« Sueddeutsche Zeitung's Anti-American Propaganda Quickly and Brutally Exposed | Main | Sour Grapes at ZDF »


I am counting down the days until November 2. Not just because I want Bush to win. I cannot wait to see the reaction of the Europeans when their boy Kerry loses in a landslide!

I might have to offline for a couple of weeks just to save my hands.

And it will happen when they're either asleep or just waking up.

W does pull it off, will certain parts of "the world" ask yourselves why we hate you?

Maybe look to root causes?

Oh my those two words again......


Der 2. November geht in die Geschichte ein als der Tag des Großen Europäischen Hohngelächters: gewinnt Bush, dann gilt der Hohn dem Wahlvolk, das zweimal auf diesen Trottel reingefallen ist. Gewinnt Kerry, gilt der Hohn dem jetzigen Präsidenten, für die "Leistungen" der vergangenen Amtszeit. Steht am Ende des 2. Novembers der Wahlsieger nicht fest, sondern aufgrund von "Ungereimtheiten" erst drei Wochen später (wenn sich der Oberste Gerichtshof eingeschaltet hat), dann werden wir uns kaum halten vor Lachen! Ich freu mich schon!

Medienkritik must have this wrong. Didn't SPON report just yesterday that the Swiftboat Vets were another "disaster" for Bush!? Hmmm, guess it is kind of a coincidence that more than 250 of the Swiftboat veterans in Kerry's "band of brothers," including his entire chain of command, turned out to be "Republican goons and stooges," isn't it. This whole episode is a great case study on the slant of the US media condensed into two weeks. The mainstream media never mentioned the fact that Kerry now admits lying about being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968, until the information was smoked out by the bloggers and talk radio. They are incapable of even mentioning the Swiftboat Vets for Truth without automatically adding a blurb about their flimsy connections to the Republican party, but never add such qualifiers to comments about Democratic organization like Moveon.org, even though their ties to the Democratic party are much closer, as amply documented in the blogosphere. Similarly, they can't mention any of the Swiftboat vets criticism of Kerry's service record without adding that the claims are refuted by "documentary evidence." It turns out that this "documentary evidence" is Kerry's bronze star medal citation. Such "documents" are notorious for their flowery hyperbole and "embellishment" of the truth, particularly in the case of officers. Yours truly received one for his service in Vietnam, spent mainly on the tennis courts, full of heroic accounts of flying lead, hordes of enemies, etc. They were known as officer "good conduct medals." In this case the absurdity is compounded by the fact that Kerry probably wrote the after action report on which the medal citation is based. Of course, in the great tradition of the emperor's new clothes, none of the worthy old media editors seems to notice the palpable absurdity of claiming that so many veterans who served with Kerry, and who have nothing to gain from coming forward but smears and abuse from Kerry's organization, can simply be dismissed as a Republican "front group." Check out the opeds and opinion columns in the Washington Post over the last couple of weeks, for example. First they ran an oped, written in the usual tone of insulted virtue, about the "smears" and "lies" of the Swiftboat vets. Kerry's Cambodia whopper had already been admitted by his campaign for several days, and was well known to habitues of the blogosphere, but was completely ignored. Several days later, backpeddling furiously because of the howls of laughter from a public whose only source of reliable news is no longer the mainstream media gatekeepers, and a noticeably tarnished credibility, the Post came out with a much more moderate oped, and an opinion piece about the Cambodia lie. To date they continue to studiously ignore the real issue that bothers the Swiftboat and other Vietnam veterans; Kerry's lying claims that we were all butchers, rapists, and babykillers while many of us, including myself, were still over there, and his treasonous contacts with the North Vietnamese, probably at a time when he was still in the reserves. No one knows for sure, because he won't fully disclose his military records. Of course, no one in the mainstream media is pressuring him to do so, or shows any interest in the matter whatsoever, in stark contrast to the witch hunt surrounding Bush's "lost months" in the Air National Guard. The great thing about the whole affair is its demonstration of the exponential growth in the power of the blogosphere to inform. Someone likened it to Gutenberg's development of printing. When the Bible became affordable to laymen, they no longer had to depend on priestly "gatekeepers" to interpret the holy writ. Now we no longer have to rely on the media "gatekeepers" to filter the news. Long live the blogosphere!

