Stern Interview: Another Katja Gloger Masterpiece

(By Ray D.)

Over the last two years, we at Davids Medienkritik have attempted to recognize and identify patterns in the German media that contribute to the deterioration of transatlantic relations. One of the most obvious and harmful patterns is the way in which interviews are conducted. Although we have no studies to refer to, it is clear that interviews with Bush opponents dramatically outnumber those with Bush supporters. These interviews often serve to reinforce negative stereotypes about Bush, conservatives and America in general. Interviews with Bush supporters that might add balance are extremely rare and often conducted in a highly critical tone (if they appear at all.) Additionally, interviews with outspoken Bush opponents are often prominently placed and frequently make the front-pages.

Katja Gloger: Never Met a Bush Opponent She Didn't Interview...

An excellent recent example: A front-page interview at stern.de entitled "We are Injuring the Ideals of America," with David Rothkopf. David who? Never heard of him? Doesn't matter...he's an outspoken opponent of the Bush administration. More importantly, Katja Gloger, Stern magazine's all-star "Amerika Korrespondent" wanted to interview him.

In case you don't already know her, Katja Gloger has already written a couple of real whoppers. In a news article published just after the 2004 US elections, Ms. Gloger labeled Bush supporters "radical activists of the right" and called the Iraq war a disaster - 3 times. One has to wonder what she would have called World War II? A mega-macro-giga disaster? After all, ten times more American soldiers died in the Battle of the Bulge alone than have fallen thus far in Iraq. Does that make the Battle of the Bulge a disaster times ten?

In another article on Condoleeza Rice entitled "The Voice of Her Master," published on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Ms. Gloger condescendingly implied that George W. Bush is the "master" of the first black woman ever to hold the office of US Secretary of State. Gloger portrayed Rice as a loyal, obedient Bush underling. To make her point unmistakably clear, the Stern correspondent used an unbelievably demeaning photo that portrays Rice next to Barney the dog. The title of the article is also a reference to a dog. (Read more here.)

But let's get back to the Rothkopf interview, because it has all of the essential elements of a Gloger masterpiece: Bush opponents (the only sort of people Ms. Gloger interviews) are never asked tough, critical questions. Those with strong anti-Bush opinions go unchallenged and are even encouraged to deride the President. The Iraq war is described as a disaster and failure as often as possible. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are held up as proof that America is a nation of hypocrites. Bush and his supporters are repeatedly portrayed as ideologically-driven, fanatic religious zealots who believe God has ordained them to rule. And on and on...

Here is the introductory paragraph from the Rothkopf interview:

"The victory of the US in the "war on terror" seems to be further away than ever. The Washingtonian political insider and author David Rothkopf spoke in a stern.de interview about the mistakes of the Bush government and the most powerful committee in world history."

A perfect intro: Start by declaring the "war on terror" an unwinnable quagmire (why didn't she mention Vietnam though?) Then proceed to introduce the latest resident expert on the mistakes of the Bush administration. The interview begins as follows:

"Question: Mr. Rothkopf, why should people in Germany be interested in the National Security Council in the USA?" 

Rothkopf: "The Security Council is the most powerful committee in world history. The President, the Vice President, the Defense Minister, the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor belong to it. It is a very small group and most of them have known each other for many years. Additionally, there are 200 employees on staff, experts for every nation in the world. And factually, the National Security Council rules the world. Its decisions influence the lives of billions of people. This small committee can decide to topple a government on the other side of the world. Or to send an aircraft carrier somewhere. Or to impose economic sanctions. No one can stop it. Neither the UN nor allies."

Exactly...this is what the German media has been trying to warn us of all along...a small, scheming cabal of radicals are, in fact, running the world. Mr. Rothkopf's statements are undeniable proof of that. And the scary part? The neocons have their fingers on the trigger and no one can stop them...

Wait a minute...is this all sounding slightly paranoid yet? Even Jacques Chirac has the power "to send an aircraft carrier somewhere" or "impose economic sanctions." So what?

And what about the claim that the President and his neocon committee run the world unchecked by anyone? Has Mr. Rothkopf ever heard of the United States Congress? Right now, the supposedly omnipotent George Dubya can't even get Social Security reform passed or his nominees to the UN and federal courts approved without a struggle of epic proportions. So much for being all-powerful...

A later segment reads:

"Question: Can the war against terrorism be won through the export of democracy?"

Rothkopf: First off: Terror is a tactic - terror is no enemy. Yes, we can topple a dictator like Saddam Hussein. But we can't force our system on a country. Democracy must grow on its own. Afghanistan is a different example: The land is factually an American protectorate and at the same time the largest producer of heroin in the world! We are protecting a land that produces heroin. What does that have to do with the war on terror?"

Of course. What nuance! "Terror is a tactic, not an enemy." It all goes back to "root-causes" and "cycles of violence." How could we possibly morally judge someone who blows away innocent civilians without first understanding his or her pain? How about a little empathy for Osama? And perhaps if the Jews had just understood why the Nazis were so angry and could have avoided the gas chambers. Can't we all just get along...?  

And how about that heroin gaffe. Afghanistan was a large producer of heroin well before the US ever toppled the Taliban. Mr. Rothkopf makes it sound as if the US is supporting or defending the production of heroin through its presence in Afghanistan. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the US government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually ($780 million this year according to the Christian Science Monitor) to fight the drug trade in Afghanistan.

A further passage reads:

"Question: However, even internally criticism is growing loud - obviously to the dislike of President Bush. Does the USA need a new strategy?

Rothkopf: "Bush has indeed summarized his strategy in one sentence: "With us or against us." With that he is ignoring a lesson of history. Because if we continue on so, we will never win back the trust of other states and people. Secretary of State Rice can travel around the world as much as she likes, Laura Bush can jet off to crisis areas - it will always be clear: We are cooperative and friendly as long as you share our opinion. Otherwise not. We have allies, but they change according to our mission. That is pragmatic and extremely dangerous at the same time.

Mr. Rothkopf would have us believe that President Bush is ignoring an important lesson of history. But in fact, he himself is forgetting history altogether by reinforcing a favorite pet-belief of the German left: Namely, that George W. Bush said that you "are either with us or against us" in an historic vacuum with no context or background. In fact, Mr. Bush made the "with us or against us" statement immediately following the September 11 terror attacks and was saying that you are either on America's side or on Osama bin Laden's side. Of course that context is something that Bush opponents all too gladly ignore and forget because it neutralizes their criticism of Bush as a mind-numbed, black-and-white-thinking automaton.

Oh and by the way: The last time we checked, the US still considers Germany to be a partner and ally despite its opposition to the Iraq war. And as far as dangerous pragmatism goes, perhaps Mr. Rothkopf has already forgotten how his former boss, Bill Clinton, formed his own coalition of the willing without UN approval to go into the Balkans. And guess what? The current Schroeder government also completely backed that action, without a UN mandate! (Of course Mr. Rothkopf was far less critical of the entire approach back then.)

The interview's conclusion is a true highlight:

"Rothkopf: (...) We are so two-faced. We talk about justice and allow Guantanamo. And even in one hundred years people in Arab countries will hold up the pictures of abused Iraqis in Abu Ghraib prison when they talk about the USA. This mistrust will not subside."

Question: How can the lost credibility be successfully won back?

Rothkopf: We need new legitimacy. Our first President George Washington once said: America should be a land that pays respect to the rest of the world. Because we can't rule the world, we should lead it. For that we must ourselves be an example. We can encourage others to change. We can support that, together with others, but we cannot force it. Otherwise someone will soon appear somewhere in the world who can propagate a real alternative to our system. As once Karl Marx did, that man from the German province."

Fabulous Karl Marx reference. Indeed. We cannot force democracy on other nations. Just look at history: Nazi Germany and Japan would have become democratic if we had just supported them a little more in the 1930s and not resorted to barbaric violence. We should have simply tried to understand why the Fascists hated Jews, Slavs, Americans and pretty much everyone else and empathized with them...oh yeah...where's the love?

And let's not forget that during World War II, America forced its democracy on other nations while it interned innocent Japanese-American citizens without so much as a trial. How unforgivably hypocritical... And today after sixty years, all we remember are the internment camps and no one cares about democracy or freedom...right? And the worst part of it all...American troops are still in Germany and Japan...it's a never ending quagmire...how right Mr. Rothkopf is. Why won't Bush just listen?

America Invincible or Collapsing: So What is it for the Angry Left?

This single interview illustrates an interesting point: The entire picture of the United States government delivered by the German media is remarkably inconsistent. One day the US is the supreme unilateral giant capable of toppling anyone anytime. The next day the US economy is in serious trouble and the military is demoralized, degraded and so short on recruits that it supposedly can't engage in another campaign even if it needed to.

The confusion about America in Germany is due in large part to the fact that the German media is totally failing to provide Germans with balanced coverage of the United States. Conservatives, as we see in Ms. Gloger's work, are regularly written-off and smeared as "radicals, religious nuts, gun nuts, reactionaries, right-wing extremists, etc. Conversely, the loudest, most prominent Bush opponents are frequently interviewed, often in a very uncritical way. These Bush critics are almost always presented as mainstream, middle-of-the-road, knowledgeable and moderate experts.

Again, the number of interviews done with Bush skeptics and the time allotted to their points of view also dramatically outweighs that given to Bush supporters. This imbalance is in part the result of a vicious cycle: Unfortunately, anti-Americanism and anti-American stereotypes sell well in Germany. Furthermore, many in the German media are already ideologically inclined against the Bush administration and have a financial incentive to offer readers media that confirm stereotypes and reinforce bias. Only a few lonely voices dare to speak-out against the majority view, Broder, Doepfner and Malzahn come to mind...but they are little more than shouters in the desert.

The bottom line is this: Until Germans hear the other side of the story in a fair and balanced way, until they understand why over 60 million Americans, (most of whom are moderate, everyday people) voted for Bush, the deterioration of transatlantic relations will only worsen. And we have biased, ideologue journalists like Katja Gloger to thank for that.

Comments

[Sandy P]

--"Bush has indeed summarized his strategy in one sentence: "For us or against us."--

If they're going to quote the man, the least they could do is get it right.

[poguemahone]

Who is this guy? I mean - why is he worthy of an interview on this, or any subject?

If I was the boss I would fire her lard-ass for

A) failing to get an interview with someone that someone, anyone!, might have heard of

B) asking questions a 6 year old could have written

[Ray D.]

Sandy P: The "for" instead of "with" has been changed and is more the result of translating into German and back again than anything else. Thanks for the heads up.

---Ray D.

[frank martin]

Well of course we can force our political system on other coutries, like Germany for example. A german taking the position that democracy comes only from the inside is really a big mistake. Of course do to it, we had to incinerate Hamburg and Dresden to get peoples attention, but it did actually work in the end. I think its a shame that it came to that, but I like to think the Berlin Airlift helped make up for it.

Germany is not a democracy today because of a peoples revoultion. Its a democracy because they were forced to be one. It did not come easy, and it was a gamble that it would work at all. After the war, many learned people believed that Germans could never be trusted to govern themselves. Im glad we didnt listen, but there are times when I wonder if they might have been right. Id like them once to provide an example of a country changing from the inside. Especially when its controlled by a madman. Do they really think that North Korea would be democratic if only the North Koreans would just vote and that the reason they dont is because they are happy with the way things are? north Koreans are imprisoned. They have no free will and niether did the Iraqis. It would be better if people would see the Iraq war as the biggest prison break in history, rather than an invasion.

[Trish]

Ray,

I totally agree with your assesment of the German MSM. My evening on ARD was typical of what you describe. The first question was:

So Mrs. Roess Bush has won another election, who is this good for other than Bush himself.

The question was posed 30 minutes after Kerry conceeded. And just prior to Bush accepting.

I still feel the German people are also to be held accountable. They pay these people with GEZ money. The people are the boss, but you would never know it.

[Pamela]

David Rothkopf
>>David Rothkopf, founder, chairman and chief executive officer of Intellibridge, a firm offering open-source intelligence and advisory services on international issues, also served for two years as managing director of Kissinger Associates. Earlier, he served as deputy under secretary of commerce for international trade policy. In this capacity, he played a central role in developing the Clinton Administration's ground breaking Big Emerging Markets Initiative.

http://www.ceip.org/files/about/Staff.asp?r=188

David Rothkopf, via this Washington Post piece, identifies the real crux of the problem of design in Bush's national security team: Cheney and Rumsfeld operate to an extraordinary degree outside the bounds of the National Security Council, of inter-agency debate and collaboration at all, a set up the President has chosen and Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley have facilitated.

>>David Rothkopf, via this Washington Post piece, identifies the real crux of the problem of design in Bush's national security team: Cheney and Rumsfeld operate to an extraordinary degree outside the bounds of the National Security Council, of inter-agency debate and collaboration at all, a set up the President has chosen and Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley have facilitated.

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001390.html

His full CVS is here:
http://schema-root.org/people/career/business/david_j_rothkopf/
>>David Rothkopf, Managing Director and Member of the Board of Directors for Kissinger Associates, the international consulting firm chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, taught "Interdisciplinary Perspectives: Big Emerging Markets." It was the second time Rothkopf taught the course, which focused on U.S. policy making in the realm of emerging markets. In the spring semester, he will teach the follow-up course, "Faultline Issues in U.S.-Emerging Markets Relations," which will deal with issues of conflict between U.S. interests and those of other countries as they pertain to emerging markets. Rothkopf just finished a book on the economic side of peacekeeping for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- where he is a visiting fellow -- called, "The Price of Peace." "The book bases itself on the recent experiences in Haiti, the Middle East, and Bosnia," he said. Rothkopf was also Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade in the first Clinton Administration.

bottom line: is a business/economic theoritician, not one iota of credibility in foreign policy.

Go google - there's tons of stuff on him

@frank martin

The whole Eastern Bloc crumbled from within. True, there was outside pressure from the NATO, but there was also considerable pressure on Irak, wasn´t there?
Some other countries that changed from within: Chile, Spain, Italy. South Africa.

@pogue
"Who is this guy? I mean - why is he worthy of an interview on this, or any subject?"

You see it on the Stern site: He´s from the Carnegie foundation. And he just wrote a new book, so this interview is probably some promotion effort.

I think that one reason for the overwhelming majority of anti-Bush interviews is neglicence on part the American conservatives. Keep in mind that German journalists aren´t big shots in the US. I don´t think they can be very picky about whom they interview.
When you give an interview to the WaPo, they are doing you a favor.
When you give an interview to Stern, you are doing them a favor.

Michael Moore made a huge promotion tour in Europe for his books. What about the pro-Bush crowd? Sometimes I wonder if they even bothered to bring out a German translation for their books...

[fuchur]

forgot to sign

[Monica]

Just 3 hours ago I was having a discussion with a French co-worker (I'm in the US) about the "you're either with us or against us" quote!
He was using it in our debate in the context of the Iraq war. I had to go online and prove to him that the quote came a little over a month after 9-11.

I told him, and I mean it, I would've been ok if the French & Germans had disagreed with the Iraq war, and refused to help us out - that would've been ok. But they (I realize not all) did much worse. They became a machine of opposing everything American - to the point of hoping we'd fail in Iraq. It's been simply absurd.

[Christian Zorn]

> ... and Mahlzahn come to mind ...

You shouldn't rely on publications like Junge Welt to spell his name correctly ;-)

[lemmy]

Kind of OT --

I saw on CNN International the other day that same old video clip of private businessman Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in (I think) 1983...in any event, a good 20 years ago.

Amazing. Rumsfeld has ONE (uno, ein, un, 1) meeting with Saddam and the main stream media (MSM) goes wild.

And what truly amazes me is few people realize the context of any relationship between Iraq and the US at the time (governmental or business). After the 444 days Iran held American hostages, OF COURSE Americans would (emotionally) favor the Iraqis over the Iranians in their 1981-1988 war. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's a fact.

But the 30-year relationship between Jacques Chirac and France had (has?) with Saddam gets little to no coverage by the MSM. Sickening.

[someone]

I have no idea why this phrase from an irrelevant, unknown press conference is getting dug up.

What Bush said that everyone in America remembers (or should) was in that astonishing speech to Congress nine days after 9/11, one of the most important addresses in this nation's history:

"Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Any statements about being "with us" are but an echo (as with a word-mangler like Bush, sometimes a distorted one) of this original event.

[James W.]

@ fuchur

"""I think that one reason for the overwhelming majority of anti-Bush interviews is neglicence on part the American conservatives. Keep in mind that German journalists aren´t big shots in the US. I don´t think they can be very picky about whom they interview.
When you give an interview to the WaPo, they are doing you a favor.
When you give an interview to Stern, you are doing them a favor."""

Oh come on! Please. Fuchur, I just can't imagine German journalists going around asking prominant American conservatives for interviews and constantly getting turned down. If anything, these conservatives would be MORE than willing to put the story straight (if they could trust the interviewer not to spin the crap out it!).

"""Michael Moore made a huge promotion tour in Europe for his books. What about the pro-Bush crowd? Sometimes I wonder if they even bothered to bring out a German translation for their books..."""

There were MANY Bush-bashing books on the market in Germany that did NOT come from Michael Moore. These books did not enjoy the big promotional tour in Europe, yet, still were to be found in book stores (most in English). This is something I have been personally checking out in the last 3 years in the Frankfurt-Hanau area. I was not able to find one, not a single one, pro-Bush book in at least 15 bookstores!

Wake-up and smell the burning coffee.

[Steve]

Wow, one interview and they managed to misquote two Presidents named George. First off, George Bush didn't say that "You are with us or you are against us". He made the quote in relation to terrorism, as has already been shown.

Second, George Washington didn't say that we should have "respect for the world". Though I am sure you could find something like that in the speeches of every president (and I know you can find it in George Bush's case) George Washington actually famously encouraged Americans to have "Open friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none". I am sure the bit about no "entangling alliances" would set off all sorts of kvetching about U.S. unilateralism if it was presidential policy today.

[Ray D.]

@ Christian, thanks for pointing out the extra "h".

[Sandy P]

Ray - it was or with the terrorists.

Against the US is 1 thing, with the terrorists another.

[Kalifornia Mike]

David Rothkopf is a known quantity!

A visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and is chairman and co-founder of Intellibridge Corp. He served as deputy undersecretary of commerce for international trade policy in the Clinton administration.

In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, Rothkopf says: "Terrorism is simply something that people train themselves to live with."

What he really objects to is the concept that we can conduct a war against terrorism. In his world, we endure terrorism.

It is his kind of thinking that allowed 9/11 to occur.

[Sandy P]

Signs of sanity via Bros. Judd:

The conservative Christian Democrats and their Free Democratic partners will restore Germany's alliance with the United States and downgrade Berlin's ties with Russia if they win elections in September, leaders from both parties say.

In a series of interviews, they also said that they would review their alliance with France, which they intend to keep strong, but warn Paris not to challenge Berlin to choose between the United States and France, as was the case with the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. [...]

Wolfgang Gerhardt, chairman of the FDP parliamentary group, said Mr. Schroeder had built an "axis" with Paris and Moscow, which was "neither in the interest of Europe, nor of Germany."

"We are convinced that this is a mistake," he said. "European integration will not work against the trans-Atlantic partnership, but together with it, since we share the same values."

German officials rejected the accusations that Mr. Schroeder has become close with Mr. Putin at the expense of ties with Washington. They said the chancellor has been working well with President Bush since their bitter rift over Iraq.

Last week, Mr. Schaeuble agreed with Mr. Schroeder that the alliance with France is "key" for Germany, but noted that a CDU government would bring back a tradition that he said Mr. Schroeder abandoned.

"We always told France, 'Don't make us choose between you and the United States, because we probably won't choose you,' " Mr. Schaeuble told a group of young American leaders on a visit to Berlin organized by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and Germany's Draeger Foundation.

[Pato]

Now that Schroeder has his lederhosen pulled up and over his little head and has been disgraced across the globe, once again- this statement warrants reflection.. "The conservative Christian Democrats and their Free Democratic partners will restore Germany's alliance with the United States and downgrade Berlin's ties with Russia if they win elections in September, leaders from both parties say."
Though Merkel will make a brilliant stateswoman, and I wish her to win.. one has to ask "whats in it for the US?" this relationship which has been trashed by germany and it's press and MPs. Who in the US may benefit from this "relationship" if it is renewed, and how will they benefit? Is there anything in it for the US other than getting cheaper and fresher thuringer?
Many feel in the US feel, now that they have seen and heard the real germany over the last 4 years, that this "relationship" was shallow and fake to begin with.
Germany accepted marshall plan aid, re-built itself with many american injections of blood, money and democracy, only to find herself snarling like a little bitch once the US needed a favor. Many in germany claimed an "emancipation" from the US during schroeder's infantile tirades.
People in the US have not and will not forget these words and actions taken by the german govt in this modern era. It'll take a hell of allot more than a "plan to have a plan to develop an attempt to restore the relationship from some planned committee..." blah blah blah.
More than likely the US will sit back and watch germany bake in it's self made szhithole for a few years. I am hoping the forward and sensible thinking people out there such as Trish, Pamela, D&R and others are not impacted by the damage done by schroeder and his cronies for too long after Angela wins.

[Simian Logician]

I, too, was at a loss on Rothkopf until I goggled him. Sure enough, he's at Carnegie which has been Bush-bashing for the better part of three years. That is not to say that they don't have some valid points, but let's be honest about who we're dealing with here.

That said, a little research on Rothkopf turned up these gems. In an article entitled "In Praise of Cultural Imperialism," written in 1997 for Foreign Policy (a Carnegie publication), Rothkopf argued:

"For the United States, a central objective of an Information Age foreign policy must be to win the battle of the world's information flows, dominating the airwaves as Great Britain once ruled the seas."

"More importantly, the decline of cultural distinctions may be a measure of the progress of civilization, a tangible sign of enhanced communications and understanding. "

"Inevitably, the United States has taken the lead in this transformation; it is the "indispensable nation" in the management of global affairs and the leading producer of information products and services in these, the early years of the Information Age."

"And it is in the economic and political interests of the United States to ensure that if the world is moving toward a common language, it be English; that if the world is moving toward common telecommunications, safety, and quality standards, they be American; that if the world is becoming linked by television, radio, and music, the programming be American; and that if common values are being developed, they be values with which Americans are comfortable."

"Many observers contend that it is distasteful to use the opportunities created by the global information revolution to promote American culture over others, but that kind of relativism is as dangerous as it is wrong."

"The United States should not hesitate to promote its values. In an effort to be polite or politic, Americans should not deny the fact that of all the nations in the history of the world, theirs is the most just, the most tolerant, the most willing to constantly reassess and improve itself, and the best model for the future."

"Americans should promote their vision for the world, because failing to do so or taking a "live and let live" stance is ceding the process to the not-always-beneficial actions of others."

I'm not sure how Stern's readers would view Rothkopf were they aware of these proclamations. Sounds like a 'blueprint for global cultural domination,' to borrow from the utterly contemptible Neil Mackay.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/protected/rothkopf.html

[Cousin Dave]

@Steve: I am with you in that I don't think that Washington would have ever said such a thing (except maybe in a theoretical sense). In 1780, the U.S. was not in any position to be a world leader in anything. And really, this remained pretty much true up until about 1900.

As for Bush's "with us" quote, as others have pointed out, it came right after 9/11. And the other point: it was addressed specifically towards certain Arab and Muslim/Hindu countries that had been trying to work both sides of the street, maintaining relations with the U.S. while secretly aiding the likes of bin Laden. Pakistan, to name one, got the message and made the right choice.

(Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, continues to play their little game. Part of the reason they have been allowed to get away with it is because of the potential negative effects of a Saudi oil shutdown -- effects on Europe, that is. America can find other oil sources. It's concern for Europe's economic well-being that prevents Washington from taking strong action against the House of Saud.)

[Doug in Colorado]

One minor correction...Jacques Chirac can only send an aircrafty carrier somewhere if the propeller stays on...and lately it hasn't..

[pfgpowell]

I agree that Ms Gloger is somewhat biased in her interpretation, comments and choice of interviewee, but you surely don't want us to believe that such bias and spin is restricted to the Left? I am writing from Britain, a country which is in volved in Iraq for no very good reason we Brits know of. National support for the invasion was won on the back of two dossiers of evidence which have since comprehensively been shown to be full of vacuous nonsense. To this day no 'weapons of mass destruction' have been found and nor has any evidence been discovered that they once existed. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein was not in league with Al Qaeda, a supposed reltionship which was at the root of Bush's justification for invading Iraq. Whether or not one of Bush's reasons for invading Iraq was to bring democracy to that country, it is now a far more dangerous place than it was before the invasion, a state of affairs which was widely predicted by many not on the Left. At best Bush is guilty of extreme naivety, in fact naivety which is breathtaking in view of his position as President of the United States. I personally don't like biased reporting either way, whether it come from the Right or the Left, but you must at least accept that Ms Gloger sincerely opposes the Iraq war, remains inconvinced by the enduring White House justifications for the invasion and casts about to produce voices that proclaim her view. You guys, on the other hand, ironically seem oblivious to your own rather blinkered view. As I say the Left could still learn a trick or two about slanted reporting from the Right. Nothing is ever that cut and dried and it is disingenuous of you to pretend it is.