Since I was remotely involved in the creation of the disputed paragraph in Denis' article let me quote (and expand) from an e-mail I wrote Denis in our ongoing conversation about the piece. In any way I'm confident to say that you, Jörg, are misconstruing Denis' original point if you claim that he meant the comparison in a literal sense.

---

I don't think that the actual relationship between Schröder (and by extension the former administration) and Fischer could be cast in - and here I might borrow from a popular figure that maybe fits better than abused Nazi analogies - terms of Sith Lord and Master Luke, with Fischer being the aspiring minion who, unlike the flick's counterpart, realizes he's been misled. Actually, I think that, cynical as it may sound, Schröder made an honest effort to stand his ground given his neo-socialist career (the Gazprom position fits perfectly - fat cat citing from the little red book) all the while most political opponents and the commentariat predicted that he would "umfallen" (think Kerry's weathervan'dalism) in his anti-Iraq-war position soon after the elections (much like predecessor Kohl on virtually any foreign policy issue), and Fischer being the great manipulator with friends & family in all branches of the German elite who rather acts on his own freelancing terms. Fischer saw the anti-American Episodes 1 (Afghanistan), 2 (Iraq) and 3 (American bloodsuckers' siege on German economy) as a means to the ends, namely advancing his (and friends') careers.

While Schröder's and Fischer's publicly voiced opinion may in fact coincide in almost all matters American they arrived there on distinct paths, with Schröder following the one trodden by Leftists since the early traces of Marxist "anti-Imperialism", and Fischer taking the mental masturbation route that works the issue until a populist (read: scary) angle emerges. In my humble opinion Fischer is devoid of any traces of conviction (also re: his street fighting years), and I do believe that he would peruse any issue no matter what (or rather who) is destroyed in the course, much like most tangents in current Euro-US relations work out. Think "anti-trust" fines against Microsoft, the Kyoto lever, "illegal" Boeing subsidies, etc., which Europe abuses to "strengthen" her economy at the expense of American companies' interests. Which, ironically, makes Fischer in fact a "leading European", but not in the sense that Franco-German Europhiles intended.

So, to answer the question [whether Fischer indeed is being re-cast as not-so anti-American), Fischer was never anti-American in a sense that the European intelligentsia was never "critical of Bush's policies" for, oh, the last 100 years. They just happen to get back to the US over and over again because, well, she's a cheap and convenient target. And in that I believe lies the true danger of such characters. They are not grounded in any particular ideology (unlike Schröder and his forgotten twin Blair), and much like the saying, if you don't believe in anything you'll believe everything, Fischer will do anything to score points with some particular focus group - and the frightening aspect is that he never seems to feel uncomfortable about it.

Precisely in that lies the real threat that the prototype political figure Fischer poses to societies, and one does not have to reach back to the Third Reich to find conscienceless Fischers who perceive and parse any incident in the metrics of their patchwork ideology. Or rather fantasy ideology as Lee Harris coined it, a coherent and consistent - nevertheless ever-changing - belief coordinate system that solely serves to satisfy a personal collection of pet issues. In course of that, facts become opinion and opinion becomes fact.

Schröder may have been a sonofabitch, but he was a predictable one. Fischer, however, is a Lord of War who sells any story (read: weapon) to anyone if the price is right.

Jörg,

you already labelled my comment as, quote, "... a long comment with little substance ... opinion ..." If that weren't enough, you now also sneak in that not-so small caveat, "links to credible news sources".

I'm not interested in such mental masturbation exercises, really.

I already supplied two links in the other comment:

http://www.welt.de/data/2004/11/13/359509.html
http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/kell0211.htm

Fact 1: Fischer rushed to the grave of Arafat, directly undermining your claim that Fischer were a friend of Israel. He's not, but to the contrary, by showing his reverence to a sworn enemy of Israel he made it clear that at least he'll double-talk much the same way as Arafat did.

Just imagine if Klaus Kinkel rushed to the grave of Carlos. (And, no, the fact that Arafat was "elected" in a sham "election", and that he received the Nobel "Peace" Prize, unlike fellow terrorist Carlos, does not change the argument whatsoever.)

Fact 2: Fischer was an attendee at a terrorist-supporting/endorsing conference in "Palestine" which called for the destruction of Israel. Well, since the conference was not held in Frankfurt or Berlin I can hardly see how Fischer could've just stumbled in by accident ...

Anyway, since you now pretend to be genuinly interested in a debate about facts, what is your response to the above?

Or are those still not facts, and am I required to present written testimony from the Pope that the above were true?

"Your postwriters link is an article by Kelly. That guy relies strong only an article by Paul Berman, who is not happy with Kelly"

So you attack the messenger rather than the message. I take note.

"Are you saying Straw and Burns are not friends of Israel?"

Simple question, simple answer: Yes.

As for Straw, read this article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/20/wmid20.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/20/ixworld.html

>>> Britain wants to have "normal relations" with Hamas and is seeking means of unfreezing millions of pounds worth of aid to Palestinians, Jack Straw said yesterday, in a striking softening of tone. > Fischer has also been criticised for attending a 1969 conference of the Palestine Liberation Organization, where Yasser Arafat called for an all-out war on Israel "until the end".

Fuchur, sure I "didn't get the point" simply because I don't see why I should defend a point that I never made, so please stop putting words into my mouth and stick with the actual text.

Anyway, I know your "rhetorical style" from Medienkritik's comments section quite well, so I'm not going to waste any more time with you, either.

Exactly, the blog where I was "banned" for defending the politics of Schröder (but not of Fischer).

Oh, sorry for confusing you now. Enjoy your stay.

The relevant portion of the story is not the GPS coordinates of the exact location of the conference, but the fact that the conference was organised and held by a terrorist organization, and that the express intent was to organise and endorse terrorist activities against the citizens of Israels. That is which Fischer was part of.

So I answered some of your questions. Please anwswer at least this one:

What would your reaction be if Klaus Kinkel went to Carlos' funeral? Or if the Austrian Foreign Minister went to the funeral of a former SS official? Or if Chirac went to the funeral of a convicted war criminal from the former Shinto Japanese Army? Or if Dick Cheney went to the funeral of McVeigh?

On the other hand, from your "conversation" with WhatDoIKnow at Medienkritik I can already infer that right now you'll become so busy that you just can't answer that single question.