Man kann sich seine Freunde nicht aussuchen. Seinen Wohnsitz schon - eine Homestory zeigte kürzlich Nina Hagen zu Hause in Los Angeles. Wie kann sie freiwillig in einem Land leben, das von solchen Unmenschen regiert wird? Andererseits gibt es wahrscheinlich wenige zivilisierte Nationen, in denen man trotz offensichtlicher psychischer Probleme vom Staat so angenehm unbehelligt bleibt wie in den USA. Hier ihr legendärer Auftritt bei Sandra Maischberger (die immerhin als eine der Top-3-TV-Journalistinnen des Landes gilt):
Note to readers: The post above and video above (from David Harnasch) document a hillarious on-air meltdown by actress Nina Hagen - (who maintains a residence in Los Angeles) - during a "serious" television talk show with host Sandra Maischberger. The topic was "UFO's, extra-terrestrials and angels - are we alone in the universe?" Hagen goes completely postal to the point that another guest feels compelled to leave - upon which she derides him as an "evil alien." She rants about George W. Bush's plans to settle Mars and the moon and considers it all part of some dubious conspiracy. David Harnasch and I were wondering exactly what substance Ms. Hagen was on during the show. Watch and decide for yourself...
Wem die oberflächliche Berichterstattung deutscher Massenmedien, die Bush's Rede zur neuen Irakstrategie im wesentlichen als Truppenverstärkung darzustellen versuchen, etwas seltsam vorkommt, kann sich glücklicherweise an kompetenterer Stelle über ein paar hierzulande - natürlich rein "zufällig" - übergangene, aber weit wichtigere Punkte des amerikanischen Strategiewechsels informieren. Weit entfernt davon, nur Schadensbegrenzung zu betreiben, scheint Bush nämlich wieder in die Offensive gehen zu wollen und den Kampf endlich - wie schon seit Jahren von neokonservativer Seite angemahnt, von den Realpolitikern aber immer wieder ausgebremst - auch auf die ausländischen
Moral relativism has a way of producing strange rationales and value systems. Nowhere was this more clearly on display than in a recent article in Germany's Handelsblatt, a financial daily. The piece, entitled, "US Firms Pressure German Firms Out of Iran," starts off with this fabulous graphic:
Caption: "Moving on treacherous terrain: Juergen Hambrecht (BASF), Dieter Zetsche (Daimler), Wolfgang Reitzle (Linde), Klaus-Peter Mueller (Commerzbank) and Klaus Kleinfeld (Siemens)."
That's right. It's all America's (and Bush's) fault. Again. Poor German CEO's can't trade in Iran because of US pressure. Here excerpts from the Handelsblatt piece (read the entire translation here):
"USA Pressures German Firms Out of Iran
The USA is putting firms under massive pressure worldwide to stop
doing business with Iran. With that economic isolation they want to
force the country to stop its controversial atomic program. Especially
German firms are hard hit by that, indeed they traditionally do good
business in the region. The latest case comes from the banking world.
BERLIN. After massive pressure from the USA, Commerzbank has now
announced that it will end its processing of dollar-business for Iran
at the end of January. Commerzbank boss Klaus-Peter Mueller has already
publicly complained about the pressure from the Americans in his
position as President of the Federal Union of German Banks."
The article almost makes it sound as if the United States is to blame for Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. There is absolutely no hint that it might be wrong or unethical to trade with (and financially prop-up) Iran or other violent dictatorships/state-sponsors of terrorism. This despite the fact that Iranian President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that Israel should be wiped off the map and that the Holocaust is a myth. There is also no mention of Iran's support of Hezbollah nor does Handelsblatt mention the country's bleak human rights record. Instead, America is made out to be the bad guy while Ahmadinejad gets a free pass. One honestly has to ask, where are the German concepts of fair trade and economic and social justice in all of this? Where are the traditional objections to profiteering and capitalist excess?
The article continues:
"Now other German companies in other branches are worried about their
traditionally good Iran business. The results of the worsening climate
are already clearly visible: The German exports to Iran sank noticeably
in 2006 - in the first three quarters by 14 percent.
