You sometimes criticize the German press for focusing on negative US stories. Well, here you have a positive one. Something to improve the US image.

Okay, it is just sports, but it is on the frontpage nevertheless.

"How does this improve the image of the US?"

Isn't that like asking, how does a report about obese Americans do harm to the US image?

The US champion is a postive story showing Americans in a good light, like the hero who saved people in the subway, link above.

"They could have shown the winner had he been from China or Jamaica."

German newspapers don't put pingpong champions from China and bobsled champions from Jamaica on the frontpage.

"somehow balances out or at least counters the negative. It doesn't."

No, it does not balance it out, but it counters it to some extent.

Without the Iraq war, there would be much less negative stories.

I guess, negative articles about US highschools are countered by the same number of articles about how wonderful the US Ivy League schools and and articles about yet another scientific breakthrough at some US lab.
I have been at Johns Hopkins. A good school, sure, but my grandma was extremely impressed when I got accepted, because she constantly read in her newspaper and magazines articles that started with "Researchers at Johns Hopkins have found that this or that treatment prevents cancer." Or: if you eat this fruit, then your blood pressure will go down. Every little study is celebrated as a breakthrough.

So yes, there is a lot of Anti-Americanism in the German media, but not every piece about the US in the German media is tinted by Anti-Americanism.

Every country has a media that is unfair or utterly ignorant/stupid about other countries.

The US is more of a target because it is the most powerful country and wants to spread human rights and democracy around the world, thus the US is hold by a higher standard by many people.
As Governor Bush said in 2000: "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we've got to be humble, and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom."
[url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/for-policy_10-12.html[/url]

Of course, this does not justify or excuse Anti-Americanism, but it explains some part of it.

"what's in the best interest of the United States?"

Of course.

I fail to see how 9/11 has changed Bush's argument of "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us."

Likewise, I am not convinced with Cheney's change of heart on Iraq: Why was invading Iraq in 1994 likely to end in a quagmire, but he was pushing for it in 2002 anyway.

Why have both men not lived by their pre-9/11 advice after 9/11?

Even after 9/11 it makes sense to avoid giving the impression of arrgoance. Even after 9/11 it makes sense to be concerned about quagmire in Iraq, so Cheney should have made sure that his government, eh, the Bush administration, planned the Iraq war more carefully.

I don't buy this argument that 9/11 changed everything, which so many US politicians use. Bill Maher is also fed up:
"Maher has a great bit about how 9/11 actually changed nothing (taxes weren't raised, there was no draft etc..etc..)."
[url]http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/60714/[/url]

And in the Middle East, not so much has changed either. Saddam is gone, but the new guys are not better either.

US policy has not changed either that much. The US is still selling guns to autocratic regimes. Who cares about democracy? Its all about containment of Iran, the big satan.


You know, after 9/11 there was a time, when I thought, yeah, the US push for democracy is the right thing. Unlike the Europeans, the US has realized the region needs democracy etc and that the US reversing course. Great. But what has actually changed?

Do Americans still want democratisation in the Arab world? No, they just want to get out of Iraq in a decent way.

If some evil Saddam like strong man would stabilize Iraq, the US would be fine with it and consider it a good opportunity to leave Iraq.

So, yes, 9/11 has temporarly changed US policy. US politicians looked differently at the world, but now they return to the old policy. You are right, Bush realized that "humble did not work," he took out a big stick. Now the stick is broken and he would like to return to humble and have the big stick for emergencies.

Ray you have not correctly translated Wergin. You missed the "indirekte Rede." He is not stating his opinion, but describing other peoples opinion.

Thus you are wrong to conclude "Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of Bush or his Iraq policy by any stretch of the imagination."

After all, as you know:
"Kritiker der Bush-Regierung ziehen den Vergleich seit Jahren: Der Militäreinsatz in Irak sei ein ähnlich verheerender außenpolitischer Fehler wie der Vietnamkrieg."

means:
"Critics of the Bush administration have made this comparison for years: The military mission in Iraq is a similarly terrible foreign policy mistake as the Vietnam war."


Wergin is taking issue with the criticism against President Bush, i.e. he is defending Bush and criticizing the Democrats.

Wergin's comment was on the back cover or whatever the correct term is. Quite prominently displayed.

Still, I agree with you that the picture on the front page with a clear message says much more than a more careful argument in the commentary.

If I remember correctly, Markovits writes that a lot of Anti-Americanism results from the US being the only superpower and having an interventionist foreign policy, I think he even made specific reference to the Iraq. There would be less cowboy covers, if the US had not invaded Iraq. Something like that.