"A Vicious Anti-French Diatribe"

They have said it!

They have said it!
They have said it!

"A vicious anti-French diatribe"

Read it again.

"A vicious anti-French diatribe"

And again!

"A vicious anti-French diatribe"

They have said it!

It's official!

"une virulente diatribe antifrançaise". And "un article très critique à l'encontre de la France". …"Un article très critique à l'encontre de la France et de son président Jacques Chirac".

Anti-French? Anti-French!!! An article critical of France? Now that's rich! Think about it. How often have we heard Europeans tell their "American friends" how much they truly like America and Americans, it is only their leaders and the latters' policies they don't like? It is only Bush they are against. How often have you heard that?!

Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's all a scam, it's all self-serving double standards, even if on an unconscious level (meaning self-delusion might be the best term). If, in foreign affairs, you don't agree with Paris, you're being anti-French, and that whether you are a Frenchman or a foreigner. It's that simple!

It is quite possible that it is unconscious for most people — it is perhaps even probable — but it is there all the same. Double standards. Self-delusion. Of the vilest type. Self-serving and ugliness towards foreigners. (Why, foreigners in general? Because it is not only America that is concerned. All Washington's allies turn out to be poodles, cowards, traitors, idiots, and a*s-kissers, while, conversely, all France's allies turn out to be reasonable, spiritual, tolerant, visionary — just like the French.)

Do you realize how many times I have vied with Frenchmen and -women, parrying attacks, ducking, taking a hammering in threats and mockery, only to, (if I hadn't given in) at the end, be confronted with a "Well, your position is anti-French"? Or with a "What are you doing in France if you think that way?"And this from your leftists of the most progressive and forward-looking kind.

It's all a scam, folks!

It's all a scam…

The theory that avant-garde Europeans are not patriotic is a lie. The fact that those reasonable people are above such matters is a lie.

Or, if you prefer, self-delusion…

You can call it patriotism, or nationalism, or whatever you want, it all amounts to saying "the group of people that I/we belong to is much more advanced than anybody else; criticize one of us, and you attack us all"…

And — of course — this is not limited to France. See Thomas's article on Davids Medienkritik about the Germans:

Bad, Bad Republicans

America experienced an impressive first day of the Republican convention: Two outstanding, stirring speeches by John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, emotional remarks of an Iraqi woman and three relatives of victims of September 11. Even analysts close to the Democrats praised the presentation of the “Grand Old Party.”

But – once again, who finds fault with everything? Spiegel Online, of course. First off, [Spiegel journalist] Marc Pitzke once again delivers a convolution of irrelevant anecdotes (9/11 wine), subjective opinions and “New York Times” reports to bring his message across: The Republicans have shamelessly exploited 9/11. It doesn’t matter, that he himself points to the fact that the relatives of the victims mentioned neither the name Bush nor the name Kerry nor did they make a recommendation for whom to vote. It doesn’t matter, that he himself writes that the speeches of the relatives were “honest” and “moving.” No, when Marc Pitzke thinks it (and the NYT, known for their absolute neutrality, found it out before the convention in a poll), then the Republicans are indeed abusing 9/11.

…Especially treacherous, however, is the attempt to grab Spiegel Online readers by appealing to their national pride – that Giuliani, how dare he! Boos for Germany - How Giuliani is Whipping Up Support for Bush with the 1972 Olympic Attacks

What we unfortunately don’t read: Giuliani equally criticized the Italian government of the time for the “Achille Lauro” incident, the Nobel Prize committee for its award to Arafat, and he accused earlier US governments of not having acted consequently enough against terrorism. He even remarked that “we,” therefore including himself, did not see clearly enough until 9/11 how dangerous this enemy was.

Instead of making an attack “against Germany” as Spiegel Online wants to make it out, Giuliani simply gave various examples illustrating that terrorists were acted against with too little consequence. Yes, in so doing, he accused, above all, the Europeans of having a lax position. No, provoking “boos against Germany” was not his main objective. (If you evaluate it that way, then there were also “boos against Italy,” which today has troops in Iraq.)

Finally, it is especially conspicuous that, here once again, double standards rule. Spiegel editors lay much value on this point in their answers to letters to the editor: Whoever criticizes Bush (and the average Spiegel reader in any case) is of course still far from being anti-American. Whoever points out that he thinks that the Brandt government acted incorrectly during a single situation (the 1972 Olympic terrorist attack) during its term, for him it is about boos against Germany.

When challenged on his opinions on this website, a ¡No Pasarán! reader replied that his reason for adding comments is "because I am French and I love my country".

Nothing wrong with that, of course, except, the whole basis of the anti-American (supposedly the anti-Bush) tirade is that the simplistic Americans are short-sighted patriots, while the high-minded Europeans are far above that retarded way of viewing things.

Unlike the US, we are told that there is little or no flag-waving in Britain, France, Germany, and other continental countries…

Okay. What if patriotism (or nationalism) consisted not only of flag-waving and national-anthem singing, but of going around saying things such as "We are eternally (and inherently) more lucid, more intelligent, more reasonable, more humanistic, more tolerant, more generous, and wiser than everybody else. ...And especially our enemies (those real enemies of humanity, the Americans)."

Those enemies whose patriotism, as the Le Monde reviewer wrote, was a far graver problem than that (if patriotism is the correct word in that case) of the Serbs who produced the killing fields in Bosnia and Kosovo and the Somali warlords who added immensely to their countrymen's suffering (!)...

(All this, you understand, from people crowing that "We are far too sophisticated to have enemies of any kind"…)

If saying "we French (or English) were wiser than the Americans in such-or-such an instance, or in that-or-that particular event or regarding a given kind of policy (foreign or other)", it might be true, but if it were said all the time, day in and day out, in that form, or in more subtle forms, by citizens, media, and leaders alike, might one not be tempted to say that it is a form on patriotism (or nationalism or whatever you choose to call it) too?

It might seem more a more unconscious form, but it seems to me that (because of that?) it is more dangerous, and insidious, than flag-waving of the American type.

Tidal Wave of Support for France's Arab Policy, Except from…

The French do not take Fox News seriously. It is all base propaganda. Fox Television, moreover, is a perfect example of the prejudice present in all American media, which blindly follows George W Bush in whatever he does and believes everything his administration says.

Don't worry, thought. There are TV stations and news offices the French do take seriously.

…Like Al-Jazeera.

Take Tewfik Hakem's Le Monde article:

Although Al-Jazeera's journalists avoid carefully to guess the kidnappers' identity, they do not hesitate to interview Arabs, who, in front of Al-Jazeera's cameras, wonder who profits from the crime [of kidnapping two Frenchmen]. "Had one wanted to break the resistance in Iraq and in the Arab world, one would not have acted differently", says one female militant. "In whose interest is it to force France to cut its ties with Iraq?" asks another.

