« SPIEGEL ONLINE: Quality Journalism at its Finest | Main | When America Can Do No Right... »


Instead of Karl May, Gauweiler needs to read up on history of the American Indians.
The Apaches were decimated by the Commanches and further slaughter was perpetrated by the Spaniards.
Most of the American Indians were disposessed of their land by the Europeans who came to this country.
Back then there was no USA.

Well, I must say that America-haters, sorry, honest and friendly critics, are an inexorable fountain of surprises. This is the very first time I hear this particular "argument". So America is in Afghanistan in order to exterminate other cultural aspirations. Wooow!! He probably means the Taliban's cultural aspirations, like stoning to death, which never got the chance to unfold their true potential due to the aggressive policies of the infidel imperialist Judeo-American cabal.

The greedy Americans gave the Afghan people freedom, basically an incipient democratic system, and the chance to choose their future *freely*. This surely is the work of the Devil! Why did they do that? No one asked for freedom! And let's not stop there. Every free-thinking person knows that American transgressions go far, far back. So far back, that one has to wonder why did the Americans actually disrupt the aspirations of the legitimate Nazi government?

Even by moonbat standards this is a milestone lunatic claim. Wonderful what sort of people hold public office... Let's not forget, this is a Conservative speaking. Extreme views like this are not (yet?) very popular, but are definitely more widespread than in the past and have become socially acceptable. This Gauweiler is a monster created to a great extent by the media. Surely the "potential" was always there, but the anti-American tone of the media in the last years is what makes people like him more and more daring.

I don't blame Gauweiler, he is obviously deranged, I blame the media. I doubt very much that this lunatic would have said publicly those things years ago. The media has relentlessly lowered the level of the argumentation until arguments were no longer needed and were replaced by accusations. In this toxic environment extremists like Gauweiler thrive and they have gradually become acceptable, if not quite popular yet. Is there any chance that the media will realize the side effects of their behavior and become more responsible? I don't think so.

It's nice what counts as "conservative" in Germany these days, isn't it? And before you ask: Yes, the left is still worse.

PS: Peter Gauweiler visited Baghdad from 8th to 10th March, 2003.

I think it's fair to note that Gauweiler is sort of a maverick in the CSU. His views are largely NOT shared in this party. Wikipedia has this about him:

"Aufsehen erregte Gauweiler auch im Frühjahr 2003, als er als erstes Mitglied der CDU/CSU-Bundestagsfraktion offen gegen den geplanten Irak-Krieg Stellung bezog und vom 8. bis 10. März zusammen mit seinem Fraktionskollegen Willy Wimmer Bagdad besuchte. In einem offenen Brief an die CDU/CSU-Bundestagsfraktion zog Gauweiler auch Parallelen zum Kosovo-Krieg 1999: "Sowohl die Intervention der USA im Irak als auch die Bombardierung Jugoslawiens und seiner Hauptstadt Belgrad durch die Nato geschah ohne Mandat der Vereinten Nationen. Dies ist von der deutschen Völkerrechtslehre zutreffend und mit Nachdruck als völkerrechtswidrig bewertet worden." Im Irak-Krieg sei die Weltöffentlichkeit mit der Unwahrheit bedient worden. Eine vergleichbare Überprüfung der Aussagen deutscher Amtsträger während des Bundeswehreinsatzes gegen Jugoslawien habe es im Bundestag bis heute nicht gegeben."

While I was not in favor of the Iraq War I would strongly condemn what Gauweiler said

Gee...the US exterminated the Sioux and Apache cultures?

Then what is it that I see when I travel through Arizona (Apache) and Nebraska (Sioux)? Must be my imagination.

Typical european ignorance. They also seem to forget (conveniently) that the native tribes themselves were quite successful in exterminating other tribes. This was the norm of the era and Europeans practiced it as well. They just don't talk about it much when they can demonize the US.

Atlantic Review did not give him "credit" for stating the "necessity of transatlantic relations." You are wrong about us, but thanks for the link anyway. I appreciate that.

I just saw it fit to point out that he also made this statement:

"The American Dream was the dream of all mankind and is manifested by the statue of liberty. Should this dream turn into a nightmare? Nobody from this great nation [=Americans] would like to see that happen."

That is quite different from just talking about "the necessity of transatlantic relations."
Was it lip service? I don't know. I don't do psychoanalysis. Probably it was. I leave it up to our readers to decide for themselves.

