Latest News: "Because Iran Isn't Weak Enough, Bush Doesn't Dare Attack"

Another self-serving editorial from Le Figaro. As the Iraq war broke out, the French were predicting that the American foot-soldier, "that spoiled child of modern war", reared "with cereal at breakfast and deoderant" in the comfortable homes of suburbia, would not put up much of a fight. When he did, the French turned to calling him a blood-thirsty scoundrel. (Who cares what the accusation is, right? As long as it makes the American a caricature, one to be mocked, pitied, or castigated.)

Now that George W. Bush hasn't acted against Tehran, Le Figaro is suggesting that… the Americans are cowardly again.

when, even for the United States, the designated adversary is not weak enough … Bush doesn't dare attack

writes Charles Lambroschini, totally oblivious to the fact that a nation's, or an administration's, or a man's, timetable may not be the same as his own (or his own nation's), and that in matters of war (as in peace, for that matter), one does not necessarily go around announcing one's intentions and plans… (I suppose that prior to June 1944, the editor would have opined that if the Allies fought the Italian army in Sicily and the Germans in North Africa, they would never dare cross swords with the armed forces of the Third Reich on the continent.)

With its 70 million inhabitants … that country [Iran] is too big a bite to swallow. … Because the GIs deployed in the South [of the Korean peninsula] run the risk of vitrification, that country [North Korea] has [also] become untouchable.

The entire tone, needless to say, is replete with condescending phrases about America:

Three years after the fall of New York's towers under the blows of Ben Laden's kamikazes, international politics seems to obey only two rules: the law of the strongest and the law of the richest.

here are quite a number of Iraqis, Monsieur Lambroschini, who would tell you that was exactly how life was for people in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. (Oh, and regarding international politics, that was also how life was under the UN's oil-for-food program.) But you never did pay much attention to those people, did you?

Faced with the axis of evil, George W. Bush is thus the only judge. He is the one who condemns and he is the one who pardons.

Mon Dieu!

Always Being "Lucide" Means Never Having to Say "Merci"

Or, How the French Mindset Is Conditioned to Deal with Unsavory Subjects Such as the Ivory Coast

Part of the psychological benefits (if such is the appropriate word), consciously or subconsciously, of always being lucide, i.e., always being right, is never having to say "Thank you" (or "Sorry", for that matter).

So when America votes with the other members of the United Nations Security Council to put an embargo on the sale of weapons to the Ivory Coast (i.e., when it is doing France a favor), do not think that Paris will be thanking Washington, either for its gesture or for simply refraining from doing a tit-for-tat on France's 2003 vow to veto any UN measure as to action on Iraq.

And when a top American soldier, the deputy commander of the U.S. European Command, comes sharply out in favor of France's jets wiping out Ivory Coast's entire air force ("We strongly believe that the French took exactly the right action", said General Charles Wald), do not expect the slightest gesture of remerciement.

No, of course not. It is only common sense, it is only proof of lucidité on the part of the Americans (however little they have of that or however little they make use of it) that they would follow in the sensible footsteps of the specialists in humanitarianism, rationality, tolerance, solidarity, and wisdom.

This is also why the Ivory Coast footage (thanks to LGF and Grégoire) will not be played up (or even shown) on French TV. When the French media spent days, weeks, months playing up the Abu Ghraib snapshots, that was for a good reason. (To demonstrate to all the reality of the unbelievable callousness of America's leaders.) Conversely, when they hardly mention the shooting of civilians in Africa, it is because it would be too much of a shame if France's visionary humanitarians and their promising (I almost wrote "prophetic") vision of an equal society and a peaceful world were allowed a setback because of something (that in the final analysis is) inconsequential.

The New York Post commented as follows:

so far, the closest thing to WMDs that's been found is . . . chocolate. (It can lead to deadly obesity, n'est-ce pas?)

Which raises a question: Did that cowboy, Jacques Chirac, fear President Laurent Gbagbo's forces would attack Paris?

