Recently, however, CNN Chief News Executive Eason Jordan was obliged to resign over the furor caused by his statement during one of the panel discussions at Davos that the US army had deliberately targeted journalists in Iraq. He attempted to backtrack from the statement but the wrath of the right-wing punditocracy -- the opinion and editorial pages and the chattering heads on TV talk shows -- was such that in the end he had little option but to tender his resignation.

The subtext to the whole fire-storm was that his sin was attempting to ingratiate himself with "the anti-US crowd" at Davos by peddling anti-American propaganda.

But the labeling of the 2000-strong gathering at Davos as anti-American is inaccurate. Certainly, there was a lot of scepticism towards the Bush administration and its policies on display. Which in and of itself is interesting when you consider the professional make-up of the participants and the fact that a significant percentage were actually from the US. It seems as though the business elite in America is no longer as reliably Republican as in the past.

I was present at a somewhat testy and bad-tempered debate that was televised live on BBC World Service (and broadcast here in Bangladesh) on the subject of America's image around the world. The debate featured US Senators John McCain and Joe Biden, Prince Turki al Faisal of Saudi Arabia, Australian PM John Howard, and among others, Prof. Joseph Nye from Harvard.

The debate got quite heated and Senators McCain and Biden remained extremely defensive throughout. Both repeatedly complained about the tone of the debate and felt that the other participants (who were hardly a collection of commie peaceniks or closet al-Qaeda supporters) were doing nothing more than "Bush-bashing."

It was left to Prince Turki to point out gently that the Bush administration and commentators in the US rhetorically "bash" others all the time -- mentioning, for instance, some of the statements made in the US in recent times about Arabs and Europeans.

No one pointed out the absurdity of the fact that Senator Biden had spent much of the last year making exactly the same kind of criticisms of President Bush and his policies while campaigning for John Kerry and hoping that Kerry would name him Secretary of State. Now that Bush is president for another four years, Biden is apparently keen to appear "statesmanlike" in public.

But this wasn't the only session in which the policies of the Bush administration were roundly criticized. Climate change was a big issue on the agenda and the Bush administration's continued peddling of pseudo-science in defense of its position that global warming does not exist and its many other steps to undermine the global consensus on the need for environmental protections was also a hot topic.

Similarly, the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war and the administration's failure to lead effectively on the question of weapons of mass destruction proliferation were also high on the agenda.

So there was some truth to the accusation that "the Davos crowd" was by and large sceptical about the Bush administration's policies and priorities.

But does this make them anti-American? I don't think so and here's why.

There were any number of celebrities at Davos this year. There was Bono, the lead singer of Irish rock group U2, who has been intimately involved in the campaign for debt relief in the developing world. Sharon Stone and Angelina Jolie were present from Hollywood, to say nothing of the twenty heads of state and eminent personages from the business community such as Bill Gates.

But among all these luminaries one shone brighter than the rest by far. There was only one real superstar present and his name was Bill Clinton.

He was the one everyone wanted to listen to. He was the one everyone wanted to talk to and shake hands with. He was the one everyone was talking about.

Clinton announced his presence with a typically forceful display in the panel discussion about Africa and the G-8. He shared the stage with Tony Blair, Thabo Mbeki, Olusegun Obasanjo, Bill Gates, and Bono, but there was no question as to who the star of the show was. It was a high-powered group, but dominated by his presence and ideas.

Next up was an interview with Charlie Rose that was held in the main hall but was standing room only. Once again, the whole of the World Economic Forum came to a halt so that everyone could listen to his thoughts on his successor, Iraq, Iran, and the way forward. The respect and the awe in which the crowd held him had to be seen to be believed. The only other person on the planet I can think of who might have commanded similar respect is Nelson Mandela. Clinton mesmerized the audience and the buzz in the air after his interview was electric. It was all anyone wanted to talk about.

Clinton finished his brief appearance at Davos with a late night night-cap with Shimon Peres which was by far the hottest item on the programme. Due to having an eye for an opportunity and a fair amount of good fortune, I was able to sign up for this restricted access session, so I was once again present to see him wow a small group with the depth and acuity of his knowledge and insight on the subject of the Middle East.

There is no other way to put this. Bill Clinton was the undisputed King of Davos.

So I think that it is a bit far-fetched to suggest that "the Davos crowd" is anti-American unless one accepts the Republican position that being pro-Democrat and pro-Clinton doesn't really count as being pro-American as Democrats and Bill Clinton don't really count as real Americans.

It was interesting, however, to note the antipathy towards the Bush administration on display at Davos. It suggests that Bush's reputation among the upper-tiers of the international business community is as low as it is elsewhere. And recall that close to 50 percent of the businessmen and women at Davos were actually American. It didn't seem as though too many of them were voting Republican.

The political make-up of the participants also suggests what a monumental missed opportunity Bush's reelection represented both for American foreign policy and the world. I could not help but think that had John Kerry been elected president that the whole mood in Davos and perforce on the world stage would have been very different.

The Americans had an opportunity to bring the rest of the world on board and to help facilitate the establishment of their foreign policy vision, but they blew it.

I think that the rest of the world is concerned about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It is concerned with the stability and security of Iraq. It would be happy to help establish a world order in which democracy and self-determination were top priority. The only thing that is holding the rest of the world from getting on board with the US agenda is that it distrusts the intentions of the Bush administration.

And the global power elite at Davos are evidently no exception.

Zafar Sobhan is Assistant Editor of The Daily Star. This piece is the second of a series.