German businesses are now trying to prevent the contracts they have
signed with Tehran from becoming public at all. "Everything that might
touch on the US-business is deadly. Therefore nobody in Tehran talks
about his Iranian contracts," said a German business representative in
Tehran under the condition that his name would not be printed. Above
all, companies that are listed on US stock markets like
Daimler-Chrysler with large businesses in America are affected.
Siemens, for example, that according to Handelsblatt information is
near to concretely completing a 450 million Euro contract with Tehran
to deliver locomotives, does not want to comment on it publicly. Other
firms listed on the Dax (German stock market) like BASF or Linde are
moving on treacherous terrain with their involvement in Iran. BASF has
just now signed and sealed a 304 million Euro project involving an
Ammoniac-Urea facility in the Shiraz Petrochemical Complex. By
contrast, Linde's contract for a petrochemical facility, believed to be
secure, was cancelled by Tehran for the time being.
Not only the German economy is feeling the American intervention. In
order to prevent the billion-dollar involvement of the Chinese oil
company CNOOC in Iran, Washington presented "our concerns" to the
government in Peking and to the company. That was reported by the
speaker of the US embassy in Peking. Before that, US interventions lead
to the stoppage, for the time being, of Japanese financing for a
project in Iran worth about ten billion dollars.
The German government is following the US actions with concern. For
one, the Berlin strategy in the Iran negotiations is to only sharpen
the sanctions against Iran in increments and to thereby include all
countries, in other words Russia and China as well. Chancellor Angela
Merkel again emphasized that goal on Wednesday after a meeting with
Japanese Minister President Abe. On the other hand, the German
government fundamentally rejects the attempt by the US government to
enforce American law beyond its borders.
This growing problem of the so-called "Extraterritoriality" is also
named as a theme for the "Transatlantic Economic Initiative," with
which Chancellor Merkel seeks to strengthen the economic relations
between the EU and the USA."
Perhaps Chancellor Merkel ought to consider the chronic and growing problem of Iran's terrorist "extraterritoriality" in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere in her efforts to improve transatlantic trade. Perhaps she ought to consider the potential impacts of a massive US boycott of goods from German companies like Siemens and BASF that insist on doing business with brutal dictators bent on a second Holocaust. Is it really in Germany's long-term interest to continue trade with a nation that threatens the fundamental security and moral interests of the entire western world? Are the short-term profits worth the cost?
And how about this double standard: When American investment firms do business in Germany, they are derided as bloodsucking parasites and "locusts" by German politicians and unions. On the other hand, when German firms busily sign deals in nations run by the most violent and reprehensible thugs, they are just trying to do some good business - and it is only the awful American "extraterritorial" interference getting in the way. And make no mistake: Iran is not the only case in point. While the international community struggles to put an end to genocide in Darfur, the German government is actively promoting annual trade fairs in Sudan for many of the same German multinational corporations that want to keep doing business in Iran.
Der SPIEGEL cover, December 2006: "The Greed of Big Money: Finance-Investors Grasp at German Businesses." Of course many of the "greedy investors" in question are American or British. No mention of greedy German CEOs profiteering in Iran and Sudan.
Perhaps German media like "Der Spiegel" and German politicians such as SPD Minister Franz Muentefering should spend a bit more time reviewing the activities of German corporations abroad before embarking on their next crusade against foreign multinationals. Of course it is far more convenient to make a scapegoat out of "the Americans" and the other foreign "locusts" than it is to stand against the unsavory trading practices of Germany's corporate giants. One honestly has to wonder why German anti-Globalization demonstrators aren't lining up by the thousands to protest German multinationals' dealings with Tehran and Khartoum. Perhaps morality applies only when it can be directed against the United States and Bush.
Irre! Der SPIEGEL kriegt sich ja gar nicht mehr ein vor lauter
Freude über die Entmachtung der NeoCons. Da muß sich ganz schön was
aufgestaut haben in all den Jahren. Anders ist nicht zu erklären, daß
er die Siegesmeldungen jetzt schon im Stundentakt heraushaut. Und eine
besser als die andere. Da will man gerade anfangen, sich angemessen
über Marc Pitzke ärgern, da kommt schon Gerhard Spörl
und schafft es tatsächlich, ihn noch zu toppen, was im Falle von Pitzke
ja nun wirklich kein leichtes Unterfangen ist. Da muß ich jetzt doch
mal eingreifen, so geht das ja nicht weiter. Nicht daß die
Realpolitiker am Ende einen Herzkasper kriegen, bevor sie noch ihr
segensreiches Wirken beginnen können.
es mit den amerikanischen Alleingängen und den bilateralen Diktaten.
Geht es nach der Kommission - und es wird nach ihr gehen, kaum Zweifel
-, dann findet eine internationale Konferenz über die Lage im Nahen
Osten statt. Das schließt Gespräche Amerikas mit zwei Ländern ein, die
nicht zum kommoden Umgang gehören: Syrien und Iran.
lacht der SPIEGEL. Denn eine Welt, in welcher Despoten wie Assad und
Chameini ein Mitspracherecht haben, ist natürlich weit besser als eine
Welt, in der ihnen selbiges verwehrt wird. Der Gedanke, daß westliche
Demokratien die Geschicke der Welt dominieren, ist schließlich die
I BLAME GERMANY'S LAX GUN LAWS AND COWBOY CULTURE: Gunman storms school, dies. "Those killings prompted a wave of German soul searching about violence and school security, coming just months after another gunman had walked into a school and shot dead his former headteacher."
The tone of the article below says a lot about the mentality of the self-righteous German media elite following the midterm elections. Keep in mind that these are the same people who looked the other way while Saddam was building palaces with UN money on the corpses of his own nation after invading two neighbors and murdering hundreds-of-thousands of his own people.
Many Europeans are feeling a deep sense of gratification over the election disaster of George W. Bush: The American warlord, who started the campaign against Iraq with false "proofs," is finally being punished by his own people. The fact that his henchman, the arrogant Mr. Rumsfeld, had to go, further crowned the day: Somehow morality and justice do win in the end. That's what some think. And for many Europeans that was worth a good glass of red wine.
But what remains after this short triumph? Nothing has been won in Iraq with the humiliating defeat of the Republicans. Even if the US troops withdrew in the foreseeable future, that would hardly improve the situation there. The land has long sunken into violence and chaos, a war has long been underway between ethnic groups, clans and religions.
This war should have never been allowed in the first place. It was wrong from the beginning, indeed a crime. Some Americans have finally recognized that; for Iraq it is too late. Hardly anyone there will drink a red wine to the election debacle of George W. Bush."
Mr. Heuken makes it sound as if Iraq was a paradise before the Americans showed up. Clearly, not too many Iraqis are happy with the out of control killing and sectarian violence. That violence is certain to get worse should American troops leave in the near future. On the other hand, it would be wrong to say that no one in Iraq will celebrate the departure of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen.
Furthermore, what do Germans plan to do (other than write indignant editorials and train a few police) to help stabilize the situation in Iraq? Germans would be well served to listen to recent comments by President Horst Kohler, who pointed out that sitting back and doing nothing is no longer a viable option and would be "stupid, short-sighted and arrogant." He also went on to say that Germans had "a direct, existential interest" in preventing the Middle East from sinking into chaos. Whether anyone listens to (or acts on) these statements remains an open question.
If knocking down strawmen, inventing facts, or arrogantly bashing America were Olympic events, then Michael Naumann of Die Zeit would be a perennial gold medallist. For proof, one need look no further than Mr. Naumann's most recent article, "Amerikaner sind wir alle." The usual hate-America talking points are to be found in abundance: America is imperialist, Bush lied about Iraq, the chasm between rich and poor is growing (no mention of the 4.4% unemployment rate of course), America's debt is enormous (no mention that the deficit declined dramatically last month.)
The article also features a laundry list of virtually every crime that America has committed since World War II: First the evil interventions in Vietnam, Central America and Iran. Then there are those horrible evangelical Christians. But apparently, none of those historic sins are nearly as bad as George W. Bush. According to Naumann, Bush is singularly to blame for all of America's image problems in the world. (Of course nothing the German media has done could have anything to do with that). He also contends that elements of the Constitution, freedom of opinion and "the right to elections free of falsification" have been endangered over the past six years.
Then comes the strawman that European journalists never seem to get tired of knocking down. Naumann claims that Bush suffers from the illusion that military power is a means to political "hegemony". Excuse me for asking, but when did Bush ever articulate such a position? When has the administration ever claimed military power is the key to world domination and how do the current multilateral diplomatic efforts to address Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambitions mesh with that assessment?
The final proof that Mr. Naumann has little interest in reality getting in the way of his opinionated worldview is the following statement:
"The daily Atlantic life of earlier years could return - a dialog free of arrogance could take place on all those themes that George W. Bush doesn't give a damn about: Global environmental problems, disarmament, fighting hunger and the dying of millions of children in Africa."
Obviously, a dialog free of arrogance and condescension is hardly what Mr. Naumann is interested in. On the contrary. Mr. Naumann is interested in elevating his narrow worldview to the moral high ground.And while Mr. Naumann is entitled to his own extreme opinions, he is not entitled to his own facts. Whether his policies are correct or not, President Bush is clearly concerned with the issues listed above, whether the environment, global disarmament or starvation and dying children in Africa. In fact, the United States government spends significantly more than the German government to address the problems Mr. Naumann claims it doesn't give a damn about.
So let's explode Mr. Naumann's misrepresentations point by point.
According to the US State Department, the sharp increase in overall aid to Africa visible in the first table was due to:
"A major increase in aid took place in FY2003 because of large quantities of food aid provided to Ethiopia and southern Sudan, as well as a boost in spending through the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund in response to the African HIV/AIDS pandemic."
This was a direct result of President Bush's approval of emergency funds for Africa in 2003.
"The U.S. has devoted enormous resources to the effort to safely and expeditiously destroy its CW stocks, including over $1.5 billion in 2005, and a projected $32-34 billion over the lifetime of the project (for comparison – total 2005 budget for OPCW was $91.6 million)."
Point three: Bush doesn't give a damn about the environment. Like so many other German "journalists" too intellectually lazy to explain complex environmental policy differences, Mr. Naumann has confused the administration's refusal to sign Kyoto (something that will not change with Democrats in power) with refusal to give a damn about the environment. If the administration really didn't care about the environment, then why does it feature a two page posting on environmental achievements on the White House website? Government policies listed include:
"A proclamation that will create the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. This national monument will enable nearly 140,000 square miles of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to receive our Nation's highest form of marine environmental protection.
In May 2004, the Bush Administration finalized a rule that will dramatically reduce pollution from heavy-duty diesel engines used in construction, agricultural, and industrial equipment. This will prevent up to 12,000 premature deaths, 8,900 hospitalizations, 15,000 heart attacks, 6,000 children's asthma-related emergency room visits, 280,000 respiratory problems in children, and a million work days lost due to illness once the rule is fully implemented. Soot and NOx emissions will decrease by more than 90 percent by 2014, and the sulfur content of diesel fuel will be cut 99 percent by 2010."
President Bush has committed America to meeting the challenge of long-term global climate change by reducing the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output by 18 percent by 2012 compared to 2002. Greenhouse gas intensity is the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output.
$4.1 Billion in Tax Incentives for Renewable Energy and Hybrid and Fuel-Cell Vehicles
As we demonstrate above, demolishing Mr. Naumann's obvious misrepresentations is not particularly difficult. One has to wonder how his editors at Die Zeit could have allowed such ludicrous falsehoods to appear in their publication (maybe because they play well with the anti-American audience?). Furthermore, it is an insult to Americans around the world who have worked countless hours to address these problems as members of the government or private organizations to claim that American leaders just don't give a damn when that is so obviously false. It is also an insult to each and every American taxpayer who has paid to fund these efforts.
Extremists like Mr. Naumann, who pompously claim they would like a return to transatlantic dialog, are not at all interested in conversation on anything but their own narrow, arrogant terms. Anyone who disagrees with them is guilty of total inhumanity and worthy only of demonization. Mr. Naumann is obviously prepared to lie and twist the truth as needed to smear those he hates. Whether we like it or not, George W. Bush will be gone in two years, but the damage done by "journalists" like Naumann to transatlantic relations will endure for years to come, whether Democrats or Republicans are in power.Only when the German-American conversation begins to move beyond these extreme voices and the falsehoods they spew (still all too common in the German media) will we begin to see real improvement.
Ein Verlierer der US-Kongresswahl steht jetzt schon fest, egal wer am kommenden Dienstag gewinnt: die Neokonservativen. Deren Ideologie von einer militärisch demokratisierten Welt unter amerikanischer Führung ist im Irak gescheitert.
Das hätten die Realpolitiker und Appeaseniks wohl gerne. Sie können es offenbar einfach nicht verwinden, daß der 11. September und der darauf folgende Sturz Saddam Husseins wie auch der
Weil viele im Verdacht stehen, mit den Todesschwadronen zusammenzuarbeiten, hat die irakische Regierung mehr als 3000 Polizisten entlassen.
[…] Mehr als 1220 Polizisten seien auf Geheiß des Ministers gefeuert worden, weil sie Verbrechen begangen, die Menschenrechte verletzt oder sich weiterer Vergehen schuldig gemacht hätten, sagte ein Sprecher des irakischen Innenministeriums.
[…] Die irakische Polizei war 2004 eilig aus früheren Polizeieinheiten zusammengewürfelt worden, weil es nicht genügend Sicherheitskräfte im Land gab. Viele Polizisten stehen im Verdacht, mit Freischärlern und Todesschwadronen gemeinsame Sache zu machen.
Hoppala, haben wir uns da aus Versehen ein bißchen verplappert? Bisher war doch die offizielle Linie des SPIEGEL, daß dieser gräßliche Bush und seine tumben Berater so blöd waren, das damalige
This goes against the grain of everything the German media have told us about President Bush's economic policies:
The Rich Were Better Off Under Clinton Than Bush
(...) In the first graph, I show the after-tax figures for each quintile of the population (where quintile 1 = the poorest 20%, and quintile 5 = the richest 20%). What we should see, if the Democrats and the media are to be believed, is that incomes were equitably distributed during the Clinton years and then became seriously skewed in favor of the rich (due to the 2001 tax cuts) during the Bush years. Here is what the data actually suggest:
The evidence simply does not support the claim. Can you imagine what it would be like if every article suggesting that the Bush tax cuts favored the wealthy included a chart like this? Well, the article would not work, so it will never happen. (...)
My main point is that the Democrats' claim that the Bush tax cuts helped only the wealthy does not square with the facts, and I am both astounded to discover that this is true and discouraged to know that there is no possible way the American public will ever appreciate it. If the media hasn't figured it out by now, they never will.
Is it likely that the German media will figure it out? Don't bet the ranch on it...
Es ist eine verheerende Bilanz: Mehr als 650.000 Iraker sind laut einer Studie an den Folgen des Krieges gestorben. US-Präsident Bush räumte ein, dass es in dem Land "entsetzliche Gewalt" gebe - und zweifelte die Glaubwürdigkeit der Studie an.
Washington/London - Einer heute veröffentlichten Studie von irakischen und US-amerikanischen Fachleuten des Gesundheitswesens zufolge sind damit seit Beginn der US-Invasion 2003 und der anschließenden Gewalteskalation zweieinhalb Prozent der irakischen Bevölkerung ausgelöscht worden. Die Todesrate habe sich seit Kriegsbeginn mehr als verdoppelt, hieß es in des Studie weiter, die die medizinische Fachzeitschrift "The Lancet" im Internet veröffentlichte.
Na, wenigstens einer behält hier einen klaren Kopf. Denn anders als die SPIEGEL-Redakteure kann sich der US-Präsident durchaus noch genau daran erinnern, daß es zufälligerweise eben genau jene
North Korea just detonated an atomic bomb and guess what: "Stern" magazine is more upset with George W. Bush than it is with Kim Jong Il. It is more upset at the supposed impotence of the United States than with the near total irrelevance and impotence of Germany and Europe in confronting dictators worldwide. Once again the old formula holds in the German media: It's all Bush's fault. World-Scapegoat-USA is to blame:
Stern.de: "North Korea: "Powerless Paper Tiger" Bush: The North Korean atomic test is also a defeat for US President Bush..."
It doesn't matter to Stern that Kim Jong Il's activities represent a threat and a defeat for the entire Western world. It doesn't matter that dictator Kim has starved, murdered and imprisoned millions of his own people. What really matters is that this is a defeat for Bush.
As we recently noted: Short-term humiliation for Bush and America trump any long-term humanitarian and geopolitical considerations for publications like "Stern" magazine and members of the Angry Left. The fates of millions of people suffering and dying in places like North Korea, Chechnya, Darfur and Congo are of remarkably little interest to them. When a true dictator with blood on his hands threatens the world and oppresses his people, the professional protester class is nowhere to be seen. The silence is deafening. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.
Sadly enough, the headlines in some German media read more like North Korean propaganda than objective headlines we might otherwise expect to find in publications printed in democratic nations. Put differently: Little has fundamentally changed.
There are several troubling situations in the world at the moment: There is genocide in Darfur. There is unending unrest in Congo. The war in Chechnya has claimed thousands of lives with no end in sight. North Korea seems on the brink of exploding a nuclear weapon. Islamic extremists continue to threaten the civilized world.
But wait a minute. There are elections in four weeks in the USA and a new Bob Woodward book that casts the Bush administration in a less than favorable light. And believe it or not, there are German publications that actually believe they can influence the outcome.
Some bloggers began to argue that "Der Spiegel" might actually be run by pro-American editors and young professional yuppies with no real left-wing axe to grind. Well, as we predicted, it was only a matter of time before the magazine awoke from its hibernation and returned to its traditional modus operandi. After all, bashing Bush and America on spectacular covers is not only politically well-received among readers, it is also exceedingly profitable. Thus the latest installment:
Power and Lies: George W. Bush and the Lost War in Iraq
We all know that defeat for America (and particularly Bush) is one of the deepest fantasies of many in the German media and on the Angry Left. How else could you explain all of the Iraq = Vietnam comparisons? How else could you explain the self-censorship in German media in the run-up to Iraq in which pro-war viewpoints were systematically discouraged and even shut out? How else could you explain the massive self-censorship in German media when it comes to reporting positive progress in Iraq?
In all of this, let us make one bold prediction about this edition of "Der Spiegel" before it has even come out: The magazine will have made absolutely no real attempt to interview or fairly represent the opinions of anyone who would defend American efforts in Iraq or contend that the war in Iraq has not already been hopelessly lost. In other words, just as in the run-up to Iraq, there will be massive, self-imposed censorship of unpopular views. "Der Spiegel" simply does not possess the integrity and intellectual honesty to present its ideologically-inclined readership with an honest, two-sided debate on Bush and Iraq for fear of losing subscriptions and aggravating its customers. The simplistic, inaccurate, black-and-white coverage of the United States that has predominated at "Der Spiegel" for years now is particularly ironic considering that the magazine and its readership view themselves as paragons of nuance and profound discerners of the world's many shades of gray. The same people who so mindlessly demonize the United States with the most simple-minded, propaganda-like slogans (Bombing-Terror for Freedom - Torture in the name of Freedom - Blood for Oil - Bush is a Liar) are the same people who violently oppose what they perceive to be the "for-us-or-against-us" stance of the Bush administration.
And allow us remind our media friends at "Der Spiegel" of just one fact: The "war" in Iraq has certainly been a difficult and challenging one with many setbacks: But the battle for Iraq isn't over and it hasn't been lost just yet. We know that our good friends at "Der Spiegel" would love defeat for the United States in Iraq to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, but if there has been one fatal flaw in the history of the German character, it has been the premature and over-confident assumption that one's opponent is defeated before they have actually been defeated.
And allow us to remind our friends at "Der Spiegel" of something else they may have forgotten: American defeat in Iraq would represent a catastrophe for the millions of people of Iraq and possibly for the wider Middle East, and serve as a major setback for efforts to politically reform (and yes democratize) the region. American defeat in Iraq would almost certainly transform wide swaths of the country into terrorist safe havens and embolden and strengthen Islamic radicals as never before. An American loss in Iraq would leave a nation of millions at the mercy of radical sects and outside governments and would likely end in a civil war that makes today's sectarian strife and car bombings look like a picnic. An American loss in Iraq would leave that nation's vast oil wealth in the hands of unknown groups battling for power, fueling further conflict, bloodshed and terrorist activity. In other words, American defeat in Iraq would be a major loss for the entire civilized world, including Germany and Europe and would make the world significantly less safe.
But to SPIEGEL, none of that matters. Short-term defeat and humiliation for Bush and America trump any long-term humanitarian and geopolitical considerations. The massive humanitarian disaster that followed American defeat and withdrawal in southeast Asia - with millions of deaths and millions more refugees - was of little interest to "Der Spiegel" and other media elites. The same has been and would be true in Iraq. Saddam's atrocities have received only a tiny fraction of the coverage that Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo have received. The chaos, death and suffering that would follow an American defeat in Iraq on a massive scale would also be of little interest to the high minded humanitarians at publications like "Der Spiegel."
Right now, SPIEGEL reporters are busily rehabilitating and canonizing Bob Woodward for returning to the fold. They honestly seem to believe they can influence the upcoming US mid-term elections. They know they can sell more magazines with spectacular covers. And any hope of constructive transatlantic dialog and understanding between Germans and Americans continues to dwindle as the media's innuendo, cynicism and sensationalism continue: Bush lied and people died!
US-Präsident Bush veröffentlichte ein Geheimdienstmemo zum Krieg gegen den Terror, um sich gegen Kritiker zu wehren. Leider gibt es denen nur noch mehr Munition: Der Irak-Krieg, heißt es darin etwa, fache die Dschihadistenbewegung täglich weiter an
Wenn der Autor dieses Artikels irgendjemand anders gewesen wäre - Schwamm drüber. Aber der Autor heißt Marc Pitzke. Und das wirft die Frage auf, was Bush in der Frage der Freigabe des Geheimdienstmemos hätte machen können, damit unser Marc endlich mal zufrieden ist und sagt "Chapeau, Dubya, das war jetzt zugegeben mal ein cleverer Schachzug". Denn eigentlich gab es neben der Veröffentlichung der Dokumente nur eine weitere Alternative, nämlich sie nicht zu veröffentlichen. Nehmen wir aber spaßeshalber mal an, Bush hätte sich tatsächlich für die zweite Variante entschieden, was hätte der gute Marc dann geschrieben? Tatsächlich das hier?
US-Präsident Bush hielt ein Geheimdienstmemo zum Krieg gegen den Terror zurück, um sich gegen Kritiker zu wehren. Damit nahm er ihnen den Wind aus den Segeln. Ob der Irak-Krieg die Dschihadistenbewegung tatsächlich weiter anfacht, ist somit nicht zverlässig bekannt.
Oder nicht doch eher das hier?
US-Präsident Bush hielt ein Geheimdienstmemo zum Krieg gegen den Terror zurück, um sich gegen Kritiker zu wehren. Leider gibt das denen nur noch mehr Munition: Die Geheimniskrämerei läßt nur den Schluß zu, daß Bush etwas zu verbergen hat und der Irak-Krieg die Dschihadistenbewegung nur weiter anfacht.
Die Verantwortlichen beim SPIEGEL sollten allmählich wirklich mal ernstlich drüber nachdenken, ob ein Amerikahasser wie Pitzke wirklich die richtige Besetzung für den Posten in New York ist. Denn
Die von der US-Regierung gerne benutzten Aussagen von Informanten aus den Reihen der Exil-Iraker, vor allem vom Iraqi National Congress (INC), waren meist falsch und auf politische Bedürfnisse zugeschnitten. Mit ihnen wurde die zweite Lüge gezimmert, die angebliche Existenz von Massenvernichtungswaffen oder zumindest von laufenden Programmen zu deren Herstellung. Damit ist nun gewissermaßen amtlich, dass die Bush-Regierung den 11.9. für den Krieg gegen den Irak instrumentalisiert und dazu "Beweise" fabriziert hat oder, will man unrealistisch gutgläubig sein, zu nachlässig mit der Verifizierung der Informationen gewesen ist.
Auch mehr als 3 Jahre nach dem Irakkrieg ist Heise noch kein bißchen weise. Denn nur wenige Monate bevor die ersten Bomben fielen gab der US-Präsident folgende Erklärung ab, die Telepolis-Autor Florian Rötzer offenbar entgangen sein muß:
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian