« "German Book Prize 2004" For Michael Moore / Der "Deutsche Bücherpreis 2004" geht an Michael Moore | Main | It's The Civilians, Stupid! / Es sind die Zivilisten, Dummerle! »

Comments

It used to be that I found the obsessive anti-Americanism in Europe, and especially Germany, to be a little annoying and mildly insulting. But it could be written off as sour grapes or even legitimite gripes. But after a trip to Germany last year, I began to see it as frightening. Germans seem to have found their answer to all the worlds problems, and all their fears and hatreds, in the form of evil America. Has anyone noticed that the language of terrorism and the language of Europeans is increasingly sounding exactly the same?

Maybe they think if they can paint America as the greatest world evil, people will forget about Germany's sorry past.

I haven't notice the correlation, but I haven't looked, either.

Interestingly, the most famous case of "national scapegoating" (blaming one group for all your problems, regardless of merit) in history also happened in Germany, ending just about 60 years ago. There's all kinds of reasons that appraoch works in societies, reasons you an look up in any textbook on WWII.

So is Spiegel a left wing paper or is it considered to be a mainstream view publication? Don't journalists in Germany ask the same "devil's advocate" type questions that even an advocacy newspaper (like the NYT) would ask so that they are not accused of simply repeating propaganda? These are not rhetorical questions. I'm curious. Thanks

mikem --
you wouldn't know from Medienkritik, but Der Spiegel is actually mainstream. It is just an iota left of center, and many of those slightly to the right of center read it to prove they are not pure "reactionaries". Der Spiegel mirrors (well, Spiegels mirror by definition) GERMAN ignorance, not leftist German ignorance.

scum of the univ wrote:
Interestingly, the most famous case of "national scapegoating" (blaming one group for all your problems, regardless of merit) in history also happened in Germany, ending just about 60 years ago.

Interestingly, I pointed out the potential anti-semitic tendencies of comparing criticism against US-politics and its real existing dominance with Hitler's anti-semitic lies about falsely alleging "Jewish dominance" just a few days ago.

Oh, and Godwin's law. You lose.

I can't see how SPIEGEL can be either called "leftist" or "mainstream" these days.

It appears rather undefined (and undefined does not mean "mainstream"). They bitch against anyone in politics - or would there be any German mainstream politics which SPIEGEL actually praises?

I think Spiegel's journalists can normally be characterized as moderate-left. (Anti-Bushism and anti-Israelism are an exception to this, but on the other hand, this seems to become more and more common in all political spheres and far-left media like 'Neues Deutschland' have an even clearer position in this respect.) As some scientific studies show, they mostly regard themselves as such. But I think Spiegel is mostly regarded as mainstream.
In my eyes, it is very unhealthy that Germany only has one really important political weekly. Focus is too young to have the same reputation and it lacks a comparable web site. Spiegel Online is THE online news source for the overwhelming majority of German internet users. Combined with its decades-long reputation, this results in an enormous influence. If there is one medial opinion leader in Germany, it's Spiegel / Spiegel Online. And because so many people regularly read it and are aware of Spiegel's main topics, it is regarded to be mainstream, although it isn't. I don't really think, Spiegel is to blame for that, it's just a feature of the German media market that I believe to be quite unhealthy.

Regarded as moderate by most Germans, that is.

rad - slightly left of center for Germany - but what about America?

---

OT: hehehehehehehe via Lucianne.com:

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said yesterday Europe should not rush into enforcing targets to curb greenhouse emissions if Russia fails to sign the Kyoto treaty on climate change, warning it could harm industry.

FKANB:

I've no idea what Godwin's Law is, and fear I missed your earlier comment.

My comment was in reference to Eric's comment (MarkM's did not show at the time I wrote mine).

By all accounts, Schroeder was all set to lose his 2002 election, mostly due to his proposed economic reforms, and it was his stance regarding the US that whipped up popular support and won him the election. That is a more direct tie between the "general malaise" and villifying another group than one usually gets to see.

I think we have to realize that the growing anti-Americanism or better the hatred against Bush and his adminstration has to do with the Left in Europe. This hatred is European and not only German. Look at Spain and Aznar and especially UK and Blair. What hatred towards Blair!!! I think it has to do with the Lefties who are not so well educated. Look at people like Andrew Gilligan and many other journalists. They are only focussed on sensations. They told the public that all politicians are liars and they are the truthful ones. And they ignored Lord Hutton's judgement. People like Sontag, Moore, Roy are famous. All these people have a one sided view at the world.

But we should not start to throw shit on the Germans or Europeans. It does not help to understand better. When there is no better way to inform yourself, how should you know better?! In another thread I read some really nasty comments. I think it is more helpful to represent the real facts because there are many facts which the European media hide. They tell us only one sentence what Kay or Tenet said and that's it. they tell us only what fits into their view of the evil USA and Israel. I find this dangerous because the terror will go on. And when I look at Israel, that Hamas and Hisbollah are so successful with their terror and Europe does nothing, then I am really frightened.
But the Democratic party has a high interest in supporting this anti-Bush attitude. They support O'Neil and Clarke and Wilson and so on. Was it always so in an election year? When there is such a super power and the whole world is watching, I wonder why the Democratic party does not realize that they are weakening the USA and not only Bush.

