Germany's Largest Newspaper Endorses Bush
 

I had thought the whole of Europe was officially against George W. Bush, but apparently not, as The BILD newspaper of Germany is endorsing Bush for President, for whatever its worth. BILD has the widest circulation of any newspaper in Europe.

The article is in German. I've read a translation of the article, but can't verify the authenticity. Maybe some of you speak German. I'll post the original German article - you can translate it yourself. There are online translators aplenty.

Article

I just wish these damn foreigners would mind their own business. :)

Agreed. Another vote here for 'who the hell cares what Germany thinks'.

Kerry's platform tells us that we should care what everybody thinks, does it not?

All the german I know has come from Castle Wolfenstien (C-64), and COD.

It doesn't help here.

Here's a translation.
The reason I see this as relevant is because the case is made over and over of how Bush's ideology in the 'war on terror' is universally scorned and unaccepted. This might be seen as proof to the contrary.

I don't agree with Bush on ALOT of things but I agree with his tough stance on terrorism.

source

Holy crap...I agree with someone from Germany :p

yeah.....Bild :rolleyes:
its a bit right wing and like to make up stories....

Oooops, suddenly the very roots of the Kerry campaign is threatened. Kerry has based his whole campaign on the war and the opinions abroad, particular in France, Germany and Russia.

Note to everyone...I was joking.

The Bild is THE crappiest newspaper you can get in Germany. I don't know how you call those in the US, but I think it's yellow press. Mostly the stories are about aliens kidnapping cows or hot girls who have to sell themselves to feed their babies. You get the point.
And, right, if there is nothing to talk about they just make stories up. I am surprised that those fuckers even handle such a serious topic like politics. I hate the Bild and everyone who learned to think for himself does so, too.
And, get over your "we give a shit about the world" attitude.

Yes, he's just as foolish as Bush. Careful assuming that anti-bush = pro-kerry. There are plenty of people who dislike both.

So all this over a National Enquirer type story?

Now I wonder if maybe Bild was going for satire to further entertain their readship.

De Bild might be a bit crappy, but it is hardly in the National Enquirer catagory. It is a huge seller, and as such has huge influence over 70million odd people.

I cannot speak for the whole of Europe, it's over 450million people after all, but I know there is a general feeling that Bush (and the Republican idealogy) would be a better President purely from the global economy point of view (De Bild is a rightish wing paper after all).
That doesn't mean that we should feel that he is the best choice for President though!
(I know, why should we feel wehave the right to have a firm opinion on your President? Well, it's human nature to have a point of view on nearly everything - an express it! :D)

It might have a large circulation - but if the article preceding the endorsement was something about Aliens abducting hot girls to feed to little Alien babies ... well, that about speaks for itself.

;)

Finally, a reason to vote for Kerry.

Yes and it is a shame that it is such a big seller cause it is crap.
It is the same categorie as the Sun or other papers with just one really huge headline. and it is a right wing paper...

I don'T know how many here speak german, but there is whole site that watches Bild and reports any crap Bild puts up
http://www.bildblog.de/
and there is a lot of crap.

Huh? I don't know anyone who woud think of Bush as a good president.

Half the problem with this country is it thinks it can do whatever the fuck it wants without any concern for what anyone else thinks.

If another country has something to say, guess what? Think about it and listen, even if it's something absurd that you don't agree with (ie "vote for Bush"). Totally discrediting them and saying, "Who gives a shit what they think?" (not referring to cthulu's post, people in general have this attitude) is ignorant.

If this country actually stopped to think about the consequences of its actions, then we wouldn't be in half the trouble we're in today.

I hope I live to see the day when other countries get fed up with our shit (provided we don't fix them soon) and put us in our place (not US, but the govt).

Pacifier, you're forgetting the tens of millions of American citizens who are going to vote for Bush, and the reason for this, to me, is simple:

1) The 2004 America Presidential election is about 1 thing: Fighting Terrorism.
1a) Bush is a known quantity who is tough on terrorism.
1b) Kerry is an unknown quantity in the fight against terrorism, with a questionable record on foreign military engagement added into the mix.

The release today of a 'new' OBL tape that was broadcast here on American TV I don't think was a coincidence. It was a reminder. A legitimate reminder in my opinion.

Not everyone in the world takes a pacifistic view in this fight against terrorism, not here in America, and obviously not in Germany. This is encouraging.

Those aren't legitimate reasons.

What, you REALLY think Kerry's gonna take office and ignore the "war on terrorism"? I don't think so. Any president that downplays it would face career suicide.

So, if that's your sole basis for forming an opinion on Bush, then I'd suggest you quickly find another avenue, because both presidents (and any president for that matter) would be able to do it.

The point is, who will do it better? So far Bush has made some questionable decisions and, believe it or not, is actually making you LESS safe in the long run.

He has this "me me me" mentality when it comes to this country, but like I said above, if we keep pulling this shit like we own the world, then someone will eventually put us in our place.

The OBL tape came out today and said neither Kerry nor Bush is responsible for our security and it relies upon US foreign policy. Have any of our leaders actually taken a step back to understand what this means, or do they act with tunnel vision thinking the USA can do no wrong and can't admit any past mistakes? I think we know the answer to that question.

Our foreign policy sucks ass. The rest of the world can see this, so why can't we?

i was talking about europe and germany in particular. no german i know would vote for bush.
Ii was reply to FatherTed who said that he believes a lot of people in europe actually like bush.

Are you suggesting America base its foreign policy on the wisdom of psychopaths like OBL?

Understood.

All you guys here seem to be pretty clever, reasonable and intelligent but I want to make sure about one thing. No country in Europe (not even France) hates the US. Europe appreciates the US as a trading partner, NATO partner and friend. BUT, only very few people in Europe agree with Bush's politics.
DER SPIEGEL is probably the best weekly magazine in Germany when it comes to politics. It might not be absolutely representative, but when they asked the visitors of their webiste who they wanted to be the next US president, Kerry or Bush, 98 % voted for Kerry.
No one wants to tell the American people who to vote for, what to think or how to defend the US. There is just a need in the US to open the eyes and ears to the world and to see things from different point of views.

I have to more things to throw in. First, I think it is wrong how both election campaigns just focused on the war. It takes more to run a country than just be a good commander in chief.
But I still think that a president who has seen the war with his own eyes knows what it means to send soldiers into battle.

Maybe you can already tell, but I am from Germany and currently studying in California.
And you are more then welcome to visit Europe and to enjoy some French wine or German beer!

Yes, that is completely 100% exactly what I'm saying :rolleyes:

Seriously now... why bother replying with garbage like that? Please go back, re-read the post, and formulate an intelligent response to what was a pretty straight forward and to the point post. Take your tinfoil hat off, open your eyes, and pay attention.

Otherwise, if these are the type of replies I can expect from you, there's really no point in wasting time beyond this.

Not to mention that out of that entire post I made, that's all you got from it? Did you even comprehend what was said before that?

Sorry Stompy...but come on man! this is Tilted Politics, why so sensitive? I'm not a hit n run kinda guy here either...so:

What aren't? Reasons for what?

The thing is, nobody knows what he's going to do. What do *you* think he's going to do? There's nobody else for Kerry to reach out to, that's going to send troops into Iraq. Everybody already said no. What will Kerry do differently?

That Bush is tough on terrorists being the sole basis for forming an opinion on Bush? No, it is not the sole basis upon which I form an opinion on Bush. It is part of why I like Bush, and I don't think its a foregone conclusion that just any warm body in the White House would be effective in this capacity. What justification can you give for this statement? Do you deny the existence of an ineffectual president like, say, Jim Carter, who got bullied around by Iran back in the 70's? I think it'd be a mistake to discount individual characteristics and political voting records in choosing a wartime president.

Who will do what better? I agree he's made some questionable decisions. I disagree he's made America less safe. I used to think he did, but I don't anymore. Fight Offensively, even when others may turn away, hesitate or give up.

No, not a me, me, me attitude. A WE, WE, WE attitude. As in, 'We, the People'. The American People. He's doing whats right to protect the citizens of America, in my opinion.

I point to the obvious, and say, They attacked us. They killed more Americans (all civilians, to boot) in one day since World War 2. In my opinion, there is no excuse imaginable for such an attack. This was a Declaration of War against America. America should not look to psychopathic religious maniacs to tell them how to handle their foreign affairs. Ok. So, it was OK to invade Afghanistan, but not do anything about a dictator hostile to America, a sponsor of terrorism, a potential terrorist supplier of destructive doo-dads. You know the story. Saddam Hussein had the bad fortune of being alive 1.5 years after 9/11 and he paid the price.

What foreign policy are you referring to?What model of foreign policy do you base this on? Whose doing it the 'right' way in your opinion? Is there anyone out there in America's position, acting as a role model?

Yep, And DER SPIEGEL has a new english website:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/

Exactly my opinion, and the opinion of many Belgians.

Good evening Washington these are the results from the Belgian jury :
Bush zero points Kerry twelve points :D :D

Not sensitive, it's just that I don't understand how someone would come to the conclusion that you came to (unless you were being sarcastic, but I don't think you were).

Almost everyone who responds in that manner doesn't ever really improve beyond that in later posts.

The reasons 1, 1a, and 1b you gave above.

I believe Kerry has established that we need to pay attention to the international community a bit more. That doesn't mean we ask them, "Hey, we got attacked so... you mind if we hit back?" Even though what we did in Iraq was justified because Saddam wasn't fit to be a leader, we went about it the wrong way. There's a process for everything and you can't just pass that up.

That's my opinion, anyway.

The siutation in Iran was a bit different than being in today's culture that surrounds itself in fear of another terrorist attack.

Unfortunately, it happens to be on top of everyone's mind (as opposed to domestic issues), so whoever takes office can't ignore the problem. They won't. I guarantee you if Kerry takes office that he won't just pull out of everything and call it quits only to let things go on as they did pre 9/11.

How do I know? Common sense, I guess.

What do you mean "who will do what better?" Exactly was was being discussed in the post I replied to: fighting terrorism.

Let's put it this way: America isn't THAT much more safe today than it was 4 years ago. Trust me, if a terrorist wanted to hit us today, they probably could. The thing is, these plans take years to put together. They couldn't do another 9/11 for the fact that things are monitored more closely (like who attends flight school), but while we focus all of our attention towards that, we have left another thing even more open.

I have a hard time believing they can actually monitor every square inch of activity around our borders and inside the cities. There's just no way it can happen.

It's an illusion when Bush claims that America is safer today. The only thing different is there's a war going on in Iraq with even more enemies and an international community that isn't exactly happy with the decisions we've made.

I know people have this thought that, "Well, maybe people just don't understand our need to make this decision. You won't understand now, but in a few years down the road." See, I have a strong feeling that 10-20 years down the road, we'll view this as, "Goddamn, what were we thinking?"

Vietnam's a good example of this. Not comparing the Iraq war to Vietnam or anything, but the feeling is the same. Vietnam was a bad idea back then, and still remains as such to this day. We haven't lived that down. It was a mistake for something we thought was a good idea at the time.

Yes, but what's going on now is that the current administration has tried VERY hard to convince people that Saddam and Al Qaeda had a link. Believe it or not, most people to this day, despite all the reports stating otherwise, believe that Saddam has something to do w/ 9/11.

To me, I don't have any problems with going to war in Iraq, I have a problem with the way it happened and was handled. The right reasons or not, it was shady of Bush, knowing they didn't have any WMD, to purposely midlead people into supporting an attack on Iraq.

There've been reports that stated Bush intentionally wanted to target Iraq to make them look like they had something to do with it, but.. that's up for debate. I guess no one will know for sure.

They were already being closely monitored and weren't much of a threat.

I'm not saying let others handle our foreign affairs, I'm just saying maybe we should step back for a second and re-assess how exactly we go about doing things.

We have a very aggressive foreign policy. As a country who claims to support freedom and democracy, we should be the role model. I mean, we do things for the right reasons (supposedly), but we do them in the worst way possible, it seems. A lot of countries view us as imperialistic and oppressive.

The countries that do engage in foreign affairs that don't go off and make big names for themselves by going to war. Those that keep to themselves, yet at the same time pay attention to what's going on around them.

Why was Iraq such a threat to US and not someone else in their immediate area like France, Spain, Germany, etc? Why didn't they go to war before us? Surely if these countries thought Saddam was a great threat, they would've acted upon it as well.

We poke our nose into too much. Let's just give a what if here, but what if N. Korea, Iran, or Syria, decided to start some shit and we made the choice to go in and handle it? We'd be overwhelmed. There simply isn't enough money or manpower for us alone to be getting into this stuff when we have more important domestic issues to worry about.

Anyway, my position in this entire thread is ... if a country speaks up about something, it doesn't mean we have to follow through with it, but we should at least take it into consideration instead of the classic, "Who gives a shit what they think?" response... because, like I said, one day it will bite us in the ass.

Stompy you make a LOT of good points above, no doubt about it.

I disagree though, that America isn't any safer short term. I think the hyper-vigilant posture that America presently has, plus the fact that I believe that al-Qaeda has been rocked back on its heals and is in no position to organize and plan another attack for the moment, has made things safer. Just my opinion.

OT for 1 sec.
The more I think about it though, the more I see Isolation, American isolation from its traditional allies, as a growing threat to both the effort in Iraq and on terror in general. I think in the long run, America is going to need more help, and that going about it unilaterally is indeed an unwise decision. In saying this, I do see in the future a growing coalition of the world's civilized nations standing up together in the face of spreading radical islamic fundamentalism.

Another issue that concerns me is the extraordinarily high, and potentially catastrophic level of internal mistrust, animosity and anger, within America, between ideologies, Conservative-Liberal, Right-Left, ProWar-AntiWar. Its as if the Enemy were each other, American v. American, and not external. I hope this will be addressed and resolved sooner rather than later. /OT