Davids Medienkritik

German Minister: Bush Responsible for Katrina

You won't believe this: In an article in Frankfurter Rundschau, a leading left-wing daily, Germany's environmental minister Jürgen Trittin holds U.S. president George Bush responsible for hurricane Katrina.

Yes, that's right. The hurricane Katrina that killed dozens of people, that destroyed countless homes, flooded parts of Louisiana and Mississippi, that left millions without electricity - it's all Bush's fault, according to a leading member of the German Green party, who happens to be Environmental Minister in Chancellor Schroeder's cabinet. Never mind that statistics don't show a particularly increase in the frequency of hurricanes in the U.S. in the last decades. Germany's general elections are scheduled for September 18, and the German left is in dire need of a neocon scapegoat for every disaster that befalls the world. And George W. Bush is the default villain in German politics and in the German media...

Excerpts of Trittin's article:

By neglecting environmental protection, America’s president shuts his eyes to the economic and human damage that natural catastrophes like Katrina inflict on his country and the world’s economy. ...many Americans have long been unwilling to follow the president’s errant environmental policy. Indications are multiplying that Bush has more than Katrina’s headwind blowing in his face... . When reason finally pays a visit to climate-polluter headquarters, the international community has to be prepared to hand America a worked out proposal for the future of international climate protection. The German Government stands ready. (Translation of quote by Richard Bartholomew)

(Here are more reactions in the German media to Katrina)

Consider this a job application on the part of Mr. Trittin. He will be kicked out of office as a result of the German election on September 18 and desperately looks for a new employer.

I just wonder if the U.S. government wouldn't want to muster the services of this very capable political talent in order to shape up America's environmental policies. Admittedly, the U.S. would lose several million jobs as a result of Trittin's suicidal environmental policies, without any noticeable effects on air quality or hurricane frequency.

But France, Russia, China and Japan - all of which do not seriously consider adopting Trittin's costly environmental demands - will be jubilant. And that's something the U.S. would certainly be proud of...

(Just in case you're interested in Trittin's career, here are some highlights, as presented in his official biography. As is the case for other leading Green party politicians, Trittin is rather mum about his activities before 1982. I have this strange suspicion this is owed to the fact that in the seventies he was an active member of a German communist splinter group...)

Update: EU ROTA has a very thorough analysis of the global warming hysteria of Jürgen Trittin. And Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit quotes a NYT article rejecting the "global warming caused Katrina" thesis. His conclusion: "It's sad to see such lame political opportunism at a time like this." Well, what can I say - this is German politics...

German Expert Identifies Truly Nice Dictator

Poor Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. He's such a nice guy, but unfortunately the Syrian military won't allow him to transform the country into an Arabic version of South Korea.

I am not making this up. This is what Michael Lueders claims, one of Germany's foremost Arabia experts, in a comment in the left-wing daily Frankfurter Rundschau. According to Lueders Israel and the U.S. government try to "demonize" Syria.

And there's another culprit next door (you won't guess it): "What is Israel keeping from realizing the 50 year old dream for a life in peace and security? The answer has two words: Ariel Sharon."

Well, not everyone has tender feelings for al-Assad, though:

Source: Cox & Forkum

Couldn't some expert - possibly from Germany - explain to these clueless Lebanese folks that Mr. al-Assad has purely peaceful intentions?

(Hat tip Ruth Fink)

Abuse in Iraqi Prison ... or in the German Media? / Mißbrauch in irakischem Gefängnis ... oder in den deutschen Medien?

(Deutsche Version am Ende des Beitrags)

(Translation by Hartmut Lau)

Here’s a neat little example of biased reporting the German media have developed into an art form.

The following AP Germany report appeared in numerous German print media over the last few days (our translation):

New Allegations of Prisoner Mistreatment in Iraq

Portland/USA (AP) U.S. soldiers have made new allegations against their own supervisors. …

First impression? Abu Ghraib continued. New allegations have been made, old suspicions are being confirmed. They’re torturing again, and doing it because of directives from on high.

A report published Sunday in the American newspaper The Oregon (sic) indicates that the abuse of numerous prisoners by Iraqi policemen was tolerated by U.S. commanders.

This sentence finally makes it clear that it was Iraqi policemen, not - as in Abu Ghraib - American soldiers who were responsible for mistreatment. However, the insinuation is obvious – US commanders are complicit in the Iraqi policemen’s deeds. (An aside – the newspaper is The Oregonian, not The Oregon).

And only in subsequent sentences do we find a more precise description of the incident:

The newspaper’s sources are Oregon National Guard soldiers who had tried to help the mistreated Iraqis. They had, however, been ordered to leave the prisoners to their tormentors.

Here, by contrast, is the original American AP report, upon which the German AP report is based:

Soldiers' Rescue Attempt in Iraq Rebuffed

PORTLAND, Ore. - Oregon National Guard soldiers attempted to stop Iraqi jailers from abusing dozens of prisoners, but were ordered to return the prisoners to their abusers and leave, according to a published report. (...)

Neither a direct relationship between the Abu Ghraib abuses nor a claim of any conspiracy between Iraqi policemen mistreating their prisoners and US commanders is mentioned in the American AP report.

Why? Because the facts are these: American soldiers became aware of - presumed – mistreatment of prisoners by Iraqi policemen and intervened in the prison and gave the prisoners first aid. After checking with their commanders they left the prison. The reason? It was the first day after the transfer of sovereignty from the occupation authority to the interim Iraqi government. There was no legal basis for the American soldiers’ intervention. The American authorities wanted to avoid a conflict with the brand new Iraqi government. Rather than continue a direct intervention on the ground the American chain of command elected a political-military approach. They informed Iraqi authorities responsible for supervising the policemen in question.

Apparently this effort was successful, as reported in the original article in The Oregonian:

Guardsmen interviewed for this story said they've watched the detention facility closely since then, and that many of the prisoners were released soon after the raid on the detention facility.

The soldiers said they have not seen any further prisoner abuse occur there.

Doesn’t necessarily sound like “New Allegations of Prisoner Mistreatment in Iraq.” The German AP’s report, that the abuse of numerous prisoners by Iraqi policemen "was tolerated by U.S. commanders," is clearly wrong.

How skillfully the German media have associated this incident with the Abu Ghraib abuses can be seen in the following extracts:

Frankfurter Rundschau:

Allegations against Senior Officers in Torture Scandal

US Soldiers Alleged To Have Been Ordered To Abandon Prisoners To Iraqi Tormentors

US soldiers have solidified allegations concerning the treatment of Iraqi prisoners against their superiors. A US military court postponed the hearing in case of Lynndie England, a soldier involved in the torture scandal at the Baghdad prison.

Focus Online: Torture In Iraq – Orders To Look The Other Way

SPIEGEL ONLINE:

Torture Hearing

Judge Considers Subpoenaing Rumsfeld

According to a media report, US commanders consciously tolerated abuses in Iraq. A Tunisian released from Guantanamo Bay spoke of confessions obtained under duress. The hearing for a female soldier accused of serious crimes has been suspended so that a subpoena to US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld can be considered.

Handelsblatt:

Abuses Tolerated

New Accusations Against US Troops in Iraq

We really don’t have to comment on this technique any more.

By the way, while searching for the original story in The Oregonian I found this article about a soldier returning to the USA from Iraq in another Oregon newspaper:

Mission accomplished

Roseburg High grad returns after 15 months serving in Iraq

(...) Despite the hardships -- being away from family, witnessing countless deaths and enduring intense heat and dehydration -- Clegg said he and the other soldiers kept their spirits. (...)

Clegg never doubted the reason for fighting the war, and he said the military's presence after the war is just as important as the fight.

"Whenever you take the army out of power ... you still have to stay there to rebuild the country," he said.

He said overall the Iraqi people appreciated the soldiers being there. People would stop them in the street and tell them they were doing a good job.

The unit was patrolling Baghdad in December and hadn't heard that Saddam Hussein had been captured. They found out because of gunshots in the streets.

"It was pretty amazing," he said. "That was one way they celebrated, was with gunfire."

After six years in the Army, Clegg's stint could have been up while he was in Iraq, but he decided to re-enlist for another three years.

"Being in the Army and being able to do my job, that's a fun thing to do," he said.

Tamie Clegg-Wedge was surprised that after more than a year in Iraq, she hasn't noticed any big changes in her son.

And we’ve noticed hardly any reports like this one in the German media – no abuse of Iraqi prisoners, Iraqis that thank the US soldiers, no delayed psychological trauma to the US soldiers. The article simply didn’t have the type of material that German journalists use to weave their Iraq reports.

(Hat tip Gabi)

Biased Presentation Of Iraqi Poll / Voreingenommene Darstellung der Irak-Umfrage

(Deutsche Übersetzung am Ende des Beitrags)

It is interesting to compare the headlines of the reports on the poll in Irak by international media, compared to German media.

Reuters:

Poll: Year Later, Most Iraqis Happier Without Saddam

ABC

A Better Life

BBC:

Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq

tagesschau

Iraqis dont't show much faith in democracy

Frankfurter Rundschau

Many Iraqis want a "strong leader" - Poll one year after the war confirms distrust of US administration

Süddeutsche Zeitung

Poll in Iraq - First a leader, later a democracy

taz

Umfrage: Iraqis without a leader type

Talking of bias...

(Hat tip Dennis)

The Old Left And The New Fear / Die alte Linke und die neue Angst

(Deutsche Übersetzung am Ende des Beitrags)

While the initial reaction of Germany's left-wing media to the results of the Spanish election was one of joy and relief, suddenly a new mood seems to be building up fast: the feeling of fear. Zapatero's intention to withdraw the Spanish military from Iraq does not meet with unanimous approval of even the most ardent Bush-haters:

SPIEGEL ONLINE:

Spain’s Iraq Policy – The Troops are Leaving, but the Terror Remains

Even opponents of the Iraq war like Zapatero can’t deny that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are happy about the toppling of Saddam Hussein. His terror regime mentally ravaged the country. Now there is a – much to slow, highly complicated – process of political reconstruction. This process can only take place because it is secured militarily by the occupiers. The fact that it repeatedly falters is also a result of the – sometimes helpless, sometimes rash – direction of the Americans. Above all, Iraq is suffering from terror aimed at the civilian population these days.

An Iraq without occupiers would therefore probably disintegrate and after years or perhaps decades sink into chaos. The result would be a new Afghanistan, a lawless area, an El Dorado for Islamic terror groups –
who, by the way, now feel very at home in Baghdad. The dream of the pacifists: Imagine there is a war and everyone runs away, would therefore ultimately become a nightmare. Because in reality not everyone would run away if the Spaniards, the Poles, the Italians or even the British leave. The terror
would remain. (our translation)

And the left-wing Frankfurter Rundschau publishes this comment by Wolfgang Sofsky:

The strategy of the terror war speculates not without good reason on the moral impotence of western Europe. The announcement of designated Minister President Zapatero that he will pull Spanish troops out of Iraq can be celebrated by the assassins as an easy victory. Even if one would like to view the pull-out as justified by international law, it amounts to a capitulation in the present context that enjoys wide popularity. Post-heroic societies have only very little with which they can fight terror. Their governments fear nothing more than the return home of dead soldiers. They are incapable of being offensive. In times of danger, they retreat within themselves. They can bear no losses, have no mission, indeed, not even a consciousness that they have something to defend. So they are easy to blackmail. A well-aimed bombing is enough to get them to retreat. And at some point, a credible threat is enough for them to submit to the will of a determined attacker. (our translation) / (Hat tip Gabi)

I gather the SPIEGEL ONLINE and Frankfurter Rundschau folks read the FOX NEWS interview with secretary of state, Colin Powell:

I think what this illustrates is that there is a war on terror that must be fought. Nobody's immune. Saudi Arabia's not immune. Turkey's not immune. Indonesia's not immune. Spain is not immune, Germany, France.

Repeat: Germany is not immune. Germany is not immune. Germany is not immune.

Got it? No?

Try again: Germany is not immune. Germany is not immune. Germany is not immune.

See, it works!

(Translation by Ray Drake)

German Media Reject Charge of Anti-Americanism / Deutsche Medien weisen Vorwurf des Anti-Amerikanismus zurück

(English translation at end of post)

Eine öffentliche Diskussionsveranstaltung unter Journalisten in Elmau Anfang Januar 2004 zum Thema «Westentfremdung – Deutsche Medien versus USA?» hat wenig Hinweise auf Einsicht offenbart. Die Journalisten sehen sich als objektive Berichterstatter einer kritischen US-Sicht der Deutschen. Verantwortung, Schuld der Medien selbst für den zunehmenden Anti-Amerikanismus? Selbstverständlich nicht!

Zitate aus Berichten von "Frankfurter Rundschau" bzw. "Netzeitung":

Das negative Bild der USA? Chronistenpflicht! Schließlich gebe es viel Negatives zu berichten. Die negative Tendenz der allermeisten Kommentare? Solche Tendenzen, versicherten die Zeitungsmacher, würden nicht von Zeitungen gemacht, sie kämen aus der Mitte der Gesellschaft. ...

Ihren eigenen Medien wiesen die Diskutanten dabei die Rolle zu, "Tendenzen widerzuspiegeln". ...

Außerdem gibt es ja keinerlei Meinungszwang in unseren demokratisch-pluralistischen Gazetten. ...

Ein wenig resigniert kommentiert der Journalist Burkhard Müller-Ullrich die Diskussion:

Wie das Amerikabild in den deutschen Medien tatsächlich aussieht, war nach dieser Diskussion unklarer denn je. Ein bisschen stutzig macht es schon, dass Journalisten, von denen man die Fähigkeit zu objektiver Betrachtung und Beschreibung der Dinge erwartet, schon in ihrem nächsten Umfeld solche Wahrnehmungsstörungen haben, dass sie die intellektuellen Entgleisungen der Amerikaberichterstattung einfach wegreden wollen...

Ich wäre mit jedem sofort einig, der die intellektuellen Entgleisungen der Amerikaberichterstattung deutscher Medien auf die Journalisten selbst zurückführt...

Arabs Praise Bush Speech...Ooops...They Don't! / Araber preisen Bushs Rede ...oh...doch nicht!

MSNBC: "Lob in der arabischen Welt für Bushs Rede."

Frankfurter Rundschau : "Araber reagieren skeptisch auf Bushs Rede"

English translation

MSNBC: "Praise in Arab world for Bush speech"

(German left-wing daily) Frankfurter Rundschau: "Arabs skeptical about Bush's speech"

Recht auf Terrorismus / The Right to Terrorism

(English translation at end of post)

Ted Honderich: "Die Tötung eines israelischen Kindes durch eine Selbstmordattentäterin kann ein legitimer Widerstandsakt durch das palästinensische Volk sein". (zitiert nach Frankfurter Rundschau)

Gibt es ein Recht auf Terrorismus?

In Kenntnis der Veranstaltung der Universität Leipzig am 19.10.03 "Gibt es ein Recht auf Terrorismus?" muß man die Frage unbedingt bejahen. Ted Honderich, dessen Buch "Nach dem Terror" gerade von Suhrkamp zurückgezogen wurde, weil dann doch jemand aufgefallen war - was dem Gutachter Jürgen Habermas zunächst nicht aufgefallen war -, daß Ted Honderich die Ermordung israelischer Kinder durch palästinensische Terroristen für eigentlich nicht so richtig falsch hielt - dieser Ted Honderich also wurde den Leipzigern als Referent in der Reihe "Sonntagsgespräch" (Motto: "Universitäten sind kein Ort für Denkverbote") vorgesetzt.

Die angekündigten Diskussionspartner Jürgen Habermas und Micha Brumlik fanden den Referenten und sein Thema dann doch etwas abseitig und sagten ab. Nicht abgesagt hat Prof. Georg Meggle, der sich als Moderator und Mitdiskutant versuchte. Meggle ist nach Ansicht von Henryk Broder ein "Professor, der in Leipzig weltberühmt ist".

Das Vortragsmanuskript von Honderich läßt an seinem Verständnis für palästinensische Selbstmordattentate keinen Zweifel aufkommen.

Und er bietet uns Deutschen einen wunderbaren Ausweg aus dem Dilemma, in das uns die Vergangenheit bedauerlicherweise gestellt hat:

"Ist es nicht so, als habe Ihr Vater eine Frau ermordet - und als Resultat schweigen Sie nun zu einer Vergewaltigung, die der Sohn dieser Frau begeht?"

Die Gleichsetzung der israelischen Abwehrmaßnahmen gegen palästinensische Selbstmordattentäter mit dem Begriff der Vergewaltigung dürfte eine neue Dimension der Diskussion in Deutschland eröffnen. Endlich können die Deutschen, unbehindert von der Schande der Nazis, die Israelis - Vergewaltiger schließlich alle! - unbedrängt kritisieren.

Und schließlich macht Hondrich uns Deutschen ein Kompliment, das wir schlichtweg nicht ablehnen dürfen:

"Die Deutschen sind heute zu Recht dafür bekannt, die Schuld ihrer Väter auf sich zu nehmen. Sie haben eine Art moralischen Vorsprung, den wir anderen nicht haben. Der Holocaust war nicht der erste und nicht der letzte Genozid in der Geschichte. Andere Täter haben ihre Schuld nicht so willig angenommen und sich damit auseinander gesetzt. Aufgrund dieses moralischen Vorsprungs haben die Deutschen heute eine besondere Verpflichtung, gegen die Vergewaltigung eines Volkes ihre Stimme zu erheben. Sie werden ein wenig mehr Gehör finden als andere Nationen. Es gibt einen Grund dafür, dass sie gehört werden, nämlich diese besondere moralische Stellung. Dies ist aber auch der Grund für ihr bisheriges Schweigen. Sie können mehr als wir anderen tun, Amerika aus seiner somnambulen Ignoranz zu wecken."

Nach Darstellung der Frankfurter Rundschau (auch die Leipziger Volkszeitung berichtete über den Vortrag) "ließ sich die Mehrheit im Hörsaal das Schauspiel nahezu kommentarlos gefallen." Dies überrascht nicht. Honderichs Argument katapultiert die Deutschen aus der Verantwortlichkeit für den Holocaust in einem Argumentszug in die Eliteklasse der Humanität, aus der heraus wir die ignoranten Amerikaner so richtig belehren dürfen. Vielen Dank, das machen wir doch gerne!

Bei mir kommt übrigens ein Verdacht auf: könnte der tiefere Sinn der Leipziger Einladung an Honderich die Hoffnung gewesen sein, mit einem ausgewiesenen Israel-Feind arabische Stimmen für die Olympia-Bewerbung von Leipzig zu sammeln?

Übrigens ist die beißende Satire von Henryk Broder über die Einladung Honderichs an die Universität Leipzig außerordentlich empfehlenswert!

Medien trauern über Saids Tod / Media Mourn the Death of Edward Said

(English summary at end of post)

Der Tod von Edward Said, Professor für Englische Literatur und Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft an der New Yorker Columbia University, hat deutschsprachige Medien in andächtige Trauer versetzt. Said wuchs in Jerusalem und Kairo auf: Noch als Jugendlicher emigrierte in die USA. Seine Publikationen sind von der Kritik an den USA und Israel und von der Forderung nach einem palästinensischen Staat geprägt. Said lehnte das Abkommen von Oslo entschieden ab, das ein Nebeneinander von Israel und Palästina zum Ziel hatte. Süddeutsche Zeitung: "Said urteilte, die PLO habe dabei zu viel gegeben und zu wenig eingehandelt. Immer schärfer geißelte er die Korruption um den Palästinenserführer und dessen „Verrat“. Die Palästinensische Autorität sei zur „freiwilligen Kollaboration mit der Besatzung“ geworden, zu „einer Art palästinensischem Gegenstück der Regierung von Vichy“." Er befürwortete einen gemeinsamen palästinensisch-israelischen Staat. Über das Schicksal der Juden in einem solchen Staat muß man nicht lange sinnieren...

Quelle

Prof. Edward Said präsentiert seine "schöngeistigen Neigungen" beim Steinwurf auf einen israelischen Wachtposten. (vgl. nachfolgende Zitate)

Auszüge aus deutschsprachigen Medien:

German Media: Praise for Schroeder, Criticism for Bush / Deutsche Medien: Lob für Schröder, Kritik an Bush

(Deutsche Übersetzung: Am Ende dieses Postings. Bitte "Continue..." anklicken.)

Chancellor Schroeder's visit in New York was aimed at a domestic (German) audience. His ratings are down - way below Bush's -, his party's shattered by devastating election losses, his economic reforms are in limbo. The guy's in deep trouble.

What he needs more than anything else to make up for problems at home: success in international affairs. A permanent seat in the UN Security Council would come in handy. Mending fences in US-German affairs would possibly help stop the deterioration of Germany's trade surplus with the US (for strange reasons Germany's large trade surplus with the US started shrinking in spring 2003, right after Schroeders rejection of Bush's Iraq policy: "Honey, I shrank the surplus!"). Still, he has to take care not to offend the left wing, Bush-bashing crowd at home: that's why he stayed close to Chiraq in New York. The French President is symbol for a "multipolar" UN strategy that puts the US in the second row (possibly behind France).

The German elite media almost uniformly reported on Schroeder's meeting with Bush and his UN speech as positive in terms of its steps towards reconciliation with the US. As usual, President Bush was heavily criticized:

Uwe Schmitt, WELT
Schmitt's anti-Bush crusade finds its sequel in his assessment of Bush's speech at the UN. He blames Bush for not doing enough to include the UN in the rebuilding of Iraq. to support his argument, he quotes partisan democrats as prime witnesses for Bush's failures. Democrats such as Tom Daschle and - of all people - Edward Kennedy.

Günter Bannas, FAZ
Bannas does not portray Bush as negatively as Schmitt (WELT), but he too stresses disappointment with Bush:

"...The German delegation reacted with disappointment and with negative comments to Bush's UN speech."

Knut Pries, Frankfurter Rundschau

"... that the foreign troops (in Iraq) are increasingly being considered as occupying forces...".

BTW: it's interesting to note how the media's time estimates for the actual length of the Bush-Schroeder meeting differ:
FAZ (conservative): "thirty minutes"
ZDF (neutral): "30 minutes"
Frankfurter Rundschau (left wing): "more than half an hour"
Sueddeutsche Zeitung (left wing): "almost 40 minutes"
TAZ (left wing): "40 minutes"
SPIEGEL (left wing): "almost 45 minutes"

Translation by Ray Drake

Addendum: While the Bush-Schroeder meeting is treated as the top story in the German media, the Bush schedule on Wednesday, as quoted from a "Senior Administration Official Briefing" on President Bushs bilateral meetings, tells a somewhat different story:

"This morning, the President had a series of meetings. He met with several leaders of the Caribbean. ...

He also had meetings with President Kufour of Ghana. ...

Similarly, with Mozambique, the President had a chance with President Chissano to talk about ...

The President had a meeting with President Musharraf. ...

The President had also a meeting with Prime Minister Vajpayee, a lunch with Prime Minister Vajpayee. ...

And then, finally, the President had a meeting with the German Chancellor, Chancellor Schroeder. ..."

Glad, Bush still remembered Schroeder's name...

The US government's web site doesn't even publish a photo of the Bush-Schroeder meeting (other than the German government's site). Update: Now there's a picture of Bush and Schroeder on the US government's site. Probably the German embassy called...

Mauer oder Zaun? Die FR hat Schwierigkeiten...

Mi Jul 30, 05:43:42 PM
Die Frankfurter Rundschau weiß nicht so recht, ob Israel eine Mauer oder einen Zaun baut: "...der strittige Mauerbau...das Land fressende Zaunprojekt". Was immer es ist: das Ding, Mauer oder Zaun, soll vor palästinensischen Terroristen schützen. Gibt's die überhaupt, die Terroristen? Naja, jedenfalls lernen die Palästinenser den Nachwuchs schon frühzeitig an. Hübsch auch der Patronen-Halsschmuck. Wenn die kids dann größer sind, dürfen sie auch schon mal richtig ran (man beachte die dargestellte Ermordung israelischer Soldaten im Hintergrund).

Wofür Israel eine Mauer oder einen Zaun braucht? Hmmm...liebe Frankfurter Rundschau: wofür wohl?

Übrigens war die FR früher über die DDR-Mauer nie so recht empört...