(By Ray D.)
In an article published on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Stern magazine labels US National Security Advisor and future Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "The Voice of her Master.” And if that weren’t bad enough, a picture intended to make Stern's condescending message unmistakably clear accompanies the article:
“Always at the Service of her Master George W. Bush: Condoleezza Rice.”
Rice is portrayed as a loyal servant of the Bush family who has been installed as a "yes" (wo)man for the second term. Stern author Katja Gloger writes:
"Condoleezza Rice, loyally devoted to President Bush, will take over as the second women to be Secretary of State, a PR measure of the special sort. She is to propagate the vision of democratization in the world. She has yet to say what she herself thinks."
So, according to Ms. Gloger, Condoleezza Rice is not just an obedient servant always at the foot of her master, but also a special "PR measure" too subservient and devoted to have her own opinion. Well, apparently Ms. Gloger hasn't read this, this, this or this or this or any of the dozens of other interviews and speeches Ms. Rice has given over the past few years in which she has clearly and repeatedly expressed her own views on the issues. (By the way: It took me less than 15 minutes to find those interviews and speeches...journalistic laziness Ms. Gloger?)
Rice there to Remind Bush of America's "Godly Mission" in "Clear, Simple Words"
And of course no article on America would be complete without the standard collection of hackneyed, leftist stereotypes required to satisfy Stern's audience. You guessed it: Bush is a simple-minded religious fanatic who needs the world explained to him in "clear, simple words." Stern writes of Rice and Bush:
"They pray together and in the case that George W. Bush wishes it, Condi explains the conflicts of this world to him in clear, simple words. Most of the time the godly mission of America plays an important role. But what she really thinks, the convictions that she really holds are things that she has yet to reveal. (...)
His clear election result strengthens Bush in his conviction: America must change the world in a godly mission, as, for example, in Iraq."
Clearly, Ms. Gloger is telling her editors and her audience what they want to hear. Unfortunately, her statements have little to do with Mr. Bush's true thoughts on faith and foreign policy. Here again, she has failed to research the issue. In a recent interview with Brit Hume, the President had the following to say when asked what role, if any, his faith played in foreign policy decisions:
"HUME: How do you hold the situation in Iraq in juxtaposition to your faith?
BUSH: Well, I -- first of all, I would never justify -- I would never use God to promote foreign policy decisions."
Stern magazine, along with most of the German media, is constantly misrepresenting George W. Bush's personal faith as a key driving factor in his policy formulation and lending it far more importance than it actually has. They don't need to research what Bush and Rice have actually said and done because they have already established a preset template of stereotypes from which they can no longer depart. It is all a part of the branding of Bush that has been going on in the German media for years now. That is why a coherent German-American political dialogue has become so difficult. Germans and Americans live in two different worlds when it comes to perceptions of George W. Bush. Until the universally negative reporting on Bush in the German media stops, little is bound to change.
Note: You may contact Stern's online Editor-in-Chief, Barbara Hamm, with your comments on Ms. Gloger's article by clicking here. For those of you who don't speak German, "Betreff" is "Subject" and "Nachricht" is "Message". Just enter your subject, name, email address and message and then click on the red "Senden" button. Please feel free to post your messages and any replies in the comments section.
Interesting "Nipper" sidenote: A number of readers have pointed this out in the comments section. It is remarkably similar. Perhaps Ms. Gloger collects phonographs in her spare time when she's not busy writing racist, America-bashing articles for Stern.
The famous Chief Editor of Stern Henri Nannen was a great Nazi Propagandist. His Spirit still haunts the editorial offices of that Magazin. So what can we expect from there? Oportunism, bias and lies.
Posted by: Florian Euring | January 18, 2005 at 08:39 AM
I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry.
I am an American who lives in Germany. I get SO tired of this stuff. It is a real temptation for me NOT to keep myself informed, so I wouldn't have to see this stuff. But then I would be accused of being an ignorant american. The AMis cannot win. Sie sind an allem schuld.
BTW I considered myself a Democrat (past tense) -
pretty much voted straight Democrat all my life.
Except for 2004 when I voted straight. God knows I have my problems with Bush, but when a blowhard demagogue like Michael Moore gets red carpet treatment by the Democrats? NO MORE!
Posted by: amiexpat | January 18, 2005 at 08:47 AM
God is dead.. that is why Reformation day is a holiday in East Germany.
Pfingsten? Himmelfahrt? Gesetzliche Feiertage?
the Germans believe in God only far enough to get them a day off.
Posted by: amiexpat | January 18, 2005 at 09:13 AM
Clever Stern. Clever photograph. The racism in the article and photo are unbelievable, and I would have said this would never fly in the US, and yet it does....amongst the blind and RACIST left. I never thought I would live to see the day.
*blood boiling*
A BLACK WOMAN HAS PASSED THE GLASS CEILING IN THE UNITED STATES BUT DO WE CELBRATE THIS? No! We drag her through the mud instead.
SHAME on STERN and all of those who stoop to this.
Posted by: sehoy | January 18, 2005 at 09:49 AM
In September 1963, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered the eulogy for three of the four girls killed in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. What King could not know was that, within earshot of the blast, just blocks away at her father's church, was another little black girl, a friend of the youngest victim, who 42 years later would be on the verge of becoming America's foremost diplomat.
This year, the Martin Luther King holiday, marking what would have been his 76th birthday, falls on Jan. 17. The next day, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee opens hearings on the nomination of Condoleezza Rice to succeed Colin Powell as secretary of state.
It's a stunning juxtaposition that offers those who knew King, lived that history and ponder his legacy an opportunity to wonder: How might they explain Rice's rise to him? And what would he make of it?
She is, after all, the literal fulfillment of King's dream -- a woman judged not by the color of her skin but by the content of her character. She is also living proof that King's eulogy was prescient, that "these children -- unoffending, innocent and beautiful -- did not die in vain."
Posted by: sehoy | January 18, 2005 at 09:54 AM
I wonder if the Leftists at Stern are so deluded that they don't recognize the extremely disturbing implications of their own writing. A Stern article that is quite clearly meant to incite Stern readers by appealing to base racist instincts presupposes that Stern readers are latent racists.
In a way, I'm not surprised. I have heard German academics make openly racist statements about Ms. Rice in the past. It was only a matter of time before the media felt comfortable enough to put such blatently racist hate-mongering into print.
Posted by: beimami | January 18, 2005 at 10:22 AM
du .... beimami .... hast du denn bei mami gar nichts gelernt .... ?
zeig doch mal beweis fuer deine aussage , zitiere mal einen akademiker bitte ..... sofern es dir moeglich ist ;)
Posted by: | January 18, 2005 at 11:40 AM
Das heißt "beim Ami" Du fantasieloser Witzbold. Übrigens könnte ich tatsächlich Namen nennen, aber das werde ich auf keinen Fall tun. Ich sehe überhaupt keinen Grund, einzelne Personen in Bedrängnis zu bringen, wenn führende linke Zeitschriften racistische Parolen rausspucken um die Haßgier ihrer Gefolgschaft zu befriedigen.
Posted by: beimami | January 18, 2005 at 12:01 PM
This isn't just a matter of "Stern". When writing about Bush's administration or American allies, German journalists LOVE to write about "Vasallen", "Getreue", "Paladine", "Handlanger" etc. Those are attributes that would be unthinkable in the coverage of almost every other nation. They would NEVER write something like this about Joschka Fischer, Michael Barnier etc.
Posted by: Wuldorblogger | January 18, 2005 at 12:35 PM
Zum Vergleich ein etwas älterer SPON-Artikel zur Condi-Nominierung (von Freund Pitzke). DAS ist deutscher "Journalismus"!!!
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,328081,00.html
"Dem neuen Kabinett werden ausschließlich linientreue Vasallen angehören."
"Vor allem aber bringt er das notorisch freidenkerische State Department auf Linie, indem er ihm seine treuste Gefährtin vorsetzt, die bekannt dafür ist, ihre Meinungsäußerungen am liebsten mit "der Präsident sagt", "der Präsident findet" oder "der Präsident denkt" einzuleiten."
"An ihre Stelle treten fast ausnahmslos Mitglieder des engsten Bush-Zirkels. Loyalisten, brave Zöglinge des West Wings, geschult, getrimmt, "on message". Die neue Garde ist in Wahrheit die alte, die Ministerien werden zu Außenstellen des Weißen Hauses:"
"Genau das ist Sinn der Sache; Kein Dissens mehr, kein Widerspruch, keine Zweifel"
"Schon Anfang 2000, eineinhalb Jahre vor der 9/11-Zeitenwende, zeichnete Rice in einem Essay fürs Denkblatt "Foreign Affairs" ("Das nationale Interesse fördern") die Marschrichtung der Regierung vor. Da war sie bereits die rechte Hand Bushs, dessen Kandidatur noch nicht mal offiziell war, nur Rove schien das zu wissen."
"Nach der Wiederwahl bekommt Bushs treue Nachhilfelehrerin nun endlich ihren Traumjob: Statthalterin im sperrigen State Departement."
"Wie der einst vom Suff zum Segen konvertierte "born-again Christian" Bush ist auch Rice, die sich als "tief religiös" bezeichnet, von einem geradezu messianischem Eifer beseelt"
"Alle politischen Entscheidungen, sagt Rice, seien Entscheidungen Gottes. Das gefällt den Christlich-Konservativen, die den Triumph des 2. November als Mandat zum Kulturkrieg verstehen."
"Weitere Figuren in diesem politischen Krippenspiel sind die langjährige Bush-Weggefährtin Margaret Spellings, die nun das Bildungsministerium übernehmen soll, und der designierte Justizminister Alberto Gonzales."
"Auch an ihn knüpfen die Gottesjünger nun hohe Erwartungen:"
"Bush, so ist zu hören, wolle so in den nächsten Tagen und Wochen rund die Hälfte seines Kabinetts gegen linientreue Gefolgsleute austauschen."
Posted by: Wuldorblogger | January 18, 2005 at 12:47 PM
MAYBE IN AMERICA, WE SHOULD MAKE A PICTURE OF JACQUES CHiraq, & KOFI ANNAN WALKING AHEAD OF SCHOEDER (WITH A LEASH).
Posted by: roman thomas | January 18, 2005 at 01:20 PM
Natürlich haben die deutschen Medien ihre Vorbilder in den USA. Ein Stern am Himmel ist Hersh, Starreporter Hersh, der als Erster über Abu Ghraib berichtete.
BTW, Abu Ghraib ist kein Thema mehr, solange die Beweise aktuell greifbar sind, daß es keine Folter war und schon gar keine systematische, aber immer wieder macht man die Einlassung des Verurteilten zur Wahrheit. Daß die meisten Zeugen genau das Gegenteil angegeben haben, wird in unseren Medien noch nicht einmal berichtet. Graners Einlassung ist widerlegt. Er ist verurteilt. Aber diese Entscheidung will man nicht wahrhaben, muß wohl falsch sein.
Nach Abu Ghraib kommt jetzt Iran. Hersh, Darling aller Bush-Hasser in Deutschland und den USA, wurde angeblich auserkoren, die WEltbevölkerung vor der neuen Gefahr zu warnen:
"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids," he wrote in "The New Yorker" magazine, which published his article in editions that will be on newsstands Monday.
Hersh is a veteran journalist who was the first to write about many details of the abuses of prisoners Abu Ghraib in Baghdad.
He said his information on Iran came from "inside" sources who divulged it in the hope that publicity would force the administration to reconsider.
"I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said.
Hersh said the government did not answer his request for a response before the story's publication, and that his sources include people in government whose information has been reliable in the past.
Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," despite problems with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
Last week, the effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- the Bush administration's stated primary rationale for the war -- was halted after having come up empty.
The secret missions in Iran, Hersh said, have been authorized in order to prevent similar embarrassment in the event of military action there. (Full story)
"The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites."
He added, "The guys on the inside really want to do this."
Hersh identified those inside people as the "neoconservative" civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That includes Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith -- "the sort of war hawks that we talk about in connection with the war in Iraq."
And he said the preparation goes beyond contingency planning and includes detailed plans for air attacks:
"The next step is Iran. It's definitely there. They're definitely planning ... But they need the intelligence first."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/hersh.iran/index.html
War hawks? Hersh outet sich als Führer der Kriegstreiber-Rhetoriker.
Diese neue Entwicklung ist genauso gefährlich und überflüssig wie der Folterskandal, der keiner war. Dank Hersh wird die Spaltung der Welt weitergehen. Im Namen des investigativen Journalismus.
Posted by: Gabi | January 18, 2005 at 01:29 PM
It's almost impossible to call what they do *Journalism* anymore.
Posted by: Joe N. | January 18, 2005 at 02:38 PM
Quite interesting article,it seems here in US we have long past the race barrier and Dr.Rice is most likely to be our next POTUS.
When Stern magazine takes a sling shot at Dr.Rice,she is the one who will get the majority votes of the rabid GOP'ers.
Posted by: iwillard | January 18, 2005 at 02:41 PM
Hier noch einmal im Stern vom 23. April 2003, weil es so schön ist, es immer wieder zu lesen:
"Frage der Frau Katja Gloger: Der Irak lieferte ja auch eine Erklärung, 12.000 Seiten lang.
Antwort Blix: Das war fürchterlich. Kein Wort zu den Waffen. Alles altes Zeug. Keine Antworten auf die noch offenen Fragen.
Was wollten Sie denn noch wissen?
Blix: Auf unserer Liste stehen weit über hundert Fragenkomplexe. Dazu gehört der Verbleib von mindestens 7.000 Litern Milzbrand-Erregern, mindestens 3,9 Tonnen VX-Nervengas und von 5.500 Bomben, gefüllt mit chemischen Kampfstoffen.
Warum gab es keine Antwort?
Blix: Eine Möglichkeit ist: der Irak hat wirklich keine Massenvernichtungswaffen mehr. Wir schließen nicht aus, dass Milzband, VX- oder Senfgas irgendwo versteckt sind. Aber wir können nicht behaupten, dass es im Irak wirklich noch solche Waffen gibt. Dazu fehlen uns die Beweise. Auf der anderen Seite waren alle Geheimdienste, mit denen ich gesprochen habe, immer ganz sicher, dass der Irak Massenvernichtungswaffen besitzt.
Haben Sie darüber auch mit dem deutschen Geheimdienst BND gesprochen?
Blix: Ja. Auch der BND ist davon überzeugt, dass der Irak Massenvernichtungswaffen besitzt."
Das ist ein Interview vom 23. April 2003 ! ! ! ! !
------------------------------------------------
The U.N. program was supplied with $1.4 billion to cover its administrative costs in monitoring $111 billion worth of deals done under UN sanctions by Saddam Hussein. I wish Hersh + Co would be more interested in that.
No wonder they wanted to go on with the sanctions. Many people had a good life with continuing the sanctions.
Posted by: Gabi | January 18, 2005 at 02:50 PM
Gabi, Du bestreitest ernsthaft, dass das in Abu Ghraib Folter war? Was war es denn dann? Wofür wurde Graner denn wohl verurteilt? Dass es einen direkten Befehl dazu von oben gab, konnte Graner zu seiner eigenen Entlastung nicht darlegen, womit die angeordnete, systematische Folter nicht nachgewiesen ist.
Dass aber das entsprechende Klima hierzu geschaffen wurde, ist doch nicht abzustreiten! Die Soldaten waren nicht entsprechend ausgebildet und wussten teilweise nicht einmal etwas über die Genfer Konventionen, die doch einen Leitfaden hätten bilden können, was erlaubt ist und was nicht. Das erinnert mich übrigens an das Stanford Prison Experiment (nach dessen Vorlage auch der dt. Film "Das Experiment" geschrieben wurde - http://www.prisonexp.org/), wo ganz normale Leute, die vorher nie einer Fliege etwas zu Leide taten, in dem entsprechenden Klima ganz schnell zu Folterern wurden.
Und welches Klima meine ich, das geschaffen wurde? Nun, Justizminister Ashcroft beauftragte doch drei Männer mit dem Gefängnisaufbau im Irak, von denen vor allem eines bekannt war: auf die Gefangenen würden sie keine Rücksicht nehmen.
Etwa John Armstrong – er wurde stellvertretender Leiter des Gefängnissystems. Er war Beauftragter für den Strafvollzug in Connecticut, wo unter seiner Leitung mehrere Gefangene aufgrund der brutalen und unmenschlichen Haftbedingungen starben. Aufgrund dieser Vorfälle verlor Armstrong Anfang 2003 seinen Posten. Doch kurz darauf wird er von Justizminister Ashcroft in den Irak, genauer: nach Abu Ghraib, geschickt.
Dort wird ihm Gary DeLand an die Seite gestellt – auch er ein alter Bekannter aus dem US-Strafvollzug. DeLand wurde mehrfach verklagt wegen Misshandlung und mangelhafter medizinischer Versorgung von Gefangenen. Seine Spezialität: Er berät andere Gefängnisleiter, die wegen Grausamkeiten verklagt wurden. Gary DeLand soll im Irak Gefängniswärter ausbilden.
Als Dritter im Bunde wurde Lane McCotter oberster Chef der Gefängnisse im Irak. Auch McCotter kein Unbekannter: er musste wegen Misshandlung von Gefangenen in Utah 1997 zurücktreten. McCotter wechselte den Arbeitsplatz, arbeitete schließlich für ein private Gefängnisfirma. Im März 2003 verfasste das Justizministerium (also Ashcrofts Behörde) einen Bericht über McCotters neues Gefängnis in New Mexiko. Von sadistischen Quälereien ist da die Rede, McCotters neue Wirkungsstätte sei eine Hölle. Trotzdem, oder vielleicht gerade deswegen: Kurz darauf eröffnet McCotter das Gefangnis Abu Ghraib in seiner neuen Funktion als Chef aller Gefängnisse im Irak.
Und das ist für mich der große Abu Ghraib-Folterskandal: die USA, die sich ja als Vorbild sehen oder so gesehen werden wollen, haben nichts getan um zu verhindern, dass ihre Soldaten zu Folterern wurden. Vielmehr haben sie das doch offenbar in Kauf genommen und eindeutig das entsprechende Klima geschaffen.
Wenn man das nun nicht mehr "Folterskandal" nennen darf, dann weiß ich ja auch nicht.
Posted by: zeta | January 18, 2005 at 03:13 PM
@zeta..
what did Struck say? A german soldier doesnt torture? Oh I forgot, they couldn't help themselves, the Americans served as BAD EXAMPLES.
Posted by: amiexpat | January 18, 2005 at 03:20 PM
The secret missions in Iran, Hersh said, have been authorized in order to prevent similar embarrassment in the event of military action there.
"The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites."
He added, "The guys on the inside really want to do this."
Hersh identified those inside people as the "neoconservative" civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That includes Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith -- "the sort of war hawks that we talk about in connection with the war in Iraq."
It is also possible that secret missions take place in order to interrupt Iranian support for the so called Iraqi resistance, often Islamic extremists and foreigners. It is definately in Iran's interest that America fails in Iraq.
But according to Bush's "Axis-of-evil"-speech Iran is certainly a candidate for regime change, especially for Iran's support of Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad and the mentioned support of fighters against US troops in Iraq. And I'm NOT SORRY if that stoning regime is ended!
Posted by: EuroNeuzeit | January 18, 2005 at 03:55 PM
Und das ist für mich der große Abu Ghraib-Folterskandal: die USA, die sich ja als Vorbild sehen oder so gesehen werden wollen, haben nichts getan um zu verhindern, dass ihre Soldaten zu Folterern wurden. Vielmehr haben sie das doch offenbar in Kauf genommen und eindeutig das entsprechende Klima geschaffen.
Zeta: If that is true, why are those who abused prisoners being sent to prison themselves? If you are honestly trying to claim that the Bush administration supports torture, something it has rejected time after time, than it is hard to take you seriously.
By the way, abuses and torture have taken place in German prisons and in the German military. Does that mean Schroeder is guilty of creating "an atmosphere" where this was possible? The key is how a government reacts to these sorts of abuses. As far as I can tell, the Bush administration has prosecuted those responsible for mistreating the prisoners to the best of its ability.
Your problem, and the problem of many on the Angry Left, is that you want to make everything into the next Watergate. Your goal is not the truth, but the destruction of Bush and his supporters. It is all a political crusade motivated by hatred. And we can see that. That is precisely why Bush won the election. Because his opponents have invested more time and energy in hate and their one-sided, biased attacks than in coming up with their own vision and ideas for the future. Until that attitude of yours changes, please don't expect us to give much weight to your arguments.
---Ray D.
Posted by: Ray D. | January 18, 2005 at 04:58 PM
The picture is nothing less than vicious, contemptible racism. But the Left's arguments are destroyed by their own contradictions. Either Bush is dumb as a stump or he is smart enough to command the mind of a university professor. I suppose they switch stories on alternate Mondays. Any other thesis is simply conjecture.
Posted by: Robert in Mexifornia | January 18, 2005 at 05:51 PM
"By the way, abuses and torture have taken place in German prisons and in the German military."
In Deutschland wurden Armeeangehörige von Armeeangehörigen misshandelt, in Abu Ghraib Zivilgefangene von Soldaten einer Besatzungsmacht. Stellt sich die Frage, ob es zwischen den Taten einen qualitativen Unterschied gibt oder man sie vergleichen kann.
Ich empfehle jedem eine Recherche über italienische/ deutsche/ französische und US-Gefängnissen oder die britische/ belgische/ italienische/ amerikanische/ deutsche Armee, anscheinend sind Gefängnisse und Armeen generell prädestiniert zu solchen Übergriffen, unabhängig von der Nationalität.
Abu Ghaib war ein Skandal, weil hier die Übergriffe lange vor der Aufdeckung den höheren Hierachien bekannt war, und erst im Zuge der Medienberichterstattung wirklich etwas unternommen wurde. Was genauso für die Vorfälle in Deutschland zutrifft, ausschlaggebend war aber der Ort, der Masstab und die Ähnlichkeit zu Guantanamo bei den Vorfällen in Abu Ghraib. Ein gefundenes Fressen für die Medien.
Bush selbst kann für solches Fehlverhalten genausowenig verantwortlich gemacht werden wie Schröder oder Berlusconi oder sonstwer. Allerdings wäre es sicher nicht falsch, die Verantwortung auch bei den Führungsoffizieren der Täter (in der Bundeswehr wie in der US-Armee) zu suchen: Verletzung der Aufsichtspflicht wäre das mindeste, was man ihnen vorwerfen kann.
Posted by: beimkraut | January 18, 2005 at 06:14 PM
This kind of racist put-down of both Rice and Powell have been common in the left-wing media in the US as well, for a long time. This is mild compared to the "house-nigger" epithets thrown at Powell and the Aunt Jemima insults directed at Rice in the US media by "liberals".
The left-wing clearly believes that they "own" black Americans and deeply resent those who have escaped from the Democratic plantation. Now who are the racists?
Posted by: Irene Adler | January 18, 2005 at 06:21 PM
A new low for the hatemongers at Stern. Die hassfaehigkeit den Deutschen medien geht immer weiter. Ich wundere mich, wie lange bis die beziehung ist vernichtet?
Posted by: Hector | January 18, 2005 at 06:32 PM
Well put, Irene. The intolerance is virtually bubbling out of them, and they still try to paint conservatives as racists... They still think that their hateful slander is some kind of Magic Wand to put them in power.
Posted by: Joe N. | January 18, 2005 at 06:42 PM
I gotta agree with the comments of those so far, especially Robert and Irene. This is disgraceful behaviour from Stern, the same magazine that posted nasty adverts all over the Berlin U-Bahn stations of cowboy boots stomping over poor Opel workers with a row of anti-American cliches.
But Condi has often been treated like this. Moore´s book "Stupid White Men" for example pretty much from the title alone ignores her. For those who want to know a bit more about this amazing woman then try her Wikipedia page. That really is a staggering list of achievements!
Posted by: Doughnut Boy Andy | January 18, 2005 at 06:45 PM
The attack on Rice is wrong, and the implications in the Stern article are offensive. However, the medium is not the message: Rice's accomplishments and her contributions as an academic to the body of knowledge prior to entering private business and public service are less than impressive. She'd published few papers of lasting value, and her field of expertise, US/Soviet relations, puts a drag on her ability to contextualize and understand the assymetrical diplomatic and military stasis of the post 9/11 world--and her inability to focus on al Qaeda before 9/11/01, as the record demonstrates, only further suggests her unsuitability for high post.
Put another way, were Rice a white male, she would likely be striving at some university to attain tenure before her 55th birthday, and not readying to ascend to the third highest position in the US government. Her place in the Bush cabinet is based on loyalty to the president, not eminent qualification for the position. That she is a black woman also serves to the president's political advantage. But NOTHING she has accomplished suggests that she is qualified in her own right to be the Secretary of State of the US.
Also, Ray D., just because Bush says something (in an interview with the ridiculously partisan Brit Hume, no less)--"the President had the following to say when asked what role, if any, his faith played in foreign policy decisions: 'HUME: How do you hold the situation in Iraq in juxtaposition to your faith? 'BUSH: Well, I -- first of all, I would never justify -- I would never use God to promote foreign policy decisions.' -- does NOT make it so.
Posted by: Reinhardt | January 18, 2005 at 07:01 PM
Condi is a woman, a black woman: "PR measure" means that her appointment alledgedly aims at veiling all the well-known (sic!!) sexism and racism of the ultra-conservative WASP-President: But looking at the picture above and reading buzz words (or at least insinuations and allusions evoking such buzz words) such as "servant" (
Posted by: ralph | January 18, 2005 at 07:11 PM
Als Kontrast der deutschsprachige Wikipedia Eintrag: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice
Posted by: csf | January 18, 2005 at 07:12 PM
@ Reinhardt:
Also, Ray D., just because Bush says something (...) does NOT make it so.
Wow, what a profound and convincing argument. Just because somebody says something doesn't make it true. It doesn't get much deeper than that Reinhardt.
As far as your argument on Rice goes it is obvious that people like you in the Angry Left want to downplay Ms. Rice's achievements and belittle her. I guess you are just one step above Stern.
You know, it is funny: You applaud when Democrats appoint minorities purely as tokens but call it an act of "political advantage" when Republicans appoint genuinely qualified minorities.
And oh yeah, here's a question for you Reinhardt: How many minorities are in Mr. Schroeder's cabinet? How many minorities are there to be found in the German government at any level? Before all of you outraged German Gutmenschen mouth-off your "expert" opinions on race in America why don't you take a look at your own country where minorities are treated like second class citizens. You know, it was really ironic reading the Nurnberger Nachrichten criticizing American civil rights and then turning to the classifieds of the same newspaper only to see ads for apartments featuring "German family only." It took me almost two years to find a suitable apartment because my wife and I were foreigners and we had two kids. In the USA, people are actually protected by the LAW against that sort of housing discrimination, and incidentally, they have been for over 4 decades!
So please Reinhardt, spare me your cynical crocodile tears and your lame-brain opinions on race in the US.
---Ray D.
Posted by: Ray D. | January 18, 2005 at 07:16 PM
Ray, wie nennst Du es, dass Ashcroft, der doch zweifelsohne zur Bush-Regierung gehört, die von mir beschriebenen Männer in den Irak schickte und für die Gefängnisse dort verantwortlich machte? Waren sie etwa die richtige Wahl, zumal Ashcroft von ihrer Vergangenheit wusste? Und falls Du nicht dieser Meinung bist, könnte es da nicht sein, dass eben ein so von mir beschriebenes Klima für mögliche Folter geschaffen wurde? Oder anders herum gefragt: war das denn ein Verhindern derselben? Nein, das war es nicht! Mit dem Wissen über den Hintergrund der Drei hat man soetwas wissentlich in Kauf genommen. Sicherlich, kein Amerikaner (auch Bush nicht) wollte, dass es zur Folter kommt. Aber würde man einen verurteilten Sexualstraftäter eine Gruppe von kleinen Mädchen betreuen lassen und sich hinterher wundern, dass doch etwas passiert ist?
Deine Erwähnung von Folter in deutschen Gefängnissen bzw. beim deutschen Militär ist übrigens nichts anderes als ein Versuch eines Ablenkungsmaneuvers, da Dir offensichtlich als Rechtfertigung nichts mehr einfällt. Falls Du den Fall Daschner in Frankfurt sowie die jüngsten Aufdeckungen bei der Ausbildung von Bundeswehrrekruten meinst, dann wäre beides nach Ashcrofts Folter-Definition ja nicht einmal Folter gewesen (-> nach Ashcroft müsse "der Schmerz so intensiv werden wie während eines ernsten Unfalls, etwa Organversagen, Beeinträchtigung der Körperfunktionen oder sogar Tod." Und um mentale Folter handelt es sich nach dem Verständnis des Justizministeriums erst dann, wenn eine grausame und inhumane Psycho-Technik angewandt wird, und zwar "monate- oder sogar jahrelang").
Und zu guter Letzt, woher weißt Du, was meine Ziele sind? Ich habe mich lediglich in meinem vorigen Beitrag dagegen ausgesprochen, dass Gabi die Abu Ghraib-Vorfälle nicht mehr als Folter sehen wollte. Vielmehr sehe ich das immer noch als einen Folterskandal, der bis in die Bush-Regierung reicht, was ich sogar ausführlich dargelegt habe. Tut mir Leid, aber Dein "Angry Left"-Argument ist dabei kein Stück besser als ein nichtssagendes "Evil Bush" - kein fundiertes Argmuent mit Substanz, sondern der Versuch, eine andere Meinung abzustempeln und in eine Schublade zu packen, was Du ja nicht das erste Mal gemacht hast. Bevor Du nicht diese Attitüde ablegst,...
Posted by: zeta | January 18, 2005 at 07:18 PM
Unfortunately my comment has been mutilated: Here is the rest having vanished somewhere in the net:
... such as "servant" (
Posted by: ralph | January 18, 2005 at 07:26 PM
@ zeta:
Obviously the Bush administration wasn't careful enough in its monitoring of Iraqi prisons. Otherwise, Abu Ghraib would not have happened. The problem is that people like you are turning what happened into a politically motivated witch hunt. You won't be satisfied until Bush resigns in disgrace. You can't acknowledge the fact that the Bush government has done a tremendous amount to get to the bottom of the torture scandal and has punished those responsible. Every government makes mistakes. It is how those mistakes are dealt with that counts.
As far as the three men you mention, I don't know that any of the allegations against them are true or that they were truly the key figures in Abu Ghraib that you make them out to be. I am very suspicious of your facts as they tend to be highly selective. I would like to see your sources. Ultimately the military was in charge of monitoring the situation at the prisons, not John Ashcroft. So as far as someone in charge being responsible it would have to be those in the chain of command.
As far as my mentioning of German torture goes, it is entirely relevant because it demonstrates the double-standards of the left. When it happens under Bush it is because his government created a certain "atmosphere"...whatever that means. When it happens under Schroeder, we just have to look the other way because there is no way such an enlightened socialist could possibly be responsible.
As far as my Angry Left argument having no substance, well, if you consider the hundreds of postings we have on this blog (which obviously are interesting enough to attract your attention) to be "no substance" then I guess you haven't really been paying much attention.
---Ray D.
Posted by: Ray D. | January 18, 2005 at 07:56 PM
Reinhardt, did *anybody* focus on al Qaeda before 9/11/01? Did anybody take them as seriously as hindsight now shows they should have been taken?
In any case, what are the usual qualifications (academic or otherwise) for a Secretary of State? What were the qualifications of the last, say, dozen Secretaries of State? Just for comparison. Extra credit if you hold up ex-academic Henry Kissinger as a model of probity and wisdom.
If she were a white male with the same qualifications, you wouldn't be able to play the "incompetent beneficiary of affirmative action" card. So quit complaining!
If I were a freeper type and somewhat paranoid, I'd suggest that the left likes affirmative action for the following reasons: 1) It perpetuates minority dependence on the state; 2) it perpetuates the perception that minorities can't earn anything honestly; 3) it provides a convenient "frame" to undercut any minorities who may threaten one's own position or ideology.
As I said, I don't really believe that. The effects I'm describing are quite real, but I don't believe that anybody on the left has worked it out in those terms and is consciously malevolent about it. No, they sincerely believe that those poor helpless black people can't possibly accomplish anything without help from white lefties. And they sincerely want to help, in a kindly, paternal sort of way. They're vicious all right, but they're not consciously vicious towards black people as a group. No, the root cause of affirmative action is the left's sentimental soft-colonialist "oh, the poor black people" mentality, amplified by stupidity and cluelessness. There's a more sensible way to address the real inequalities that do exist: Make education available for the kids. Don't just piss money around, either. Start early. Make it a *real* education like the affluent white kids get, not watered-down occupational therapy nonsense: Artificially low expectations teach the smart kids not to bother learning. Smart kids are the same everywhere: They can handle a challenge. Give them one and they'll perform. Furthermore, *all* kids, even the so-so ones, are smart enough to know when they're being patronized by fools. By the time the best of them graduate from Harvard and MIT, they won't need any "affirmative action". Of course, that would put the white lefties out of business, but the lefties have shown remarkable tenacity and ingenuity in finding public teats to suck on. They'll get by somehow. Maybe they'll stay in the racism business but change their pitch to the KKK angle. That's not even meant to be funny: When the day comes that black Americans are substantially in the economic mainstream, explicit racism against blacks will instantly become fashionable on the left. I guarantee this.
Ray D.: That "German families only" thing sounds like something out of the middle ages! Holy Toledo! You're right, in any country where that happens, they've got their own problems to attend to before they start lecturing us.
But in fairness to Democratic appointees, minority or otherwise, it's ridiculous to write them all off as incompetent just because of party affiliation. If that's what you meant. I may have mistaken your intent.
Posted by: j | January 18, 2005 at 07:58 PM
Zum Foto:
Das ist doch wohl ein Bezug zur alten Grammophon (Schallplatten)-Werbung:
Ein HUND sitzt da!!!!!!!!
"His Master's voice"
Die Stimme ihres Herrn.
Klartext: Aussage: Bush folgen zwei schwarze Hunde.
Meines Erachtens ist das strafrechtlich relevant.
Eine schwarze Frau wird als Hund definiert!
Posted by: Roland | January 18, 2005 at 07:59 PM
His master's voice
http://www.shellac.org/wams/images/whmv01t.gif
Posted by: Roland | January 18, 2005 at 08:16 PM
roland: Meines Erachtens ist das strafrechtlich relevant.
ach ja? ich nenne das ausübung des rechts auf freie meinungsäußerung. was soll das denn für ein straftatbestand sein?
Posted by: no comment | January 18, 2005 at 08:39 PM
Könnte ein in Deutschland lebender Mensch Strafanzeige gegen Katja Gloger erstatten?
Posted by: Scuderia Austria | January 18, 2005 at 08:40 PM
It seems Reinhardt suffers from what many germans seem to suffer from. They just cannot get over two facts. The first is the US is a nation of diversity. The second is the concept of equal opportunity and not equal outcomes. Of course, in a social welfare state, it is all about equal outcomes.
So I do not fine Reinhardt comments to be out of context at all. It is what he believes and what he has been lead to believe. He is a great example of why germany is in a state of decline.
I guess Reinhardt would think she was highly qualified if she had the same background as the current FM of germany. Oh and what were or are is his talents and skills… I forgot..
Posted by: Joe | January 18, 2005 at 08:44 PM
@no comment
Strafrechtliches
schwarze Frau=Tier ist keine freie Meinungsäußerung!!!
Beleidigung, seit 1. Januar 2005 gilt außerdem das Antidiskriminierungsgesetz!!!
rassistische und sexistische Diskriminierung
Posted by: Roland | January 18, 2005 at 08:56 PM
What 'j' wrote about previous SecStates...yah! I believe Madeline Albright has held the post recently. She's not going to be hosting the Mensa convention this year.
I liked Reinhardt's comment "puts a drag on her ability to contextualize and understand the assymetrical diplomatic and military stasis." How are you claiming to measure or judge such a high-flown sentiment? Answer: you can't. It's just flowery crap, a posited etiology for a disease whose symptoms you haven't yet identified.
Pick up your old Raymond Aron again, to recapture some clarity.
Separate: Europeans seem to have a much stronger tradition of believing what their newspapers tell them. How's that worked out for you?
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot | January 18, 2005 at 08:57 PM
Sorry, hier ist die url. Sehr lesenswert das Interview. Blix sagt also, er glaube, der Irak habe Massenvernichtungswaffen. Außerdem sagt er noch, Bush sei nicht auf Krieg festgelegt gewesen.
Später hat Blix sich doch anders geäußert. Jeder hätte gewußt, dort seien keine Massenvernichtungswaffen. Sieht so aus, als hätte er seine Meinung geändert. Scheint so, als wäre er der Lügner.
http://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/index.html?id=507003&p=3&nv=ct_cb
Wollten die USA eigentlich Waffeninspektoren im Irak sehen?
Blix: Präsident Bush trat im vergangenen Herbst vor die Vereinten Nationen und bat um Taten. Im vergangenen Oktober lud er meinen Kollegen El-Baradei
und mich nach Washington ein und versicherte uns, er unterstütze die Inspektionen aus ganzem Herzen. Er meinte es ernst, davon bin ich überzeugt. Ich glaube, die USA wollten zunächst eine Abrüstung des Irak durch Inspektionen, durch Kontrolle. Ich glaube, zunächst wollte man keinen Krieg. Es war nicht schon vorher alles entschieden. Das Spiel war offen."
Posted by: Gabi | January 18, 2005 at 09:07 PM
I don't speak German or know German culture, but the first thing I thought when I saw this was that it was a play on the old Victrola campaign "The Voice of his Master" (the one with Nipper the dog listening to a gramophone). In Germany I believe the slogan was >>Die Stimme seines Herrn<<. The picture of Condi & the President's pet dog fits that reference nicely.
To my American eyes the suggestion that a white man is a black woman's master is offensive (because of our particular American history of slavery) but I don't if German editors and readers would have those same connotations.
Posted by: Dan | January 18, 2005 at 09:25 PM
@zeta,
ich schrieb, "der Folterskandal, der keiner war". Das ist ein einfacher deutscher Satz. Du machst daraus: "die Folter, die keine war". Verstehst du den Unterschied? Oder brauchst du noch mehr Hilfe?
Ob das Folter war oder nicht, dazu habe ich mich in diesem Satz gar nicht geäußert.
Merkwürdige Verständnisschwierigkeiten, die du hast.
Posted by: Gabi | January 18, 2005 at 09:28 PM
About Abu Ghraib, here at the Mudville Gazette the US Army weblog, they put together a little quiz, which gives the facts of the issue and different media reports in a kind of multi-choice test. It was mentioned on LGF a while back. Of course I am sure that those who want to believe the worst will scoff at me giving a link to a US army weblog as some kind of proof but even the doubters should at least let them give their side of the story. As they write:
"Take this simple 10 question quiz. The answers follow (no fair peeking). There are no trick questions, and no opinion questions. Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts. But perhaps not those you'll find on the editorial pages of your local paper."
Give it a go and see how many points you score, then read the story that the soldiers give... I think a few people, even regulars here, might be surprised at some facts they thought they knew but were perhaps mislead.
Posted by: Doughnut Boy Andy | January 18, 2005 at 09:34 PM
Katja Gloger schrieb einen netten Artikel über den netten Putin, als Bush zum Feind und Putin zum Freund erklärt wurde, so deutsch, so nett und ordentlich, diese liebe sanfte Stimme. Im Oktober 2003 lag sie damit voll im Trend. Was sie wohl heute zu ihrem Geschreibsel sagt:
"Zar ohne Land
Ex-Geheimdienstler, Deutschlandfreund, undurchschaubarer Taktiker - ein neues Buch zeigt den russischen Staatspräsidenten Putin erstmals ganz privat
von Katja Gloger
Kommen Sie doch mal vorbei", sagt er freundlich, als wäre es die normalste Sache der Welt. ...
Kiefern und Birken wiegen sich im Wind, Vögel zwitschern, in der Ferne glitzert die Moskwa, die Asphaltwege sind blitzblank. ... Hier ist er zu Hause, "WWP", wie er respektvoll genannt wird, Wladimir Wladimirowitsch Putin.
Es ist ein strahlender Samstagmorgen, Wladimir Putin begrüßt uns draußen, freundlich, unkompliziert, um Normalität bemüht. Er kommt auf uns zu in seinem eigenwilligen Gang, der ein wenig ungelenk aussieht. Es ist der vorsichtige Schritt des Judo-Kämpfers, der den richtigen Angriffspunkt sucht. Der weiße Pudel Toska flitzt über den Rasen, der zweijährige Labrador Conny springt vor Freude, als Herrchen ruft. Er begrüßt uns in seinem perfekten, leisen Deutsch. "Rossija" steht auf seinem blauen Trainingsanzug. Russland.
... Doch jeden Morgen treibe er ausgiebig Sport. Gern zeigt sich dieser Präsident als gesundes Vorbild für sein Volk.
Russland huldigt ihm. Die Menschen glauben, dieser Mann sei das Beste, was ihrem Land zurzeit passieren kann. Denn die so genannte "Demokratie" der vergangenen Jahre hat doch nur wirtschaftliche Katastrophen, Korruption und Kriminalität gebracht. Das gedemütigte Volk erliegt der Sehnsucht nach einem gutherzigen Führer, der die Staatsmacht über alles stellt. Denn der Staat ist er, WWP, der Präsident.
Außerdem raucht er nicht und trinkt nicht, und seine Frau mischt sich nicht ein in die Politik: "Ich will einen wie Putin", schmachtet die Mädchenpopgruppe Die Zusammengehenden und landet einen Sommerhit in Russland und Israel. Was sie an ihm mögen, fragen die Meinungsforscher. Seine Anständigkeit. Was sie nicht an ihm mögen? Er müsste härter sein. Und Putin propagiert trügerische Visionen wie "Vertikale der Macht" und "gelenkte Demokratie". Daran glaubt er wirklich.
"Ich will die Dinge ändern", sagt er. "Ich will nicht nur hinterm Busch sitzen und mit Stöckchen werfen." Doch dieser Mann muss beweisen, dass er mehr ist als ein Zar ohne Land. Und viel mehr als der gehätschelte Liebling des Westens, auf dessen Wohlwollen und Milliardenhilfen er angewiesen ist. Russland müsse den Lebensstandard eines Landes wie etwa Portugal erst noch erreichen, hat er sein Volk ermahnt. Selbst bei enormem Wirtschaftswachstum, rechnen die Experten, werde das einhundert Jahre dauern. Doch er will die Menschen gar nicht befreien - er will ihnen Ruhe und Sicherheit geben.
Er führt uns zu den Pferden. ... Ausgiebig füttert Putin geschnittene Apfelstückchen und Zucker.
Höflich, jovial, scheinbar offen und interessiert, so erobert Wladimir Wladimirowitsch Putin die Menschen, auf die es ihm ankommt. "Er musste lange an sich arbeiten, um unbefangen zu wirken", sagte seine Frau einmal. Er hört konzentriert zu, weiß viel, erinnert jedes Detail. Er ist nachtragend. Jede Geste, jedes Wort, jedes Lächeln hat er im Griff, er kontrolliert selbst seine öffentlichen Wutausbrüche. Er ist aufbrausend, ungeduldig. Stets bleibt er leise, doch sein Ton wird unangenehm scharf.
... Den Präsidenten aber, den gibt Wladimir Putin mittlerweile perfekt.
Er präsentiert sich als Mann für alle Gelegenheiten: Er ist der Zar mit eigener Website (www.president.ru) ebenso wie der autoritäre Militärkommandant und der kleinliche Bürokrat, der seinen Beamten einen dreiseitigen Leitfaden über "ethisches Verhalten im Dienst" verordnet hat. Er ist der getreue Geheimdienstoffizier und der moderne Politmanager mit einem Monatsgehalt von umgerechnet 2000 Euro und einem Faible für Romy Schneider. Stets stellt er sich perfekt auf seine Gesprächspartner ein, überrascht mit berechneter Einfühlsamkeit. Wenn er den gläubigen George Bush trifft, wirkt auch Putin besonders religiös - und er hat zuvor wochenlang Englisch im Sprachlabor geübt. Mit dem Bundeskanzler geht er kumpelig Bier trinken und plaudert als netter Russe von nebenan in deutschen Talk-Shows. Für Israels Premier Ariel Scharon ist er der knallharte Genosse im Kampf gegen den Terror. Er darf bei der Queen im Buckingham-Palast übernachten. Und wenn es sein muss, lässt er sich auch vom nordkoreanischen Diktator umarmen.
Artikel erschienen am 5. Okt 2003
http://www.wams.de/data/2003/10/05/178245.html?search=russland&searchHILI=1
Posted by: Gabi | January 18, 2005 at 09:42 PM
my guess is that the people at stern and a lot of germans think that america is such a racist country that the only way a black woman can make it that far is if she's bush's lapdog or a pr tool. how insulting.
Posted by: pietro | January 18, 2005 at 09:47 PM
@Ray D.
You have let down your guard after the excellent analysis yesterday in "This Will Never See the Light of Day in the German Media." 'zeta' has pulled the old bait and switch on you. Stern publishes a racist article and 'zeta' has managed engaged you in a discussion of Abu Ghraib.
That Abu Ghraib crap happened almost one year ago and the perpetrators have been prosecuted. It's over and has nothing to do with the matter at hand, which is racism in the German media. Let's go 'zeta'. You can talk about Abu Ghraib. What do you have to say about the Stern article? Does it sound like a reasonable position to you? Why do I have the feeling that you won't be able to answer without mentioning some other issue that you think makes the US look bad? WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE STERN ARTICLE, ZETA? WOULD YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WRITING THE SAME THING? DO YOU SAY SIMILAR THINGS IN CONVERSATIONS WITH 'GLEICHGESINNTEN'? Let's stick with the matter at hand.
BTW: Ray D. It's unfortunate that you, or whoever, deleted the rather abusive comment by the anonymous poster closer to the top of the thread. Heck, go ahead and leave the garbage there. It gives us a good glimpse into the moonbat mindset.
Posted by: beimami | January 18, 2005 at 09:50 PM
@ beimami,
Point well taken. You are right, and I am being accused of an "Ablenkungsmaneuvers!" I would like to hear more about what our readers think about this article.
---Ray D.
Posted by: Ray D. | January 18, 2005 at 10:04 PM
I think I see what there aren't a lot of minority women in the upper reaches of German politics, if this crap is typical of the German media.
Posted by: Craig Ranapia | January 18, 2005 at 10:40 PM
David obviously doesn't know German and English well enough to translate! You would only translate "Herren" as master if you doon't understand the article. "Herren" in this context clearly means patriarch, even mentor. Not master. Maybe his choice of interpretation reveals something about his own prejudices!
As for David's interpretation on Bush's "true thoughts on faith and foreign policy", let me say this: Jesus Christ David! Bush himself said that on IRAQ he "consulted a higher authority than his earthly father"... what did you 'interpret' that to mean? That's one of his most famous quotes from Bush's first term! David conveniently forgot about that because he MUST shit on all things German... it's like a mantra with him: "Shit on all things German! Must shit on all things German!" Get over it, David!
Dan in Baltimore
Note from David: Dan, first of all - I didn't write the piece. Ray wrote it, as you could easily have spotted on top of this posting. Next, I think, Ray is right on the spot with his interpretation. See, Ray is American with an excellent grasp of German, and I'm German with... well, let's say I get along. So, reading the German text I can assure you, you're dead wrong with your interpretation. STERN describes the Bush-Rice relation as that between a master and servant. And the picture was chosen to underline this. No doubt about that.
Glad to help you with the interpretation of German texts.
Posted by: Dan Cobb | January 18, 2005 at 11:03 PM