« Torture in ... Germany | Main | It's The War, Stupid »


What a bunch of losers!

What is going on around here? Is everyone selling out to the Arabs?

I guess I expected so much more of these "leaders".

Geld, Geld, Geld! Sagt sich auch die EU:

"Washington verhängt Sanktionen gegen Syrien
Ausland kompakt
Im Kampf gegen den internationalen Terrorismus haben die USA Wirtschaftssanktionen gegen Syrien verhängt und damit ihren politischen Druck auf das arabische Land verstärkt. US-Präsident George W. Bush ordnete in Washington ein Verbot aller Exporte mit Ausnahme von Lebensmitteln und Medikamenten an und untersagte jeden Flugverkehr mit Syrien. Ungeachtet der US-Sanktionen will eine ranghohe Delegation der Europäischen Union zu Wirtschaftsgesprächen nach Damaskus fliegen, so die Kommission." AP


die eu muss nicht jeden anfall von paranoia der usa miterleiden. wenn die usa sanktionen verhaengen wollen, sollen sie das eben tun. die eu tut ihrerseits das, was sie fuer richtig haelt.

Die EU tut ihrerseits das, was ihnen Geld schafft.

die eu muss nicht jeden anfall von paranoia der usa miterleiden

Der erste Troll heute. Lange geschlafen, spät ins Bett gestern ?

die eu tut ihrerseits das, was sie fuer richtig haelt

RICHTIG ???!! Die EU will "gute Beziehungen" mit einem Land haben, das Terrorismus unterstüzt und ein fremdes Land besetzt(laut UN). Ob das in diesem Fall richtig ist spielt keine Rolle. Das nenne ich moralische Überlegenheit am Werk...

Die EU bastelt an der Zukunft. Syrien, Russland, Saddam etc. Die Zukunft sieht rosa aus, nicht wahr ? Egal mit welchen Kriminälen man herumhängt, wie lange die gegen die USA sind ist alles bestens.

Mit so einer Politik und mit solchen Trolls sieht die Zukunft Europas tasächlich verlockend. Die Frage ist für wen ? AQ vielleicht...

Daily Telegraph wrote:
Some of the most prominent former diplomats who condemned Tony Blair's policies in the Middle East have business links with Arab governments, The Telegraph can reveal.

"Some" means how many exactly? And gee, sounds like a new angle of the topic of the new Michael-Moore-movie, Fahrenheit 911. *yawn*

Does it really play a role for political actions whether some UK-diplomats or some of the Bush-family had business-ties to the Arab world?

How shocking that SPIEGEL, in particular, could have overlooked this. After all, didn't they devote an entire issue to "exposing" control over Iraq's oil as the "true" reason for the Iraq war? Let's see now, divide by 5..., add 24..., account for depreciation of equipment..., round off to four significant figures..., yes, with complete control over the Iraqi oilfields we should be able to pay off the cost of the war to the American taxpayers in a short 2.5 million years. Sounds reasonable to me.

In a more serious vein, once in awhile I consider the effort that David devotes to this blog. Consider, for example, his productivity, just during the last week. As his "reward" for this devotion in Germany he can expect it will be assumed that he has a personal interest in the Afghanistan oil pipeline, that he is an employee of Halliburton, that he is a CIA stooge, and/or that he is simply a dupe of US imperialism who doesn't know any better. The tremendous amount of time and effort David devotes to this blog, and the nature of the "reward" he can expect for all this work reminds me of a comment by Mark Twain. In referring to an endeavor with similarly intangible rewards, he remarked that it's a little like being tarred and feathered and rode out of town on a rail. If it weren't for the "glory" of it, he would rather forego the honor. What can you say? Words like "awesome" come to mind. I'm very grateful for what David has done, and for the difference he has made. I hope none of us ever take him for granted. Perhaps, at the very least, a "tip jar" link at the top of the blog would be in order. Andrew Sullivan, Josh Marshall, Instapundit, and most of the other major bloggers in the U.S. have them. I know I for one would be willing to help out once in awhile.

Note from David: Many thanks for the kind words! Made my day...
As to the tip jar... I actually thought about it, and I might start one sometime in the future (I'm sure Klink will want be the major contributor, for all the hard disk space of my blog he uses). I'm not looking for personal gain, but I might use it to finance some online ads ... perhaps even at SPIEGEL ONLINE!

Klink: Does it really play a role for political actions whether some UK-diplomats or some of the Bush-family had business-ties to the Arab world?

Not in a normal world. This one isn't normal anymore.

It is all about credibility. Those guys allegedly expressed their opinions as "prominent former diplomats". Then, surprise, we find out that in fact "some" of them used their reputation as "prominent former diplomats" to do a job for which they were getting (oil-)money. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Those people speak as lobbyists, not as former diplomats.

Helian: Perhaps, at the very least, a "tip jar" link at the top of the blog would be in order

I agree.

Klink - bringing those contacts to the forefront is part of what's "revolutionizing" news in America.

It's giving context, makes one stop and think. It's like what we're starting to demand of our media here.

It's called spin. People have agendas, we have a right to know which side they lean before they start speaking so we know how much to really take away, sift thru the bull.

Our media has been rife for a few decades now of IDing "conservatives, republicans" labeling that way, but they (still don't) do that very much w/the other side, the other side is presented in different way/light. "A concerned citizen" etc. Joe Schmoe off the street when they're not.

Actually, it just happened w/Kerry's campaign in the past couple of months. A statement was made expressing some "outrage" from a union head(?) but we didn't know that he was also part of the Kerry campaign. Puts a different light on it, doesn't it?

As Jeff Jarvis of Buzzmachine says, IIRC, "news is a conversation."

The dead trees and talking heads either don't get it yet or are fighting it every step of the way. They're losing their power.

Like a lot of those scientists who come out against W's environmental policy and/or global warming. They're not just doing it for science's sake they're also very partisan. These guys are trying to make policy and I have a right to know if they're funding organizations and what the orgs are and do.

See Theresa Heinz Ketchupkerry and The Tides Foundation. Carnegie/Mellon, Rockefeller, orgs like these have a leftwing agenda, just like Pew and I have a right to know their beliefs when they're quoted as authorities.

Same on the conservative side.

This is the unconscious bias that the right has been fighting for decades and the alternative mediums of talk radio and cable have made a change. That's why all the screaming.

Look at FoxNews. Look at their weekly and quarterly numbers. They're given a lot more weight/blame/disparagement than they should according to the # of watchers. The first season of the Osbournes had more viewers 6 million. Heck, Ozzie might have more viewers now. FN barely averages a million viewers a day, IIRC. Yet look at the "power" that is ascribed (?) to them. Lots of power for little domestic viewers. Last year during the war they topped 5 million.

300m people in this country, they pull in we'll say 1 million average. That would sound the death knell not only on free tv, but on some cable stations as well here.

Basic free TV ABC/NBC/CBS - the "big three" which is what I grew up watching because they were the only thing on, pulls in 20-25 mill a night for 1/2 hour news shows/segments.

So when you hear someone yapping about FoxNews, it's because they know the jig is up. When you had the former head of the BBC, which gets 110 million world-wide radio listeners trashing FoxNews during his award acceptance speech, think why, why such a little cable station causes them apoplexy.


And Rush and Hannity have that many listeners each day. I think you are way to high on the viewers that ABC, NBC, and CBS have. I stopped watching them a long time ago. Their liberal spin and moralization was just too much for me to take. More and more Americans are tuning them out and turing them off because they are getting tired about hearing how bad we are as a people or how bad our nation is when they can see with their own eyes this is not true. It is not true for them as individuals, it is not true in their lives, it is not true in their communties, it is not true in their states. So why do these elites think it is true for the country.

So the sooner their progranda efforts end the better servered America will be. If we want to hear that we have NPR and PBS and of course the BBC.


Hell you even got Ralf the other day to listen to Rush. He will not even show up in the count.


The battle of ideas to change minds and lives continue.

Klink - bringing those contacts to the forefront is part of what's "revolutionizing" news in America.

This new "contact-exposing-frenzy" seems to be IMO an evenly split game in the end: Both political sides look to have their worldview confirmed and only dig in one biased direction. And as leading figures on both sides are entangled in business- or shady political dealings, both sides find enough "evidence".

In the end, neither gains. It seems only to harden the resolve on both sides - "but why aren't you looking at this!". Halliburton, Bin-Laden family/Bush vs. Food-for-oil and Daily Telegraph. Everybody gets to play.


"Does it really play a role for political actions whether some UK-diplomats or some of the Bush-family had business-ties to the Arab world?"

You're pretty good with Google, Klink. Why don't you do a quick check in the world media on how much attention has been devoted to the Bush family business ties to the Arab world compared to the story about the "disinterested" UK diplomats? Then try to tell us with a straight face that it's an "evenly split game."

In view of the British diplomat development, I must reiterate how happy I was to read (in a previous debate) how "curious minds like [Klink] would ask: What corporations want to place ads on [Rush Limbaugh's] show and thus indirectly get in bed with him? Like ole Deep Throat: "Follow the money". ;-) "

This is the cynicism that snickers at the true reasons Bush and Cheney (and Haliburton) really started the war in Iraq, and who laughs at all those who defend them, because they are naïve minds playing right into the hands of those greedy oil-hungry beings.

Of course, I would be more impressed with your cynicism, Klink, if you had a mind to apply it consistently everywhere. Say, with the British diplomats. Because it simply does not come across as very objective to hear the Europeans babble on about how scandalously monstrous the Americans are (or their leadership is) and how wonderfully peace-loving this new generation of wise Europeans is (and how this must be true because wise American friends of the afore-mentioned Europeans agree with this); And then... — when a negative bit of news hits them (or seems to hit them), suddenly turn philosophical and wax on about how everybody is the same and how how they're all to be equally distrusted...

But I'm not only speaking of the British diplomats. No, they're peanuts, relatively speaking. Let's go to the top players: how about the "peace camp" whose members, it turns out, are apparently not as humanistic as they like to present themselves...

Because, speaking of greed for oil… You wrote "In the end, neither gains." If Claudia Rosett is to be believed, that is not entirely true; the countries that were the most energetic in protesting Saddam's ouster were Iraq's biggest contractors — with the more contracts they had, the more vocal they were in protesting his unfair treatment. As for the UN (you know, that place which, we are regularly reminded, aspires to be humanity's common problem-solver and could become so if only those silly Amis would be less arrogant and could be made to understand…), it turns out that its food-for-oil program became a gala of graft, theft, fraud, palace-building, and global influence-peddling.

But we haven't read much about that in the European press, have we? Good thing that the fight against that monstrous Bush camp is so important that we won't devote too much ink or air-time to those subjects, will we? (Good, especially for Europe's ruling élite — the business leaders as well as the political leaders — whose populations are busy shaking their heads at Bush and losing sleep at night because of the manner in which he has destroyed peace/common confidence/the process that would allow the UN to work, and of the ways to get him out at any cost, rather than ask a couple of pointed questions to their own leadership. Not to speak of their own media! But… heaven forbid this being described as Europe's ruling élite playing to their audience in "a quite nauseating cheap populistic manner"! Heaven forbid that Europe's citizens could be called as naïve as America's!)

As for this:

The problem now with a number of the populists on the right-wing radio-circuit is … not only horrible comments like the above on abused prisoners, but others in similar insensitive tone. Slurs against entire nations. Against gay marriage. Against people who broke the law, became homeless, took drugs. You name it.

Okay, I'll name a couple. How about this one for slurs against entire nations: "Their leaders are retarded, stupid, treacherous, war-mongering, oil-hungry, and as for the country's people (whom we otherwise love and apart from those individuals who are more advanced [i.e., who agree with us]), they are, if not desensitized zombies, too stupid (well, not as intelligent as us reasonable and peace-loving Europeans) to understand this."

I could go on with slurs against capitalism, Washington's allies, and even war, which I mention because there are quite a few of us that think that, given the circumstances, it was not unreasonable to have opened hostilities against a man such as Saddam Hussein. This is what happened, natürlich, and since then, the war and its protagonists (military as well as otherwise) have been slurred relentlessly in Europe's mainstream press, as have the benefits of no longer having that man in power and no longer having one's citizens tortured and killed at a rate of thousands every month. (Oh, and by torture, I mean having one's bones broken, one's face disfigured, one's hands cut off, the flesh of one's arms cut out to be force-fed to one's spouse, etc…)

Political incorrectness can be great and necessary, but has its boundaries.

Amen, brother… A—men.

(Wondering when the European press will get to understanding what boundaries mean — see UN and peace camp above.)

It's much easier to make (counter-)attacks with large, generalized statements — such as "Americans are arrogant" or "Bush is greedy" (or "we have all an equally partisan view") while "we are nice and peace-loving", rather than ask a specific question, say, "May the American superpower have been right to have invaded Iraq in April 2003 to bring down Saddam Hussein", isn't it?

I say that, because I notice there are many in Europe who attack others with these generalized statements, but without bothering to sum up much evidence (those facts some people like to make fun of or make obscure philosophical statements about to obscure a subject one doesn't like very much).

P.S. In my case, I have attempted to do sum up some evidence for my views (at least, I like to think I have). If you want to read more about my "awfully differentiated view", turn to Le Monde Watch (mostly in French), which attempts to be to France's newspaper of reference what David's blog is to Germany's media...

Gee this is old news. The only news was about the links of UK diplomats.

All the business links were reported here long ago. People realize that people other than democrats have real lives other than sucking at the tit of the government and have to make a living doing something.

The difference is most Amricans view this with an open mind. Some democrats and some republicans will belive or not believe anything that does not fit their view but they are more the expection.

The other thing that makes a huge difference is that American people are not envious of those who have money. Americans are much more in the mode of improving their own position.

Seems British diplomats aren't the only ones exploiting anti-Americanism for fun and profit. Steven Den Beste over at U.S.S. Clueless informs us that German director Wolfgang Petersen is drawing parallels between Iraq and the Trojan War to plug his new film. According to Petersen, he "couldn't believe" that the U.S. ogres would launch an underhanded attack on peaceful model world citizen Saddam Hussein. (Such ignorance! He evidently hasn't read SPIEGEL for the last ten years.) As Steven points out, if the historical analogies hold true, Petersen is in for some more nasty surprises. After all, the Greeks won the Trojan War. Homer must just have just forgotten to mention their massive programs to rebuild Troy afterwards. For that matter, did he mention anything about Aeneas being captured in a spider hole? Check out the whole article.

... view of the British diplomat development, I must reiterate how happy I was to read (in a previous debate) how "curious minds like [Klink] would ask: What corporations want to place ads on [Rush Limbaugh's] show and thus indirectly get in bed with him? Like ole Deep Throat: "Follow the money". ;-) "

(You posted a false link - it was somewhere else, but from me indeed)

AFAIK I said it in response to someone asking whether Limbaugh shouldn't be allowed in Germany - and I responded that I am a strong first amendment defender and would use other means - like pressuring financial ties - to go against someone saying - from my view - wrong things, instead of the German way of calling for Verbote or anything close.

Of course, I would be more impressed with your cynicism, Klink, if you had a mind to apply it consistently everywhere. Say, with the British diplomats.

I was cynical to both sides - I think all this finance-tracing is rather irrelevant in the end, be it Halliburton or British diplomats. Iraq should be strictly looked on as a strategic issue and Bush failed for several reasons as a weak leader there in the run-up to the war and in the process.

Okay, I'll name a couple. How about this one for slurs against entire nations: "Their leaders are retarded,

Erik, your sessions at Americans Anonymous don't seem to be working, you still sound like a hurt whiner against Europe, not like a confident American who has become immune at generalizing slurs. SCNR.

I meant domestic issues of populism in some right-wing shows - gay-rights, pro-choice, etc. and why those would be more difficult to sell in Germany.

What you describe now is another issue and sadly everywhere in some parts. Hardly any Germany-thread on Free Republic without someone saying "Germans never change, always Nazis" (*yawn* - though as a German, I do cringe as well). Or just read "Pato" on here - his often humerous slamming of "flea-brained European leaders". Are you upset about these generalizations as well?

Listen, Erik, you are a good writer and deserve a better reply to your more intellectual generalization about Europa, but I am a bit short on time now (my GF calls). So here's a short hint: Most Germans do not like Schroeder's Government and actually think of him as well being a cheap populist. It's not like (just because most of us think that Bush is the wrong man as Western leader) that we all rally now behind Schröder.

And when you call on double-standards, lemme recall one cliche-image I indeed see as relevant: Rummie shaking hands with Saddam, e.g. meaning how the entire Western world (including Germany!) gladly got in bed with Saddam for decades as long as he "only" threatened our enemies. So please no morality lectures - it is about strategic issues in Iraq, nothing else. (Or else, Rummie would have long deployed US-troops into Sudan as well) And there are pro's and con's on this.

Steven Den Beste over at U.S.S. Clueless informs us that German director Wolfgang Petersen is drawing parallels between Iraq and the Trojan War to plug his new film.

Interesting. How about German director's Roland Emmerich's Day After Tomorrow? German media at least always pushed it as "Bush-critical"?

Damn, too many Krauts in Hollywood these days, uh? Make sure you all watch it - support a German, folks! SCNR. ;-)

More obfuscation from Klink referring to Halliburton. Halliburton has nothing at all to do with the actions of the British diplomats.

Bush is and was looking at Iraq from a strategic position. That is why we are engaged. Since Germany is not engaged then it says one of two things. Germany has no strategic vision or Germany thinks Iraq is of no strategic value. Of course, no one from the German government has bothered to address either of those issues.

The failure of Germany and france not to agree with the decision or the actions of the US means they have chosen another path.

Germany was the one who first made the decision not to support the US. Or does that not seem to matter.

I fully realize that leadership in Germany is at best weak. I also realize that your champion, your beloved leader told the people of Germany they would not support a war in Iraq. He said they would not do this even with a UN resolution.

None of this is Bush’s fault. It is not American’ s fault. It is not the fault of the American people that Germany chooses france over the US. Germany has made it clear that her self-interest lie with the french and not with America.

So you can throw out all the falsehood you choose but while they probably do represent the vast majority of the German people. That and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee in most places outside of New York City.

BTW most Americans do not live in NYC or even WDC and they do not read the NYT or the WP.


The US took I hope its last sucker feel good do-good mission when it went to Somali with the UN. That cost America 18 of it best young men. That figure exceeds the losses that Germany has sustained so far since the war on terror began.

Somali and I would also include the Balkans are of no strategic value to the US. Given the commitments of the US military such missions will have to be done by others.

What is interesting is how those who so strongly opposed the US acting in what it considered to be its own vital national interest were the first in line demanding and pleading for the US to intervene in Liberia. If this was so important why did not Germany or france step forward and assume this mission?

As for pragmatic strategic alliances with Saddam they severed a useful purpose at a point in time. For a time alliances with france and Germany equally severed a useful purpose. The alliance with Saddam ended in 1990. It is now 2004. It is time for the US to once again review her alliances to determine if they are worth the investment and serve a useful purpose.


I enjoy the posts made by Klink. I think unfortunately they represent a large segment of the German population and their attitudes.

Having said that Klink is a master of changing the subject, adding things to his comments that have nothing to do with the topic. He loves to confuse and obfusate issues. He really does not like to give direct answers to direct questions. He would rather run you around in a circle and hope you tire of the silliness. Most Americans do and leave posting here after about 2 weeks of this.

He like some here in the US has so much hatred of Bush and what he stands for that he will not see any other position that does not fit that view.

I hate this because I find him to be interesting, very well educated and very smart.

I also find him to have skin as tuff as steel. I like that too about him

Klink, what corps place ads on Rush?

Select comfort matresses, Viagra, buy gold, listen and you'll find out.

Drop H - it's gotten no-bid contracts since WWII, IIRC. Got contracts for Kosovo, did you complain then?

Besides, if you're complaining about H, you're not looking at the big picture. You fail to see the priority. Tell me, how long do you think the bidding process would have taken and what were the Iraqis and our soldiers supposed to do in the meantime? what is the priority in Iraq? Besides, you don't hire Coke and Mickey D's to repair oil wells. It's like those Euros I was in conversation with complaining that Boeing, etc. would get contracts to build the spaceship to Mars. What, would you prefer they hire gaming industry corps to build it?

And unlike Cheney, you, too, can become a corporate oppressor. Go buy some stock and benefit from its' gouging.

--I think all this finance-tracing is rather irrelevant in the end,-- No, it's not, it's education.

--I meant domestic issues of populism in some right-wing shows - gay-rights, pro-choice, etc. and why those would be more difficult to sell in Germany.----

You don't have the beat of the American pulse, Klink. Gay rights is coming w/in about 2 decades if not sooner.

The country as a whole is pro-life, has been for the past 30 years. Basically, we don't like it, we're not going to tell them what to do, but we're also not paying for it. Country will tolerate 1st 3 months, after that no. Technology has changed the discussion. When you have the spawn of the Berserkeleys - Berkeleyites (U of California) probably the most tolerant section of the country socially against it, pay attention. The kids don't like it and don't want it. Plus more hispanics there and they're socially conservative. You're not looking at the demographics of this country.

Joe, add up the numbers when the ratings come out. Minimum 20 a night.

And it seems it's not just the UN, via the Blogfather:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Corrupt use of World Bank funds may exceed $100 billion and while the institution has moved to combat the problem, more must be done, the chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee said on Thursday.

Sen. Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, charged that "in its starkest terms, corruption has cost the lives of uncounted individuals contending with poverty and disease." . . .

Jeffrey Winters, an associate professor at Northwestern University, said his research suggested corruption wasted about $100 billion of World Bank funds, and when other multilateral development banks are included, the total rises to about $200 billion.


We're talking some serious money here, folks. It's got to stop. We've got to stop allowing our countries to do business this way.



"Interesting. How about German director's Roland Emmerich's Day After Tomorrow? German media at least always pushed it as "Bush-critical"?"

Yes, It's been on the nightly news here several times, with environmentalists expressing bewilderment that we didn't accept Kyoto, which would have cost us 50,000 jobs, while the Europeans, in return, would do nothing except, perhaps, laugh a lot on the sidelines. So far there's been no mention of the brilliant plan of Germany's Green's to slash greenhouse gases and end the exposure of children to particulate emissions by shutting down all the nuclear power plants. Clever fellows, those German directors. Free publicity means money at the box office. Just ask Mel Gibson.

Erik -
great work on the blogs. I have an offer to make: find someone who deserves a rubber chicken and I'll mail it to them with any message you wish. Maybe something like "You moral pygmy" to one of the editors of Le Monde or something...

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

June 2022

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