Perhaps Gauweiler does indeed have respect for the American people, the American dream etc, but is "just" prejudiced about the US government and has a distorted understanding of US history (or no understanding at all)

So the difference between DMK and Atlantic Review is that I have translated some positive words by Gauweiler at the end of the post, while you translate only his Anti-American stuff (which is fair enough) and even twist my statements about his positive words about Americans into some meaningless stuff about "the necessity of transaltantic relations"

You don't want your readers to know that he has spoken highly of the American dream and the great US nation...?
As I said, no need to believe him. Probably just lip service. Still it give a full picture about what the listeners of this interview heard.

Though there is also no need to incorrectly claim that the Atlantic Review was giving him "credit for making some positive statements about the necessity of transatlantic relations." Because I did not do that.

Why don't you just present the facts and let your smart readers decide for themselves?

@ Suzanne

"Typical european ignorance."

What is it? How do you define it? Who is guilty of it? All Europeans?

"They also seem to... (...) They just don't talk about it much when they can demonize the US."

Who are "they"?

"they cannot exterminate other cultural aspirations on this planet (...) as they did with the Apaches and Sioux."

Maybe the poor "Docktor" confuses the 1945 picture of U.S. Army engineers blowing up the large swastika at Nuremberg stadium with the Taliban blowing up the Buddahs in pre-Karzai Afghanistan.

Suzanne: Maybe we should send Dr. Gauweiler to an Indian casino with $500 in chips in his pocket!

@ Jorg:

If it was really my goal to twist your statements, I probably wouldn't have linked your work in the first line of my post. That said, my wording could have been more precise and I have changed it to reflect your statements more accurately. BTW: I do provide a link to the entire interview and several other sources on this, so I think my readers have quite a lot to work with.

I do think that you are stretching to appear "balanced" or "neutral" when Gauweiler's supposedly positive comments are overwhelmingly overshadowed by his negative comments. I feel you also do this (try to appear even-handed or neutral when it is not appropriate) by pointing out "positive" stories on the USA in German media when the negative so clearly outweigh and outnumber them. I don't feel that you are making that point clearly enough to your readers.

"...American's war in Iraq, which violates international law, that is beyond dispute."

Huh? Maybe in Bizarro World, it's beyond dispute. Setting aside, for the moment, the fact that every part of his statement is inaccurate, in my opinion there's no better way to turn people off to your point of view than to pronounce, "that is beyond dispute" (although, that conclusion might explain why he offers no evidence to support his claim).

Now, contrast his tone of voice with this from Tony Blair: "Yet despite all of this, which I consider fairly obvious, many in Western countries listen to the propaganda..." See the difference?

Dr. Gauweiler, talk to the hand 'cause the face ain't listening...

As Gauweiler may not have bothered to learn, American Indians have traditionally volunteered in large numbers for US military service. The 45th Infantry Division, which liberated Dachau, contained a substantial Indian contingent.

Let us not forget that many native Americans died of infections that the "dirty Europeans" brought with them - Native American Indians did not
cohabitate with their livestock as the Europeans did and do. The Europeans had build up resistance to certain illnesses, bacteria and the like - the native Americans did not have the antibodies necessary to fight off these diseases - I believe I even read an article on this in DER SPIEGEL.

Wow, this guy is really outrageous. And this guy is in the CSU?

As Ray noted, "We know that some Germans are getting tired of 'feeling so thankful' [about being 'liberated'] about that, but too damn bad, we are going to remind you again."

Of course, I'm not the type of guy to bring up "die Nazizeit" in every argument I've ever had with a German (which is a lot), although I have noticed that Germans seem to bring up the sins (real or imagined) of the United States whenever they get into an argument with me. Actually, this Gauweiller bafoon is a great case in point-- he can't discuss the war in Afghanistan without drawing paralels the Indian Wars.

It's a stupid little game that we play. Whenever an argument arises between two people from seperate countries, one of them tries to argue that the other person can't possibly be right because he comes from such a rotten country that has done such horrible things in the past. The person from the country with the least sins wins. Europeans have proved themselves particularly adept at memorizing a long list of American sins (many of which are bogus), and reciting them at any particularly moment. It's a tactic called "shaming your opponent into silence".

