One possible rejoinder is that the media abroad have unfairly picked up and constantly repeated myths or American "slips of the tongue"-in the highly unlikely event that is what they are-to create and sustain anti-American sentiments. Spokesmen for Louis XIV, George III, or Frederick the Great could make indiscreet comments with little danger of roiling relations with others, and in July 1914 Kaiser Wilhelm could scribble scathing comments about Britain or Russia on documents about the unfolding European crisis with little risk that they would see the light of day.

In contrast, those who speak for any American administration, most of whom are masters at timing stories to meet media schedules and at leaking information to promote their personal or institutional agendas, surely understand that, even if their words are aimed at impressing domestic audiences, the rest of the world is also listening. It is hardly news, moreover, that in democracies the media may act "irresponsibly" in depicting other countries; witness the xenophobia in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer, and Robert R. McCormick, or FOX News today.

The premise that publics abroad are simply pliable and gullible victims of leaders and media who promote anti-Americanism is a form of denial. It rules out the possibility that others occasionally may have reasonable grounds for questioning American policies. Publics abroad, who have learned that the invasion of Iraq was justified by two myths and that the postwar administration of Iraq was based on the comfortable but erroneous premise that Iraqis would welcome Americans as liberators, have not reacted favorably to President Bush's assertion in a January 14, 2005, interview with Washington Post reporters that the 2004 election validated the war and closed the door on accountability.

Ole R. Holsti is George V. Allen Professor Emeritus of political science, Duke University.