David, super job as always.

@ Gabi:

"Was it always so in an election year? When there is such a super power and the whole world is watching, I wonder why the Democratic party does not realize that they are weakening the USA and not only Bush."

This is a subject matter that bothers many Americans. One can only imagine if Roosevelt was skewered during an election year because he "allowed Pearl Harbor to happen."

Lyndon Johnson was eaten alive for the Vietnam war. But most of Johnson's critics were from the left wing of his own Party. Some of these guys are still around today (Ted Kennedy), and John Kerry got his political baptism by leading the Vietnam Veterans against the War.

But the fundamental difference between the Vietnam war and the War on Terror was that Vietnam, in Schroeder's words, was an "adventure." Vietnam never attacked the United States. The War on Terror was a direct attack on the American homeland.

I think two things are at work here:

First, Bill Clinton was a persnonality cult. You either loved or hated him. Clinton's behavior in office pretty much overshadowed his accomplishements, which were significant: welfare reform and a balanced budget. When GWB took over the Whitehouse, he proved himself to be a much stronger leader than the opposition anticipated. His politics are 180 degrees from Clinton. This has caused the left to hate him in a cult-like matter.

Second, the rank and file democrates have fallen from power accross the country. When my father was growing up, the Democrates had two main supporters: Labor Unions and Southerners. (The Democrates were the party of slave ownership before the civil war and of state's rights after the civil war). What has happened since my father's time is that Southerners are now voteing republican. They have pretty much abandoned the democratic party. Labor Unions are no longer the political force they were 30 years ago. (Although they almost won the election for Al Gore). As a result of the Democrates losing their base, both the Senate and the House are now controlled by Republicans. At the State level, 30 state legislatures out of 50 are now controlled by Republicans. This loss of power has embittered many hardline Democrates. This makes it possible for people like Clark to get a book deal and a television interview before testifying against the President before Congress.

gabi wrote:
But the Democratic party has a high interest in supporting this anti-Bush attitude. They support O'Neil and Clarke and Wilson and so on. Was it always so in an election year? When there is such a super power and the whole world is watching, I wonder why the Democratic party does not realize that they are weakening the USA and not only Bush.

It's a conspiracy, gabi. Not just Germany. Not just Europe. No, the entire world, including part of the US (Democratic party, Hollywood, liberal media) are only out to weaken the USA by masking it as criticism against Bush.

You are soooo right. Since Bush is more perfect like the Pope (as everyone knows), there can be no justification to be critical of him. So all Bush-critics are really only Anti-Americans in disguise! Evil, evil, I tell you!

To me Spiegel always gave the impression of being pretty leftist and also tied closely to the social democrats. A good example of their ties to the SPD was shown some years ago when Mr. Stolpe (SPD) was leader of the Bundesland Brandenburg and in the Bundesrat his state voted not in line with the other SPD-lead states. Right after this Spiegel did the job of punishing him for breaking the SPD disciplin (and putting his countries needs above the SPD-leaders wishes), by accusing him of having worked for the East-German secret service Stasi. The fact itself may well be accurate, though the time when it was brought up revealed even more about Spiegel.

Focus I haven't read lately, but to me it always lacked some depth. It's not as low level as Bild of course, but still pretty simple. Not claiming Spiegels view is more sophisticated, but its style usually is.

>Since Bush is more perfect like the Pope (as everyone knows)

Even more perfect than Elvis?

Jens wrote:
Even more perfect than Elvis?

Hey, no blasphemy today, it's Sunday. No one f*cks with the King and his status!

@Jens

Augstein's death (who used to say: "When in doubt, we'll lean towards the Left") and the disillusion of the current shapeless Red/Green Government killed a lot of this left-leaning IMO.

Focus problem was from the beginning that it was too soft on the establishment, because it was part of that establishment (Burda-Verlag). I'd rather have Spiegel's sometimes polemic punshes against everyone and their dog (and read it with a grain of salt) instead of a shiny, glossy establishment mag.

Ray, this is a great post, because it confirms the anti-Bush bias at Spiegel Online. The first paragraph of the article says it all, "Bush sicks his dogs," "unparalleled propaganda offensive," etc.
When one reads the whole article, however, it's a big let down. It turns out that the "dog" that the Bush administration has "sicked" on its critics is: Condoleeza Rice. And, the "propaganda offensive" consists of Condi's attempt to defend her reputation against Dick Clarke's scurrilous accusations.

Clearly, Dick Clarke has an ax to grind. When Condi assumed the role of NSA, Dick was demoted. When Dick went on to recommend strategies for battling al-Quaida in the summer of 2001, his ideas were not taken seriously. What was Dick's earth shattering idea? To aim cruise missiles at training camps in Afghanistan. Was this an effective policy? No. Did it work during the 8 years of the Clinton Administration? No, except that it provided cover for some of Bill's peccadilloes. Is it surprising that Dick's failed strategy was not accepted by a new administration? No, so basically Dick should shut up and recognize his own incompetence.
Instead, Dick Clarke has written a scathing book against the Bush administration's preparedness for 9/11, singling out Condi Rice. In one sentence, he even suggests that Condi Rice -- gotcha! -- doesn't even know who al-Quaeda is. In another, he blames the Bush administration for not protecting Americans from crazed Islamo-fascists who were getting ready to fly planes into NYC skyscapers.
But, Dick's outbursts don't pass the smell test. First, Condi was very aware of who al-Quaida was. Second, Dick himself is on record warning about hijackings in Europe, not attacks in America. Nobody warned the Bush administration about the planes flying into the WTC. So, until there is some evidence to the contrary, the only "propaganda offensive" is the one coming Dick Clarke, the Kerry campaign and the foreign office of the Kerry campaign located in Hamburg and in cyberspace at: spiegelonline.de.