What Al-Jazeera, which is more careful now, is subtly suggesting, other Arab media are clamoring aloud without the slightest proof. Like the columnist from Algeria's El-Watan daily, who writes: "Nobody will be surprized if one day it is leared that this so-called — Iraqi Islamic — army is in reality a collection of individuals acting for the CIA or Mossad. The American agency must be rejoicing in the difficulties which the French government is encountering."

"Without the slightest proof", indeed. If someone is to say that Americans are treacherous (or simple-minded or reactionary or stupid or simplistic), who is a lucid European to say the opposite? If someone includes evil Americans in their unsubstatiated rumors, who is anybody to try and check out the source? If someone brings up the CIA bogeyman, who is anybody to point tout at least two valid sources with solid evidence for what they claim are necessary for publication?

Certainly not Le Monde, aka the "organ of official opinion and of the ruling class".

Slip in that four-word phrase ("Without the slightest proof") and then devote two entire paragraphs to the matter. And if possible, make the rumor grow.

Cécile Hennion ends an article concerning Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's assault on Latifiya with a quote from a sheikh by the name of Hicham Najim Al-Hassan Al-Douleïmi:

…the armed intervention at Latifiya has put a stop to the negotiations and cut off the contacts. I can't say whether the Americans did that on purpose […] but it has created a climate of generalized panic, at the moment when the kidnappers were trying to obtain security guarantees.

Oh! The Americans created the climate of generalized panic! Okay. I see. (Of course, he says that he can't say whether the treacherous Americans did it on purpose, but we know what that is supposed to mean…) If only those simple-minded Americans would keep their busy noses out of everybody's affairs, the peace-loving negotiators would obtain goodwill from everybody and bring about a solution which would please everyone. What a shame…

Oh, and of course, the new Iraqi government and America's military have nothing better to do than to base their military strategy on a desire to prevent two French hostages from being freed!

(Who is it — is it really the Americans?— who are always being depicted as paranoiacs? Imagine this scene:
Sergeant: Okay, get your gear together, send an email to your loved ones, and say a prayer. We're heading into battle…
G.I.: What's the cause this time, Sarge?
Sergeant: To prevent the Islamic Army in Iraq from releasing Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot…
Gung-ho GI: Alright, let's roll!… Whoop!
Oh, I forgot how my irony is out of place: Americans are obviously too stupid to realize to what extent they are being manipulated by their evil overlords…)

But otherwise, Mouna Naïm writes, the French authorities "have been — pleasantly — surprised" (one should almost use the word "overwhelmed") by the tidal wave of sympathy that encompasses the entire Arab world. It is all the more remarkable, we learn, because it includes all parties, "paying more or less strong supported homage to Paris's policies in that part of the world". "The movement of sympathy for France is all the more remarkable in that it includes Islamist groups and persons", purrs Mouna Naïm, such as the Lebanese Hezbollah group's television station, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, and Palestine's Hamas and Islamic Jihad factions.

In the second paragraph, however, Mouna Naïm downgrades the term to a "quasi-tidal wave", since there are two "exceptions": the silence of the Gulf's oil monarchies (except for Qatar and Saudi Arabia) and the declaration of the prime minister of… Iraq…

Oh, right! In their conquest of Arab hearts vis-à-vis the Iraqi crisis, the French just happened to forget about those members of the Arab/Muslim family who are primairly concerned about the American presence in Iraq: the people of Iraq. Who, in their overwhelming majority, have said they felt little more than disgust towards the peace camp's viewpoints and actions during the Iraq war, not to mention towards the "support" of their Arab brethren…

But not to worry: taking its cues from the French foreign ministry, the independent newspaper knows how to deal with that, using all the vocabulary in its arsenal to show what a base man Iyad Allawi (or any ally of the Americans) is…

Dipping into into the resentment that he visibly is feeling [of course, Allawi lacks lucidité and is incapable of reasoning] because of France's refusal to take part in the war against Iraq [I thought it was the war against Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist thugs], Iyad Allawi had not a kind word to say about the fate of the two journalists.

And how much sympathy did France and the French show towards Nick Berg and the others whose heads were separated from their bodies? Mouna Naïm goes on to quote from Allawi's interview, but instead of ending with a simple "he said" of journalistic tradition, she writes "he said with a total lack of consideration, if only for the gravity of the moment." Of course, until Frenchmen were touched by the events in Iraq, the situation was not grave enough to warrant consideration in one's speeches. (And it turns out Allawi says exactly the same thing…)

I seem to remember articles and editorials in Le Monde, as well as talks with Frenchmen, in which there was not much consideration for, say, the victims of 911.

As far as Iyad Allawi is concerned, perhaps he does not enjoy being called a CIA stooge, which he may think shows a lack of consideration, but of course, that is something entirely different, n'est-ce pas?

Anyway, here is an editorial he had printed in his daily called Baghdad and entitled Chirac Did You Not Hear Our Cries for Help? (Don't be surprized if the independent newspaper entitled the article devoted to the editorial More Anti-French Diatribes from Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.)

The kidnapping of the French journalists […] is one of the results of Chirac's objections in aiding the [Iraqi] government to reestablish inland security and of Chirac's "No's" everytime a proposition of international aid was presented in the Security Council.

[Mr Chirac] wants to show the Iraqis that they have lost the advantages of the former régime […] Jacques Chirac, who wants to present himself as an honorable man, bears part of the responsability in the kidnapping of his two fellow citizens because he opposed all the international resolutions whose object was to bring Iraqis security.

Here, Mouna Naïm quickly intervenes. That's not true, she seems to be saying. France voted for resolutions 1546 (June 2004) and 1511 (October 2003), although, of course, it threatened to use its veto — it didn't actually do it, see — on the Spring 2003 resolution authorizing war against Saddam Hussein — sorry, against Iraq (her actual words are "authorizing the war in Iraq").

Well, now. Isn't that nice? The French journalists, who do not see it fit to counter voices (Arab or other) that it was actually CIA operatives who kidnapped the two Frenchmen, sees fit to set the the reader straight where France is concerned. How nice of the independent newspaper.

Here is a second editorial of the Baghdad daily's:

…the French government praised itself on being far removed from the suffering of the Iraqi people and on having refused to participate in the toppling of the former régime of Saddam Hussein, its main ally for its interests in Iraq.

…This attitude gave the impression that France was bestowing its blessing on all that was happening in Iraq, whether it be the car bombs, the kidnappings, or the slowing of the reconstruction campaign.

…During the terrorist attacks that his Iraq's people and infrastructures, nobody heard the calls from France for these crimes to stop until the terrorists took on its citizens. Now, its emissaries are all over the place […] asking the different Iraqi parties to intervene in the freeing of its two countrymen.

The following day, we are told that a meeting between Chirac and Iraq's president Ghazi Al-Yaour has been postponed. The title of the Le Monde article seems put the fault on Iraq's prime minister (remember, the guy who "dips into the resentment that he is visibly feeling"?): The diatribes of Iyad Allawi have contributed to the postponement of the Iraqi president's visit to France.

But Mouna Naïm knows whom she is working for. She speaks of the "anger" of the French authorities who qualify his words as "inadmissable". Compare the image of collective — and justified— anger with the image of a single guy who, rather irrationally, "dips into the resentment that he is visibly feeling" — All we need now is the CIA stooge imagery (don't worry, it's right around the corner).

Next comes the Baghdad daily's "vicious anti-French diatribe" and its "overwhelming of President Chirac with accusations". These accusations are unfounded, states Mouna ïm without further ado (again quoting the UN resolutions). Whether "France was bestowing its blessing on all that was happening in Iraq", such as the Abu Ghraib pictures, she does not touch upon. Instead, she prepares a broadside against Illawi:

A former member of the Ba'ath party — which has since been dissolved — who became a dissident in the 1970s, Mr Allawi, who is a Shi'ite, has been, since the mid-1990s, the "filly" of the CIA and the State Department, who put him in competition with Ahmad Chalabi, the Pentagon's "protégé". …

Translation: there is nothing at all democratic in Allawi's appointment, who is just as bad as all the other Ba'ath party members. (By all means, refrain from indicating what kind of position IA had in the Ba'ath party, and whether it involved murdering dissidents or being in charge of a local town's electrical grid.)

It is in the light of this strange American-Ba'athist chemistry that one must read his declarations and comments. It's probably also because of this chemistry that he has never had any affinities with France, which knows this without having made a casus belli about it. …

Allawi, like the treacherous Americans he is allied to, cannot be expected to reason rationally or to speak truthfully. The French, however, are ready to stoically accept this.

Contrary to Mr Allawi, with whom he has tense relations, according to some Iraqis, President Ghazi Al-Yaouar, whose functions are essentially honorary, is a moderate Sunni, accepted by the Kurds and the Shi'ites, and more conscious than his prmie minister of the political and social reality of his country.

In other words, the moderate and rational president is much more lucide than the irrational prime minister. Just like the French.

It cannot be excluded, according to the same Iraqis, that the anti-French diatribe was aimed at torpedoing Mr Al-Yaouar's visit to Paris and to protest against what the prime minister considered French leaning towards the Sunnites.

You know what this is called, right? A complete whitewash of French foreign policy and of the human beings who stand behind it.

Interestingly, none of the articles on the spat between Paris and Baghdad are among the website readers' 10 top choices (who by far prefer such fare as Multinational Companies On Their Piles of Gold).

Of course, if beyond one single Iraqi voice, Le Monde had found more locals who voiced disapproval with this statement of Allawi's, or with the Bagdad editorials, it might, it just might be, a bit more convincing. Then again, the Al-Jazeera interviews on the CIA connections might have been more convincing, had they been made with a large swath of Iraqis…

Far From (the) Objective:Perpignan's PhotoJournalism Festival

Perpignan's photojournalism festival has been in Le Monde all week long. There was, of course, the article on the reaction of the Visa pour l'image team to the kidnapping of the two French reporters.

There was Michel Guerrin's article on a photographer who, like so many others in Perpignan, understands that all the injustices in this world are due to American-style capitalism (an article which also explains how and why French photographers are far superior to their American counterparts — like French reporters, French leaders, French intellectuals, French citizens, etc…)

There is the American photographer who rails against America under Bush-43, calling "the ugly nation" fear-inspiring, full of hate and ignorance, and fascist. Even Le Monde can not pretend Chris Morris's photo display is somewhat objective, Michel Guerrin calling it "not an exhibit, [but] a blistering attack against Bush". (That does not prevent the independent newspaper from quoting Morris's entire blistering attack (something it does for noone else); from, as an aside, criticizing Time (!) as "not one of your most progressive periodicals"; and from ending with a piece of praise: "Chris Morris has managed to keep his distance".)

The wording on Visa's own website, incidentally, is far less strong in English than it is in French, where it is clear that "democracy" is in quotation marks because the concept of America as democracy should only be ridiculed.

The New Republic: one Nation under God
For years, Chris Morris has been following George W. Bush for Time Magazine. In his work, he shows us all the detail, the spectators, what happens on the sidelines.
It is a different way of looking at politics, which can appear quite alarming, even when we are talking about the "biggest democracy in the world".

There is also an article about the festival's homage to Cartier-Bresson, another about the recently-deceased Carl Mydans, and Guerrin's interview with Raymond Depardon.

Finally, there is an interview with the festival's founder, Jean-François Leroy: to Guerrin's questioning his pro-Palestinian image and his invitation to José Bové to hold a speech (well, Guerrin is not exactly questioning Leroy's viewpoints, rather he's helpfully prompting Leroy to refute the charges with some high-falutin' speechifying), Leroy crows that "the photographers' festival" has a particular "commitment" and "a militant image". The interview ends with Jean-François Leroy stating his pride of having "a reputation as a leftist":

Yes, I am of the left, and I am proud of it.

You know what that means: Bush-bashing, castigating of the "false democracy", along with belittling of all the crimes committed in the name of the left while all the world's problems are blamed on the greed and the lack of vision of the criminal capitalist class.

Elia Kazan on Witches and Other Figments of the Imagination

Regarding the charade of terrorists being only a figment of the imagination or being easily amenable at the negotiation table if only a bit of understanding, brainpower, and patience were shown them, today is the birthday of Elia Kazan, the director who said the following, in the wake of criticism regarding his decision to testify before the HUAC commission regarding the McCarthyite "witch hunt" (Kazan went on to film On the Waterfront, of course).

Witches do not exist, but Stalin's infiltration plans, his spies, and his propaganda vere very much real…

Time to backpeddle	C'est l'heure de faire marche arrière
French journalists wake up to a nightmare. Despite the numerous times the French press Pravda has decreed that Bush is 'finished', it's still a race. Their bewildered listeners-readers-viewers try to make sense of it all after months of lies.	Les journalistes franchouilles se réveillent en plein cauchemare. L'élection présidentielle américaine est toujours très serrée malgré les nombreuses proclamations de la presse Pravda fwançaise pour décréter que Bush est 'fini'. Leurs auditeurs-lecteurs-téléspectateurs essaient d'y comprendre quelque chose suite à des mois de mensonges.

Hiding behind their shitty little venacular	Ils se cachent derrière leur patois de merde
Their own language and literature deteriorated by a terminal illness, the new French literary season has established the practice of making money off of the victims of 9-11 as an annual event (only a country with such a deep long lasting friendship for the United States could do such a thing doncha see?!?). After Beigbeder's 'Windows on the World' in which 9-11 victims have an orgy in the burning collapsing Twin Towers, Yann Moix's 'Partouz' draws an analogy between Western swingers' club members and Arab kamikazes (Why? Moix says it's because they all like to get off, duh!). Yann Moix refers to the 11th of September 2001 as 11 Septembre ™ and to Mohammed Atta as his brother. Thierry Ardisson, host of 'Tout le Monde en Parle' broadcast on French State TV, had a good laugh while discussing this latest masterwork of the French literary establishment. Ardisson's latest kick is to turn off the simultaneous translation when American guests are present so his sidekick Laurent Baffie can lay into them with some particularly vulgar French jokes that they cannot understand. Ah, the French and their legendary courage! Americans, you are hated here. Americans, the French are laughing at you.	Leur propre langue et littérature rongées par une longue maladie, la rentrée littéraire franchouille a déjà établi comme fête annuelle la pompe à fric sur le dos des victimes du 11-9-2001 (chose possible uniquement dans un pays qui entretient une si profonde amitié avec les Etats-unis, vous ne pigez donc pas?!?). Suite à 'Windows on the World' de Beigbeder dans lequel les victimes du 11-9-2001 partousent à l'intérieur des tours qui s'écroulent en flammes, 'Partouz' de Yann Moix fait l'analogie entre les clients des boîtes de partouse et les kamikazes zarabes (Pourquoi? Moix dit c'est parce qu'ils aiment tous s'envoyer en l'air, ducon!). Yann Moix estampille le 11-9-2001 de sa marque de fabrique 11 Septembre ™ et considère que Mohammed Atta est son frère. Thierry Ardisson, présentateur de 'Tout le Monde en Parle' émission diffusée sur la télé de l'Etat franchouille, a bien rigolé en discutant de ce dernier chef d'oeuvre de l'établissement littéraire fwançais. Le dernier kiffe d'Ardisson est d'éteindre la traduction simultanée quand il y a des invités américains pour que son faire-valoir Laurent Baffie puisse les descendre avec des blagues d'une vulgarité singulière qu'ils ne sont pas à même de comprendre. Eh bé, ces franchouilles et leur bravoure légendaire! Les américains, vous êtes détestés ici. Les américains, les franchouilles se foutent de vos tronches.
'I have no opinion about the new French literary season. Every September, French writers rehash the same old question: how to talk about nothingness?', Maurice G. Dantec.	'Je ne pense rien de la rentrée littéraire francaise, vieille question philosophique que nos écrivains réactualisent d'ailleurs à chaque mois de septembre : comment parler du Néant ?', Maurice G. Dantec.

This latest Jew joke ain't Kosher	La dernière histoire juive n'est pas très catholique
French kids complain about another trippy psy-op from the Mossad.	Chères têtes blondes franchouilles rouspètent suite à un nouveau coup foireux du Mossad.

Bog blast them	Que Gogre les emporte
The French shit all over Bush for his religious beliefs every chance they get (never mentionning that religion was just as present in the Carter and Clinton administrations) but when the Interior Minister of their secular state runs off to pray at the Paris Mosque in order to appease true religious extremists they shut their pie holes.	Les franchouilles ne loupent jamais une opportunité de chier abondamment sur Bush et ses croyances religieuses (ça les arrange d'oublier que la religion était tout aussi présente lors des administrations Carter et Clinton) mais ils ferment leurs claquemerdes quand le Ministre de l'Intérieur de leur Etat laïc court pour aller faire ses salamaleks à la Mosquée de Paris afin de tenter de calmer les pulsions des vrais extrémistes religieux.
I propose that we start the day with a prayer for my re-election.

The Same Passion for Journalism and…

Le Monde has an article on Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot, in which Stéphane Foucart and Bénédicte Mathieu explain how those intrepid writers shared "the same passion for journalism and the Arab world". The "recognized specialists on the Middle East" traveled and lived (!) through the entire Middle East, making friends, learning the language (Arabic), cultivating sources and contacts in (just about) every important country of the region (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Palestine), writing for serious periodicals (Le Monde Diplomatique, Arabies, etc…), and generally "discovering new facets of Arab communities". Which probably goes far to explain why so many VIPs have gone out of their way to exhort their kidnappers to free them…

Perhaps the French Should Have Taken Notice of a Speech in Favor of George W Bush By a… Democrat Senator

And here are parts of the speech by Zell Miller to the Republican convention.

Not only might the French do well to heed some of the words in the speech, they — the very same people who have been predicting a Kerry victory in November — should make a careful note that the speaker is a member of the opposition party, and that this Democrat is in no mood to throw his support in the direction of John Kerry.

…like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?

…Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism — it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace. [Jimmy Carter, of course, is a fellow Georgia Democrat of Zell Miller's.]

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

…In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Might it be that the comparison with Wendell Wilkie applies as much to opposition figures (like John Kerry) as it does to allied nations (like France)? In that perspective, it should perhaps be noted Willkie never complained that "FDR should allow me to disagree with him" and "FDR shouldn't ask me to be his vassal"…

(Thanks to Gregory Schreiber)

Perhaps the French Should Pay More Attention to the Speeches at the Republican Convention

Perhaps the French should take a break from their endless intellectualizing and pontificating and find out how foreigners — especially Americans — feel about them, specifically, about how their government acted during the Iraq crisis. From Yahoo News:

More than a year after falling out with the United States over the Iraq war, France is still a prime target for the rage of Republicans, who are not showing much amour for the longtime US ally.

Democrat John Kerry may be enemy number one but France is a close number two at the chest-thumping Republican national convention, where the word Paris is code for weakness, indecision and international cooperation.

"Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations," Senator Zell Miller said in a thundering address to the party faithful on Wednesday. "Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide," [the Democrat senator (!)] said, drawing cheers from the crowd.

Throughout their four-day gala, Republicans have painted President George W. Bush as the man to trust for national security after September 11 — and Kerry [and, indirectly, France] as a dangerous appeaser.

They have ridiculed his recent talk about a more "sensitive" war on terror, hammered him for trying to vote both sides of issues in the Senate and lambasted his remarks at forging international consensus for US war plans.

"Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve, as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics," Vice President Dick Cheney said in his speech Wednesday. "He talks about leading a more sensitive war on terror, as though Al-Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side," Cheney said.

But a delegation of half a dozen members of France's ruling Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), here to observe the convention, played down the repeated barbs at France.

"You can't take too seriously what you hear in a convention," said Phil[l]ipe Briand, a UMP member of the French parliament. "If you are a little sensitive, you come away somewhat angry," Briand said. "But if you know it's just part of the campaign, it's no big deal."

Might it be that France better wake up to the fact that the anger towards France is real, that America's sense of having been betrayed is real, and that, in general, when Americans talk, it is to say what they mean? Might it be that, before warning that a Frenchman might become angered by what he hears, that Frenchman should ask himself how the other person's words truly reflects how that other person feels (and thinks) and that sometimes, perhaps, the other person has more reason than he to be angry? That, of course, would be asking the French to cease having a (self-serving) viewpoint of Americans that allows them to castigate, ridicule, or (like here) minimize everything Americans say and do…

France helped lead opposition to the Iraq war on the UN Security Council, which set off an orgy of French-bashing nationwide last year.

…The connection between anti-French anger and Kerry's policy statements, which sometimes do not sound much different than what comes out of the French government, has been an easy one for critics to make.

"Just a few months ago, John Kerry kind of leaked out that claim that certain foreign leaders who opposed our removal of Saddam Hussein prefer him," former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani told the convention this week.

"That raises the risk that he might well accommodate his position to their viewpoint," he said…

(Thanks to Gregory Schreiber)

Religion of Pieces	Religion des Pets (car ça sent la merde)
'Foreign' fighters are among the hostage takers in Beslan, Russia. Kill faster. Total war.	Il y a des combattants 'étrangers' parmi les preneurs d'ôtages à Beslan en Russia. Tuer plus vite. Guerre totale.
UPDATE: Children shot in the back and beaten with rifle butts.	DERNIERES INFOS: On a tiré dans le dos des enfants et les a battus à coups de crosses.

Religion of Pieces	Religion des Pets (car ça sent la merde)

French wingnuttery	Loufoqueries franchouilles

Lots of salad tossing going on	Une pluie de pétales de rose
The old streetwalker Marianne, in the person of Foreign Minister Bernier, his bashed-in backdoor so loose he could now easily let a TGV speed through, has been cuddling up to a host of bad boys looking for the ramrod that will make like an 'open sesame'.	Cette vieille catin de Marianne, incarnée par le Ministre des Affaires Etrangères Barnier, dont la rondelle est tellement distendue qu'elle pourrait laisser passer un TGV à travers, fait des calins avec une flopée de voyous infréquentables en vue de tomber sur le braquemart qui fera office de 'sésame'.

Rumors They'll be Freed Soon

The press are widely reporting progress in the negotiations to secure the release of kidnapped French reporters Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot. Al-Jazeera says:

Two French journalists who had been taken hostage in Iraq are no longer in the hands of their abductors, French Culture and Communications Minister Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres has said.

"We know that they are alive and no longer in the hands of the abductors who had held them," he told journalists on Thursday in Perpignan, southern France.

The editor of the French publication Le Figaro told Aljazeera that the hostages had been handed over to another group which supported their release.

They're not out of the woods yet so I'd prefer to refrain from speculation for the moment but should they be the only two to survive abduction and threatened execution at the hands of radical Sunni groups in Iraq then this will be a grand revelation about France's presence in the Middle East and its relation to transnational terrorism.

Now they can ask if they are still in their own country	Maintenant ils peuvent se poser la question 'Est-ce qu'on est toujours chez nous?'
France has the permission of Tariq Ramadan, Hamas, and Hezbollah to re-open their own schools. The French French speaking Dhimmis seek Arab help with the beginning of their new school semester revisited under the shroud of the scarf law. Have fun trying to run your own dinky country, shitheads.	La Fwance a obtenu, auprès de Tariq Ramadan, le Hamas, et le Hezbollah, l'autorisation de rouvrir leurs propres écoles. Les franchouilles dhimmis francophones demandent de l'aide auprès de leurs 'partenaires' arabes pendant cette rentrée scolaire revue et corrigée sous l'angle du linceul de la loi du foulard. Amusez-vous à gérer votre propre pays de merde, connards.

But… C'est Injuste! Don't They Realize that the Hostages Are French Friends!?

Let's see, what have we got here?…

The Kidnappers of French Journalists Renew Their Blackmail…
Paris Tries to Isolate the Terrorists…

Wow. "Odious blackmail"! "Terrorists"! Quite different from the bland and straightforward headlines when Americans and other nationalities are kidnapped, huh?

No rightfully angered locals here, no members of the "Iraqi rebellion", no "insurgents", no justification, no "executions", no "Ils l'ont bien mérité" (they deserved it, they had it coming)… Au contraire! Au contraire, as it turns out…

Take a look at Paris Tries to Isolate the Terrorists By Orchestrating Arab Disapproval:

"Maybe [Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot] were kidnapped by mistake [wonders Malbrunot's editor.] Maybe the kidnappers didn't know they were journalists and French citizens."

Is this supposed to mean that it is, perhaps not normal, but to be expected that Americans and other nationalities should be kidnapped (and beheaded)? No mistakes, in those cases? They asked for it, they deserved it? D'accorrrdd…

In her article, Mouna Naïm writes that

France, all as one — the government, media outlets, and public opinion — was convinced that no harm would befall the kidnapped due to the "soundness" of French policy with regards to the Arab world, in general, and of Iraq, in particular

Note how the independent newspaper neatly absolves the politicians from any excessive load of responsability ("la France toute entière"). Some criticism follows, but it is relatively low-key, and it has been neatly deflected.

the idea was to attempt to isolate [the kidnappers], to ask the greatest number of authorities of all types [what is that supposed to mean?!] to distance themselves from the kidnapping, to make the hostagetakers understand their total isolation in order to make them give in.

Of course, if "America's number one friend" does have this capacity, one wonders if, out of pure friendship for Uncle Sam, she might not have tried to use her influence in other kidnappings.

From the Arab League's secretary general … to Al Jazeera television … and Hezbollah television, along with a twice-sounded call from Palestinian president Yasser Arafat, condemnation was unanimous. Journalism unions, party leaders, Arab dailies [and Muslim religious authorities] joined in the chorus, some of whom underlined France's "sympathy" for "Arab causes", others the harm that the kidnappings and threats were doing to Islam and to Muslims in general.

One of the main leaders of the Palestinian radical movement, Islamic Jihad, called on the kidnappers to free their hostages who "are friends of the Palestinian people and have visted Palestine several times". [Mohammed Al-Hindi added that] "the issue of the veil cannot be resolved in that manner, especially since France's position on the American occupation of Iraq has set it apart from that of other Europeans."

In "the interest of Islam" Yasser Al-Serri, director of the London-based Islamic Observatory, the institution which defends [sic] Muslims in the entire world and commands a certain notoriety with Islamists, demanded the liberation of the two journalists "who, through their work, are helping to denounce the American crimes in Irak".

Meanwhile, Jordan's Al-Diyar daily opines that

France remains the European country which sympathizes the most with Arab causes, which it supports, particularly in Palestine and Iraq.

On the media page, our old friend Dominique "Europe needs an enemy and it should be the United States" Dhombres is back from vacation, and he waxes carefully, very carefully about the kidnapping, ending his chronicle with an admiring nod to Al-Jazeera

which took an official stand [for the men's release], which is a first.

How impressive! As usual, the lucid French understand when there is a need for admiration (and when there is not) and who is deserving of admiration (and who is not).

Oh, but wait a minute. It would seem that there is a slight hiccup in the lavish (self-)praise. There is one Muslim leader who, although he has joined in the calling for the release of the hostages, has not joined in lauding France for its support for Arab causes, notably against "the American occupation in Iraq".

Who might he be, I wonder? Oh, he just happens to be the president of Iraq… of course, he just happens to be among the Muslims most concerned by America's presence in Iraq. Is he a stooge, maybe? Well, it just so happens that among the wealth of Arab and Muslim voices calling for the hostages' release due to France's sympathetic leanings and to its righteous position on Iraq, there is not one Iraqi quoted. Not one!

Iyad Allawi was interviewed by Cécile Hennion and five other newspapers the previous day, declaring that the kidnapping of the Frenchmen showed that there was "no possible neutrality" in Iraq and that those who do not fight at the government level can not escape terrorism. "None of the civilized countries can escape," he said, noting "there is no possible neutrality, as shows the kidnapping of the French journalists." "The French deluded themselves if they would hope to stay outside".

And so, returning to the chorus of support on the newspaper's second page, it turns out that it is a bit spoiled by a filler in which the French foreign ministry declares that the words of Mr Allawi are "unacceptable".

"Those declarations of his seem to throw doubt on France's determination in the fight against terrorism [declared the Quai d'Orsay,] France is untiringly leading a resolute action against this scourge and it has always brought its support and its contribution to all of the international community's initiatives in the area"

Except when it comes to using its great influence to try to help bring about the release of the kidnapped nationals of its "allies" (see above).

(Kind of reminds you of Le Monde's editorial calling the doubts about Spanish courage in the wake of the Madrid bombings "a scornful theory", doesn't it? It seems like the French, who proffer intellectual "openness" when it comes to wondering whether America's D-Day landings amounted to a liberation or an occupation, are hardly so open-minded when it comes to putting into doubt their own intentions, or those of their allies.)

Allawi, of course, is the man that the independent newspaper has mocked, dismissed as a CIA stooge, and compared to a mafioso (a scorn Le Monde has never reserved for the above-mentioned authorities "of all types"). That scorn has been absent in the past couple of days; the French seem to be a lot more timid and circumspect when their own citizens' lives are at stake.

Meanwhile, (live) from New York, Patrick Jarreau brings us news of the Republican Convention, notably the opening speeches of John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani. John Kerry bragged that he had the support of foreign leaders, said New York's former mayor, the very same "who opposed the ouster of Saddam Hussein".

"Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war," Le Monde quotes the Arizona senator as saying. "It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents. And certainly not a disingenuous filmmaker." Many of those "who criticize military action", he added, were "ready to do business" with Saddam Hussein. (Some of the above quotes were translated back to English from Le Monde's own French translation.)

Now isn't that strange? These are references to France and the rest of the "peace camp" members, but the independent newspaper — which usually loves to explain the nuances of politicians' speeches and what they left unsaid — refrains from doing so in this case. And that, although it would help to explain why there were no Iraqis to quote from among the chorus of Muslim fawners-for-France. Bizarre, n'est-ce pas?

Hatred as a form of foreign policy	La haine en guise de politique étrangère
Le Monde Al-Jazeera on the Seine recognizes the existence of across-the-board French anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism? I thought that France was only anti-Bush. 'We have touched the limits of anti-Americanism that seems to too often take the place of French foreign policy.'	Le Monde Al-Jazira sur Seine reconnait qu'il existe un anti-Americanisme universel en Fwance. L'anti-américanisme? Je croyais que la France n'était qu'anti-Bush. 'On touche là aux limites de l'antiaméricanisme qui semble trop souvent tenir lieu de politique étrangère française.'

France Rebuts al-Allawi

From Reuters:

PARIS (Reuters) - France criticized Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi Monday for saying states which did not actively fight terrorists would become their targets, after two Frenchmen were kidnapped in Iraq.

Allawi's comments in Le Monde daily came as France raced against the clock to secure the release of two French journalists kidnapped in Iraq by militants who told Paris to drop its ban on Muslim headscarves in schools by Monday evening.

"The French, like all democratic countries, cannot let themselves be satisfied with adopting a passive position," Allawi told Le Monde in an interview.

"Governments that decide to stay on the defensive will be the next terrorist targets," Allawi said.

"Let me tell you that the French, despite all the noise they are making, (such as) 'We don't want war', will soon have to fight against terrorists," he said, adding that future attacks could happen in French cities as well as in the United States.

The French government, which led the opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, called his comments unacceptable.

"These declarations seem, in effect, to cast doubt on France's determination in the fight against terrorism," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement, adding France had called for a political solution in Iraq since the start of the crisis.

"The French authorities have, for a long time, affirmed the necessity and urgency to mobilize against all forms of terrorism. France, which has itself been a victim of terrorist attacks, leads unrelentingly a determined action against this plague," the ministry said.

Note that the interview in Le Monde was actually given to a pool of papers including WaPo, the Times (London), the LA Times, Knight-Ridder and Corriere della sera. But also note that... argh!!... yet AGAIN!... they've misspelled an English word from the US: it's Knight-Ridder, folks, an enormous and prestigious newspaper company any competent news organization familiar with the US ought to know well. Le Monde spells it Knight-Readers...

Yesterday, the kidnappers prolonged deadline 24 hours	Hier, les preneurs d'ôtage ont prolongé le délai de 24 heures
Guess Barnier gives good head.	Paraît que Barnier suce bien.

Inside Job

First there was the infamous fraud Marie L. Now it appears the arson at Jewish social center last week was an inside job:

The alleged perpetrator of an arson that destroyed a Jewish center in Paris in the night of August 21 to 22 has been arrested.

The police have not revealed his name. According to a police source, the man is a Jewish former employee of the center, aged about fifty years.

Pro-Palestinian group CAPJPO (Coordination of Calls of a Just Peace in the Middle East) and the new party Euro-Palestine jointly react with predictable glee on the anti-globalization Web site Bella Ciao:

Jewish Social Center: CRIF, Media and Government Fall Yet Again into the Same Trap

[...] No new details had been published by midday, particularly as regards the motives for this newest specimen of Jewish anti-Semitism. It will be some time before we learn whether the individual arrested was inspired by Marie L. (the fabulator of the RER D who's been watching a little too much TV), by "Phineas" (the man who desecrated a Jewish cemetery when he found that having attacked an Arab with an axe didn't make front page news), or perhaps by Alexandre Moïse, leader of the Zionist Federation of France who was nabbed several months ago for having lodged a complaint for anti-Jewish threats... of which he was himself the author.

[...]

The French government, along with the highly visible support of one of the opposition's highest-ranking members, Paris mayor Delanoë, found a away to add an even greater degree of ignominy in the rue Popincourt matter.

It rolled out the red carpet for the Israeli minister of foreign affairs, Sylvain Shalom, who demanded to come to Paris the moment he learned of the fire in order to pose as the guardian and protector of the interests of French Jews. Shalom distinguished himself by, among other things, criticizing the supposed laxity of French courts in prosecuting the perpetrators of anti-Semitic acts, which constitutes yet another shameless lie.

Like anti-Semitism itself, blackmailing others with accusations of anti-Semitism is a criminal madness, with the aggravating factor that it follows itself a calculating strategy: to prevent the expression of any and all denunciation of the acts of the Israeli government in occupied Palestine.

In addition to the arsonist of the rue Popincourt, let's hope that all those, from the French pro-Israeli institutions (CRIF, LICRA, etc.) to political class and including the sheep-like media, who have created an environment favorable for such acts, shall one day have to explain themselves.

"250,000 Versus 200; Any Questions?"

"They simply wanted to express their opinion like everyone else. They had a permit to march [in New York City] just like everyone else. The only difference...they support Bush and conservative ideals. The result: Members of ProtestWarrior, an organization committed to challenging and confronting left-wing protests, were punched, spit on repeatedly, shouted down, insulted and even maced. But there was one thing the hordes of "peaceful" protesters at Sunday's march could not do to the ProtestWarriors …intimidate them."

Check out Ray's photos

PS: When (s)he's hungry, what's a rabid
anti-corporate, anti-globalization militant to do?

Doing the funky chicken	Gigoter comme un poulet bio
Foreign Affairs Minister Barnier is spreading his butt cheeks in every Arab country he can in an effort to free the French hostages and better explain the reasoning behind the headscarf law.	Ministre des Affaires Etrangères Barnier offre sa rondelle aux quatre coins du monde arabe (mais il est piètre croupion) pour faire libérer les ôtages français et pour mieux expliquer le pourquoi et le comment de la loi sur le foulard.

French TV in full Pravda mode	Télé franchouille turbine à la Pravda
LCI, French cable news channnel, showed the Kerry sisters on the MTV Music Awards with the booing edited out and an added commentary on how Kerry is coronated by American youth.	LCI, a diffusé le passage des soeurs Kerry aux MTV Music Awards en supprimant les huées et en ajoutant un commentaire déclarannt que Kerry est plebiscité par la jeunesse américaine.

Deep friendship? No longer.	Profonde amitié? C'est fini.
27% of Americans view France as an enemy in the War on Terror. Only 18% view France as an ally. 48% say it is somewhere in between.	27% des américains considèrent que la France est un pays ennemi dans la guerre contre le terrorisme. Seulement 18% considèrent que la France est un pays allié. 48% considèrent qu'elle se situe quelque part entre les deux.

Miserable failure	Echec lamentable
Globophobe vermin in retreat.	La vermine globophobe régresse.

All the Brothers Were Valient…Infiltrating New York's Anti-Bush Demonstration

Do you remember when, on the eve of the 60th anniversary of D-Day, one of our number attended the anti-American demonstration along with Davids Medienkritik's Ray D and three Frenchmen, and, for good fun's sake, proceeded to try and crash it?

Well Ray D is back at it again, heading into hostile territory, albeit on another continent. This time he waded through the canyons of the Big Apple, among a shrieking crowd of hundreds of thousands of anti-Bush demonstrators. Overcoming his fear and listening only to his sense of duty, the brave blogger managed to bring back some photos…

But … and here's the best part … it turned out that he was not alone…

From this day to the ending of the world,
but you in it shall be remembered —

You few, you happy few, you band of brothers…

And gentlemen in Europe now abed
shall think themselves accurst they were not here...

"America Has Lost Its Soul"?Again? What Is It This Time?!

As I have pointed out before, with several articles as evidence (and more to come later this week), Le Monde doesn't lose a single instant to fire broadsides at Americans, their society, and their economy. Case in point is America's Olympic basketball team, which lost to Argentina on Friday.

Certainly, there is not much to defend about the team, but listen to how Alain Giraudo ends his chronicle on the front page of the special Olympic supplement (no link available at the time of this writing), and ask yourself if making comparisons with Buenos Aires's financial status (done in because of evil capitalism, naturellement) and evoking America's soul (once again) is not going slightly overboard.

According to the criteria of the IMF and the World Bank, Argentina is a country in a severe bankrupt state. According to our criteria [whose? those of all Frenchmen?], the United States is a country that has lost its basketball shoes [a French expression meaning to lose one's head or one's grip] and therefore its soul.

Islam in France is a huge joke!	L'Islam de France est une vaste plaisanterie!
Authors explain how Islam in France is nothing more than a Green fascism driven by outside forces.	Les auteurs expliquent pourquoi l'Islam en France n'est qu'un fascisme vert piloté par des forces extérieures.

Lionizing French Foreign Policy While Demonizing That of Uncle Sam

It is indispensable that the international community assumes its responsibilities. That it admits to the disastrous results of its lack of action.

Just in case you didn't realize whom Jacques Chirac was referring to when he mentioned "the international community" in regards to the Iraqi situation, Le Monde is helpful enough to provide the translation: "the international community" is a referral to… the United States. Yes, you read that right, what Uncle Sam is guilty of in Iraq — unlike, presumably, the members of the "peace camp" — is "lack of action".

There is not a single word of doubt thereabout in the rest of the article devoted to the French president's speech to the French ambassadors' annual meeting home in Paris, which, instead, is lionized, as usual, by Le Monde's Claire Tréan, who goes on to explain the lucidity and the reasoning in every point in Chirac's speech.

(The previous day, the ambassadors had listened to a speech by France's new foreign minister, in which he not once mentioned the United States, Russia, NATO, Israel, Palestinian, the trans-Atlantic alliance, or September 11. This led the New York Times' Elaine Sciolino to note one ambassador calling Michel Barnier "the anti-de Villepin". ['Mr. de Villepin seemed determined to revive the historic greatness of France. He has a romantic view articulated in his book on Napoleon, "The Hundred Days," that describes the emperor's philosophy as "Victory or death, but glory whatever happens".'] Don't expect a low-spoken foreign minister to be fundamentally any different than his predecessors, though.)

Meanwhile, the independent newspaper sports an article on the man who invented Bush, in which Patrick Jarreau refers, in the first three paragraphs alone, to "that improbable president", to Karl Rove's "puppet", and (in the opening line) to the "fact" that "Nobody [!] believes that George Bush can have made it to the White House by his own means" (i.e., by his own mental prowess).

In the rest of the article concerning Karl Rove, it's the same usual negative-sounding and fear-inducing expressions about who really is "at the helm of the greatest power on the planet": The man "in the shadow of George Bush senior", "that string-puller", "that puppet displayer", "the man who is credited with as much intelligence as the man, to whom he is only officially the advisor, is credited with as little of", "the fundamentals of Karl Rove's job is propaganda and fund collecting by mail", "more a reactionary [the word of death in France] than a conservative", "Karl Rove is followed by a reputation as a trickster and a killer" (!).

He sincerely admires the man he helped to become the most powerful man of the United States, and whom he wants to turn into, in two months' time, a reelected president. In his eyes, George Walker Bush is the only Republican politician who can make his party stay durably in the White House.

Immediately before that paragraph, however, Jarreau had written that Karl Rove

has never been accused of showing a lack of respect for his boss. He is too smart for that.

In other words, someone as intelligent as Karl Rove (or "as us Europeans"?) can only be too aware that Dubya is nothing but a doofus. But he will not say so. I.e., he is an American who is dishonest and untrustworthy (a liar?). Aren't they all?

Still, Jarreau states that to Rove, George Walker Bush is the only republican politician who can make his party endure in the White House. The question that is never asked in this article (the most popular among visitors to Le Monde's website), is if Rove does not truly admire W, and if he truly believes W is such an ignorant bonehead, why doesn't (why didn't) the macchiavellian strategist he is simply settle on a far more intelligent politician in the first place? (Jeb Bush and John McCain come to mind, but surely even an intelligent nobody must make a more attractive solution than the former's big brother.) Surely that would be the simpler solution?

There is no explanation of this. No explanation but the usual fare in French media and in French society: (Most) Americans are ignorant simpletons, incapable of holding a rational thought, or else, they, or their leaders (or the people in the latters' shadows), are dishonest liars.

Meanwhile, the paper's front page sports a Jarreau headline explaining that Christian extremists are on the campaign trail for Bush, while Henri Tincq castigates the evangelists' cocktail of conservatism, patriotism, and religious fervor and sociologist Todd Gitlin tells Corine Lesnes that we are haunted by the fear that Bush might capitalize on any violence. As for Le Monde's editorial [another website favorite], it skewers Bush's "biblical vision of the world" and snorts in disgust at the "people chosen by God", noting that the planet's fundamentalisms (such as Hindu nationalism and Islamism) "are sometimes fed by the aggressivity of Christian groups linked to evangelical or Baptist churches from North America" (good to know who, fundamentally [sic], is the guilty party). "This vision of religion must be denounced".

And so… it's time — again! — for someone as lucid and intelligent (and secular) as Chirac to call on the simple-minded Americans "to assume their responsibilities" and "admit to the disastrous results of their lack of action". Quite convenient, n'est-ce pas?

Update: Following the historic Iraq election, President Ghazi al-Yawer derides one of the central tenets of French foreign policy as "complete nonsense"…

That's why you are in this mess, dickhead	C'est la raison pour laquelle tu te trouves dans ce bazar, ducon
'France has always refused the view of a clash between the West and Islam.', Michel Barnier, French Foreign Minister, licking the nutsack of the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt.	'La France a toujours récusé la vision d'un choc entre l'Occident et l'islam.', Michel Barnier, Ministre des Affaires Etrangères de la Fwance, en train de faire une gâterie aux Frerots Islamiques en Egypte.

Vunce und Vor All?! Aber, Fritz!…

Bitte, Fritz, bleasse. Bleasse but it pack on akain. Ja, I know I know. But der boll iss an imbordant vay off schowing dat … Fritz! … … Ja… Ja… Ja ja, I know! Aber der boll… Fritz? Fritz? Hallo? Are you dere?… Halloooooo……

Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood 4-on-the-floor-for-all	Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité A-quatre-pattes-tout-le-monde
Terrorists 1-0 Ripoublika Franska. Chiraq drops idea of secularism. In a statement just made live to the nation of Ripoublika Franska, Chiraq mentions tolerance, freedom to practice one's religion, and in an effort to appease the savages does not mention the word 'secularism'. Chiraq sends Foreign Minister Barnier to Mow-Mow Land.	Terroristes 1-0 Ripoublika Franska. Chirak laisse béton toute idée de laïcité. Lors d'une déclaration faite en direct à la nation de la Ripoublika Franska, Chirak parle de la tolérance, de la liberté du culte religieux, et en vue de faire des accomodements aux sauvages, ne fait aucune mention du mot 'laïcité'. Chirak envoie Ministre des Affaires Etrangères Barnier aux îles Pataoufnof.

Religion of Pieces to French journalists: Welcome to the World	Religion des Pets (car ça sent la merde) aux journalistes franchouilles: On va vous faire aimer l'an 2000
Clash of Civilisations: French TV calls the terrorist kidnappers 'activists'. Marianne offers her backdoor, but her shit is tired.	Choc des Civilisations: La télé franchouille appelle les ravisseurs terroristes des 'activistes'. Marianne offre sa rondelle, mais elle est piètre croupion.
UPDATE: Ripoublika Franska government claims that French muslims unanimously condemn the kidnappings. Young French Muslims say that the Mossad-did-it.	DERNIERES INFOS: Le gouvernement de la Ripoublika Franska déclare que tous les musulmans français condamnent à l'unaminité ces enlèvements. Jeunes musulmans français déclarent que le Mossad-l'a-fait.

A Locke on Sound Reasoning

Today is the birthday of John Locke, the English philosopher (1632-1704) who wrote that

A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.

An excellent man, like precious metal, is in every way invariable; A villain, like the beams of a balance, is always varying, upwards and downwards.

Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him.

Fortitude is the guard and support of the other virtues.

Don't let it go to your head, guys	Hé les mecs, faut surtout pas avoir la grosse tête
'Islamic Army in Iraq' tells French journalists, 'You ought to be in pictures'.	'l'Armée islamique en Irak' offre aux journalistes franchouilles une carrière cinématographique.

Head scarves and shrouds	Voiles islamiques et linceuls
And they are still punching above their weight. France finds its proper place in the Clash of Civilisations. Look for bomb belts in Sarcelles very soon now.	Des poids coq qui essaient encore de monter chez les poids lourds. La France trouve sa juste place dans le Choc des Civilisations. Il y aura des ceintures d'explosifs à Sarcelles sous peu.