European Media Calls George W. Bush Visionary

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
190
Location
Sanger CA
European Media Calls George W. Bush Visionaryby Rachel Marsden Human Events EXCERPT:

Posted 02/20/2011 ET



A new article in Der Spiegel magazine—the German equivalent of Time or Newsweek—applauds George W. Bush for his vision of democracy in the Middle East, and credits him for the fact that authoritarian regimes in the region are being kicked to the curb.

"Painful as it may be to admit, it was the despised former U.S. President George W. Bush who believed in the democratization of the Muslim world and incurred the scorn and mockery of the Left for his conviction," says the piece by Jan Fleischhauer.

Hear that? That's the sound of bowls full of Whole Foods organic granola smashing to the ground. Before we get carried away and cause people to dive off bridges as a result of having to think of George W. Bush as a Nobel Peace Prize candidate, let's consider some reasons presented by various sources so far as to why Bush may not, in fact, be responsible for the tsunami of change we're currently witnessing in Islamic nations.

1. The wave of change started in Africa, with the people of the Ivory Coast elections in December 2010 refusing to allow permanent fixture President Laurent Gbagbo to stay in power after losing democratic elections to rival Alassane Ouattara. The people rioted until he left, during which the UN reported hundreds of arrests, dozens of murders, and significant torture by Gbagbo's men. This was arguably the spark that ignited the whole region: Just a democratic election in which someone refused to rightfully vacate his seat. Days later, the people of nearby Tunisia seem to have decided that their guy, Ben Ali, had been in power long enough (23 years) and wasn't likely to leave of his own volition. So they gave him a bit of a shove.

2. George W. Bush may have said he had a vision of Islamic democracy, but what he really meant was that it was a side-effect of avenging his dad in the wake of the Gulf War. Kind of like when so-called do-gooders volunteer to be candy stripers in hospitals, not because they enjoy giving of themselves to people suffering, but rather because they like that sweet discount they get on the cafeteria food.

3. Bush didn't "show a man how to fish." He reached into the swamp, pulled out the shark with his bare hands, and hanged it in a secure facility north of Baghdad. You're not supposed to do that. You're supposed to wait until the locals figure it out. But would the other Islamic countries living under authoritarianism have figured it out on their own—or was Iraq an icebreaker?

4. Bush didn't invade Saudia Arabia. Or Iran. Or strap himself onto the back of a rocket and take care of business himself like in Dr. Strangelove. So he clearly didn't do enough!

5. War doesn't create peace. Naive kids in floppy blue hats traipsing around in conflict zones create peace and change. Through joy and smiles, silly.
END EXCERPT
Many people have stated George W. Bush would be remembered quite differently by history, gee, I'm one of them. I'm pleasantly surprised that he's starting to get some respect already.
 
A person can't possibly get everything wrong. So yes.

Maybe it will turn out well and he can claim credit for it.


(On the other hand, I ma sure if the elections that will result from this 'wave of liberation' will result in a landslide victory of the Brothers of Islam, I am sure everybody will point the finger at Obama....)
 
:chuckles:

Before we get too carried away, Jan Fleischhauer is a born-again Conservative and is just one journalist. He hardly constitutes all of European media - indeed until I Googled him I had no idea who he was.

:lol:
 
:chuckles:

Before we get too carried away, Jan Fleischhauer is a born-again Conservative and is just one journalist. He hardly constitutes all of European media - indeed until I Googled him I had no idea who he was.

:lol:

Really because if it was written about Obama they would be lining up to give him another nobel peace prize
 
You must live in a different Europe to me, Ballen :).

True, there was some relief, amongst the ordinary folk, to get rid of Mr. Bush from a position of such prominent power and the American hype of Mr. Obama's campaign was duly reported. But that latter was more a talking point because we don't do that sort of messianic politicing here. As Tez was saying the other week about the difference in our (British) points of view on Americans and America as a political entity, it is necessary to seperate the actions of those we are forced to 'elect' (in the farce that is the current form of democracy) from the electorate themselves.

That difference it's why I am confident all of the British members of this site end up scratching our heads in wonder at the venom you chaps whip up over politics - and get so annoyed when you cast labels of Liberal or Conservative about as if they were swear words.

