Poetic Justice for the Poet of Matignon

Confounded, among other things, by the notes on General Rondot's computer along with the damning testimony of Jean-Louis Gergorin, that noble combatant (and champion for peace, international justice, and fair play), Dominique de Villepin, was indicted Friday morning for his role in the Clearstream scandal.

As Thomas Lifson (thanks pour Penny) wrote a few weeks ago :

Remember how many media libs swooned over former French prime minister [Dominique] de Villepin? He published poetry! He wrote a book about Napoleon! He dressed in fancy suits and was oh, so sophisticated. Not like you-know-who, the [cowboy] who makes self-styled sophisticated Americans cringe in embarrassment.

Many conservatives heartily despised de Villepin and his boss President Chirac, recognizing them as hypocritical libs, and smarting over French betrayal in the UN Security Council. Evidence is now accumulating that conservatives were right all along.

Incidentally, notice a difference in the AP report as quoted by the New York Times and its sister paper, the International Herald Tribune. In the former, a sentence reads:

The longtime diplomat, who served as foreign and interior minister under Chirac before being named premier, made his mark on the international stage with a 2003 speech before the U.N. Security Council arguing against the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

In the latter (which features a nonexistent "page" 2), the equivalent part of the article is even more laudatory:

Villepin served as foreign and interior minister under Chirac before being named premier. His international moment of glory came in a 2003 speech before the U.N. Security Council, where he made an eloquent case against the U.S. war in Iraq.

"International moment of glory", "an eloquent case", etc; notice, though, how the half-dozen words of which the latter phrase forms a part are thoroughly misleading — "the U.S. war", "the U.S. war in Iraq" ("in Iraq"? shouldn't it be "against Iraq" or, better yet, "against Saddam"? how about "the U.S. invasion of" or "the U.S. intervention in" Iraq, not to mention its "invasion of Saddam's Baasist Iraq" or "intervention against Saddam Hussein"?), we could go on, but you get the idea. None of those options, although more precise (certainly from a military — i.e., purely strategic and tactical — point of view), would fit the reporter's (or editorial bureau's) lionizing as well.