CBS News - march 21 - "Clarke´s Take on Terror":


Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorism czar, then held over again by the current President Bush.

In the 60 Minutes interview and the book, Clarke tells what happened behind the scenes at the White House before, during and after Sept. 11.

When the terrorists struck, it was thought the White House would be the next target, so it was evacuated. Clarke was one of only a handful of people who stayed behind. He ran the government's response to the attacks from the Situation Room in the West Wing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

When Stahl pointed out that some administration officials say it's still an open issue, Clarke responded, "Well, they'll say that until hell freezes over."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism, even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous chatter.

The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."

Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.

Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The president's new campaign ads highlight his handling of Sept. 11 -- which has become the centerpiece of his bid for re-election.

"You are writing this book in the middle of this campaign," Stahl tells Clarke. "The timing, I'm sure, you will be questioned about and criticized for. Why are you doing it now?"

"Well, I'm sure I'll be criticized for lots of things," says Clarke. "And I'm sure they'll launch their dogs on me."

Does a person who works for the White House owe the president his loyalty?

"Yes ... Up to a point. When the president starts doing things that risk American lives, then loyalty to him has to be put aside," says Clarke. "I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11 has made us less safe. Absolutely."

Hadley staunchly defended the president to Stahl: "The president heard those warnings. The president met daily with ... George Tenet and his staff. They kept him fully informed and at one point the president became somewhat impatient with us and said, 'I'm tired of swatting flies. Where's my new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda?'"

Hadley says that, contrary to Clarke's assertion, Mr. Bush didn't ignore the ominous intelligence chatter in the summer of 2001.

"All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas. But interestingly enough, the president got concerned about whether there was the possibility of an attack on the homeland. He asked the intelligence community: 'Look hard. See if we're missing something about a threat to the homeland.'

"And at that point various alerts went out from the Federal Aviation Administration to the FBI saying the intelligence suggests a threat overseas. We don't want to be caught unprepared. We don't want to rule out the possibility of a threat to the homeland. And therefore preparatory steps need to be made. So the president put us on battle stations."

Hadley asserts Clarke is "just wrong" in saying the administration didn't go to battle stations.

As for the alleged pressure from Mr. Bush to find an Iraq-9/11 link, Hadley says, "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."

When told by Stahl that 60 Minutes has two sources who tell us independently of Clarke that the encounter happened, including "an actual witness," Hadley responded, "Look, I stand on what I said."

Hadley maintained, "Iraq, as the president has said, is at the center of the war on terror. We have narrowed the ground available to al Qaeda and to the terrorists. Their sanctuary in Afghanistan is gone; their sanctuary in Iraq is gone. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are now allies on the war on terror. So Iraq has contributed in that way in narrowing the sanctuaries available to terrorists."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does Clarke think that Iraq, the Middle East and the world is better off with Saddam Hussein out of power?

"I think the world would be better off if a number of leaders around the world were out of power. The question is what price should the United States pay," says Clarke. "The price we paid was very, very high, and we're still paying that price for doing it."

"Osama bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country. He had been saying this. This is part of his propaganda," adds Clarke.

"So what did we do after 9/11? We invade an oil-rich and occupy an oil-rich Arab country which was doing nothing to threaten us. In other words, we stepped right into bin Laden's propaganda. And the result of that is that al Qaeda and organizations like it, offshoots of it, second-generation al Qaeda have been greatly strengthened."

When Clarke worked for Mr. Clinton, he was known as the terrorism czar. When Mr. Bush came into office, though remaining at the White House, Clarke was stripped of his Cabinet-level rank.

Stahl said to Clarke, "They demoted you. Aren't you open to charges that this is all sour grapes, because they demoted you and reduced your leverage, your power in the White House?"

Clarke's answer: "Frankly, if I had been so upset that the National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism had been downgraded from a Cabinet level position to a staff level position, if that had bothered me enough, I would have quit. I didn't quit."

Until two years later, after 30 years in government service.

A senior White House official told 60 Minutes he thinks the Clarke book is an audition for a job in the Kerry campaign.

"I'm an independent. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign," says Clarke. "I have worked for Ronald Reagan. I have worked for George Bush the first, I have worked for George Bush the second. I'm not participating in this campaign, but I am putting facts out that I think people ought to know."

60 Minutes received a note from the Pentagon saying: "Any suggestion that the president did anything other than act aggressively, quickly and effectively to address the al Qaeda and Taliban threat in Afghanistan is absurd."

© MMIV, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved

Hey David - perhaps you could post a link to their "letters to the editor" section so we could share with them our distress at this biased reporting?

