Sueddeutsche Zeitung: One-Sided Attack Journalism as News

(By Ray D.)

Germany: No Balance in News Leads to Conformity of Opinion

One of the fundamental problems with reporting on the United States in the German media is that the views of American conservatives are rarely, if ever, presented. That means that the views of those who hold power in the United States are rarely heard. Conversely, left wing, Bush-critical views hold a near monopoly in the German media and reporting on America.

OK, So what’s new? You’ve heard this all before from us, right?

Well, I believe that it is vitally important to point the following out: We at Davids Medienkritik do not advocate or desire a media that only tells the conservative side of the story or that only favors the Bush administration. If we did, we would be no better than the people we criticize.

Let us clearly state for the record: Bush-critical and America-critical voices are an essential part of the conversation. They are absolutely necessary.

But let us also state just as forcefully: Bush-critical, America-critical voices MUST be balanced by opposing points of view. Otherwise, conformity of opinion emerges that stifles debate and dialogue. Unfortunately, this is precisely what has happened in the German media, politics and society in recent years. Because we at Davids Medienkritik dare to call for balance in the German media, we are often attacked as Bush apologists, radicals and right-wing reactionaries. This further stifles debate and pushes anyone calling on the media to present both sides into the extremist corner. That has to change.

A Concrete Example of Bias: Sueddeutsche Zeitung’s Recent Front-Page Article

An excellent example of the phenomena of one-sided, attack journalism is a recent front-page article from Sueddeutsche Zeitung entitled “Truth and Fiction: Protocol of a Premeditated War” by Thomas Kirchner.

Here is how the article begins:

“Saddam must go: Everything was subordinated to this objective by Tony Blair and George Bush, even the truth. Now a document proves that they consciously lied to the public.

On 23 July 2002, eight months before the Iraq war began, British Prime Minister Tony Blair called his security policy experts to Downing Street 10. Foreign and defense ministers were present, the attorney general, security advisors and the leaders of the Army and secret service. They discussed the strategy for the fight against Saddam Hussein.

Almost three years later and four days before the election in Great Britain, on 1 May 2005, the Sunday Times published the secret protocol of the meeting. The Iraq war cost Blair votes, however the document went under in the election campaign. (A link to the document can be found at the end of this article.)

It has to do with the first internal government evidence that US President George Bush and his main ally Blair deliberately lied to the world in their preparation for the Iraq war.

Saddam must go: Everything was subordinated to this objective by Tony Blair and George Bush, even the truth. They manipulated intelligence information and made the dictator appear more dangerous than he was. That is known." (emphasis original)

Here again, the author conveniently forgets to mention a fact that is almost always overlooked in the German media. Namely, that the Clinton administration also had an official policy of regime change in Iraq. As James S. Robbins points-out in his outstanding piece on the Rycroft memo (also known as the "Downing Street" memo):

"In the summer of 2002 the policy of the United States was that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power. However, that does not mean that the decision to go to war had already been made.

Contingency planning for military operations against Iraq had begun as early as November 2001. This is no secret; the full timeline along with a wealth of details can be found in General Tommy Franks’s memoir American Solider. The plan that became known as OPLAN 1003V began to be put together in earnest in January 2002. The existence of war planning does not in itself prove that the use of force was inevitable. The purpose was to provide the president with the full range of credible alternatives for pursuing U.S. policy vis-à-vis Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Regime change had been U.S. policy since October 31, 1998, when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. It was not a state secret. On February 12, 2002, Colin Powell stated that "With respect to Iraq, it has long been, for several years now, a policy of the United States government that regime change would be in the best interests of the region, the best interests of the Iraqi people. And we are looking at a variety of options that would bring that about." The policy had bipartisan support; in June 2002 Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said, "There is broad support for a regime change in Iraq. The question is how do we do it and when do we do it."" (emphasis ours)

But that doesn't interest Mr. Kirchner. Furthermore, his three-page article is absolutely uncritical of the memo. The document is presented to readers as solid, incontrovertible evidence that Bush and Blair lied. In fact, the memo's authenticity has yet to be confirmed or denied. According to the UK's Sunday Times, the document was written on July 23, 2002 by Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide to Blair, who was recording the statements of Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, upon returning from a meeting with CIA officials in Washington. In other words, the memo is Mr. Rycroft's record of Sir Dearlove's impressions gained from conversations with unnamed intelligence officers. Put another way, the entire thing is based on second or even third-hand hearsay derived from the opinions of unidentified sources at the CIA! Of course none of this is so much as mentioned by Sueddeutsche.

And other key information is completely ignored by Kirchner, for example: Both the Bush administration and Senator John McCain have already stated that they strongly disagree with the contents of the memo. Additionally, both Bush and Blair addressed the memo in detail and rejected its assertions at a recent joint press conference. But despite the length of his work, Mr. Kirchner sees no need to so much as mention those views. They are simply omitted.

Just to be clear: Our objective at Davids Medienkritik is not to judge whether the memo is accurate or not. We are not in a position to determine that, nor is the Sueddeutsche Zeitung. If the memo is both authentic and accurate, (which is far from clear), then it does indeed raise troubling questions about the Bush administration’s approach to the war. No doubt about that. But again: When a contentious debate erupts over a controversial document, it is the media’s duty to cover both sides of the debate and to examine the merits of the arguments on both sides. Thomas Kirchner badly fails to do so.

Buried and Out of Context...

Usually, biased left-wing publications like Sueddeutsche (or Spiegel or Stern) at least make a weak attempt to present both sides of the story to maintain a thin façade of journalistic professionalism. That usually means that inconvenient facts or opinions (those that contradict the main thrust of the article) are buried in the closing paragraphs that few readers ever reach, often badly mangled and out of context. True to form, Mr. Kirchner briefly mentions Blair’s reaction to the memo at the very end of his twenty-eight paragraph work:

“Blair reacted to the publication of the memorandum at the BBC. At that time nothing had been decided on the attack, he said: “We determined then to once again go to the UN and give them a last chance. 

In the USA the New York Review of Books also published the protocol. At the end of its analysis the author quoted a “high-ranking advisor” to Bush: “We are an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality.”

Not surprisingly, Blair's statement, which is preceded by an unmitigated three-page attack on his character and motivations, is placed in the article so as to make him appear all the more disingenuous and cynical.

The final paragraph serves as the author's final indictment on Bush and Blair. The great irony is that the final quote could best be used to describe the German media and the author himself:

"When we act we create our own reality."

Indeed. Mr. Kirchner has in fact created his own reality, a reality shared by millions of Germans who believe they are getting the straight story from their media. It is a reality in which the voices of those who question anti-American, anti-Bush populism are ignored, shut-out and condemned. It is a reality in which inconvenient facts and opinions are buried out of context and out of view. It is a reality in which, in the words of Dominic Hilton:

"The industry of anti-American sentiment is just that – an industry. It should not be mistaken for legitimate and considered concern. “I hate America” is the world’s default position. Knocking America is a form of displacement. It helps non-Americans avoid focusing on their own big problems."

It is a reality in which SPIEGEL staff members openly admit to publishing anti-American magazine covers to keep their million readers happy. It is a reality dictated by bias and ideology. Bluntly put: It is a sad reality that is destroying healthy transatlantic relations.

Why America Doesn't Care

Recently, many pundits have asked why Americans don't care about "memogate" and all of the other stories from Great Britain and elsewhere that shed a negative light on the Bush administration. Why won't Americans listen to the anti-war crowd? Why won't they see the light?

A major reason is that many Americans already understand that "I hate America" IS the default position of far too many around the world. Many Americans realize that much of the criticism they hear blaring from across the seas is not fair, balanced, constructive and heartfelt but rather dishonest, biased, destructive and vindictive. Far too many critics of America would rather see the country go down in failure and flames as opposed to changing the nation for the better, and Americans know that. In the case of the German media, the exploitation of populism for profit is also a motivating factor as the SPIEGEL comment clearly indicates. So how do many Americans react? They rightfully close their ears in mistrust and the dialogue is cut off.

And that won't change until the Thomas Kirchner's of the world make an honest attempt to present both sides of the story and to present all of the facts, even those that might not conveniently fit into their anti-Bush tirades. Because as long as front-page articles read more like propaganda than news, there is little hope for honest debate and open discussion.

Update: For those of you who might have thought the Sueddeutsche article was an isolated incident: Die Zeit just published a shorter article with the same one-sided approach. The article is entitled "Concrete War Planning already in 2001: An internal British government document shows how Bush and Blair misled the public." (Hattip: Stefan of Politically Incorrect)

Comments

[Rofe]

Ray D.

It is, I assure you, completely coincidental that my reply is near the top of the thread. Just wanted to say, however, that I think this is the best post I've read on your site.

Thanks for the effort.

Cheers,

[poguemahone]

Couldn't say it better myself

"Many Americans realize that much of the criticism they hear blaring from across the seas is not fair, balanced, constructive and heartfelt but rather dishonest, biased, destructive and vindictive. Far too many critics of America would rather see the country go down in failure and flames as opposed to changing the nation for the better, and Americans know that"

Indeed -

I have zero doubt that VAST MAJORITIES in Europe earnestly wish for Iraq to end like Vietnam and so teach the US a lesson

If this results in another Pol Pot type situation - this will be blamed on America too

I had the odd experience of hearing a european "explain" to me how the whole Khmer Rouge and the million dead in the Killing Fields was Kissingers fault

Its ALWAYS America's fault

So frankly - when other wish so hard for my nation to fail - for us and our real allies and the Iraqi people and just about everyone to suffer so that they can feel superior for another few fleeting years, can you understand why I don't really care

[Lou Minatti]

"A major reason is that many Americans already understand that "I hate America" IS the default position of far too many around the world."

I used to care. But over the past few years the rants have grown so shrill and absurd that I no longer care. For the crazy left, here and abroad, America is the source of literally every problem, real and imagined. So I tuned them out.

I know the precise moment this happened to me. It was when I learned that the most popular book in France in 2002 was the deranged tome about the Pentagon being hit by a missile on 9/11, rather than a 757, and it was all a plot by the evil US government. This bad craziness has always existed, only now it's louder and thanks to the Internet we hear about it.

[James W.]

Damn it Ray!

If you keep writing like that, I'm going to have to buy another T-shirt!

[mamapajamas]

David, AMEN! All we wanted was a fair hearing of our side, and we never got it. And it's hit the point where fewer and fewer of us care.

Lou M: "I know the precise moment this happened to me. It was when I learned that the most popular book in France in 2002 was the deranged tome about the Pentagon being hit by a missile on 9/11, rather than a 757, and it was all a plot by the evil US government."

That was exactly the point where I lost it, too. I could not believe that people actually believed that nonsense, when, in spite of all their neatly packaged theories, hundreds of people not even remotely connected to the government saw the plane come down. The Pentagon is not located in a vacuum, it's near several major highways, one of which was buzzed by the 757 that subsequently crashed into the side of the Pentagon. I recall reading reports (I don't own a TV... watch DVDs on the computer) of people who had been driving by who had almost had accidents veering off the road because the plane was so low. Traffic stopped for miles around while people stared at the crash in shock.

The hundreds of witnesses are the teensy-weensy but ever so significant little detail that keeps getting left out of that so-called "theory". It makes me wonder how so many can be so gullable.

[omg dracula]

If you no longer care - why are you posting here?

[luisalegria]

Mr. Poquemahone,

The Cambodia idea is the result of the William Shawcross analysis of those events in his book "Sideshow". That has been carried over as the leftist conventional wisdom since 1980, that the US bombed the Khmer Rouge into insanity.

I think even Shawcross has changed his mind on it since, but the idea is still out there.

[Chris L.]

omg dracula: "If you no longer care - why are you posting here?"

Not to speak for anyone else, but it seems to me that "not caring" means two different things.

I "care" what the German media and government think in the sense that I like to keep myself informed about what's going on in the world around me. Knowing how things are being reported or spun also helps me put official attitudes and policies emanating from Germany in a broader context. For example, I'd have been much more concerned with Schroeder's latest anti-capitalism crusade if I didn't know that it was part of a larger attempt to divert attention away from his own political and economic failures.

On the other hand I "don't care" what the German media and government think in the sense that I don't judge actions, policies, or politicians based on how (un)popular they are in Germany. While it's always easier to have countries supporting your policies than trying to undermine them, German approval or disapproval is ultimately a matter of interest rather than of concern.

Do I care enough about the French Open to find out who won? Sure. Do I care who won? No.

[mamapajamas]

omg dracula: "If you no longer care - why are you posting here?"

OMG... Chris L. stated that well. I care about David and Ray and their friends' efforts to get some balance into the German conscience.

I just don't care what YOU think of it.

[PacRim Jim]

Every second German and French leftists stay away from anti-U.S. protests is another indication of their lack of commitment. They should protest in the streets 24x7x365 for at least ten years. Meanwhile, we Americans shall continue working (and ignoring cis-Uralic losers).

[Abe]

The Downing Street memo is authentic and finally the media in the US is beginning to take notice. According to the latest ABC poll, the majority of Americans feel that war in Iraq has not made them safer, and the price has been too high. The dismal recruiting statistics from the military for last month only confirm this. The American people are finally realizing they were lied to. So you can blame the German media all you want, but the house of cards is beginning to collapse.

[Ray D.]

@ Abe,

You are entitled to your opinion. Indeed, many people in the German media share your opinion. It is important, however, to remember that you DO NOT have a monopoly on truth. A lot of intelligent, honest people with strong arguments disagree with you on Iraq and Bush and they deserve to be heard and listened to without being demonized and smeared. Both sides deserve to be fairly heard-out. That is the point here.

Good journalists are obliged to report on all points of view surrounding a story, even those that they may not agree with personally. That clearly did not happen in this instance and that is the problem.

Here is something I suggest you read for some historic perspective. I am not trying to be mean-spirited or condescending, I just think you should read this over and think about it:

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/10/wrong_war_wrong.html

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2003/11/all_dates_refer.html

---Ray D.

[Eric Laimins]

David,

Many thanks for this piece.

What is truly appalling is that Sueddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit, especially Die Zeit, would print such garbage. They are a disgrace to the entire field of journalism. It seems like the FAZ the only rational newspaper remaining in all Germany.

You are right, Americans shouldn't listen to anything from old Europe, and after reading the the bile that passes for "journalism"-"journalism" worthy of 13 year old juvenile deliquents having temper tantrums-in German newspapers these days, who could blame the Americans? Not I.

Frau Merkel can't come soon enough. What the hell is going on in Germany? HOW do articles such as that make it past the Editors?? Did these editors attend Lavrentia Beria University?

[Steve]

I think Ray hit this one right on the head.

I support the Iraq war. I felt and feel that the war was the right thing to do since the Hussein regime was A) thumbing its nose at what passes for international law & order B) had both produced and used WMDs in the past C) wouldn't authoritatively confirm the destruction of those WMDs, per it's Desert Storm ceasefire obligations D) was an odious, corrupt police state (For example, in Saddam's Iraq, it was actually possible to make a career as a professional rapist, in the service of the state) E) had a history of aggression against it's neighbors F) openly supported terrorism as a foreign policy tool and G) strengthened all hostile Middle Eastern movements by serving as an example of "rejectionism" against peace in the Middle East. I think that people who say that "Oh, Iraq has only strengthened terrorism/hostility in the Middle East" take a very narrow view of how things would be if Saddam Hussein were still in power.

Is Iraq a perfect war? Definitely not. In the runup to the war, I would have liked to have known that in fact the CIA had NO agents actually in Iraq, and so all their human intelligence was at best second-hand. I would have liked for more U.S. troops to be committed to the original invastion, so that security could have been better maintained. I would have liked for facilities such as the intelligence and foreign ministries, and Iraqi weapons dumps to be secured as the Coalition advanced.

I would also have preferred more international help. However, I understand that A) a lot of countries in the world have become very used to America doing this kind of martial heavy lifting in indirect support of the interests of foreign powers. (I have a hard time for example, believing that any responsible German politician can really look at Iraq and say that the replacement of Saddam Hussein didn't serve at least some of Germany's interests in the world.)

I respect those who are against war, or the Iraq war, as a matter of principle. If you an honest disciple of the view that "jaw-jaw is (always) better than war-war" then that is in many ways an admirable, principled position.

I do NOT respect general European behavior against the Iraq war, as it occurred over the last couple of years. First off, the legitimacy argument is bunk. Kosovo and Bosnia were both pacified using militar efforst that were either skirted UN sanctions (the U.S. using mercenaries instead of U.S. troops to train the Croat army, and then using the Croat army to bring the Bosnian Serbs to the bargaining table) or had even less legal support from UN resolutions than were present in Iraq (Kosovo). Second, if hundreds of thousands of people want to protest against the Bush administrations push for an Iraq war, great! But to do so without ANY attempt to balance the invective against Bush with denouncing, or even really examining, the nature of the Hussein regime is just ridiculous. When you do that, you basically go from being a committed pacifist to being a sympathizer with tyrrany and corruption. You also betray your own bigotry (and I use that word intentionally) against America and Americans.

Why should I, or anyone, pay any real attention to hundreds of thousands of bigots parading through the streets? If the Klu Klux Klan got hundreds of thousands of people out in the streets, parading to keep those uppity coloreds in their place, would that make their position worthy of consideration?

The anti-Iraq protests as they happened were spiritually far closer to the KKK than 99.9% of the marchers would like to admit. They would have done NOTHING to help those dark skinned Iraqis. Some of them (For instance, Michael Moore in his infamous "kids with kites" bit in Fahrenheit 9/11) even went as far as supporting the Hussein regime by intentionally glossing over it's behavior.

If you want to oppose war, good for you. But realistically, you have to offer something more than "Let's have Hans Blixx kick this one down the field some more, so we don't have to deal with it". No war? OK, propose a robust sanctions regime then, that directly targets the Iraqi leadership. Sieze assets, deny credit, deny travel visas, cancel contracts, exclude Baathist representatives from international forums, and most of all, support the Iraqi people and Iraqi democracy against the Hussein regime.

Consider this. At the time of the Iraq war, everyone KNEW that the Hussein regime had killed hundreds of thousands of its own people for internal political reasons, and imprisoned and tortured hundreds of thousands more. Everyone KNEW that the regime had failed to comply fully with both it's Desert Storm ceasefire requirements and with a dozen or so resulting UN resolutions. Everyone KNEW that Iraq had invaded and looted Kuwait, and invaded Iran when it thought the 1979 revolution had weakened the country. Everyone KNEW that they had used chemical weapons in both war and for internal repression.

To suggest that doing essentially nothing was the right course of action in these cases, and even denouncing the then existing oil-for-food sanctions regime was essentially just giving aid and comfort to enemies of civilization.

[mamapajamas]

Bravo! Well stated, Steve :). You've made me as proud as Ray has. :)

"Why should I, or anyone, pay any real attention to hundreds of thousands of bigots parading through the streets? If the Klu Klux Klan got hundreds of thousands of people out in the streets, parading to keep those uppity coloreds in their place, would that make their position worthy of consideration?"

And this is the key statement. Bigotry is exactly what this is.

[mamapajamas]

Abe: "The Downing Street memo is authentic "

So is the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, which Ray linked in his article.

The plan to take out Saddam preceeds Bush... it was Clinton's idea.

[mamapajamas]

re: "it was Clinton's idea." Well... it was Congress' idea, actually. Clinton just signed it into law ;).

[DC]

I would guess that there is a plan for invading every country on the planet at the Pentagon somewhere. This is after all how staff officers practice their profession, i.e. coming up with hypothetical situations and conducting planning exercises. To suddenly say "Gotcha - you were planning to invade Iraq all along" just because the pentagon had such a plan is at best demonstrating one's naivete about professional militaries.

Heck for an openly hostile regime like Iraq there were probably a dozen different plans probably from 1991 onwards. The same is probably true right now of Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Maybe there is even a study of regime change for the UK in response to a hypothetical coup there by the Guardian's Anti-American editorial staff. What do people think these generals and their colonel and major underlings do all day? Just requisition $400 hammers, decide which bases to close, and which contracts to award Halliburton?

Wait don't answer that last one.

[innit]

The US should have asked the Red Cross for money for the Iraq War, because this was essentially a charity operation, with no ulterior motives whatsoever.

@ Steve:

"If the Klu Klux Klan got hundreds of thousands of people out in the streets, parading to keep those uppity coloreds in their place, would that make their position worthy of consideration?"

It is a FACT that Iraq is still not a safe place. Just ask the families of the victims of the daily suicide bombings. The World is NOT a safer place since the Iraq War. The War has not, and never intended to, touch Al-Qaeda, or any terrorist groups. If you simply hope to compare people who see this to KKK members, then you have failed.

[innit]

When is the last time an American has EVER been able to take criticism? What would you consider to be wrong with your country?

Nothing? I thought so.

You will not rest until there are only neutral or friendly opinions of the US. Rest assured, this will never happen.

[beimami]

An excellent post and good comments too (except for the "If you don't care..." nonsense).

I do have one small issue though with the post. I disagree with the implication that it is journalistic incest that has led to the creation of "...a reality shared by millions of Germans who believe they are getting the straight story from their media." That is in my estimation a far too innocent view of the matter.

The fact is that the German media has by and large been hijacked by European Leftists, who are waging a propaganda war against democracy. And since the U.S., Bush and Tony Blair have pledged to support democracy world wide, they have become Leftist enemey number one. The anti-American bile produced by these closet Stalinists has incited large swaths of the German public into a frightening anti-American lather.

There is some hope. A change at the top in September could go a long way toward improving the propaganda situation, though it won't get get rid of the real disease - Leftism.

[mca]

Although I am a german who is pissed off by the stupid hostility and ignorance towards the US in Germany I often find this blog exaggerating. But this time I have to agree to (with, about??) every single word in the article. The first commenter was right: this is by far the best post on this site.

[Kees Rudolf]

@Beimami,
"The fact is that the German media has by and large been hijacked by European Leftists". The question remains how this could happen and why it happened just now. Journalism always has been a profession which attracted many people with predominantly leftist leanings, who would like to reform the world by spreading what they believe to be the truth. Teachers at the school for journalism are naturally of the same type. It is therefore always to to be expected that the media are to a certain extent dominated by the Left. But what is happening now in Germany (and elsewhere in Europe)seems unusual. I wonder how the current state of affairs came about.
What strikes me is that so many journalists, whatever their outright bias, sincerely believe that they are following their professional standards, which include impartiality, objectivity, fairness, respect for truth, only expressing an opinion within the context of an opinion piece, presenting and not misrepresenting opposing views, separating personal views from factual reporting, and the like. I'm sure the people working for newspapers like the Süddeutsche Zeitung are proud to be real professional journalists. They will laugh at the idea that they could be taken to be a gang of "closet Stalinists" who decided consciously to "wage a propaganda war against democracy".

[fuchur]

IMHO the reason why Americans don´t care about the memo is that it doesn´t really tell anything new.

Honestly- does anybody have the slightest doubt that Bush wanted this war? He wanted to get rid of Saddam in order to build a new Middle East. And he didn´t hesitate to use unreliable intelligence in order to convince the public that Saddam was a military threat. I call this lying; feel free to find another word that´s more politically correct.

But so what? What really counts for me is that things are going well in Irak today.

@Ray
I still think you are completely wrong when you call Malte Lehming´s article "vindictive". The original title alone (Koalition der Billigen) shows that it´s criticism towards the "cheap" attitude of Germany, France, etc.

[Jabba the Tutt]

mamaspajamas@: "The hundreds of witnesses are the teensy-weensy but ever so significant little detail that keeps getting left out of that so-called "theory"."

That's because for the Left people don't matter. People are too weak, helpless and stupid to decide for themselves. That's why they need the caring, compassionate, smarter than everybody Leftwingers to decide for everyone. And if people don't know what's good for them, they'll have to take it and like. Remember, the IRS is the business end of liberal compassion. In the US at least, the Left can't win elections, because they can't hide their contempt for people and people don't like voting for candidates, who think they know better.

[Jabba the Tutt]

@innit: "It is a FACT that Iraq is still not a safe place. Just ask the families of the victims of the daily suicide bombings. The World is NOT a safer place since the Iraq War. The War has not, and never intended to, touch Al-Qaeda, or any terrorist groups. If you simply hope to compare people who see this to KKK members, then you have failed."

It's 99% certain, that it's a waste of time to answer innit, whose mind is closed, who cannot tell the difference between honest, sincere criticism and anti-American rage, but what the heck, I'm enjoying a cup of coffee.

Innit, Iraq hasn't been a safe place, since the Baathists took power in a coup 40 years ago. Under Saddam alone, 400,000+ Iraqis were murdered and 4 million exiled. Fewer Iraqis are being murdered today than under Saddam, but today they have hope and a vision for a better future. And who is keeping Iraq from becoming a safe place today? The Americans? Are you that wacked out to believe that?

The world may not be safer, although the number of wars going on is at its lowest in decades and the number of terror attacks is way down worldwide. If France, Germany and Russia would help out making the world safer, rather than pour gasoline on the fire, that would be a plus. But I don't know how keeping Saddam in power would make the world safer, please explain that one.

That war was never intended to touch al Qaeda or any other terrorist group? We're deep into Moonbat Planet with this one. And comparing the demonstrators to KKK is wrong. The KKK were Boy Scouts compared to what the demonstrators supported. In the US (and UK I believe), the demonstrations were organized by Interational ANSWER. These guys are supporters, yes, unapologetic supporters of the Great Leader Kim Jong Il, who have murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, starved millions of his own people, just to keep his fat ass and bad hair in power. They also support Fidel Castro, who's on Forbes list of the wealthiest people on the planet, while his people are on starvation rations.

Yes, Innit, you and your ilk are just the moral supremacists you think you are. You're angry that there are people, who don't accept your self-designation of morality and think your beliefs are twisted, evil and anti-human. That you are blind to all of this is also sadly no surprise.

[Irena Mitzka]

The Left have never cared much for any of the people of their championed causes. Not for Vietnamese, Africans, Palestinians, Kurds or Iraqis. Their main effort is fighting capitalism and western democracies.

[beimami]

@innit
You are oh so right when you say, "You will not rest until there are only neutral or friendly opinions of the US." Democracy can never rest while it has enemies. And democracy will always have enemies, because there will always be imbeciles who want to force loony nonsense like Nazism, Communism or Leftism onto everyone else.

@Kees Rudolf
You make some good observations, and I harbor no illusions about the way Leftists view themselves: As true moral heros. That is why America, and especially Bush, drive them nuts. Leftists know what is best for everyone and have even managed to take over much of the UN (with which they one day hope to enforce their utopian visions), and here come these yahoos from America with their Texas cowboy leader insisting that people should decide for themselves what sort of government and society they wish to have. Such an affront is bound to make the true believer's rightious (or should I say leftious) blood boil.

@fuchur
Absolutely right. The Left doesn't understand why Americans don't care about the memo, and Americans can't understand why anyone WOULD care about the memo. I certainly don't care about it, nor do I know any Americans who do. And though I remain skeptical of the ultimate usefulness of the US invasion of Iraq, I am absolutely repulsed by the Franco-German efforts to protect that scumbag Nazi Hussein.

[Paul from Florida]

innit,

In the 1930's the left formed the Lincoln Brigades and put their lives where their mouths were. I look forward to today's leftist to form brigades and liberate( even into a socialist form )countries. No doubt you'll be first.

( insert sound of cricket here )

[Joe N.]

Innit:

we are talking about unceasing irrational criticism along the lines of "have you stopped beating your wife". One of my first personal recollections of this was equally virulent spitting before even the 80's.
The US put into law the hitching of human rights compliance with arms sales. Bad Human Rights record? No weapons sales.
The Europeans didn't just mock it, they became venomous, simply becuase they could. In fact in the past three decades, these governments have done nothing but band their spoons on their highchairs becuase they knew that the US wouldn't just accept the criticism, but try to address their eternally aggrieved feelings.

Now: try THIS in a mosque, spanky.

[Pato]

@joe n- geat comment, and the spoons you mention are being banged by almost the entire population it seems. Like young priks whose milk source is getting cold and do not have the ability to create their own "milk".
The US doesn't care about these street demos, or a german press corp staffed by intellectualy foolsih interns sucking on the nanny state's dried up and wilted teat. Nor do the care about schroeder's juvenile comments toward the US, his dyed hair, or the studio-tanned de villipen.
And you know why? Because who the hell would listen to a set of countries or their people who whose dysfunctionality and impotence are seen on a daily basis?
Does anyone think it to be a coincidence that the two biggest clown-led countries in europe (germany and france) who have teamed up together to mask a hideous existence amongst their populations continue to dive deeper into economic ruin and irrelevance? What success do either of these countries offer that the US should take note of?
None. The last time these two countries cozied up together as such was under Vichy.
The US can now stand back and watch the euros eat themselves like pack dogs while the rest of the world gets on with their lives.
The minds of europe are culturally enslaved, and life outside of the nanny-state's watch scares the hell out of them.

[playertwo]

i love this blog but my space bar is sticking and I'm going smash my computer..

before specifics a bito'dynamics.
the people can be trusted and the media are not the people. proof? usa.

while I agree that no one should be written any blank checks,period, there's a few extra factors
involved that seem political but arent. ie. Germany and Franceusedtodowaht the US is doing now, and theyve been marginalized. Some europeans don't care,others are outraged and will never forgive the US's success.
Uh,so what.
Other's use this fear as proof of a mandate for their leftist bullshit that seems to have gone too far. cf.france and n-land eu vote.The left thinks they can run with the idea that envyhate is the same thing as lefty love but I don't see it. Its a fine point and you can help me with it,its early.

The next thing is that in a pampered western society where nothing bad happens politics is a popularity contest. In other words, don't get too drawn into it, It will blow overand if it mattered it would be different.

Europeans are just starting to realize, as are the Canadians, that theyre missing out on the real game. This 'conservative' thing is really classical liberalism and they missed most of that too. Fox news, the blogs, before that Rush and Bill Buckley are rock stars and europe has lost its ear.

journalistic neutrality never meant objectivity, it just meant journalistic neutrality...

Against overwhelming numbers of press commies and college 'professors' a very small number of Right wing fanatics (ie "conservatives") have: taken the White House, knocked the UN on its ass, Freed MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, and ended the cold war. So why would you even give a shit what the commies think. Are you trying to save them from themselves?

Maybe that's a powertrip. Maybe that's impossible. By staying on point and hammering away with the truth everything has changed.

And with people like DMK it will continue to change. But it will be a process of replacement not conversion so don't hold your breath waiting for France,Germany or any of the stuck in the seventies societies to wake up.

Just as Gen Franks was saying that it was all about giving alternatives to choose from, so is the way of the blog. When the eggheads realize theyre out of the loop they'll start cominig around. Have some hope but be realistic about the left,its about way more than politics to them.

[innit]

@ Jaba the tit:

The Iraq War was supposed to fight terrorism? Oh, you mean that Al Qaeda and Saddam lie that even your own Preznit abandoned?

@ beimami:

"Democracy can never rest while it has enemies"

Are you really this retarded? The US is not the only democracy, but I guess your High School taught you otherwise. This is garbage on par with the Tagline "land of the brave, home of the free"

@ Joe N.

If you think the US gives a shit about human rights, just google extraordinary rendition. This program of renditions is fully authorized, so the CIA is not doing anything illegal that has not been authorized by the president. Also, this just in from the Chrstian Science Monitor:

"In 2001, Uzbekistan was an essential staging ground for the war that toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. But today it matters more as an example of US hypocrisy about human rights. It seems that a Soviet-style police state can brutalize its own people with impunity as long as it has good relations with the Pentagon."

Happy Spanking!

[Irena Mitzka]

The Left must be countered at every instance of their nosensical behaivior.

Everyone who is not conform with them must contradict, dispute, talk, yell and/or scream, call on the law, file lawsuits, rip down their illegal posters and stickers, cover up their graffity, contradict their childish „Aktionen“ with banners and paint throwing in a Parlialment/public event whatever, when they say „honk“ for this and that then pull down your window and tell them they are a bunch of ......, if your kids come home with strange ideas from the teacher, file a complaint etc, etc etc, if you are at a party make your Conservative voice heard. The Conservatives and the Right are too tolerant of these people.
Do everything legal and lawfull, but contradict them.
Once it gets rolling , it will work on a broader basis and others will see that it is ok voice a Conservative view and oppose the Left.

[Ray D.]

@ innit:

So if THIS isn't terrorism, what would you call it?

Since when does one necessarily have to be a member of Al-Qaeda to be a terrrorist? I don't accept your premise. A lot of people who are not in Al-Qaeda are still terrorists.

BTW: Did you know that Saddam's government gave $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers?

Regarding Uzbekistan, have you read THIS or THIS? This is not the first time the US has responded harshly and/or cut aid in response to abuses there. The fact is that Uzbekistan simply does not have a record nearly as bad as Saddam Hussein's when it comes to human rights, aggression against neighbors and cooperation with UN Security Council resolutions. But it seems that you, like Mr. Kirchner, choose to ignore facts that don't fit into your worldview because you have the default position that the USA and Bush are always wrong and can do no right.

---Ray D.

[poguemahone]

You know what really gets to the "Save Saddam" types like iDgit there - its letting them know that they are racist pricks who don't care about anything but their own comfort

Their whole measuring stick for Iraq is "were they directly and imminently threatening ME"

If this is not the case - then its none of his business

So much for all the bullshit about Rwanda or Sudan or anywhere else

clowns like idgit don't care about anyone but themselves

Whats hardes for them to live with - the knowledge, because it can't be denied, that Bush and his neo-cons are actually much better people that they are

Bush and his team have freed 50 million people over your objections idjit

Sorry - we can't put them back under Saddam and the Taliban to make you happy

[americanbychoice]

innit:
Are you "amihasser" in disguise?

[Gabi]

Tagesspiegel (09.06.2005 ) - Über Joschka Fischer in den USA:

"Reise durch Luftlöcher

Von Hans Monath, Washington

... Die Merkels, Westerwelles oder Gerhardts, die er im Bundestag jahrelang verhöhnte – und in der Irak-Debatte als Vasallen Washingtons verächtlich machte.

Würde die CDU-Chefin, die Deutschland ganz eng zurück an die Seite Amerikas führen will, George W. Bush notfalls die Stirn bieten – etwa wenn es um einen Schlag gegen den Iran ginge? Ein Urteil darüber möchte Fischer auch im kleinen Kreis nicht abgeben, doch der betont mitleidige Blick, das Kopfschütteln und die zur Seite gezogenen Mundwinkel machen deutlich, dass er blinde Gefolgschaft, gar Servilität einer deutschen Regierung gegenüber dem großen Partner für einen Riesenfehler hält.

Er selbst hat dem Verbündeten in der Irak-Debatte ungeschminkt die Meinung gesagt („Sorry, I am not convinced“), monatelang war er danach als oberster Reparateur des transatlantischen Verhältnisses unterwegs. Fischer ist letztlich davon überzeugt, dass er mit seiner offenen, kritischen Haltung gegenüber der damaligen US-Politik dem Partner selbst einen Gefallen getan hat. Dass die Supermacht USA die Probleme der Welt alleine nicht lösen kann, sondern auf andere angewiesen ist, hat er jetzt wieder in seinem Buch „Die Rückkehr der Geschichte“ aufgeschrieben, das er auf dem Hinflug 12000 Meter über dem Atlantik an die Journalisten verteilen lässt. Es ist nicht einmal so, dass er der einzigartigen Macht der USA misstraut. Er will nur dazu beitragen, dass Washington anders von ihr Gebrauch macht.

Den neuen transatlantischen Dialog zur Erneuerung des Westens predigt er schon lange. Da ist der Außenminister der Mittelmacht Deutschland ein Optimist, fühlt sich als gefragter Akteur in einem wichtigen Spiel, auch wenn sich die Bush-Regierung kaum bewegt. Stolz ist er darauf, dass die Mitglieder des außenpolitischen Ausschusses und wichtige Senatoren ihn wie einen alten Bekannten empfangen, nach seinen Analysen fragen und ihm in sensiblen Fragen sogar auch Recht geben. Andere sind viel pessimistischer als Fischer. „In all den Jahren seit dem Irakkrieg habe ich mit meinen Gegenübern nicht eine einzige Debatte über die wirklichen Gründe des Irakkriegs führen können“, sagt ein deutscher Spitzendiplomat. „Und ich habe es immer wieder versucht.“..."

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/dritte-seite/index.asp?gotos=http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/toolbox-neu.php?ran=on&url=http://archiv.tagesspiegel.de/archiv/09.06.2005/1866496.asp#

Herr Monath träumt am Ende des Artikels vom deutschen Sitz im Sicherheitsrat, aber diese Stelle hier über das Verhältnis zu den USA ist noch interessanter. Wenn CDU-Politiker die USA unterstützen, nennt er das Servilität oder blinde Gefolgschaft. Offensichtlich kann er sich nicht vorstellen, mit den USA einer Meinung zu sein und aus Überzeugung gemeinsam zu handeln.

[JW]

"Bush-critical, America-critical voices MUST be balanced by opposing points of view."

That's what The Atlantic Review does. http://atlanticreview.org/

[Steve]

@Innit:

You're right, Iraq is not the safest place on earth. Neither is Lebanon, Iran, North Korea, Nigeria, South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Colombia, Mexico or Egypt. Is that the fault of the U.S. too? Heck, crime levels are going up in most of Western Europe. Is that the fault of the U.S.?

Welcome to the human condition, Innit. Human nature has a destructive side, and it manifests itself in many ways. However, that isn't the responsibility of any particular nation or people.

Would I like for Iraq to be safer? Sure. Do I think that the U.S. could have done some things differently to help in that process? Yes I do. Is the violence in Iraq the fault of the U.S.? Absolutely not!

What's happening in Iraq is happening because of an ethnic struggle between Sunnis and the other inhabitants of Iraq. Some Sunnis want back their old power that they had under Saddam, regardless of the fact that 75% of the country or more is not Sunni. The United States is not responsible for this ethnic conflict, if you looked at it I am sure that you can trace it's genesis back at least 1200 years or so to the split between Shiism and Sunni Islam. The Hussein regime pursued this same ethnic conflict, it just did it with the power and respectability of the state. Does an ethnic conflict carried out using secret police, prisons and brigades of tanks differ so much from one that uses car bombs and assassins?

Add to this Zarqawi and his followers. Who are they killing these days? Americans? No, the Americans are far too well trained, equipped and protected to make good targets. Instead, police stations, markets and mosques are their targets. Zarqawi has largely abandoned his war against the U.S., so that he can try to intimidate the Iraqi population into obedience. Is the U.S. responsible for that? Unless the CIA has planted some mind control drug in Zarqawi's Koolaid, then no. Nobody is making Zarqawi target other Muslims, except Zarqawi.

Was the war in Iraq designed to get at Al Qaeda? Not directly. I don't think that there was a significant connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. There were in fact a lot of good reasons to get rid of Hussein, simply stemming from his own actions. I would be willing to bet that a little of the reason was George Jr. finishing up some of dad's business too. But so what? Are you saying that other political leaders in the world never do things because of their personal connection to the issue at hand?

I do agree that having Saddam as a rejectionist, terrorism-supporting, resolution-flouting tyrant did indirectly support Al Qaeda though, by demonstrating the vacilation of the West and by continuing the tradition of "Arab strongman" misrule that feeds the Islamist movement around the world.

I also agree that a democratic Iraq is a danger to Al Qaeda. THAT'S why Zarqawi is spending so much time and effort trying to bomb the democratic genie back into the bottle. Note how he is threatening the politicians of the current Iraqi government. He's not threatening them because they are American stooges, the Americans didn't put them in power, the Iraqi people did in an election the Iraqi people nearly universally said was the best chance to express their political wishes they had every had. Zarqawi and his followers (who brazenly call themselves AL QAEDA with the blessing of Al Qaeda's leadership) fear that free expression, because it attacks the myth that most Muslims want to rise up to expel the Yankee/Zionist crusaders.

[Helian]

@Gabi

>>"Andere sind viel pessimistischer als Fischer. „In all den Jahren seit dem Irakkrieg habe ich mit meinen Gegenübern nicht eine einzige Debatte über die wirklichen Gründe des Irakkriegs führen können“, sagt ein deutscher Spitzendiplomat. „Und ich habe es immer wieder versucht.“..."

The hypocrisy is enough to choke a horse, isn't it? You'd think these people posing as little plastic saints who pass for German "Spitzendiplomaten" these days would take a look at their own media if they were really interested in "eine Debatte ueber die wirklichen Gruende des Irakkriegs." There were strong intellectual arguments in favor of the war on both the left and right of the political spectrum in American before the invasion, as well as against it, but any description of or serious attempt to report on that debate in the German media was virtually nonexistent. Instead we got the lame "blood for oil" meme from Spiegel and the rest of the journalistic jackals. No matter that Iraq's oil resources are entirely in the hands of its own people, and it would take a thousand years to pay for the war even if we owned every field lock, stock and barrel. It was still "all about oil." No doubt the reason no one wanted to engage the "Spitzendiplomat" in a debate was the realization that he was another one of the condescending, braying SPD or Green jackasses repeating such "enlightened" explanations of the war ad nauseum, and whose idea of a "debate" involved the usual pious lectures about "morality" as defined by the German left. Here's my advice to the "Spitzendiplomat." Want a debate? Try promoting one among your own people by insisting they hear both sides of the story about America. Until you do we're not interested in hearing your grotesquely self-righteous proclamations from the "moral high ground."

[Kalifornia Mike]

So with all this hand-wringing about "himan rights," just where do the Schroeders and Chiracs come into play.

It is nice to criticize the U.S. for doing nothing, but I don't see these elitist Europeans doing anything about the Sudan, Uzbekistan, etc.

Just where were they on the question of Iraq? Where was their reporting on Saddam Hussein's brutality?

Perhaps it is due to the European philosophy that seems to think it perfectly proper to occassionally have a Hitler, a Vichy government, to somehow overturn the excesses and failures of a democracy?

But they are right on one thing. There will always be those who hate those who have occupied them. A case in point would be Germany. While the notion of Ost Politik ran high in the social and political conscience of Europe, America was steadfast in its belief in a United Germany.

While the Americans were still calling the Grundgesetz the Basic Law, Germans in the west were rejecting the idea that it would take the Laender in the "songenannte DDR" to make it a Verfassung.

Where was Europe's internationalism when they invaded Yugoslavia? Where they starved the Serbs into submission? Where were Europeans when the German trade unions were slaughtered on the Potsdamer Platz? Where were the human rights activists when the Soviets put down the democratic revolution in Hungary is 1956? Czechoslavakia in 1968?

With apologies to Paul Linke: Die Berliner machen Luft, Luft, Luft!

[Kees Rudolf]

Iraq is not the safest place on earth and Steve is right in saying that this is not the fault of the U.S. I'd like to add that, apart from the causes Steve listed, the foreign policy of France and Germany, so much applauded by nitwits like Innit, has been and still is among the contributing factors to the violence.

I will buy 500 shirts, Ray D or David, if you can justify the practice of extraordniary rendition. I have yet to be answered by any of you people who care so much about human rights.

[xixi]

Auf Wiedersehen Deutschland.

[Helian]

The more you sniff this "memo" story the smellier it gets. The German MSM hate peddlars really expect us to believe they're so dumb they don't know what a contingency plan is. Of course, we've known for a long time they assume their public is that dumb. No doubt if they got ahold of all the Pentagon's other contingency plans, they would be pulling long faces the next day and assuring their gullible readers they were "proof" the U.S. really intended to do all those things. What a joke! Like the Paris fashions, German journalists just face down ridicule.

@ Ray D

The article was from the Christian Science Monitor Ray D, so I guess it's not just the Germans who smell a rat. Uzbekistan is still considered an ally and the article itself states aid will still be given. Regardless of what for, this is giving far more courtesy than deserved, but I guess since they sided with the US in regards to the invasion of Iraq, they do deserve to be treated better. Unlike Saddam, the govt. has only tortured a few hundered or thousand civilians, which is really not that bad.

Care about human rights. How very laughable and pathetic.

[Helian]

>>"I will buy 500 shirts, Ray D or David, if you can justify the practice of extraordniary rendition. I have yet to be answered by any of you people who care so much about human rights."

What joke will you tell us next? That you give a rat's behind about human rights? Give me a break. You and your fellow leftist pecksniffs rejoice at every story you hear about U.S. rights violations. You feel nothing but unalloyed joy about extraordinary rendition and Abu Graib, because they're grist to the mill of your hate peddling hobby. Do you really expect us to believe you're concerned about human rights, you who show a profound disinterest in any violation of human rights that doesn't involve the U.S.? Far from actually doing anything effective to oppose human rights violations you play into the hands of the torturers. We see every day how they use the one-sided and hysterical propaganda attacks of people like you to justify continued indifference to real incidents of abuse and torture. You're only a heroic and valiant fighter for human rights in your own distorted imagination. In reality you're a collaborator with the torturers.

[James W.]

@jabba

""It's 99% certain, that it's a waste of time to answer innit, whose mind is closed, who cannot tell the difference between honest, sincere criticism and anti-American rage, but what the heck, I'm enjoying a cup of coffee.""

I'm certain that 100% would have been a safe bet. Why do we always keep trying with people like innit? I've always suspected myself of being somewhat masochistic.

[JustMe]

"I will buy 500 shirts, Ray D or David, if you can justify the practice of extraordniary rendition. I have yet to be answered by any of you people who care so much about human rights."

What makes you think the US is doing this? Care to prove it? No moonbat allegations either. Proof. Legal. By law. Not press. Proof that the US is guilty. And not just in your mind.

Myself I wish they would. I just don't see the US government having the gumption to do it. Pity really.