Trouble is, the American people aren't really used to a government run by people who actually work for a living. I'd say the Bush admin has already done more than the Clinton admin managed in all its first term. A prejudicial outlook, sure, since most of the work has occurred as a direct result of Sept. 11, but this fact does not make it any less true.

The people expect results immediately, argue and tug every step of the way, worry when decisions are made, and are terrified when these decisions are acted upon. Then the dust settles, and there's either a reserved kind of cheer at the frightening success, a confused mumble at the worrisome stonewalls, or a murmured curse at the "expected" (told-ya-so) failure.

Either way, we are moving ahead, and "Islamic nations" (funny how the article doesn't really mean that) are being approached and won over. The true holdouts are the "Arab nations". The article mentions this, but seems to have a hard time pointing the fact out. And why the holdout? Well, when you claim your very soil is holy and should “never” be trod upon by unbelievers, but there they are anyway -- complete with guns and tanks and aircraft -- what would you expect?

The best move we can do to appease the O so mighty Arabs is to simply finish up in Afghanistan and pull out of the Middle east entirely. They’re all grown up folks, right? They should be able to clean up their own messes -- that have been festering for past few centuries.

But if we did that, our “real” allies would show disapproval. It would be inhumane for the U.S. to allow Arabs to be controlled by the fanatics who could, and most certainly would, take over at our departure. Likely the same (or some comparable clones) who were there just a year before. The Islamic faith literally begs for insensitive, rigidly-controlling monarchs who would deprive the people of modern medicines, technologies and the minor conveniences (such as clean water and wheat fields) that would mean longer, healthier lives for all.

"How is it that the country that invented Hollywood and Madison Avenue has such trouble promoting a positive image of itself overseas?" Hyde said last week on the House floor.

Obviously because our Hollywood liaison is sitting in a rocking chair in California thinking his years in the White House were just a dream he had the night before. Since Reagan, we have had nobody -- nobody at all -- who knows how to push good press. When it came to building the facade and polishing the harsh facts into something at least palatable, and at most glorious, Reagan was a comparative genius.

The report acknowledges that American policies regarding Israel are a major impediment to improving the country's image in Muslim nations. But it chides the government for not doing more to explain those policies or to express concern about the "suffering and grievances of the Palestinian people."

The Palestine people need to study their history and take their grievances to the UN. you know -- the same ones who started their mess in the first place.

The report also asserts that the Bush administration has weakened its standing abroad with "misunderstood and/or misguided" policies that angered allies, including rejecting treaties to reduce global warming, ban anti-personnel land mines and create an International Criminal Court.

Well, I was wondering where the Kyoto crap was.

The landmines will soon be outlawed, simply because advanced technological warfare will prove them to be as outdated as the catapult.

For the International Criminal Court, this is only necessary when countries find themselves unable to handle their own criminals and they happen to spill out across borders, affecting literally thousands of other people's lives. I can understand the president’s feeling that each nation should be able to police itself, but as we have so recently seen, this is simply not happening -- particularly when the bad guys are the rulers. I agree with the need for the International Criminal Court -- but who will preside? Will it merely be an extension of the UN? Will the U.S. be expected to host this facility as well? Apparently Mr. Dao is under the impression that the U.S. needs to head all of these, but I fear the proposed International Criminal Court would have to be an aggregate society of many nations, and voted into office by the people of their nation, not appointed bys some fly-by-night CNC.

Peterson argued that having communications experts involved in the formulation of those policies might have reduced public relations disasters. "Unfortunately, our current structure tends to create some crash landings," he said.



But skeptics, including some on the council's panel, say no amount of public relations can compensate for unpopular foreign policies.





And of course anyone who says something cannot be done, without even allowing for a first attempt, is an idiot, but of course this particular argument here is not over changing current “unpopular foreign policies”, but rather PR-ing the current “unpopular foreign policies” away, as stated here:

"I don't believe pleading not guilty to the innumerable and contradictory charges brought against the U.S. will be effective," Lewis Manilow, a panel member, wrote in a dissenting note. "The rich hegemon will usually be unpopular, deservedly or not.”

Well, whether Mr. Dao likes it or not, his own article clearly states that an overhaul is coming, as stated below, and it is one of which the people are well aware:

The report is being released at a time when support is growing in Congress for overhauling such programs. The House has approved a bill, sponsored by Henry Hyde, an Illinois Republican who is chairman of the International Relations Committee, that would increase spending on the programs by more than $255 million in the next two years and consolidate overseas broadcasting operations under one agency.

He does cover a number of excellent bases, btw, for instance:
The recommendations include: expanding the use of political campaign techniques, including polling, to shape attitudes toward the United States; establishing a White House unit to coordinate efforts, headed by a senior adviser to the president; and creating an independent Corporation for Public Diplomacy, modeled after the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, to develop programs to communicate American messages overseas.

Admirable. Nothing will build a stronger empire than listening to the globe and having the people actually think that each benevolent decision the White House makes on global policy has them specifically in mind. Who knows? A White House on every continent? In every country -- so long as we allow the host nation(s) to believe they still hold some level of sovereignty...?

It’s all so futile...