Note from David: Thanks for the recommendation. This is the e-mail address: spon_politik@spiegel.de. And this is the somewhat voluminous text you have to put in the "re" field:
leserbrief+zum+artikel+us-wahlkampf:+bush+hetzt+seine+hunde+auf+clarke+(id:+292538). Will they publish it? Hmm...

Gabi wrote, "...I wonder why the Democratic party does not realize that they are weakening the USA and not only Bush...."

They know. These are the 68-haters, after all.

----

As to Clarke, his number's up. He wanted style over substance. As another blogger pointed out, as Terrorism Czar, it was his job to keep the Admin in the loop, not the other way around.

He's pissed he didn't get the job and lost "access." When he did get access, he thought we should focus more on cyber-terrorism. That was the June meeting.

Bubba took it more urgently because they met every day and traded intel - but what plans came out of those meetings? very little - Sandy Berger and he both said there were no plans turned over the the Bush admin.

W's group didn't meet every day, but not only looked at what Bubba's admin's limited plan was, but beefed it up.

1993-95-96-98-2000 - no concrete plans, got caught up in legalese. Even Berger said there weren't enough Cole dead to "do" anything.

I am much too slow to keep posting here. I am always about 6 topics and 12 posts behind. There seems to be no way one can catch up, or at least for me there seems to be no way I can catch up.

It would appear that the “SPIEGEL ONLINE: “Bush Sicks his Dogs on Clarke in Unparalleled Propaganda Offensive” is just another in a continuing series of German media articles presenting both the US and the Bush Administration in particular in the worse possible light. Surely this headline and the underlying article appeals to those who are anti American as well as those who tend to question the motives of what the US is doing

I have reached the sad conclusion that is now both normal and acceptable in the German media and to a great degree within the people of Germany as a whole.

I have to wonder. What is the purpose of these attacks? What is the desired outcome? How do they serve both the German people and the long-term interest of the nation of Germany? In other words besides a desire to gain market share in a crowded media market what are the motivations for this continued and constant drum beat of anti Americanism which is so prevalent in the German media.

I do know one thing that these attacks are. They are a great distraction. This distraction serves almost all groups in Germany well with the exception of some of the business class.

Germany and France stand at the abyss of their ways of life. Both nations are in a state of general decline. This decline is present in all institutions of both nations. It spans not only the immediate future of both nations but also longer term.

If one is to believe demographics and these seem to be fairly accurate, then France will become the first majority Muslim country in Europe. The social welfare system in Germany will collapse. The standard of living of all the citizens of both nations will continue to decline and efforts to redistribute income will fail.

To address this decline requires not only a will to change but also leadership to change. Change brings fear. At the moment both the will and the leadership are lacking. The leaders chose not to view reality any more than their citizens chose to.

I would expect, as these problems become more apparent to more Germans there will be even greater anti Americanism. This will in fact parallel what one sees today in most Middle Eastern nations both in their media and in the attitudes of their citizens. It is much easier to blame others for failure than it is to accept responsibility for these failings and correct them

While many of you may choose to disagree with this, I would think you would have to agree that in those nations where the future looks brighter the degree and veracity of anti Americanism is not as great within the media, the government, national institutions or the population in general. I would think you would have to also agree that these continued attacks have a corrosive effect on the formulation of individual opinions and at some future point the relationships between nations. So in one sense the Spiegel is mild in comparison to what it could have been and what in time it will become.

People - if you use html-code in your postings, PLEASE remember to include an end-command as well. Makes little sense quoting, when previous posters screwed up.

Admin, please delete my previous posting, while you are cleaning up the spammer. This one should be better readable.

Joe wrote: I would expect, as these problems become more apparent to more Germans there will be even greater anti Americanism. This will in fact parallel what one sees today in most Middle Eastern nations both in their media and in the attitudes of their citizens.

Right. Combined with the comment by someone else that "the Arab psyche is just a toxic waste dump", I can see where this is heading - the stereotypes of Anti-Europeanism continue to grow amongst Bush-supporters?

It is much easier to blame others for failure than it is to accept responsibility for these failings and correct them

Has Bush ever admitted any wrongdoings at all during his presidency or did he always blame others? Like uranium from niger and Powell at the UN?

So when will Bush stop pointing fingers at others and accept resonsibility?

Pot, Kettle, Black anyone? *yawn*. I can't see where such generalities - which can be used against anyone including Germany and the US - can be constructive in anyway.

I can see where this is heading - the stereotypes of Anti-Europeanism continue to grow amongst Bush-supporters?(...)
Has Bush ever admitted any wrongdoings at all during his presidency or did he always blame others? (...)
So when will Bush stop pointing fingers at others and accept resonsibility?
I can't see where such generalities [err ... you mean generalizations?] - which can be used against anyone including Germany and the US - can be constructive in anyway.

You wont't believe how much I laughed my bottom off when I read that. You clearly set a new standard for making allegiations while in the same post practising exactly what you condemn. Good job.

--Like uranium from niger and Powell at the UN?--

BZZZZ! WRONG!

Never said Niger - said Africa. Brit Intel STILL standing behind their intel, was Congo or another country.

Jury's still out on Powell - seems Syria wants to cozy up to us using the Ozzies.

So, what's in the Bekka Valley????

OT: hehehehehehehe via Lucianne.com:

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said yesterday Europe should not rush into enforcing targets to curb greenhouse emissions if Russia fails to sign the Kyoto treaty on climate change, warning it could harm industry.

Really sad to see your cheap schadenfreude here...
I don't understand why American conservatives are so happy to see this ambitious project fail.
I know that there are some climate skeptics doubting the scientific base of Global Warming, however we should not forget that they are in the minority when facing the hundreds of scientists working at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and at other meteorological organisations that predict Global Warming.
Every rational thinking person, in the light of these dissensions, should agree that there is at least a significant probability that Global Warming can really occur.
I guess what you are mocking at is that Schroeder now uses the same argumentation as Bush used when he cancelled the Kyoto Protocol, claiming that it would harm the economy too much.
Everybody knew even back at Kyoto that such regulations would hurt economy.
However, European countries believed that the costs were not as high as potrayed by the oil industry, and that the benefits clearly outweighed the
costs.
However, now, with the decision of the country that wastes much more energy than any other country in the world per capita to refrain form the Kyoto protocol, this benefit-cost calculation has become void.
Even if European countries meet their ambitious targets, the effect will go completely unnoticed in the light of the Bush's administrations "great" ecological target to actually increase the total Co² output.
Too bad that you are acting that irresponsible.
Tragic that you are even proud of it...

@flursn - That was exactly my goal, mirroring. Thank you.

@Sandy Never said Niger - said Africa. Brit Intel STILL standing behind their intel, was Congo or another country.

Oh, Congo now? Is that why the US had sent a man to Niger, but not Congo?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html

And I am sure the MI6 stands strongly behind this, just like they stand behind their claim of 45 minutes. ;-)

But why Blair today never mentions this British intel evidence of Uranium when he expresses hope to still find WMD-evidence must remain a mystery then?

I some how missed President Bush blaming Sectary Powell or any comments being made about uranium from Niger that would infer some type of blame. My Nexus search failed to find anything that remotely support the transfer of responsibility or placing blame on any individual or individuals. It would appear that President Bush has taken full reasonability for his decisions and actions. Had President Bush wanted to blame someone it would appear the natural choice would be the Director of the CIA. He has not succumbed to doing this while some of his political advisors have suggested it. Director Trent remains the Director of the CIA.

An implied inference has been made if one supports President Bush, then they are anti European or conversely to be anti European is to be a supporter of President Bush? I personally do not agree with either of those. I for one do not believe that President Bush is anti European.

I would also challenge anyone to read the American press and find any volume of articles that are anti European in nature. As far as articles pertaining to Iraq, they mostly fault the current US administration in its failure to gain wider support of its policies within some European nations.

As for stating Germany is in a state of decline the sources for this conclusion are from what the German government has published in various news releases, reports, and reports from international organizations.

As to dismiss my comment as “Pot, Kettle, Black anyone? *yawn*. I can't see where such generalities - which can be used against anyone including Germany and the US - can be constructive in anyway” fails to address the simple premise of why and who has the most to gain.

It would appear that my premise as it pertains to Germany was completely incorrect. The current Pew Research Poll, which shows only 38% of the Germany public has a positive image of the US, is the total failure of the US alone. The numbers in France are even less.

I would submit then I am equally wrong about the SPD. They did not win the election as results of it’s anti American position on Iraq, that the comparison of Bush to Hitler had no bearing on the German public. That Germany is not in decline.

I would also like to submit that the Pew Report “Views Of A Changing World – June 2003” was equally wrong when it reported the following

Question – Success determined by forces out of our control
Disagree Agree
US 65% 32%
Germany 31% 68%

Question – Freedom vs. Safety Net

Government guarantee no Free from Government
One in need to pursue goals

US 34% 58%
Germany 57% 39%

So if one is not responsible for their own individual success then they surely one cannot be held accountable for it.

Because you don't reveal your sources. And we have different sources than they do. I see you didn't respond to my ascertation that W never said Niger. Google the speech.

And since I have to do family things now, I'll start searching Rantburg and other sites for Congo and the other country.

Clarke was interviewed on the BBC tonight. As expected, a few lame, kid glove questions, no context, and no response from anyone in defense of the Bush Administration. The BBC is sort of a SPIEGEL-lite, or, as Andrew Sullivan so aptly put it, NPR on steroids. They obviously haven't stopped spinning the news since the recent management shake-up. Pity the poor Brits; they're forced to pay for the BBC's "objective reporting." Clarke is such a grandstanding loser that the Democrats in the U.S. have stop even trying to defend him. Now they're trying to divert attention by claiming a "vast right-wing conspiracy" to demolish Clarke (evidently the source of some of SPIEGEL's spin), and agitating to force Condi Rice to testify under oath, against all precedent for the President's personal advisors. I loved CNN's headline today: "Pressure intensifies for Rice to testify." It reminded me so much of one of my favorite "Spiegelisms," in the style of "Druck auf Bush und Blair wird immer stärker," "mehr und mehr SPIEGEL Journalisten erklären Solidarität mit Saddam Hussein," usw., usw. I have a little collection of my favorite ones someplace.

