You state Clinton did not get off easy?
Last I checked people in the US are sitting in jail for committing the “crime” he committed. Why don’t you check up what Meineid can get you in Germany.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meineid
So mancher sitzt im Bau fuer was Clinton machte.
--
You use Strauss as an example.
Funny how his family was also pulled into the media, how his weight was used against him (As with Kohl), how even the fact that he was a private pilot was used as an angle to attack him years ago. I’m sure you can remember the attacks on him because he was not for fuel tax hikes and how that was twisted since he was a plane owner as well.
Politics is war. However, there are general rules even in war that are followed and abided to. The problem with Fischer and Schroeder was that there were no rules. They didn’t even act in Germany’s best economic, nor security interests; although you would never admit that. It is possible to go too far, and they did exactly that. In pursuit of their political ambitions, they jeopardized more than just a long lasting transatlantic relationship between Germany and the US, they damaged and worked against needed NATO reform, a missile defense shield which today is becoming obviously important; they willfully and knowingly risked US lives for their political survival in 2002 and even in 2005. Even in 2005 Schroeder went down the road of attacking US policy on Iran, but avoided dealing with the real issue at hand, Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Germany has done a 180 degree shift in its position reference Iran and the political messages sent internationally. Thank God.
When people have a record that includes beating on Police, fringe acquaintances within the autonome Szene, is married 4 or 5 times to girls that could be his daughter, was known as a Szene macho years ago, quit school, quit jobs; the guy couldn’t even hold down a job at Opel or even as a Taxi cab driver for crying out loud. Was known to have used dope. Dodged the draft……. That is not digging into superfluous unimportant stuff. That’s not unimportant or irrelevant information bout someone just to make him look bad. Those actions strung together build what is called a “pattern of wreck lace behavior”. It shows something about the inherent character of a person.
“Would you (I am speaking of you as a person) be mature enough to make a appreciation of values with the conclusion that the person is that good in his duty that it is worth to accept their personal failure in one point??” You asked.
The answer depends on what he did, how long, the motivation behind it and whether he did it deliberately or unknowingly. Reagan broke the law with Nicaragua. Did he do it to get rich? Did he do it to get reelected? No. There was no self enrichment in his actions. He broke the law for what he saw would benefit the nation. “IF” Schroeder intentionally hand pushed through contracts with Gazprom for personal enrichment while still chancellor, is that the same? There are many variables – but this is not the same as this “relativism” where one throws up the hands and states nothing matters.
Variables that impact future decision making are relevant and should not be overlooked. No, I would not be “mature enough” to ignore issues of substance. What you are doing is a leading logical error for the reader, much like how most polls and surveys nowadays are conducted. You ask the question in a way that lends the reader to answer a certain way. You “qualify” the question in a way that makes answering it a certain way more favorable.
Political heads like Schroeder or Bush want the job they have. Public scrutiny is both good and acceptable since privacy is non-existent in such a “public” position. They hold public offices and in fact should be exposed to public scrutiny. What is wrong is when the media to peddle off more papers or catch viewers engages in lying. If the National Guard story Rather spewed had been true about Bush, it would have been a valid story.
What made the reporting of this story wrong is that it was fiction presented as facts.
A leader like Bush will have the spot light held on him. A leader in a capacity to make decisions such as Bush or Schroeder SHOULD be held to a higher standard than some Joe off the street. I demand that those elected into the highest offices of our nation meet certain standards of conduct. A draft dodger like Fischer is out of the question up front. He would not survive 1 minute of consideration. Let’s use McCain as an example since otherwise your feelings as a German will be insulted again. McCain is a political opportunist. He shifts in his positions and has proposed legislation which is political eye-wash. Example: His “Torture legislation” is as worthless as laws in Germany protecting woman against Vergewaltigung in der Ehe. Torture never had a policy, never had any doctrine, was never instructed, endorsed, practiced, trained or condoned. It is in direct violation of DoD, Army, USAF, USN, Marine Corps and even Coast Guard Regulations, international law, agreements accords……. you name it. Nonetheless, McCain proposed an “anti torture bill” to ban something which never was allowed anyway, is prosecuted and investigated if suspected. Why? Because his face was all over CNN for weeks as he was beating this drum of ignorance. He was getting TV air time and gaining momentum in political power based on “fictitious” solutions to largely media hyped problems which BTW have faded away largely. However, how did this former Air Force officer make the US appear in much of the Arab media? They immediately picked up on this and ran with it as proof that the US secretly endorses and even has a policy for torture. Do you really think that such moves score any points with a voter like me? At that point, his “actions” disqualified him as a serious presidential candidate. McCain (Republican) became another Kerry at that point in my eyes.
The President of the US is the Commander in Chief. He literally makes policy decisions that affect my pocketbook, my safety, my freedoms and liberties. In the past, his decisions affected even my life when I was on active duty. The office of the President holds a lot of power (If the President has the balls to make decisions) and he is an elected public official. I “want” to know a lot about this person and he as a public figure, volunteer for the job, and elected official who should expect to be publicly scrutinized.
When Der Spiegel runs a long article and keeps it on their web page for days about how Rumsfeld is disliked by his German relatives in northern Germany, that does not matter. It does not impact his decision making. That is not news worthy material, except if you’re Der Spiegel and dislike Rumsfeld, or the US for that matter. On the other hand minor issues like Fischer’s pictures beating on German police in Hessen in the 80s, that they tend to not write much about nor did it stay long on their page. In fact, I don’t think they even had the pictures posted, or did they (I can’t remember)? The point is simple – what matters are those actions, that training, education, historical precedence in behavior that gives indication on future behavior. Merkel for example has a religious background. Do I take note of that? Absolutely. She did the right thing and got egg in the face in 2002 because she stood by the US reference Iraq? Does that say something? You bet. And these historical actions, her education, her upbringing all tell me something about “who” she is and what I can expect of her when she is in office. Those are actions that have “significance”, unlike Rumsfelds distant relatives in Germany which dislike him now, according to Der Spiegel in 2002. Schmidt sent the GSG9 to Mogadishu years ago, he backed the stationing of nuclear weapons…….. actions that matter? Yes. What matters often depends on the situation as well. Can a convicted sex offender make a good service technician in an automotive shop? Yes. Would I want him to be a school teacher?
Bad leadership can cost lives! Look at New Orleans, Mayor Nagin and the Governor.
(Example of policy failures in a US president)
Poor leadership under Clinton allowed the nuclear non-proliferation agreements to fall apart. The lesson learned from Pakistan and India was that if you violate this international agreement there would be no consequence. In the end, you can force the issue and the rest of the world will just be forced to accept the consequences. After India violated the agreement, Clinton did not press the issue and while the US put trade restriction on India, we did not push the issue elsewhere, hence France and Russia quickly rushed in to fill the void. The US cut India and Pakistan off after their arms treaty violation in the 90s. In the meantime N. Korea, Libya, Iraq and Iran began beefing up their nuclear programs. There was an awful lesson that was learned from India/Pakistan in the 90s. The lesson was that those seeking to build a nuclear arsenal could do so with impunity! The nuclear non proliferation act is dead! It only existed on paper since there was no “consequence” for violating it. The US did not even really attempt to pressure France or others from doing large scale defense dealings with India. China will do what they want anyway and they filled the void with Pakistan. The US’s failure to stop Pakistan and India and allow them to act with impunity led to every other little banana republic out there to adopt such programs and approach the issue in a similar manner.
The average person might not take notice of this minor issue. Our fabulous MSM didn’t find this very relevant since they were stumbling over themselves drooling over a very photogenic and media savvy president. But it was a major geopolitical disaster which despite what you think to know will even affect you soon (I.E. Iran). The correct answer would have been to immediately “escalate” the issue as today with Iran. But Clinton did not want to deal with what in reality was a crisis and let it go on unchecked at the cost of allowing the emergence of large scale nuclear programs in many countries that were violating their agreement.
Clinton did not want to deal with the emergence of AQ. He did not want to deal with Rwanda. Even in the Balkans Clinton flipped flopped back and fourth and while he ultimately did the right thing, it was late in the game. In fact, the Balkan intervention was not even a US initiative but rather British and German. The US was one of the primary executioners of this war because of our size and capabilities, but we were not the political engine behind the scene pushing for action. Somalia was no different, in that there too Clinton failed. Clinton inherited this mission and his ideology led to the death of US service men unnecessarily. The US Army had requested heavy assets for protection and firepower. Instead, Clinton more worried about the symbolic meaning about sending tanks to Somalia, thought it was OK to leave troops there lightly equipped. While he did not kill our missile defense program, he laid no emphasis on it either unlike Bush who is pushing this program full force.
Despite the world changing and inheriting a Cold War modeled NATO, he did not really “want” to transform this institution to meet current and future threats either. Changing NATO means political friction. Clinton as Schroeder was a nightmare when it came to national security policy. The legacy of this administration will live on for many years to come. Some of the ground laying foundation which was laid down in the Clinton years will affect US and European security for years to come. There are many Americans even who choose to overlook these minor issues because ideologically Clinton fits their profile of a desirable president. But in security policy he was a blundering idiot. I want to know who these people are that I’m placing into these offices, and character matters.
Do I want a mayor who is a gay rights activist? No. Because he will “push” his agenda in schools as well. Do I want a Womanizer like Clinton as the president? No. He is a representative of the United States and makes our whole country look bad, even if it does not matter to you, it matters to me. Strauss and his whole family have been under attack for years by the German media. Der Spiegel was out to get him ever since he rightfully incarcerated some Spiegel journalists for publishing classified materials some years ago. The “Volk” may have forgotten about the past, but the contempt for him runs very deep within certain German journalistic circles. The media favors the liberal side anyway and Strauss being an adamant Conservative by German standards was a primary target even when he was alive. I am very skeptical of anything I hear in the German media portraying him negatively, especially now when he is unable to defend himself in the court of public opinion. What I hear “third” hand, based on hearsay off of a post in the Internet I take with a gain of salt.
That all said - Universities and the media favor the liberal cause in all free Western societies. In totalitarian regimes this is not the case since the media is "steered" by the state.
So mancher sitzt im Bau fuer was Clinton machte. If he committed perjury it is quite clear to me why a public prosecutor was needed. What I still do not understand is why Clinton had to give information about his sexual behaviour and relationship under oath?
You use Strauss as an example. Funny how his family was also pulled into the media, how his weight was used against him (As with Kohl), how even the fact that he was a private pilot was used as an angle to attack him years ago. I’m sure you can remember the attacks on him because he was not for fuel tax hikes and how that was twisted since he was a plane owner as well.
Strauss was a outstanding politician. Much of Bavaria's wealth was possible through his fabulous work and leadership. Anyway he was a human being with quite human faults. Something I am able to accept.
The problem with Fischer and Schroeder was that there were no rules. They didn’t even act in Germany’s best economic, nor security interests; although you would never admit that. It is possible to go too far, and they did exactly that.
It is quite shameful to me to say that they had the order of their voters to do exactly what they have done. I share your view that not all of that was in the interest of Germany, but it was in the will of most Germans. Therefore their acting has somehow a justification. This is exactly my own problem with Fischer and Schroeder: They were the "accessory" of the vast German majority. After all I am convinced of democracy and I know that I have to accept decisions that are against my own interests or convincements. Maybe you know Ludwig Thomas words: Vox populi, vox Rindvieh!
When Der Spiegel runs a long article and keeps it on their web page for days about how Rumsfeld is disliked by his German relatives in northern Germany, that does not matter. It does not impact his decision making. That is not news worthy material, except if you’re Der Spiegel and dislike Rumsfeld, or the US for that matter. On the other hand minor issues like Fischer’s pictures beating on German police in Hessen in the 80s, that they tend to not write much about nor did it stay long on their page. In fact, I don’t think they even had the pictures posted, or did they (I can’t remember)?
Well this BS about Rumsfeld was among the most awkward stuff the Spiegel ever wrote. It is also interesting to me that the pictures of Fischer with the black helmet on can not be found on the internet or in the press anymore although they printed them during the "affair". He did a real good job to clear everything that did not fit into his new Princeton-Einstein-professor-image.