I might disdain the Tories as the party of the upper classes and might gybe a friend who (accidentaly I'm sure) voted for them but he'd still be a friend i.e. I wouldn't hate him just because of party politics.

That applies here too. Twin Fist, Big Don and Archangel, to name just three, have some political views I find downright distasteful. But I'll still talk to them and there is a lot we actually agree on.

:shrugs: So, it seems, I officially don't comprehend populist politics in America :D. Doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on them of course - I'm not often lost for words ...

...

"Really!?!", gasps the crowd :lol:
 
You must live in a different Europe to me, Ballen :).

True, there was some relief, amongst the ordinary folk, to get rid of Mr. Bush from a position of such prominent power and the American hype of Mr. Obama's campaign was duly reported. But that latter was more a talking point because we don't do that sort of messianic politicing here. As Tez was saying the other week about the difference in our (British) points of view on Americans and America as a political entity, it is necessary to seperate the actions of those we are forced to 'elect' (in the farce that is the current form of democracy) from the electorate themselves.

That difference it's why I am confident all of the British members of this site end up scratching our heads in wonder at the venom you chaps whip up over politics - and get so annoyed when you cast labels of Liberal or Conservative about as if they were swear words.

I might disdain the Tories as the party of the upper classes and might gybe a friend who (accidentaly I'm sure) voted for them but he'd still be a friend i.e. I wouldn't hate him just because of party politics.

That applies here too. Twin Fist, Big Don and Archangel, to name just three, have some political views I find downright distasteful. But I'll still talk to them and there is a lot we actually agree on.

:shrugs: So, it seems, I officially don't comprehend populist politics in America :D. Doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on them of course - I'm not often lost for words ...

...

"Really!?!", gasps the crowd :lol:
Well they sure took pride in showing HUGE pro-Obama rallys in Germany, England, France, ect. Tens of thousands of people marching and saying how great Obama will be for the world and the US. He gets elected and a few months later he gets his first nobel prize. So forgive me if I see a little hero worship from the Europeans when it comes to Obama. Trust me we would be happy to give him to you.

I also love how you claim to be so enlightened and above our politics and how we "annoy" you with our Venom yet your seem to find your way into every thread about it and as you said your not often lost for words
 
No thanks, you can keep him - sanctimoniousness of all sorts makes my teeth ache.

Oddly, there were no enormous pro-Obama rallies here - I must have slept through them. Or did you mean a few people with more free time than sense wandering about in London?

Anyhow, hardly my point. You need a better telescope I think as the one you have is not giving you a very clear picture.
 
Well they sure took pride in showing HUGE pro-Obama rallys in Germany, England, France, ect. Tens of thousands of people marching and saying how great Obama will be for the world and the US. He gets elected and a few months later he gets his first nobel prize. So forgive me if I see a little hero worship from the Europeans when it comes to Obama. Trust me we would be happy to give him to you.

I also love how you claim to be so enlightened and above our politics and how we "annoy" you with our Venom yet your seem to find your way into every thread about it and as you said your not often lost for words
Technically, what you saw were American media outlets covering the rallies for their own purposes, all of them slanting the story to suit their viewership. That includes Fox News.

That Obama is our first black president also had much to do with the coverage. And Bush was almost universally reviled. That didn't hurt, either.
 
Technically, what you saw were American media outlets covering the rallies for their own purposes, all of them slanting the story to suit their viewership. That includes Fox News.

That Obama is our first black president also had much to do with the coverage. And Bush was almost universally reviled. That didn't hurt, either.

does it matter who covered it if the live shots were of 10,000 Germans holding Obama signs? My point was we hear all the time how "loved" Obama is around the world. Now I hardly believe that to be true by that goes to show the left leaning bias of American Media
 
does it matter who covered it if the live shots were of 10,000 Germans holding Obama signs? My point was we hear all the time how "loved" Obama is around the world. Now I hardly believe that to be true by that goes to show the left leaning bias of American Media

Yes, it does.

Because the media is known to stage their own ralleys and protests.

Just because they say it's 10.000 does not mean that many actually showed up. ^_^
 
I hear all the time how obama is hated. I hardly believe that to br true but it does go to show you the right leaning bias of american media. Oh wait. You don't call the media outlets you read and watch media. Its something else.
does it matter who covered it if the live shots were of 10,000 Germans holding Obama signs? My point was we hear all the time how "loved" Obama is around the world. Now I hardly believe that to be true by that goes to show the left leaning bias of American Media
 
I hear all the time how obama is hated. I hardly believe that to br true but it does go to show you the right leaning bias of american media. Oh wait. You don't call the media outlets you read and watch media. Its something else.

What is it then oh wise one?
 
How the hell should I know? You seem to conveniently exclude any right leaning media when you allege that american media slants left. You tell me. It's clear you have a different definition of media than most. What is fox news if not a right wing media outlet? Whatabout the washington times or the new york post? Wall street journal? Or those blogs and news sites you guys consistently link from? You know, the ones that advertise anti liberal tshirts. What are those? Id call them conservative biased media. But you're alleging that american media is liberal. So, are you saying that your news outlets are not media or that they're not american?
 
:shrugs: So, it seems, I officially don't comprehend populist politics in America :D.

I think you're doing a fine job. Remember, Americans as a whole largely do not agree on anything ;)

My former husband used to have a headline from the Boston Herald in his office, the headline read "93% Blame Koresh", in reference to the deaths associated with Waco, Texas cult leader David Koresh. (Links belowaq) His comment was that this was perhaps the only time you'd see 93% of Americans agree on anything. He's right.

http://www.culteducation.com/waco.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh
 
Yes. He'll be remembered as the man who went to war over lies. Especially now that curveball has come out.

I tend to stay out of political discussions these days, however just a quick clarification. George Bush is not being lauded by European media or Europeans themselves. There is one person who wrote an article in a German magazine. That's it. And perhaps contrary to how US journalism works, magazines and newspapers not always have outspoken left or right leanings. They are often a combination of both.

So before the US right goes jubliant about this: this is not representative of the media or Europeans in general who on average still think Bush was an incompetent cowboy. Using this 1 article to validate Bush is like pointing to Fred Phelps and claiming that he is representative of what the US thinks.

In other words: a gross misrepresentation of actual reality.
 
Amazing how these people try to say an American is owed for this while completely minimalizing the Egyptian population's apparently insignificant contribution. (and yes, I've been hearing the same accolades for Bammers)

Boggles the mind.
 
How the hell should I know? You seem to conveniently exclude any right leaning media when you allege that american media slants left. You tell me. It's clear you have a different definition of media than most. What is fox news if not a right wing media outlet? Whatabout the washington times or the new york post? Wall street journal? Or those blogs and news sites you guys consistently link from? You know, the ones that advertise anti liberal tshirts. What are those? Id call them conservative biased media. But you're alleging that american media is liberal. So, are you saying that your news outlets are not media or that they're not american?

Little defensive huh?

Lets see
ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR = Left Leaning
Fox= right leaning
by law of averages US Media is more left then right.
 
Ballen, I'm not defensive at all. The entire idea of a left leaning media is so ridiculous that it boggles the mind. Multiple times every day, Big Don, billcihak or you post a link to a conservative media outlet. Whether it's BigJournalism.com, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, townhall.com, Fox News Online, Drudge, Coulter or Malkin's blogs, or the dozens of other examples, you'll often cite one of these conservative media outlets and in the same sentence allege that media in the USA is liberally biased. It's either intentional or a pretty awesome example of cognitive dissonance.

So, again, if these aren't conservative media outlets, what would you call them?
 
Ballen, I'm not defensive at all. The entire idea of a left leaning media is so ridiculous that it boggles the mind. Multiple times every day, Big Don, billcihak or you post a link to a conservative media outlet. Whether it's BigJournalism.com, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, townhall.com, Fox News Online, Drudge, Coulter or Malkin's blogs, or the dozens of other examples, you'll often cite one of these conservative media outlets and in the same sentence allege that media in the USA is liberally biased. It's either intentional or a pretty awesome example of cognitive dissonance.

So, again, if these aren't conservative media outlets, what would you call them?

I didn't say there were no conservative media sources I said most of the Major, main stream, on every TV across the land, basic stations lean to the left like ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN. Most newspapers LA Times, San Fran Chronicle, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Philly Inquirer, USA Today, Baltimore Sun, New York Daily news, are all left wing.
The only media form dominated by the right is talk radio. The left keep trying to start stations but they go under. So since they cant beat them on the radio they want to shut them up with the fairness doctrine.
 
Back
Top