Abgesehen davon, daß die Deutschen wohl die letzten wären, die das Recht hätten, sich darüber lustig zu machen, wenn jemand in den Wahlen zweimal auf einen "Trottel" hereinfällt (und ein drittes Mal ist ja durchaus noch denkbar): Mein Hohngelächter gilt schon heute Ihnen.

Denn Ihre Äußerung zeigt genau das, worum es in diesem Blog geht: Es gibt einen ausgeprägten Anti-Amerikanismus in diesem Land. Viele, die diesen vertreten, sind erstaunlich un- und / oder desinformiert, ohne dies zu wissen oder wahr haben zu wollen. Und statt einer Nabelschau - eben z. B. der Frage, ob man es nicht vielleicht selbst war, der einen "Trottel" gewählt (und wiedergewählt) hat, der eine grottenschlechte Regierungsbilanz vorzuweisen hat, nutzt man seine eigene Unkenntnis und angeborene Selbstüberhebung, um eine vermeintliche Distel in Nachbars Vorgarten zu bemängeln, während der eigene Vorgarten längst mit Brennesseln zugewuchert ist.

Wer wurde wieder gewaehlt?


Ha,ha, ich lache heute noch, Thomas


and if any of you speaks any English,

here is a better reaction to this:
< a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/25/233623/668">Troll and out

@ PeWi

Hmm. "Daily Kos" - ist das nicht der Blog, der die Ermordung und Verstümmelung von vier Amerikanern in Fallujah gefeiert hat ("Screw them")?

Ist es nicht zutreffend, daß die LA-Times-Umfrage eine Veränderung von fünf Prozent bedeutet? Daß Bush bei der LA Times in diesem Jahr noch nie geführt hat? Ist es nicht zutreffend, daß die LA-Times-Umfragen in der Regel registrierte Anhänger der Demokraten stets eher über- als unterrepräsentieren? Und daß Bush nun in allen aktuellen Umfragen wieder zumindest gleichauf liegt, und das noch VOR der convention der Republikaner? (Übrigens auch in der Durchschnittsberechnung von Real Clear Politics, hier liegt "Daily Kos" somit falsch.)

Ist es nicht zutreffend, daß die angesprochenen Zogby-Umfragen in den battleground states fast durchgängig innerhalb der Fehlermarge liegen, worauf Zogby ausdrücklich hinweist und Zogby Interactive ferner sowieso mit Vorsicht zu genießen ist, da die Erhebungsmethoden strengen Ansprüchen nicht genügen?

Und ist es, zu guter Letzt, und darum geht es ja eigentlich, nicht zutreffend, daß die aktuellen Umfragen, die natürlich nur eine Momentaufnahme sind, diametral dem widersprechen, was Gerhard Spörl von Spiegel Online noch am Montag behauptet hat - nämlich daß die "Swifties"-Debatte für Bush ein "Desaster" sei? Zeigt dies nicht die Inkompetenz eines deutschen Amerika-Korrespondenten, wenn er die Tendenz der öffentlichen Meinung so falsch einschätzt?

Do they really think that their readers are THAT stupid? That a poll could jump up and down like that? 50 to 25 to 50 means that half of Bush respondants would have suddenly abandoned him, and then immediately signed up again after another week.

I'm zorry - I em not confintzrt...

Kerry got no "bounce" in the polls after the Democrats' Convention. Some in the mainstream media believe their overwhelming one-sided support for Kerry gives him about a 15 point "bounce" right now. I think the media will turn on Kerry in October [because, they don't want to look like fools in November] and that bounce is not only 15 points less for Kerry, it also must be counted as a 15 point plus for Bush. That makes my guess that Bush will win this with 2/3 of the vote. I can't see anything but a Bush landslide.

Vietnam veterans like me will vote against Kerry in huge numbers and we will take everyone who remembers how we were treated because of Kerry with us. Kerry can't have it both ways. The Democrats know this - they had no one good to run for office. They're waiting till 2008 to nominate the witch, Hillary Clinton.

--That makes my guess that Bush will win this with 2/3 of the vote. I can't see anything but a Bush landslide.--

Not that high, 53%+++, but no way 60%. It's now his to lose, and we blew Najaf.

Yup. I just wrote a long, polite letter to one of the columnists on the Washington Post about his opinion that the Swift Boat memoirs mark the arrival of 'dirty politics'.

I pointed out that 'dirty politics' began this spring with the attempt to lable Bush as AWOL from his duties as a National Guardsman. Something which the national news organizations pushed endlessly despite it being completely obvious that the problem was lously record-keeping and record preservation by the National Guard itself. Something which was later proven (though never readily admitted) by the production of the results of dental work done while Bush was on-base, and a few other things as well.

I pointed out that one reason I cannot trust the US news media is things like this. Bush has been taking it in the groin for months but as far as the Post is concerned there was no problem with that. Now the Swift Boats people start giving some pain and he squeeks like Peewee Herman caught in a X-rated movie house. So they try to get Bush to supress the Swift Boat group while doing nothing about the Kerry proxies. Perhaps only Democrats have freedom of speech?

Why is there all this confusion here between being anti-American and anti-Bush. If these were the same then a at least a large plurality of Americans would themselves be, er, anti-American. Give it a rest already.
As to Kos celebrating the deaths of American soldiers, I see that no link was provided, and neither was the fact that he himself is a veteran of the Gulf War I. For being so indignant about ostensible looseness of facts on the part of your opponents, you sure don't seem to be able to muster too many of you own. But that has been made more than clear in the recent SWBFT nonsense.
Oh and Helian, why don't you listen to O'Neill's own words to Nixon from the tapes that just keep giving:

O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.

NIXON: In a swift boat?

O'NEILL: Yes, sir.

But wait a second, didn't he just get finished saying the following on ABC's This Week on Sunday?:

JOHN O'NEILL: The whole country's watching him avoid the question. You asked about Cambodia. How do I know he's not in Cambodia? I was on the same river, George. I was there two months after him. Our patrol area ran to Sedek, it was 50 miles from Cambodia. There isn't any watery border. The Mekong River's like the Mississippi. There were gunboats stationed right up there to stop people from coming. And our boats didn't go north of, only slightly north of Sedek. So it was a made up story. He's told it over 50 times, George, that was on the floor of the Senate. He wrote articles about it, it was a malicious story because it painted all the guys above him, all of the commanding officers, in effect, as war criminals, that had ordered him into a neutral country, it was a lie.

You all need to get your story straight before complaing about how the news media isn't giving you a fair shake.

Has Spiegel bothered to mention that the Reblicans haven't yet had their convention? I mean to have put in all that effort so far and the election really hasn't started yet.

@ Schnitzengruben

1) "Daily Kos" and "Screw them!"
It would be easy for you to google this yourself as there are hundreds of articles about that on countless blogs, but since you asked for a link, well, here is a link:

"Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.

That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."

2) O'Neill: I don't know what to make of the Swifties and I'm not that much into that story (I'm not that much anti-Kerry anyway - although I'd prefer President Bush - I'm just a decidedly pro-American German who is mad at our media and our government's foreign policy).

What I do know is that Kerry has yet to come up with an explanation about the "Christmas in Cambodia" story, regardless of whether O'Neill himself has been in Cambodia or not. It's not O'Neill who wants to get elected as president, it's Kerry.

Btw, O'Neill has this explanation (I don't know if it fully convinces me, but it does a lot more so than anything Kerry has brought up against the Cambodia-related allegations against him):

"Dayton, Ohio: Mr. O'Neill, I recently heard a portion of the White House audio tape of your meeting with President Nixon. I heard you tell President Nixon that you had gone to Cambodia on your swift boat.

I also heard you tell a reporter recently(on tape) that you had never been in Cambodia.

Did you lie to President Nixon or did you lie to the reporter?

Have you ever been in Cambodia, and if so, when did you go and did you go more than once?

If you have never been in Cambodia, how close did you ever get to the Cambodian border (in feet or miles)?

John E. O'Neill: I lied to no one. You quote the first half of the statement but ignore the following sentence. I clearly said that I was on the Cambodian border. I was on a canal system known as Bernique's Creek located about 100 yards south of the Cambodian border from which it would have been very difficult to get into Cambodia at least from a boat.

I never went to Cambodia. Unlike the Kerry story you are defensive about I don't believe I can ever fairly be interpreted as saying anything different. John Kerry on many different occasions said that the turning point of his life was being in Cambodia illegally for Christmas Eve and Christmas in 1968. This was in a different area than I was in and close approach to Cambodia was not possible for him in that area. In fact he was more than 50 miles away. How many people invent the turning point of their life and repeat it on the senate floor, in articles and more than 50 times in 35 years?"


3) anti-Bush / anti-America: First of all, the majority of Americans is certainly NOT anti-Bush if the polls are to be trusted. True, his job approval ratings have been way below 50 % at some times (they are no longer), but his likability ratings have always been higher. And if you only look at the "disapprove strongly" category, which is, I think, the only one that can really be called "anti-Bush", this has seldom, if ever, been above 40 percent, neither a majority nor a plurality of Americans.

As regards Europe / Germany: I guess you live in the US, so let me assure you as a German who experiences this 24/7 that a lot of important German media outlets do have an anti-American (not just an anti-Bush) bias. This is not primarily about Mr. Bush.

I say this as a person who supported Presidents Bush sr., Clinton and Bush jr. (I was too young for the others) and will support the next president regardless of who it will be. There is a rising tide of anti-Americanism (and it is just that) in Europe and it is making me and many other visitors of this blog sick. Please don't ridicule this by saying that Americans are anti-Bush, too, and should be regarded as anti-American because of this. This argument is as old and as wrong as can be. You may even get to see this yourself, should Kerry indeed be elected. Watch out for some more diplomatic words but with the same meaning in that case.

After all, all those debates about Kyoto, the ICC, Iraq, Iran, "multilateralism", trade policy, guns, the death penalty, fast food, "Americanization" of culture, the so-called Middle East "cycle of violence" and America's so-called "partisan" behaviour in this conflict and whatever Europe's America bashers could and can find, have all been around when Clinton was president (and most of them even long before), and a lot of the vocabulary now used against the US has been there as well, e. g. "hyperpower", "arrogance", "unilateralism", "cowboy style" (Mr. Chirac even rejected to wear a cowboy hat at a G-7 summit during the Clinton administration as a sign of "standing up" to the Americans; or read President Reagan's memories of Mr. Mitterrands spleen always to arrive last at international summits although the protocol would have Mr. Reagan last because he was the oldest), "emancipation", "warmongers", "blood for oil" (this was even suspected to be the real reason for the US participation in the Somalia intervention, although this "secret" oil was never found - quite similar to the imaginary Afghan gas pipeline, btw)... It has all been there for years. And it will remain that way. You don't believe me? Just take a look at this book cover. It says all you really need to know:

Lets all vote for Jim Kearny :-).

Schnitzl doesn't get it.

"It's the same as saying that no Palestinian can't be an anti-Semite because the Arab tribe of Palestinians belongs to the Semites. Stop spinning words and get a serious argument together."

Nice reasoning. Let's see, it's not impossible for an American to be anti-Bush and anti-American, therefore it is probable that all Americans who are anti-Bush are anti-American.
Ummm, yeh....

"Ah, the infamous Kerry theme. So we can't criticize Markos Zuniga because he went to Gulf War I?"

No, of course you can criticize a war veteran. You can keep on criticizing war veterans. And then keep on criticizing war veterans. I will defend to the death your right to keep saying silly things. And I won't send mercenaries to die for me when that right is threatened.

"O'Neill never said "No one was ever in Cambodia", he said "John Forbes Kerry was never in Cambodia", while Mr Kerry on several occassions, even on the Senate floor, said that he were 50 miles into Cambodia."

JOHN O'NEILL: The whole country's watching him avoid the question. You asked about Cambodia. How do I know he's not in Cambodia? I was on the same river, George. I was there two months after him. Our patrol area ran to Sedek, it was 50 miles from Cambodia.

I'm not sure what John O'Neill is arguing here, it seems to be that because John O'Neil wasn't in Cambodia, then John Kerry couldn't have been in Cambodia. But this seems at odds with your interpretation that O'Neills argument is that John Kerry was never in Cambodia. But if this the case, why does he (O'Neill) only tell us about what he did? The thrust is that it is ridiculous on its face that John Kerry could have been within 50 milles of Cambodia, because John O'Neill claims that's how far he went. Just doesn't follow folks, unless Kerry and O'Neill are the same person, and that would be some case of flip flopping.

As to whether O'Neill was in Cambodia, well I guess it depends on what the meaning of "in" is.

I disagree with most of you, but I appreciate your comments,
Schnitzengruben, an American in Berlin

Thomas, didn't want to leave you out. Your comments seem genuinely thoughtful, though I disagree with quite a bit. As a decidedly pro-German American who is mad at my media and my government's foreign policy, I fully understand your sentiments. I was, however, careful not to say "majority" as your reading suggests. I said "a large plurality" because my nation seems pretty split right now at something like 40-40-20. But those 40% of Americans who are deeply disappointed by Bush are no less patriots than anyone else. In my experience, there are is still is a great reservoir of good feelings for the US and Americans in Germany, its Bush that many here have a problem with. Whether this problem is justified, well, we can have an argument about that, but can we start by with the agreed premise that "anti-Bush" and "anti-Kerry" are not synonyms?
As to your other points, this thread seems to be dead or dying, but I will gladly take up the issues on another whenever you like.

Ooops, should read "but can we start by with the agreed premise that "anti-Bush" and "anti-American" are not synonyms?"
Freudian slip....

I don't understand this Cambodia thing. Kerry repeated over decades that he was there and then, when people started looking carefully into this the Kerry campaign backpedaled. I don't have to be a Bush fan to realize that something is rotten here. I see on other blogs as well people defending the Cambodia story. Again, I don't get it. Kerry himself doesn't defend it, something about this Christmas story is definitely wrong but Kerry-fans keep pretending that everything is just peachy.

I don't care what O'Neill said, what the NYTimes says or what anyone else says. Something is fishy about Christmas in Cambodia. Come on guys... Don't you smell the rotten fish here, have you suddenly lost your olfactory sense, or are you using it only for Bush ?

Another type of attitude I just don't get:

Schnitzengruben says :As to Kos celebrating the deaths of American soldiers, I see that no link was provided

Niko delivers link: Screw them

Schnitzengruben says: I didn't know that. Kos seems to be somewhat of an asshole himself. He is against Bush, just like me, but celebrating the deaths of American is too much. I just don't want to be in the same boat with people like that. Or people like MMoore for that matter.

Sorry, this last paragraph was obviously my own creation. That's what Schnitzengruben would say in a normal world. In our world lies and deceptions are OK, as long as they come from "our" side. Both sides fight ugly, but the Kerry campaign and Kerry fans have lowered the level to an unseen level. There are really no lines that they haven't crossed so far. I personally find this disgusting.

[I]"It's the same as saying that no Palestinian can't be an anti-Semite because the Arab tribe of Palestinians belongs to the Semites. Stop spinning words and get a serious argument together."[/I]

What a bunch of crap. Another piece of Arab propaganda that sadly spread the world. The Arabs are no semites - because there is no ethnicity called "semites".

There is a language family called semitic which most likely developed from Akkadian to which Arabic and Hebrew belongs too. However, speaking a semitic language doesn't make you a "semite".

When we Jews are refering oursevles as semites we mean it in a biblical sense as "the sons of shem ("sem")". The birthright of "shem" is going down the line of Avraham, Izhak and Jacob.

Although Ishmael was a son of Avraham his mother was a Kushite servent of Avraham and all os Ishmaels sons married Kushite.

And BTW... ask any Jew and he will tell you that there are a whole lot of Jews in history that can indeed be considered as anti-semites. Even being a Jew doesn't protect you from this e.g. Nicholas Donin, Karl Marx (siehe "Die Judenfrage") etc.


"Why is there all this confusion here between being anti-American and anti-Bush. If these were the same then a at least a large plurality of Americans would themselves be, er, anti-American. Give it a rest already."

The only one confused here is you, Schnitz. I personally hate Bush. The Democrats could have nominated Donald Duck, and I would have chosen him over Bush. Kerry is a different matter, for reasons I've outlined above. You claim this blog is "pro-Bush" because it takes issue with the grotesque demonization of the man you see every day in the German media. In fact that demonization is a symtom of the prevailing anti-Americanism. Bush is simply a convenient fig leaf, commonly used to rationalize media hatemongering against the US that long pre-dates the Bush administration.

"Oh and Helian, why don't you listen to O'Neill's own words to Nixon from the tapes that just keep giving:"

You're obviously are very industrious about digging up obscure facts like this. How then, is it possible that you missed the context filled in by other commenters above? Is it a willful desire to mislead, or just cognitive dissonance? In either case I don't think it does much for your credibility. You can play your "he said, she said" games as long as you want, Schnitz. You're not fooling anyone with your frantic attempts to hide in the underbrush. The stories here are Kerry's credibility, now demolished thanks to his own campaigns "restating" of his Cambodia lies, and his betrayal of his "band of brothers" with his lies before Congress about wholesale genocide and atrocities when many of us were still in Vietnam in harms way. I might add there's a real freedom of speech issue in this controversy. You can buy into the media slant as much as you want, Schnitz. Just don't expect the rest of us to follow you into the swamp.

It looks as though Bush is pulling ahead this week. According to my favorite politicla website the average of the most current round of polls show Bush ahead 47.2-45.6. Curiously out of the five polls used the only one which showed Kerry leading is the poll for the notoriously biased Fox News. Apparently Fox didn't bias this one!

My favorite daily poll, Rasmussen, had Bush out in a 3-point lead after mostly a dead heat this past week. Bush figures on leadership, the economy, and the War on Terror all improved significantly versus Kerry, and Kerry's approval rating fell.

If Bush even gets a modest bounce out of the GOP national convention this week he'll open a lead which will be hard to surmount.

I think Kerry committed two major tactical blunders which stem from a single strategic misstep. The decision to focus on Kerry's Vietnam service left him extremely vulnerable to any credible attack on that record. His lack of focus on anything else (new ideas, optimism, his experience, etc) gave him nothing to fall back on in case of trouble on the Vietnam front. He accentuated that by making his convention all about Vietnam.

Kerry's second blunder was his attack on the Swift Boats veterans. Particularly as a 'big money' attack 'orchestrated by the Bush White House'. Kerry's allys (with REAL big money) had spent $60 million attacking Bush with almost no response from the Bush administration. All Spring and summer, and the results showed. The initial Swift Boats ad was shown in three battleground states (Wisconsin, Ohio, and West Virginia) with a complete budget of $250,000. Financed by a Texas builder of houses rather than George Soros. Decidedly small-time.

Kerry's attack on his fellow veterans did two things: It made the Swift Boats into THE major national issue at the time of year when people are beginning to make up their minds. And it left the definate impression that Kerry has an extremly thin skin, that he is extremely sensitive to criticism. That is not a good thing in a President, not a good thing at all! It also left him open to mockery on the point that $60 million can't overcome $250,000?

Toture looks like this


Imagine jumping from over 100 floors up. I usually do not comment on bloggs but I thought I should. I want some of the people over in Europe to see what Terrorism really is. This is why we fight, why we will not vote for Kerry, why we will not let others tells us to go softly.

Terrorists are corrupt people with no honor. They treat everyone as if they are the same. While killing civilians they do not care if they are Muslim, Christian or anything at all. They will kill anyone whom they do not like. They will kill their own.

Freedom is not just for those of us already free. Every person in the world should have the right to worship, express their opinion and live their life how they see fit without worrying about the govt. The govt should be to build infrastructure, schools, colleges, ensure safety, make sure that every citizen is allowed to live free with their own world view. Govts should not dictate religion or beliefs.

I found your page surfing and really like hearing views from Europe. I hope that there are more like you over there.

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