They have also learned how to turn America's finest moments into something less virtuous--i.e.,"The United States only got into World War II for its own economic reasons, so that it wouldn't lose European markets, and so it could become a world superpower". Right, and World War II and the Cold War were such profitable ventures for us. We only spent more money than had ever been spent in all the budgets from 1776 to 1941 in the struggle to defeat Hitler.

In any case, it's kind of hard for an American such as myself to win any such argument considering the fact that so many Europeans seem to have a dosier on America that they pull out at the drop of a hat. So what does that mean? Does that mean that because I'm American that I'm responsible for ensalving Africans, or colonizing the Phillipines, or herding the Cherokee tribes onto their reservations?

I guess I'm a little "tired of feeling" so guilty, just as Germans are "tired of feeling so thankful" for their liberation. I'm also tired of the notion that my ideas must be wrong because I come from such a rotten country, the idea that because the US once did wrong, that it cannot now do right.

It's sophistry anyway. When you hear this argument, you can be sure that you're talking to a hardened anti-American. That's what I would call Peter Gauweiller.

What's worse, this is just Gauweiller's attempt to explain why German troops will not be allowed to go near the more dangerous southern regions of Afghanistan. Most NATO countries (besides the English-speaking ones) have succesfully managed to keep themselves away from the fighting. It's all Bush's fault, all America's fault, you see.

As Gauweiller wrote, "Ms. Merkel must make clear in America on this concrete case, that it is without question, for example, that the Bundeswehr and we will not support the confusion and catastrophic conditions that the United States has helped to create and is in part responsible for in southern Afghanistan by making Tornado-aircraft available." (Doesn't that sound like Chomsky logic?) See, we aren't going anywhere that's dangerous, and the US made Afghanistan dangerous. It's all America's fault. It's the common refrain--we totally support you, but don't expect us to do anything, because you screwed everything up.

I was in Germany on September 11, 2001, and I must say that I found the German outpouring of "solidarity" to be insincere. Sure, they flew an American flag for a few days, but they seemed more concerned with displaying the "proper" emotions than with actually defeating terrorism. While many (but not all) Americans were enivisioning a long but noble struggle, most Germans were thinking "Oh this is terrible, when can life get back to normal?" I think their attitude since then has been one of "We had our candlelight vigils, what more do you want?" Actually, that's the attitude of most American liberals I know as well--they were "deeply moved" by the attacks of September 11th, and they can't believe that anyone would suggest otherwise, now why can't we just talk about healthcare and education?

Other than a candlight vigil, what else would I like from the Germans? Well, I'd appreciate it if they'd quit paying ransoms to Iraqi terrorists, which will be converted into weapons in the blink of an eye. I wish they would actually send some troops to fight in Iraq, but that will never happen. If they can't even handle that, I'd appreciate it if they'd stop cowering in Northern Afghanistan and blaming their cowardice on the United States. I'd also like it if they actually acted like this is serious business, not just some game that George Bush made up to scare the electorate into voting for him. I'd like it if they would act as if the biggest threat to the world today is Jihadism, and not Bush-style anti-Jihadism.

But I guess that's asking too much.

What, no kowtows to the Aztecs? Their civilization was much more advanced than the Apaches or the Souix.

Oh. Wait. The Spanish wiped them out.


I don't want to put too fine a point on it - otherwise it wouldn't penetrate.

I've been to Spain. It's a magnificant country and the people are awesome. If you ever get the chance to visit, grab it. And don't miss the cathedrals.

All that gold.

I wonder where it came from?

This Pet Gauleiter falls into the same category of moonbat conservative into which Americans probably would put a Pat Buchanan. Wait for his counterpart to come up with the assertion that imperial Rome had rooted out the native identitity of Europe.


now now, we couldn't have the Germans learning about the Spanish exploitation of the Indians, now, could we?
I mean, Spain belongs to the EU, and the EU is one big happy family...
just like the Greens NEVER criticize the energy policy of the French (nuclear power up the wazoo),
but open season on American energy politics..

@ Suzanne

Re: Jorg who asks a couple questions based on my comment ("Typical european ignorance.")

What is it?
Many Europeans know only what they are told via school, media, etc. They believe that Native Americans are either wiped out or all in poverty. They also believe that poor Americans get no health care. I could go on - it is all typical ignorance.

How do you define it?
See above.

Who is guilty of it? All Europeans?
Mostly those who have never spent any extensive amount of time in the US (i.e most Europeans) and who accept what the media dishes out as fact. I know and have dealt with far to many intelligent Europeans who are clueless about those things they think they know as fact.

Re this comment from me:

"They also seem to... (...) They just don't talk about it much when they can demonize the US."

Who are "they"?
Are you serious? You don't know to whom I am referring in my entire post?

Suzanne- it's not exactly stretching reality to say that 47 million (mostly poor) Americans are not covered by either health insurance or government entitlement programs. And by the way, it's not anti-American to be outraged at the way your government neglects such a large number of your fellow citizens in this way.

Take this example (based on this page at the US Department of Health and Human Services). Say a woman called Jane lives in South Dakota. She is a single mother with a daughter aged 6, and an annual income of $26,400. Accordingly, she has too much money for South Dakota's WIC program, her income is far above the federal poverty level of $13,200, and South Dakota does not have a "Medically Needy" program. It does have a CHIP program, but only for income up to 200% of the federal poverty level, so that counts her out again. The only option is private health insurance, which she'll have to pay for herself if her employer doesn't provide health insurance. In 2006, the annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,200. Doubling that, healthcare would cost her over $8,400, or 32% of her annual income. That's almost a third of all the money she earns in a year. Many people in her situation, I suspect, will either not be able to afford it, or even if they can afford it, they may prefer to gamble and go without. So, Jane and her daughter have no healthcare.

Then Jane's daughter develops leukaemia. What happens now?

Also, how is your characterisation of "most Europeans" as 'ignorant' any different from similar characterisations of "most Americans"? just sayin'...


You did not say that Jane was either an Apache or Sioux.

In 2006, the annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,200. Doubling that, healthcare would cost her over $8,400, or 32% of her annual income

I love these stats. The organization you cite is a Hillary Clinton universal health care piece of crap.

I am 54 - will be 55 in April. I sustained a head injury in an auto accident in 1982. There have been 3 operations on my brain, and episodic epilepsy. Also, I smoke.

My husband is 67. He was diagnosed with melanoma in March of 2000 and has high blood pressure.

We are self employed. No corporate safety net.

Monthly health insurance: $1700.

Then Jane's daughter develops leukaemia. What happens now?

I cannot in all honesty say I know what happens in every case.

I offer this as purely anecdoctal and not 'societal'.
When my husband was diagnosed, I was in the corporate world and covered by corporate health care. But the treatment 'du jour' - interferon - was not covered by insurance companies. The cost came to about $72,000/year.

Bob was treated at Washington Hospital Center. We were told without reservation that if Bob needed the treatment, he would get it regardless of our ability to pay. Period. I got to know a few other cancer patients during that time. The worst were the children. No, the worst were their parents.

But nobody, absolutely nobody, was denied treatment because they could not pay for it.

All of it came from private charity.

So, we evidently caught Bob's cancer early. He didn't need the interferon or chemo.

And yeah, the Washington Hospital Center gets a lot of our money.

I don't know what this means for your narrative except to provide an example of how very shallow it is.


It is much the same way here in GA as far as treatment is concerned.

As to your comment, it means nothing to mark because he has a position that he wants to sell.

joe, I realise I didn't identify Jane as being either an Apache or Sioux. So what? As to your second comment - yes, of course I have a position I want to sell because I passionately believe that every person has the right to healthcare, regardless of ability to pay.

Pamela, I don't understand the point of your first response. $1700/month = $20,400 a year, which is a lot, lot more than the average of $8400/year for two people that I quoted. So instead of being 32% of Jane's income, it would be 77%. And despite paying over $20,000 a year, your husband wasn't covered? That's pretty crazy.

Yes, it is good that the Washington Hospital Center and other similar charities are able to provide free healthcare to people who would otherwise not be able to afford it. BUT, if people could simply get healthcare from charities then there would be no point in paying for health insurance. As people *do* pay for health insurance, one can only assume that it's because the coverage of private charities is either patchy or, in some areas, non-existant.

And how was my 'narrative' shallow? It describes a not-uncommon situation where people are too rich for government entitlement programs, but too poor to pay for their own healthcare. Although charities will pick up some of the slack, you can't expect them to be able to pay for the healthcare of 47 million Americans.

Anyway, my argument is this: many Americans have no access to healthcare. It's not simply the view of 'ignorant' Europeans, it's a fact. I'll freely admit that the NHS in the UK is far, far from perfect. But eventually, everyone gets treated (and almost everyone within eight weeks of diagnosis). You spend over twice as much on healthcare as the United Kingdom - a whopping 16% of your GDP - and yet still have 12% of your population without any health coverage. There's something seriously wrong about that.

Hi Mark,
Pamela, I don't understand the point of your first response

Well, if you mean 'point' as in 'point in service of an agenda' - I don't have one. I am merely giving you facts. Imagine that.

And despite paying over $20,000 a year, your husband wasn't covered? That's pretty crazy.

Back up a bit. When Bob was diagnosed we had healthcare provided by my employer (I think my monthly contribution out of my paycheck was about $200). It wasn't my husband that wasn't covered - it was the interferon treatment that he might have needed. In the U.S., some protocols are defined as 'experimental' and that means the insurance companies can refuse coverage.

If anyone can get your hands on today's (Jan 11) Wall Street Journal, there is a front page article on health care for cancer patients in Japan. Those people aren't happy either.

So, long story short...I don't have an agenda about this. Because I don't even begin to know how to approach a solution. Bob and I were very lucky, both in the interception of his illness and in the fact that we live in a world-class medical community. But I know we are not the norm.

I think every country is in deep trouble over this issue and I told our story simply to illustrate what it is like here.

@ mark.

Before you cite statistics, dig deeper please, what looks like irrefutable on the surface, reality may paint a different picture.

Some facts: The poor have insurance without having to pay anything in premiums it is called medicaid.
The old 65 and over have insurance, basically without premiums, it is called Medicare and is mandatory.
Children are cocered by Kids care. This is a federal program administered by the states. There is a very liberal income criteria and it depends on family size.
Tahat leaves the rest of the employed. Given the fact that approximately 70% of employers provide medical coverage, one has to wonder why so many are not insured? Answer: many young, healthy workers refuse to pay premiums for medical coverage especially for their families because they feel invincible and don't believe that anything could happen to them. Their beer budget seems more important to them than medical coverage. If I had $1 dollar for everyone who voluntarily refusews coverage, I could live a splendid lifestyle on the interest alone.
In the US, it is the lower middleclass that chooses to be uninsured. You won't find those stats easily, you have to dig for it. Having retired from upper management in the Insurance and Investment Industry, I do have access to that little tidbit.
As to your statement about " many Americans not having acces to Health care" is absolutely incorrect. Everyone has access to healthcare regardless of their ability to pay.
Another little fact is that no insurance is regulated by federal law. State law controls all insurance of all kind.
That of course does not mean that there are no lfederal laws that impact Insurance. ERISA HIPPA and many more do impact insurance as an aside since they are more anti discriminatory equal treatment and rights oriented. Because of our first amendment laws which amny countries wish they had, mandating medical coverage is extremely difficult. Most Americans would be outraged if that was changed. You are looking at legal maneuvring covering at least 20 years and would involve the supreme court.
Most bad stories you hear about involve exactly those people who voluntarily forgo coverage. That, of course is never mentioned. All media artcles are designed to make you feel sorry for them and share emotionally in their plight.

As to your statement about " many Americans not having acces to Health care" is absolutely incorrect. Everyone has access to healthcare regardless of their ability to pay.

Yes indeed. And one aspect you neglected in your otherwise excellent post - illegals. You don't even have to be a citizen of this country to get healthcare. You can walk across the border having never paid a dime for insurance right into any hospital in the country and you will be cared for.

Free of charge.

@ Pamela
Our premiums certainly would decrease if we mandated that those young healthy individuals have health coverage. It would change the risk pool.


Jane already has the right to health care.

You seem to be very misinformed. Why?

americanbychoice: I took account of all the government entitlement programs when I created my hypothetical scenario.

In this scenario, yes, Jane chose to forego medical coverage. BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE COST HER 1/3 OF HER INCOME...

Joe: how does Jane (in this scenario) have the right to healthcare? Are there any US states that recognise that their citizens have the right to healthcare? Because call me "misinformed", but I'm certainly not aware of any. Instead of just saying "yeah, well, you're wrong," how about you tell me *why* I'm wrong?

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

April 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29