@Sandy.

This is the first time I have ever addressed a comment to an individual poster (if that is the correct express). The below may be the references you are seeking. I am not sure if your last posting was directed toward me or not..

President Delivers "State of the Union"
The U.S. Capitol
9:01 P.M. EST
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html


President Bush did give a speech in Cincinnati prior to the SOU speech where he did in fact mention Niger. This reference to Niger was later pulled from the SOU at the request of the CIA.

Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:03 P M. EDT. For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 14, 2003

In the above referenced press briefing link below, the official spokesman for President Bush stated clearly had the President known in January what was known in July about Saddam Hussein seeking quantities of uranium from Africa that statement would not have been included in the SOU. I would say President Bush has taken responsibility for that error or what some have called wrongdoing.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-4.html

I for one find it more useful to use direct source documents whenever possible In this case I used the SOU speech and a WH Press Briefing over secondary sources such as the NYT. These secondary sources some time filter what is being said. In the case of the NYT and its liberal bias it is even more critical to find other sources to insure a balanced view of what is being reported as at times it is difficult to separate their editorial viewpoint from the news they report.

@Sandy

Yes, we discharge a lot of carbon emissions but look at the results:

USA
Global carbon emmissions: 25%
Global industrial production: 40%
Global agricultural production: 25%
World Bank

When 40% of the world's industrial production produces only 25% of global emissions, I call that efficiency.

Have you actually read the Kyoto Protocol? I have yet to meet a German who has. No wonder you believe the platitudes of those who claim Kyoto was such a noble cause. Don't delude yourself.

If you read it and understand the framework, you'll see why the United States Senate voted it down 97-0 back in 1997. The entire treaty was hatched by Europe as a way to get money from the US. Those who meet or exceed targets (initially 1990-1997)can then "sell" carbon credits (worth billions) to those who have not.

Take a look at the start dates and targets, then look at economic and population growth in those areas. From 1990 to 1997 Europe experiences 0 popluation growth and less than 1% in economic growth. Germany conveniently gets credit for taking over the DDR then shutting down its smog spewing plants. The UK switches from coal to gas. Now allow the entire EU to roll their emmissions together and voila! You get a free pass for the first 10 years!

Meanwhile, the US adds 26 million new citizens and experiences an economic boom. Don't forget that two of America's strongest emerging competitors, China and India (plus many others) are excluded from the treaty. No matter what, the US is trapped by Europe into paying billions of dollars in a scheme which was stacked against us from the start. All US attempts to modify the treaty effective dates, account for carbon sinks, etc were flat out denied by Germany and the rest of Europe. Their dogmatism and refusal to negotiate also played a significant factor in the US walking away from the table. Of course you never saw these facts in your media because ZDF, ARD, SAT1, Der Spiegel, Stern, FAZ, etc were too lazy to report them.

Too bad people in Europe are so ill informed on the real story behind the Kyoto Protocol. All most of them "know" is that the US is bad for not signing on to a European shakedown for cash.

So all of Germany's scheinheiligkeit about the Kyoto Protocol was really about anger that they did not get their hands on more of our money.

While we're on the subject of respect for law and treaties, why did Germany clobber Portugal or violating the Stability and Growth pact and then violate it themselves? Why is Germany under so many investigations for violations of International Human Rights laws (family law child custody cases?)

Ah, how quickly we all forget - the CIA's info was false. They sent someone over on a forgery.

...And at last, I can't find one. The area that the left has focused upon is the Niger uranium. But Bush's claim in the State of the Union address was that the British had warned him of the purchase. While the CIA's document has been demonstrated to be a forgery, the British sources--we still don't know exactly what they were--are still supported by their government. Tony Blair, while playing down WMD generally, spoke to the Niger issue yesterday....

7/10/03

----

Interesting thing about that forgery, some blogosphere conspiracy theorists wonder if it came from phrawnce????

Not me, Hector, Senate saw thru that way back then with a unanimous no vote.

Frankly, when 1/3 of the population, the new economic powerhouse population is left out, makes one wonder?

All they had to do was give in a little and they might have had what they wanted, but no, had to dig their heels in.

Thanks for the work, Joe, I wanted our friend to check out the SOTU address. That way, he could read it for himself, but who knows, maybe he would have thought a stealth edit might have been made, much like the BBC likes to do.

How can there be pressure for her to testify when she's already testified?

Kerry better be careful, if he becomes pres, he can't duck and run w/his NSA and cite "Executive Privilege."

Now isn't this interesting:

Via Lucianne from the NY Post:

He's all about promoting his book, plain and simple," said Vigiano Sr., whose sons John, a firefighter, and Joseph, a police officer, died in the WTC attacks.

"It's all about greed. He shouldn't be doing this. He's showing a lack of loyalty to the president. It's awful."

The blistering letter, signed by more than 36 people who lost loved ones in the WTC, came a day after the Senate's top Republican, Bill Frist, accused Clark of an "appalling act of profiteering."

Meanwhile, a Newsweek poll released yesterday found that 65 percent of Americans say Clarke's testimony hasn't affected their opinion of the president.

Fifty percent of those polled said they believe Clarke is motivated by personal and political reasons.

Clarke, who retired early last year after 30 years in government service, has said he provided dire warnings to the Bush White House in the months leading up to 9/11 but that little was done.

---

Newsweek is not impartial in this, especially if Howard Finneman (sp) works for them, IIRC. For those of you who don't know, Howard and some other liberal newspeople met at Al Franken's home to "coach" Kerry. But do you think they'd ever tell their readers that?????

And of course we won't mention the "dire" warnings that were given to the Clinton admin when it was in charge.

Look, what this is partially about is Congress making sure it's not blamed. And they IMHO have the 3rd biggest blame of all. Administrations come and go, but Congress has a 95-98% retention rate. They make the laws that gutted our potential to pick up on this. We put them into office, we're #2 but #1 is the terrorists - they did it.

@Joe

I would also challenge anyone to read the American press and find any volume of articles that are anti European in nature.

This "anti-something" is to me often mostly just a cheap smokescreen against criticism. And I am beginning to grow fond of it myself! ;-) It is even okay to a point, I guess, though not very constructive - I only find it truly offensive when one hides behing the victims of the Holocaust at the same time by saying "This is like 60 years ago".

What is "anti-American" or "anti-European" can hardly be defined like it appears here - and I've seen even references to US-media by conservatives as being "anti-American" or "unpatriotic", which seems to support my view that there's a rather bogus and an amusing inflationary use of this being made.

And you can list things as much as you want - some of them quite on target, others perhaps biased interpretations -, but the reason why I gave you a rather snoddy reply after praising your earlier well-written analysis a number of times was a different one. You had written:

To address this decline requires not only a will to change but also leadership to change. Change brings fear. At the moment both the will and the leadership are lacking. The leaders chose not to view reality any more than their citizens chose to.

I would expect, as these problems become more apparent to more Germans there will be even greater anti Americanism. This will in fact parallel what one sees today in most Middle Eastern nations both in their media and in the attitudes of their citizens. It is much easier to blame others for failure than it is to accept responsibility for these failings and correct them

So the conclusion which you draw from all this shows that you apparently have rather little understanding of the average German on the street and his background - you don't seem to grasp the nature of America-criticism here, you don't seem to grasp the nature of xenophobic sentiments - which do exist here, but quite differently - and you leave out the general (problematic) status of "the German soul" at the moment. It's just highly laughable to me what I highlighted. :-)

I don't mean it as an offense to you - I can see how someone might arrive at this conclusion, but it appears to reflect a mostly ivory-tower-view, detached from the ground. A bit like cat = grey, elephant = grey, so one shall conclude: cat = elephant.

Ouote from our Terroristsupporter magazine SPIEGEL ONLINE:Paris - Saddam Husseins Angehörige hätten keinerlei Informationen über die körperliche oder seelische Verfassung seines Mandanten, sagte der Anwalt Jacques Verges der Fernsehnachrichtenagentur APTN. Die USA hätten in mehreren Punkten gegen die Genfer Konventionen verstoßen.

Saddam sei behandelt worden "wie ein Tier auf einer Ausstellung", kritisierte der Anwalt im Hinblick auf die Bilder, die nach der Verhaftung des ehemaligen Staatschefs im Dezember veröffentlicht worden waren. Er hoffe, Saddams Fall vor den Internationalen Strafgerichtshof (IStGH) in Den Haag bringen zu können. Weder der Irak noch die USA haben jedoch das Statut des IStGH ratifiziert.

Verges hatte zuvor mitgeteilt, ein Neffe Saddams habe ihn im Namen der Familie mit der Verteidigung beauftragt. Der Anwalt vertrat in der Vergangenheit unter anderen Gestapo-Chef Klaus Barbie. Außerdem soll er den wegen Völkermords angeklagten früheren Spitzenfunktionär der kambodschanischen Roten Khmer, Khieu Samphan, verteidigen.

Für einen Prozess gegen Saddam Hussein gibt es noch keinen Zeitplan. Der gestürzte irakische Präsident wurde von US-Truppen am 14. Dezember gefangen genommen. Wo er festgehalten wird, ist nicht bekannt.


@Sandy P.

Oh Sandy, what am I gonna do with you? ;-) Alright, I am willing to learn this. So I said uranium from Niger was used by the Bush-administration.

To which you first responded it wasn't niger, but Africa in general, namely "Congo or another country." (and also heavily citing British intel - hopefully not for the blame game against those loyal British allies? ;-)

A day later you paste from a former USMC-member's blog (without giving credit to your paste-job) about Blair still standing behind Niger, which refers to an outdated article in the Independence paper that can only be purchased for 1 UK-pound. (1 pound? are they nuts to be so pricey?) And I call it outdated because it came before Niger's official denial and their demand to see proof.

So where is solid proof now for either Niger or Congo to be the smoking gun on WMDs? But please something more convincing than "the Intel still stands behind it". Sure they do. LOL.

Again: Blair only talked as recently as a few weeks ago in a TV-interview about still hoping to find the smoking gun of WMD-evidence.

