Und vielen danke!
Posted on 01/22/2005 10:44:53 AM PST by Schiller
Crazy for Bush
The Anti-Bush front is big, and a lot of politicians and journalists know exactly, what the mistakes of the new and old US-President are. However, is there anything, this man can possibly do to satisfy his opponents? And what would happen, if he broght home the US troops from Iraq?
What the hell is wrong with this sentence= "The true hope for peace in the world is to spread freedom everywhere in the world."? If this sentence had been voiced by the german chancellor in a speach, or if Nelson Mandela had said it during a OAS-meeting, or if Kofi Annan had said it in the UNO-New Year's speach, Bishop Huber during the meeting of the German Protestant Church, the MP of Baden-Württemberg on a meeting of wine-producers or even the President of the ADAC (the German Automobile Club) at the opening of the Frankfurt Automobile Show, all would have said "Yeah.. that's right...that's important"
Only... this sentence has a built-in mistake: It is from George W. Bush! And that's why it's wrong, that's why it has to be wrong. It is not suprising, that the Bush-Bashers deny the re-eclected President the benefit of doubt. But why do they pick a sentence, which is as simple and correct as the fact, that poverty leads to need?
The chairman of the Green Party Reinhard Bütikofer calls Bush's rhetoric "double-tongued, since it is pulling the great value of freedom through the dirt." His proof for this: "America has gone to war in Iraq to promote democracy. In the end there is nothing to be seen, which fits into that even closely-" But not enough..."The great word freedom is been hijacked by a policy, which produces less freedom in the end. That's what I accuse Bush of!"
The Kurds, whose represantatives used to be present on all conventions of the Green Party, and who - after the fall of Saddam Hussein - can choose their destiny without some dictator gasing them, might have a different point of view.
Bütikofers long-distance-diagnosis - this guy hasn't been to Baghdad lately - has got less to do with the complicated situation in Iraq, but more with the wish to warm his green heart. And on the fireplace of the "Gutmenschen" (This word is so german - I couldn't find an english expression - it means something like "a good man" in a sarcastic way) the Bush-fire burns hot.
If Bütikofer - just as most Anti-Americans - won't check on his opinion between Euphrates and Tigris, he might as well go to Berlin-Weißensee: There he can find a lot of Exile-Iraqis coming from all of Germany registering themselves for the elections. Their hope for better times, for a democratic home, their joy to participate in free elections might humble the Green Party-chairman. There was atime, that libertarian Internationalism was one of the better sides of the the left - but these times seem to be over.
For his critics Bush is resistent to council - a good thing actually, says Tina Hessel in the ARD-News: "This man walks his way - in spite of worldwide scepticism and bad opinion polls in his country. Never has a president started into a second term with confidence ratings as low as his"
This man's got a nerve. In stead of canceling the votes because of bad polls he goes on, into his second term. And he takls about freedom. "36 times he mentioned the word, and a lot of people are going to see this as a threat" sasy Tina Hassel, who is not threated at all, but knows a lot of peapole, who feel this way. This is a somewhat pc version, of what the Anti-American crowd wnats to hear.
Frmo here it is not far to the Boderline-Journalism of a Tom Kummer, who simply deals with made-up stories. The most "funny" story about the inaugeration has been printed in the "Süddeutsche Zeitung": An obituary on George Bush, written by Greil Marcus, who also wrote the Boock "Mistery Train".
Marucs fictional obituary is printed in the year 2018, after Bush has died of a heart failure at the age of 72. The author goes back into the future and writes about things, that happend in Bush's second term. And that's not too little. "With pin-point attacks the Nuclear Weapons storage facilities in Iran and North-Korea are destroyed, triggering a Nuclear War between India and Pakistan, during which Bombay and Karachi are destroyed. The consequence of this are civil wars in the Middle East and on the subcontinent. In these conflicts, according to the UNO 12 Million people have died, and millions become refugees."
Here we got a double projection. First projecting the future into the past, second projecting phantasies of omnipotency and violence onto the President of the USA. It's not enough to simplay say, what he's doing, one has to speculate, what he might do. Reality is irrlelevant. More than once the US have averted a nuclear war on the subcontinent. Bush's diplomats were more often in Islamabad and New Dehli in order to prevent a nuclear catastrophe than all of the Anti-American sceptics all together. No.. it was also not the UNO oder the EU, that prevented India and Pakistan from sliiting each others throats. Washington's war-mongerers as pacifists in action? No topic for the front pages of Old Europe. Rather twist reality with such a trick.
Bush is been made responible for things that have happend and things that are going to happen, every nonsense might fit into the concept. The ZDF-magazine "Aspekte" has found a book in the US, that deals with Abrahams Linoln's potential homsexuality. Now, Lincoln has not ony freed the slaves, he is something like the forefather of thee Prepublican Party. Him potentially beeing a homosexual is only important, because Bush is against gay marriage. Now the president looks like fool - with gay abe standing behind him. That's all, this magazine wanted to say. Because of this, they sent a jounalist to the US, in order to meet the author of this book. If it's about Bush-Bashing, there can't be too many expenses.
But nowadays it is sufficiant to just say "Bush" to collect points. Or to quote Bush, that the spreading of freedom in the world is a hope for peace. But that's just, what it is!! Never ever have two democratic stats wages war on each other (apart from the "cod war" between the UK and Island).
A democratic Iraq would not be dangerous neither to it's people, nor to it's neighbours. If the Saddamists want to survive, they have to prevent free elections, supported by those, who sympathize with the "irai resistance" and already now don't believe in the results of the elections. Yes, it is true: A lot of Iraqis are afraid to go voting! But is that George W. Bush's fault or is the fault of the terrorist Sarkawi, who executes Iraqis, who want to rebuild their country, who heats up the conflict bewteen Shias and Sunnis and threatens everyone with date, who wants to participate in the elections?
And what are the Peaceniks in Old Europe doing? They remain silent. Until today there has not been a single "human shield" in Iraq, protecting poll stations or police stations from terrorist attacks, just like they did to protect Iraqi facilities from american attacks.
Nevertheless, they demand, that the Americans leave Iraq immediately. It os not far-fetched, that Bush would fullfill this demand lovingly, as fast as possible. Sureley, he does not like pictures of burning Humvees and bleeding soldiers, dying like flies.
But a retreat of US forces now would be nothing short of a desaster for the iraqi people. Let's just think, Bush would call the boys home - they would rather leave today than tomorrow. And all the suicide bombers, of whom 90% come from other arabic countries, would have a meeting and say: "OK, we won, let's all go home, and let the iraqi people decide freely on their future!" Well.. not realliy likely.
The terrorost attacks on the elections are not targeting Bush - they are targeting a free Iraq, coming from these elections. But the iraqi people don't bother most of the Bush-Bashers. Yes.. the Americans made a mistake in Abu Ghureib, and perhaps it's even too cheap, to simply say, that these were individuals, who lost their minds. Perhaps, the court martials can be critisized, perhaps Rumsfeld and the Pentagon can be critisuzed for not taking responsability. There have been a lot of mistakes: Like dissolving the Iraqi Army and sending hundred thousands of young men into the desert. A reformed Iraqi Army could have secured the borders, thus preventing the Sarakawis of this world to transform Iraq into a terrorist El Dorado. At the same time, a lot of families could have had an earining with the soldier's payout.
There are all points, that can be mentioned, but no reason for "Schadenfreude". It is possible, that the Americans are doing mistakes in Iraq right now. But they are doing a lot of things, which are good. The ousting of a tyrant can never be a mistake. What we are witnessing now is a end to the nightmare, Iraqis were having for decades, without anybody coming to their aid.
No sausage cracks, bitte.
Ich kann das nicht verstehen!
Now, to find a German Leftist so that I can sarcastically call him a "Gutmenschen". :-)
Whew - danke fur die translation.
The Ant-Bush Front had its chance, 30 years of failed ME policy, culminating with 9/11.
Been there, done that, no more "peace" prizes for the likes of Arafat.
Good article.......someone gets it......
Calling him a "Dumkopf" works too!
Could also be read as If This sentence had been voiced by former President Clinton or former presidential candidate John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Minority chair Nancy Pelosa, or Senator Boxer etc in a speech, the MSM would have said yes that is important.
Great article btw and welcome to FR
Just thought I let you know :)
But a retreat of US forces now would be nothing short of a disaster for the Iraqi people.
Let's just think, Bush would call the boys home - they would rather leave today than tomorrow. And all the suicide bombers, of whom 90% come from other Arabic countries, would have a meeting and say: "OK, we won, let's all go home, and let the Iraqi people decide freely on their future!" Well.. not really likely.
This is exactly correct, they most certainly would not go home, the resistance in Iraq is driven by the possibility that they could control some part of Iraq's oil. An Iraqi democracy would shut them out.
Gutmenschen = "bien pensée" ? used in English ironically.
Where are the "human shields" now, who professed to be so concerned about the lives of Iraqis in 2003, and why are they so unconcerned about their lives, today?
Human shields don't work against Islamicfascists because they do not respect human life. Simple.
Bump for later read.
I thought that was a great part of the article (was about to quote it, but you just did), the point is they, the human shields, really did not care about the people over there, they just wanted to try to hurt Bush over here.
Ach der lieber Augustine.....(what does that mean anyways?)
FMCDH(BITS)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.