differs: "Joe Biden is a proven plagiarist," he writes. "His borrowing of a British politician's campaign speech is perhaps the most famous instance of political plagiarism and will prevent him from becoming a serious candidate in 2008. His opponents from the Democratic as well as from the Republican Party would have a field day with him during the primaries."
An anonymous reader says, "I am pleased with Mr. Goldstein's commentary. If Joe Biden, the plagiarizing 'son of a coal miner' is the best the Dems have to offer, we Republicans will have a wonderful election in '08."
James from Glendale, Calif., writes: "Joe Biden represents the problem with the Democratic Party, and his nomination would be its death knell. Mr. Goldstein may have been an active consultant since 1976, but how many winning campaigns has he been aligned with?"
The Sad Truth About Super Bowl Winners
Sports columnist Mark Starr, in his Feb. 2 Web-exclusive commentary, "The Truth About the Super Bowl," takes on this year's Super Bowl from a fan's perspective. "I concluded that I could contribute the most by getting personal, by abandoning the perspective of the wise, all-knowing sportswriter and, instead, offering up the view of a fan--one who, as a forever seatholder in Foxboro for the New England Patriots, has more than a little recent Super Bowl experience," Starr writes. "And what I can tell you is that win or lose, it doesn't matter all that much. Honestly. It won't change your life."
"Thoroughly enjoyed your article," writes an anonymous reader. "As a long-time Steelers fan, who has also experienced the highs and lows of a storied NFL franchise, I can certainly relate to many of the points you raise."
Dave from Pittsburgh writes: "Of all the insightful and introspective wisdom contained in your article, I feel compelled to call to your attention one very important oversight. You said: 'Fans of both teams will experience an emotional void; the only difference is that one group will discover it amid the champagne celebration, the other while steeped in beer and heartbreak.' As a native Pittsburgher, I am obligated to point out that if--make that when--the Steelers win, the celebrations of the faithful will be steeped in beer--not champagne--and plenty of it."
Thomas, who did not give his hometown, writes: "Obviously, you don't know what it means to be a Pittsburgh Steeler Fan. Winning isn't everything, but it means a lot to us who experienced the four Super Bowl wins in the 70's! We'll enjoy it, win or lose."
Paul of San Antonio, Texas, writes: "I couldn't agree with you more, and I've been telling people that for years. As a Dallas fan it was exciting in the early '90s when they, like the Pats, won three out of four Super Bowls. But after it was all over, I realized that after the game, when I woke up the next morning, I wasn't any richer, I couldn't fly and I didn't have superhuman strength. I was the same old me, a few great memories richer, but that's about it. I still had to go to work and pay my bills. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they won, but I know I'll never get that feeling of anticipation back, the feeling that makes every win that much more exciting. Now I'm just a football fan, but without the -atic. Thanks for spreading the word!"
Steve from Sunbury, Pa., couldn't disagree more. "Move to Philly, Mark, and tell me winning the Super Bowl--or any major sports championship--doesn't change your life," he writes. "Our Birds finally got over the NFC championship game hump in 2004, only to run into a Super Bowl hump, and it doesn't look like McNabb and company will be getting past that obstacle anytime soon. Diehard sports fans need something of recent vintage to dwell on during those championshipless droughts their teams will endure. But in Philly, I thinks it's been 22 years since the last championship."
Writes Sue, who did not give her hometown: "Give the teams involved and the adoring fans their due. Everyone has their dynasty and then, it falls apart, and you wait. I love the Steelers and have since birth, I enjoy every season and don't spiral if they lose."
Online Mail Call only includes reader comments on Web-exclusive stories published at NEWSWEEK.com. To see reader's letters in response to NEWSWEEK print magazine stories, visit our Letters page published every Sunday.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines