Modest SPIEGEL: "Bush Forgives the Chancellor"

After weeks - make that: years - of relentless Bush-bashing the left wing German weekly SPIEGEL suddenly changes course. Ahead of Chancellor Schroeder's meeting with US President Bush this Wednesday the SPIEGEL is almost thankful: "Bush forgives the Chancellor".

Here is what Bush actually said in the Fox News interview:

HUME: And France seems perhaps amenable. What has happened with the Germans? Have you been in touch with Schroeder? What's going on there?

BUSH: I haven't had a chance to visit with him yet. I will. And I think it's Wednesday -- either Tuesday or Wednesday of this next week.
I just look forward to talking to him. I think that the idea of -- he needs to answer this question better than me, but I think he got into an election and the German people are essentially pacifists because of their -- many still remember the experience of World War II. And they may not have seen Saddam Hussein as evil a person as a lot of other people have.
But having said that -- and he made the choice not to commit troops -- they are willing to help train police in Iraq, for example. They are taking an active role in Afghanistan. And I appreciate that support.

Doesn't really sound like "forgiving"... You just wonder about the SPIEGEL's new, modest reporting style.

And the daily newspaper "Sueddeutsche Zeitung", also no stranger to Bush-bashing, strikes a reconciliatory tone. Of course, the "Sueddeutsche Zeitung" has still some poison left ... but it's no comparison to the usual "Idiot Bush doesn't get it"-litany.

What's the reason for the "fence mending"? Well, the "Sueddeutsche Zeitung" gives it away: Germany wants to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. "Hey Bush buddy, we sure could use some help..." (Translation by Ray D.)

Commentary from Ray D.:

Did Bush Really Forgive Schroeder?

Following the Bush interview with Brit Hume of Fox News, the big headline in Germany is "Bush forgives Schroeder."  In fact, Bush made absolutely no mention of "forgiving" Schroeder for his opposition to the Iraq War anywhere in the entire interview. His exact words were:

"He (Schroeder) needs to answer this question (as to why he opposed the Iraq War) better than me, but I think he got into an election and the German people are essentially pacifists because of their -- many still remember the experience of World War II. And they may not have seen Saddam Hussein as evil a person as a lot of other people have.

But having said that -- and he made the choice not to commit troops -- they are willing to help train police in Iraq, for example. They are taking an active role in Afghanistan. And I appreciate that support."

At best, Bush expressed his appreciation for Germany's support and offers of support, but again, the word "forgive" is nowhere to be found.

You may be thinking, ok, what's the big deal, maybe the German media's translator had a few too many beers at the Oktoberfest and the whole thing is just a big misunderstanding.  I wish it was that simple, but I see this bogus interpretation of Bush's comments in the German headlines as a further cynical attempt to stoke anti-Bush sentiment in Germany.  Here's why:         

It is critically important to remember that the majority of the German people are still firmly convinced that they were right to oppose what they still see as an unjustified, illegal war of aggression against Iraq.  Many Germans also despise President Bush with a passion, especially because the US President has been systematically and unrelentingly demonized and attacked by Germany's left-wing media for years on end.  So when your average German reads the headline "Bush forgives Schroeder" he or she is probably thinking, "How dare Bush forgive Schroeder when he is the one who should be down on his knees apologizing for his illegal adventure in Iraq and begging us for forgiveness?  Our Chancellor (incompetent though he may be domestically) has nothing to apologize for with regard to Iraq!  After all we were right to oppose the war all along!" 

In fact, the erroneous use of the headline "Bush forgives Schroeder" turns what was, in fact, a very diplomatic statement by Bush into a humiliating attack on the dignity of Schroeder and the majority of the German people. Remember, in the German culture authority and being right are very important, so the idea of someone condescendingly "forgiving" Germany's leader must be incredibly insulting. 

I am sure that this "mistake" on the part of the media was not unintentional or the result of the translator having spent too much time at the Oktoberfest.  Indeed, it was a very skillful and deceptive means of further increasing German anger and dissatisfaction with President Bush and the United States.

Comments

[Terry Sutton]

I have come to believe that editorializing by the press is responsible for most of the misunderstandings between nations. It has always been my understanding that Bush held no animous toward Schroeder about Iraq - That Schroeder had made his position clear from the start. If any animous was is present in the American body politic, it is due to the anti-American campaigning by German politicians.

Those in the press who concoct dubious headlines do a disservice to all.

[John]

..."the German people are essentially pacifists" (finally Bush is caught in a lie). WWI, WWII, Treblinka, Bergen Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau.... . Yep when I think of "pacifists", the first people that come to my mind is Germans.

[SlimyBill]

he he he

[Eric]

"It has always been my understanding that Bush held no animous toward Schroeder about Iraq - That Schroeder had made his position clear from the start."

Actually, I don't think there's been any real, sustained animosity towards the Germans over here (in America). Yes, there was some discontent especially around the last German election (nobody likes to see their country consistently attacked by another nation's press), but overall there doesn't seem to be any lasting dislike for Germany, at least that I'm aware of. France on the other hand is still rather heavily disliked. I think the difference is that Germany has presented itself (or been presented) as taking a principled stand due to some pacifistic tendencies, while every day seems to bring more reports of the French essentially conspiring directly with the Iraqi regime. I don't mean to imply that all of France did or supported that, or that Germany (or even the US) was completely clean, but the perception of France is definitely more sinister and less honest.

"WWI, WWII, Treblinka, Bergen Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau.... . Yep when I think of "pacifists", the first people that come to my mind is Germans."
None of those happened more recently than 50 years ago. While I (and many other Americans) remain concerned about anti-semitic and anti-american tendencies in much of the EU, virtually nobody worries about Germany starting (or even getting involved in) another war. I do think that the Germans tend towards pacifism at this point; you can see similar attitudes towards aggression in the Japanese people. WW2 was deeply traumatic for both nations, and both their defeat and the American occupations seem to have had pretty profound effects on their view of war. (This is one of the things that leaves me hopeful about Iraq, if the US doesn't pull out too soon.) Blaming the current generation of Germans for WW2 is as nonsensical as blaming the current generation of Americans for slavery in the 1800's, and blaming them for WW1 even moreso.

Whether that pacifism would stand up to another collapse like the Depression of the 20's and 30's is an open question which hopefully won't need answering any time soon.

[ruprecht]

Germany wanting a seat on the Security Council goes against years of EU integration. If Europe is united they should have one permenant seat on the Security Council (that counts for the UK as well if they take the plunge) and potentially one seat in the General Assembly (after all the 50 US states do not each get a seat).

I don't think the Europeans have truly debated all of the issues involved in unification and its time they started.

[TN]

"WWI, WWII, Treblinka, Bergen Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau.... . Yep when I think of "pacifists", the first people that come to my mind is Germans."

Bush was obviously referring to recent history and not something that lies 50 years away.

Incidentally your argument is one that so often is (mis)used by your typical German "moralists" -- that "Gerade wir Deutschen..." ("especially us Germans") should forever stay clear of any conflict because of our atrocious history.

Besides the fact that "Gerade wir Deutschen.." does once again elevate us above other nations and gives us a fuzzy feeling of moral superiority, it means, as a consequence, that one of the leading Western nations (and democracies) would forever deny responsibility for the (diminishing but still enourmous) welfare and peace it is living in.

[Mitch]

As for separate SC seats for EU states is concerned, even the USSR didn't get them, although they did get them in the General Assembly. India would be a better choice. Honestly, though, the UN is on a trajectory to be about as important to world affairs as our high school student council. Adding another EU state to the SC would make the UN appear to be even more of a creature of the EU and its third world allies, as the machinations leading up to and following the Iraq war made clear. The UN exhibits the contradictory moral framework of a preacher skimming from the collection plate. Example: sanctions were a hideous evil before the war, but let's not be too hasty lifting them after Saddam does a Dixie. Right.

[the germans]

" Stop it -Stop it, Mr. Burns..... Stop mocking us"

With apologies to the brilliant writing staff at "The Simpsons"

[Wedge]

At Sideshow Bob's parole hearing:

"Noone who speaks German could be an evil man."

[Warmongering Lunatic]

Why, the solution is obvious. Expand the permenent membership of the Security Council to seven members -- America, Britain, China, Germany, India, Japan, and Russia.

What? No, I didn't forget France.