Comments on: Bush and Europe

By: Timothy O'Connor

Timothy O'Connor — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 19:05:00 +0000

“Funny, isn’t it, how there was no need for a similar ring of steel to protect Bill Clinton… on his visits here during his presidency.” I chalk it up to Old World impressionism. This Pew Research poll studying European impressions of Bush from the summer of 2001 gives us some idea that Bush never had much of a chance of gaining anyone’s respect there. (Please note the very few actual issues that were being contested). http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=5 [Personally, I was always pro-Kyoto which was – according to Pew – the foremost European complaint about Bush’s foreign policy at the time and one of the reasons I voted for Gore. But that didn’t mean that hearing the complaints in Ireland sat easily with me since, as you must know, Ireland is still tied for being Europe’s biggest Kyoto violator. I don’t know about the press coverage now, but in 2001 Irish people that I spoke with had no idea about their own Kyoto obligations nor whether Ireland had any real ability or even intention of meeting them. It’s always so much simpler and gratifying to take aim at big bad Uncle Sam. I just think that if Bush was going to be villified in mid-2001 for his number 1 foreign policy catastrophe then the Irish conversations I was hearing around Dublin should have displayed some cognizance of Ireland’s own problems with the treaty. They never did. I am relying on your own good memory of the “climate” back then, and in Dublin specifically.] Our varying impressions of the Irish Times and Sunday Independent notwithstanding, I do find you an intelligent and worthy interlocutor Mr. Matthews. You bring out the best that Ireland has to offer (presuming that you’re writing out of the Irish milieu.).

By: Paddy Matthews

Paddy Matthews — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 17:51:38 +0000

But I’m only frustrated in the realm of the conversation we were having; perhaps the moderate Sindo is finally running something sturdier up the pole after Bush’s proclamation that our differences about the war are over. The Sindo has been cheerleading for George W. Bush and the Iraq War since long before it started – try Googling for “Eoghan Harris” and “Chalabi”. It also has the standard tactic of trying to intimidate and bully anyone who disagrees with it on the subject by labelling them as being “anti-American” or “soft on terrorism” – not that that’s a new tactic for it; it has merely found a new topic on which to bully. Otherwise, that their “regular commentators are very far to the right by Irish standards” isn’t saying a whole lot about what wing they really occupy. I disagree that “most are right wing even by American standards.” But what the hell, I enjoy it, so maybe the Sindo is “right wing” after all? I think anyone who’s familiar with the newspaper would be well aware of its slant. (Full disclosure: I’m a lifelong Democrat and an environmental activist.) I’ll take you at your word. So let’s look at Sindo’s competition. Granted that the Sindo has a “pack” thing going on, I think that the exceptions at TIT like Kevin Myers and Mark Steyn find themselves in a very tendentious editorial environment. But those writers sell newspapers; combined, they have an infuriating star-power. I tip my hat to their inclusion at the Times, but surely you don’t really believe that they reflect the paper’s bent? The Irish Times is liberal on “social issues” and is leftish on foreign affairs. On issues which are going to affect its readers’ pocket books, however, it tends to be more centre-right. This is a newspaper, after all, which is edited by a former Progressive Democrat TD. (Note for non-Irish readers: the Progressive Democrats are a small right-of-centre “classical liberal” party.) I think that you were just pointing out that each paper isn’t 100% anything. No – I was trying to point out that the Irish Times, proportionately, gives more space to opposing viewpoints in its commentary team than does the Sunday Independent. I may be off-base, but I still think of the government as having in some sense “rewarded” the Times with their charitable trust status. I’m sure all those Fianna Fáil governments – especially those led by Charlie Haughey – were just desperate to give the Irish Times an easy ride. After all, it was so friendly to them. They’re bound to do less of a disservice than this current revisionism telling us how it’s all just about Bush and Iraq. Funny, isn’t it, how there was no need for a similar ring of steel to protect Bill Clinton from the rabidly anti-American population on his visits here during his presidency. Any ideas why that might have been? But no one’ll ever manage to put manners on ye I’m sure it’s not for lack of trying on your part.

By: Tim O'Connor

Tim O'Connor — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:54:38 +0000

Mr. Doyle, I can fully appreciate your shock and revulsion on hearing the story I have to report, but if you’d been living in Ireland for all of 2001/02 as I had then perhaps your shock and dismay would be reserved for the widespread anti-Americanism you’d have encountered throughout the Irish Republic. After 9/11 – and I mean immediately after 9/11 – I no longer felt any need to offer the customary understanding and forbearance on the subject which I’d practised since the mid-80’s. By November of 2001, after months of feeling appalled by what I was observing, I decided to try and document the phenomenon as best I could for those, like yourself, who evidently have no familiarity with the topic: “Irelands case Against America” http://www.geocities.com/irelandvus911/ All the best.

By: Tom Doyle

Tom Doyle — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:33:11 +0000

Mr. O’Connor: Your message is grossly offensive, utterly unjustified and indefensible. Your slanderous, bigoted, contemptuous and malicious attack on the people of Ireland is shameful and appalling. I can imagine no circumstances under which such intemperate, intolerant, and, if I may say so sir, ignorant invective against any ethnic or national group merits any response save indignation, outrage, and reprobation. As an American, I am scandalized that you would publicly justify such derogatory, degrading, and disgraceful insults with fetid rhetoric invoking the murders of Sept. 11, 2001. “NATION OF INGRATES???” How dare you, sir.

By: Henry

Henry — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:39:26 +0000

>Henry would try to mislead you into believing. Would you care to justify that statement?

By: Tim O'Connor

Tim O'Connor — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:17:43 +0000

Thorley, I predict that Michael Moore’s “fatcs” will be cited any minute now as the answer your challenge. Man, do you have a great name!

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 05:04:53 +0000

Matt McGrattan wrote:

Not that I’d dispute that some of the disagreement was posturing, but some of it was clearly not. Furthermore, many of the reasons given for distrusting Bush and opposing the war in Iraq seem to have been borne out as true.

Really, what were the reasons given before the war and by whom that have turned out to be true? And which ones made by the same people turned out not to be true. Cites please.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 05:03:12 +0000

Detached Observer wrote:

This post claims that Bush’s statement is misleading — but all it can offer up in support are conjectures about the “true” motives of some European countries — no facts.

I actually agree that Bush’s statement as parsed by Henry is rather misleading. However, it seems a little more clear when you read the entire transcript (click on my name for the link):

Q: Mr. President, I know your time is tight, can I move you on to Europe? Are you satisfied that you are getting enough help in Iraq from European countries? You have come together, you are more friendly now—but they’re not really stepping up to the plate with help, are they?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, first of all, most of Europe supported the decision in Iraq. And, really, what you’re talking about is France, isn’t it? And they didn’t agree with my decision. They did vote for the U.N. Security Council resolution that said, disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. We just had a difference of opinion about when you say something, do you mean it.
But, nevertheless, there’s no doubt in my mind President Chirac would like to see a free and democratic and whole Iraq emerge. And same in Afghanistan. They’ve been very helpful in Afghanistan. They’re willing to forgive debt in Iraq. But most European countries are very supportive and are participating in the reconstruction of Iraq.

A couple of points. First, most European nations joined the Coalition which is a tacit sign of approval regardless of their motives. Second, IIRC most European governments (including France) voted for the UN resolution which the President rightfully sees as an ultimatum with the difference being that some governments (e.g. France, Germany, etc.) disagreed about actually enforcing*. It should also be stated that (contrary to Henry’s spin), Bush’s overall tone towards France is quite a bit more congenial (particularly in the last paragraph) than Henry would try to mislead you into believing.

* I think it’s also arguable that Bush believes (not without some justification IMNHO) that many of the governments that publicly opposed the decision to renew the 1991 hostilities with the Iraqi dictatorship, were posturing for their constituents but were glad he did it. France’s proclamation that they would send troops if Saddam Hussein launched a BCW attack on Coalition forces comes to mind.

By: Tim O'Connor

Tim O'Connor — Mon, 28 Jun 2004 01:31:52 +0000

Mr. Matthews, I’ve enjoyed your posts. On the Sindo you have me at a disadvantage today. I went straight to it of course earlier to see what was in store and was frustrated to find the same list of headlines that you’ve posted. But I’m only frustrated in the realm of the conversation we were having; perhaps the moderate Sindo is finally running something sturdier up the pole after Bush’s proclamation that our differences about the war are over. Otherwise, that their “regular commentators are very far to the right by Irish standards” isn’t saying a whole lot about what wing they really occupy. I disagree that “most are right wing even by American standards.” But what the hell, I enjoy it, so maybe the Sindo is “right wing” after all? (Full disclosure: I’m a lifelong Democrat and an environmental activist.) So let’s look at Sindo’s competition. Granted that the Sindo has a “pack” thing going on, I think that the exceptions at TIT like Kevin Myers and Mark Steyn find themselves in a very tendentious editorial environment. But those writers sell newspapers; combined, they have an infuriating star-power. I tip my hat to their inclusion at the Times, but surely you don’t really believe that they reflect the paper’s bent? I think that you were just pointing out that each paper isn’t 100% anything. Last week Steyn wrote that his column remembering Reagan “generated by far the most hostile mail from readers in Ireland”. I got a kick out of that, remembering what Ireland was like the day Reagan came for a visit. I may be off-base, but I still think of the government as having in some sense “rewarded” the Times with their charitable trust status. Laws and legislation can be changed, but as far as I know Ireland still has the largest unregulated charity market in Europe. When I think of all the crap I heard on state-run RTE radio AND television, I’ll cherish my bias about the Times’ tax-status until a more reasonable explantion corrects it. Anyway, I never met anyone over there who could explain the ins-and-outs of it themselves (not that anyone should have been able to). Is “business just business” Kevin D? I mention this Lou Dobbs fellow because he’s got a weeknight show on CNN asking Americans the same thing. Do businesses have an obligation to their countries of origin or is the bottom line all that should matter as American jobs lose out to outsourcing and tax shelters? I have to say that that China/Ireland figure gets peoples’ attentions. The ironic thing is that Kerry professes the same kind of protectionism that Dobbs does, which would be bad for Ireland. Bush is a free trader. I’m with Bush, though it look like most of Ireland would be happy with Kerry. Isn’t that ironic? Does the Irish Times have any comment on that yet?! Kevin D, I’m glad to hear that you’re thinking about the question of our soured relations. Someone should be thinking about it no matter the results. They’re bound to do less of a disservice than this current revisionism telling us how it’s all just about Bush and Iraq. But no one’ll ever manage to put manners on ye, so live it up! INTEL’s back in town!

By: Kevin D

Kevin D — Sun, 27 Jun 2004 22:57:13 +0000

“US investment into Ireland – which more than doubles the US investment in China – could be endangered.” Is US investment in China founded on the belief that the Chinese love America? I think not. I don’t have figures to hand, but I am pretty sure US investment in France has increased significantly sine the “freedom fries” spat. Business is business. American companies invest in Ireland for exactly the same reason Irish people work for them. But Tim O’Connor has started me thinking – just when did we Irish decide that America wasn’t really that shining city on a hill? We mostly thought it was when JFK was President. Was it just because he was a Catholic? I have no answer to suggest but I think it was a gradual process in which Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra and much else played a part.

By: Paddy Matthews

Paddy Matthews — Sun, 27 Jun 2004 22:20:34 +0000

Mr. O’Conor, But the Sunday INDO “right-wing”? Does being moderate pass as right-wing nowadays? The Sunday Independent is about as fair and balanced as Fox News. Gene Kerrigan is perched as a token left-winger on the back page, but the rest of the regular commentators are very far to the right by Irish standards, and I’d say most are right wing even by American standards. Headlines from today’s edition: “Honey-talking Bill lacks George’s guts and honour” (Mark Dooley) “Sleazeball Clinton makes my skin crawl” (Gwen Halley) “Leftward lurch wrong for Fianna Fáil” (Joseph O’Malley) “Sometimes a little reminder of the curdled soul of socialism is needed” (John Drennan) “Petulant Coleman was no match for a political pro” (Andrew Lynch) I haven’t even bothered to wade through the egotistical morass of the Eoghan Harris column. Is he still working as Chalabi’s image consultant? Anyone can do a Google and see what they get served up from the Sindo. Registration is required, but it’s free, and as far as I’m aware it doesn’t land you with much spam. If you’re going to compare it with the Irish Times, I’d remind you that the Irish Times puts Kevin Myers on the editorial page almost every day, hosts Mark Steyn every weekend, and carries other less right-wing but still not “Irish Times liberal” columnists such as John Waters or Breda O’Brien. It also lacks the “pack attack” mentality of the Sindo. I’m still trying to figure out why the Irish government has rewarded the Irish Times with “charity” status for so many years? I don’t think the Irish government “rewarded” them with anything. As far as I’m aware, the conversion of the company into a charitable trust was done back into the early 70s as a tax dodge. There have been plenty of acerbic comments in The Phoenix about the lack of charitable bequests that this trust has made. But as far as I know, they simply took advantage of the existing legislation. Keep in mind that if these sentiments were more widley known in the US the lucrative tourist trade could be endangered, or worse. US investment into Ireland – which more than doubles the US investment in China – could be endangered. If only Lou Dobbs knew the whole story! So, have you managed to put manners on us yet?

By: Tim O'Connor

Tim O'Connor — Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:15:21 +0000

Mr. Mathews, fair play. There are many cross-overs but I spoke out of turn to abbreviate the difference. But the Sunday INDO “right-wing”? Does being moderate pass as right-wing nowadays? I’m still trying to figure out why the Irish government has rewarded the Irish Times with “charity” status for so many years? Or is it now just that they’re their publishers or owners are recognized with the status since the recent reconfiguration? And state-run RTE television is another subsidized wonder from the land of free thinking. There’s so much generous advice on RTE for Americans that I wish all Americans could watch it every day (and not just the brief cleaned-up edition that PBS broadcasts one day a week for our unwitting American ears).

By: Paddy Matthews

Paddy Matthews — Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:54:35 +0000

I should add that the Irish Times doesn?t print on Sundays while the Independent does, but under the name “Sunday Independent”. The Sunday Independent is a separate entity from the Irish Independent, with its own editorial staff and its own, quite distinctive, stand on most political issues. It would be fair to say that the amount of commentary, pretty much all of it from a strongly right-wing stance, is higher than in the Irish Independent.

By: Paddy Matthews

Paddy Matthews — Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:54:34 +0000

By: Tim O'Connor

Tim O'Connor — Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:34:14 +0000

I should add that the Irish Times doesn’t print on Sundays while the Independent does, but under the name “Sunday Independent”. The Independent is less anti-American over-all than the Times, but the “INDO” still regularly features such illuminaries as Robert Fisk, while the Times features the not-very-different John Pilgers of the world. Combined with the rest of the assorted and local “intelligensia” it’s no wonder the Irish are confused about whether they hate all Americans or just Bush? From the Irish Times, September 12, 2001: “But there will almost certainly be a dark side. For there is in American culture a fundamentalism no less strong than that of those who may have plotted yesterday’s carnage. The tendency to divide the world between the forces of God and the forces of Satan, the elect and the damned, is, ironically one of the things that America shares with its most ferocious enemies.” Keep in mind that if these sentiments were more widley known in the US the lucrative tourist trade could be endangered, or worse. US investment into Ireland – which more than doubles the US investment in China – could be endangered. If only Lou Dobbs knew the whole story!