Somebody not giving a nick wrote:

"Ouote from our Terroristsupporter magazine SPIEGEL ONLINE:"

LOL. So langsam vermute ich, daß einige der Poster hier für Titanic arbeiten. :-)

Sandy,
Opos, that one was meant for:

@ David

Does this mean that we are now going to explore the average German on the street and his background? With the goal to better understanding just who he. What is the nature of his criticism of America and Americans and maybe why he feels so justified in it. How his xenophobic sentiments translate into his attitude and finally just what is his soul at the monent

I personally would find this to be both eductional and interesting

GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

CLARKE: No.

@joe

Not sure whether my irony-meter goes off when reading your reply, but I think it would be worth exploring.

What's the background for your current interest in Germany? Speak German, born in Germany, ever lived in Germany, worked in Germany (other than the military), etc.? In short: What brought you here?

People like gabi or aidan would interest me as well - what brought you here to this forum? What's your connection with US-Germany?

The short answer was I spent time in Germany with DOD and various US Govt agencies. I had great respect for Germany and the German people. I have lost what little of the language I once had. I have friends who happen to be German and see some of them on an annual bias. Now, I fully admit in the last 5 years I no longer have a clue about what Germany is or who the Germans are. I find them to be as much as strangers to me as I would find a Tibetan. I feel no connection to them at all other than on an individual bias. That is what bothers me. So I view this as an excerise in education.

@ Joe

"I have to wonder. What is the purpose of these attacks? What is the desired outcome? How do they serve both the German people and the long-term interest of the nation of Germany? In other words besides a desire to gain market share in a crowded media market what are the motivations for this continued and constant drum beat of anti Americanism which is so prevalent in the German media."


I think you can say it serves someone’s interests, because it sells. Look at FOCUS. Until a few years ago they occasionally provided a counterweight to SPIEGELs anti-American diatribes. Now they, too, have jumped on the bandwagon. For them, I think, the decision was mostly financial. Anti-Americanism sells in Germany, as I’m sure Michael Moore will agree. (By the way, was first prize at the Leipzig book fair 30 pieces of silver?) The question is, why does it sell? The question has come up a lot on this forum, and there have been lots of hypotheses. Here’s another one. I think it’s biological. I think Konrad Lorenz and Robert Ardrey were right. Gazelles, bears and baboons aren’t the only animal species with an innate predisposition to knock the "king of the hill" from his lofty perch. Humans react the same way. Germans are hardly unique in their visceral desire to see the "one remaining superpower" take a fall. This desire is irrational and predictable. It won’t go away if Bush goes away or if the United States does anything at all to meet the criticisms of its detractors, short of curling up in a hole to die. In a word, it comes with the territory, and is an expression of the fundamental nature of human beings, so Americans had better get used to it. Human beings aren’t suddenly going to become rational overnight. They will only change if they perceive a threat greater than the U.S. It’s unlikely that Islamic terrorism will take the place of Communism as this greater threat anytime soon. Anti-Americanism is, therefore, here to stay until the fundamental power relationships in the world change. All we can do is stand with David and others like him to point out its absurdity and irrational nature. Perhaps a few intelligent people will get the message and help us avert the worst consequences of the anti-American rage.

@Hector

"Take a look at the start dates and targets, then look at economic and population growth in those areas. From 1990 to 1997 Europe experiences 0 popluation growth and less than 1% in economic growth. Germany conveniently gets credit for taking over the DDR then shutting down its smog spewing plants. The UK switches from coal to gas. Now allow the entire EU to roll their emmissions together and voila! You get a free pass for the first 10 years!"

Your comments about Kyoto are right on, Hector. I have never seen the fundamental facts you've posted above mentioned in any German magazine, newspaper, or TV report, although they're absolutely essential to even a basic understanding of the real debate over Kyoto. Unter the circumstances, you can forget about any semblance of fair play in negotiations to implement the Kyoto agreements. Did the Europeans react rationally to the facts you've outlined above, adjusting Kyoto emissions targets to bring at least a semblance of parity to the level of economic sacrifice demanded of all parties to the agreement? HARDLY!! According to "The New Republic," when Clinton negotiators tried to save Kyoto and assure it some chance of ratification in the U.S. by asking for sensible provisions for carbon trading, European negotiators stonewalled and refused to budge. In the Bonn negotiations late in Clinton's term, as at earlier Kyoto talks, Germany's representative was Trittin, who loves to play to the crowds, but has little or no role in national decision making. The U.S., on the contrary, has always had high level representation. At Bonn for example, it was Paula Dobriansky, whose connections ran directly to the White House. The fact that he sent a clown like Trittin to represent Germany at the talks makes it very clear that Schroeder never had even the slightest intention to implement any provision of the Kyoto accords that would cost German jobs. He wanted the bleeding to be limited to the U.S., and the same goes for his European pals. One wonders what more they could have done to insure the U.S. would never ratify the agreement. And that's precisely what they wanted. Now they can cry big crocodile tears and tell us that, despite their deep commitment to saving the world from global warming, all their heroic efforts have been stymied by the evil U.S. When you add to this the fact that no major European country has implemented any significant active measures whatsoever to slow greenhouse emissions, it's obvious to everyone but a few duped Europeans what's going on.


@FKANB:

People like you. But I don't mean it as an offense to you. :-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31