In the interest of fairness, let's remember that Clinton started the free speech zone. Both parties hate opposing discourse. That Obama put up with armed nuts at or near his events (I have no idea how close they got to the President) shows a willingness to allow dissent at a level that can act as a safety valve. That is good politics.

Sure....all of that is true. Much like it is far too soon to claim Obama, or any particular ongoing program, is a failure after 9 months.

Pew conducts its Global Attitudes survey ever couple of years to examine changing attitudes over time, so this was not something out of the blue.

Putting the Bush-Obama comparisons aside, the Pew poll simply reinforced what was widely known from other polls and other measures, that at the end of the Bush presidency, perceptions of the US and confidence in our president as a world leader were at the lowest point in our lifetime....there is no place to go but up.

There are better, more serious measures of the impact of foreign policy decisions and actions on world perceptions....like US intel.

The best example might be the 2006 NIE that concluded, among other things, that the Iraq actions - invasion/occupation/prisoner abuses - became a "cause celebre" for terrorist movements around the world and that wide-spread anti-US sentiments among Muslims, particularly after the invasion/occupation and both in Western Europe and in Muslim countries, was a breeding ground for terrorists exploitation.

The world was on our side on Sept 12, 2001 and in a matter of one year with the decision to invade Iraq, we began to loose that good will and it only got worse and worse as more actions were revealed....not just as a result of US policy, but also the harsh anti-Muslim rhetoric that still is highly visible among some (small) segments of the US population as well.

Oh, and I thought the Poles and Czechs were pretty much split down the middle on having US missile defense systems in their backyard...but leaning more to not having it.

just so that lil tidbit of a disclaimer doesn't get lost.

Right.....as I said, it was also the harsh anti-Muslim rhetoric (and the disparaging ot the Muslim religion as a whole) that followed 9/11 and has continued unabated among a (small) segment of the extreme right....a particular turn off for moderate Muslims around the world.

Got it. Keep painting the entirety of EITHER party with that BIG brush you got there.

WTF...what entirety? What part of SMALL segment dont you get?

How do you think it looks to moderate Muslims around the world when a member of Congress calls the first Muslim elected to Congress "un-American" for using the Koran at his swearing-in (Thomas Jefferson's Koran, btw)

http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/01...e-swearing-in/

(read some of the comments at the bottom).

Or would it help if I post some of the nasty anti-Muslim signs at the Tea Parties or anti-Muslim comments made on the air by Beck/Limbaugh?

The ones who are Pandagon readers must be livid.

Lemme see here - in order . . .

I get the "small" part just fine - whats the big deal if its such a "small" part of the extreme end of a party? Why did you bother to even mention it?

I don't think about it. It isn't on MY list of importance really. Kinda like when one member says that the president is stupid, a liar, or whatever. A moderate muslim would know that.

No it wouldn't help - it wouldn't make a difference at all actually. And using more extremists like Beck/Limbaugh just further widens the brush you use to paint anyone who disagrees with you as an extremist. Are you jealous of them or something?

It was actually reported in the Washington Post :3eye:
A threat to American values?

Seriously, you dont think that gets circulated around the world and just might leave a bad impression of the US among moderate Muslims?

nope.

How about the 1600 percent increase in hate crimes against Muslims after 9/11...as reported by the FBI?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...6/MN224441.DTL

No bad impression of the US among moderate Muslims around the world?

Your take on it Dux, is informed by a melting pot culture in which getting along with others is a critical value.

Meanwhile, most Muslim countries don't think that way. Most of them have a deep tradition of highly inflammatory rhetoric. It's not uncommon for a small slight to be met with "I will kill you and your entire family." It's not uncommon for millions to line the streets with the rallying cry "Death to America". This happens even in moderate countries such as Lebanon.

So how do you think moderate Americans feel about Lebanon when millions - not just the occasional political fart-bag - gather in the streets to chant Death to America?

Exactly. They could give a shit. Sometimes they vacation there.

You are excusing the rhetoric in the US because "they" do in their own country and its part of their culture?

Ok...but, IMO, words and signs and acts matter...particularly because, unlike more homogeneous countries, the US values itself on its melting pot and welcoming those who might be "different"

I am not "excusing the rhetoric" (why do you always move the discussion around?), I am explaining to you why a moderate Muslim wouldn't even notice a blip on the map.

Let's put it another way. Post-9/11, no Muslims were killed. One person was killed, but the poor man was a Sikh.

So, in America, fanatics of a religious group can destroy several city blocks and it results in one death.

Meanwhile, a Danish newspaper can print some cartoons, and

I think the moderate Muslims understand.

Sorry if you thought I was "moving the discussion around"

The issue was about anti-Muslim rhetoric, signs and acts in the US...not in Muslim nations or Denmark....as contributing to the low perception of the US among the citizenry (not the govts) of Muslim countries...along with recent US policies (ie invading Iraq) and the historical support of Israel in the US.

Perhaps.

Young, exploitable Muslims...perhaps not so much.