… The irony in the strike by the French, who criticized President Bush's war against a real threat in Iraq, is, of course, hilarious.

Oyster puts it less diplomatically:

If the French condemn us for Iraq saying that Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US then what exactly is their excuse for this crap?  Were these people a direct threat to Paris?

Now, here comes the funny part…

The French do not have to answer these questions — because the issue has already started to be deflected.

Any time I start mentioning the Ivory Coast situation to French people I know, I hardly have the time to finish my sentence before they start interrupting me: "Oh, but that has nothing to do with Iraq", "Ce n'est pas du tout la même chose", "But France used to own the place, c'est normal that they should be there", "It used to be a French colony, vous savez", "What do you think the place would be like if we weren't there!? Hein?!" etc, etc, etc (not to mention the downright ugly comments of a racist nature)…

While I was watching the Radio Côte d'Ivoire news footage, the phone rang. After a few moments, the demoiselle asked what the noise in the background was…

"Oh, I am watching the news from the Ivory Coast…" I answered laconically. (The demoiselle is a cute long-legged blonde, so I didn't feel this was the right time to get into an argument.) Just then, the shooting — and the screaming — started.

"Mais qu'est-ce qui se passe?…"

"Well, uh… Not much… just some French soldiers who seem to be shooting on the crowd…"

Her attitude changed faster than you can say auto-congratulatoire.

"Comment?! Comment peux-tu regarder de la pareille propagande!? How can you watch such base propaganda?!" After that, I could not get a word in. It was all fake, exaggerrated, or bogus. And this, although she knew hardly anything about the story (other than what had been in the French news, at least — more of that, later). And this, although she is one to always tell people to put into doubt the reporting of the American press. Needless to say, she refused to let me email her the link for her to take a look at the footage itself…

In other conversations, I have gotten replies ranging from "Well, the crowd was threatening" (or "the soldiers probably thought the mob was armed") to "We don't know the whole story". (Strange, again, how the use of these "deeper truths" is always reserved for the French — or, in America, for the liberals — and never for Dubya, for the conservatives, for the American war in the Middle East, etc, etc, etc.)

Indeed, this is from a nation of intellectuals who like nothing better to put into question all things American, from the real reason for their presence in Iraq to the real meaning of the Normandy landings in World War II through the credibility of American journalism. In cases like that, we rarely hear, "Oh, but it is too early to make a judgment" or "We will have to wait a few years for History to decide". (I have said it before, and I will say it again — all this posturing and relativising is profoundly and inherently self-serving.)

As for the official media…

First of all, we get stories such as the one from Le Figaro in which we learn that "never has the French army been so dangerously implicated". Entitled "14,000 Frenchmen Taken Hostage" Jean-Louis Tremblais tells us about the Ivory Coast's "extremists" and "professional riotors" engaged in "pure racism", adding that "with such protagonists, everything is possible, hélas…"

Good thing they aren't "activists" and "insurrectionists" like the terrorists — sorry, les résistants — in the Middle East… Yup, them Ivory Coast thugs are far more dangerous and have far less claim to being nationalists than them Yemeni and Syrian "freedom fighters" setting off bombs in Iraq…

Meanwhile, pundit Alain-Gérard Slama opines in a reassuring tone:

If it is true that the [Ivory Coast] affair has been badly managed, it is certainly not be an excess of macchiavelism. On the contrary, it is an excess of trust in the power of the rule of law. … the efforts of the Elysée to help solve the country's renewed ethnic conflict had a humanitarian justification. Those inititatives were based on a lucid [there's that word again!] premonition [there's that inherent Gallic wisdom again] of the massacres to come … All that is crystal-clear and juridically impeccable. [I.e., don't even think of seeing things in a different light, chers lecteurs et felleau citoyens…]

The only, but also the vast, weakness that one can reproach [the French government] for is to have exercised angelism in its [intervention]. …

And you bemoan Dubya for saying Americans are fundamentally good, Monsieur Slama, and for believing in good and evil?!

But hopefully, the reader of this website can start seeing the extent to which this mindset is/becomes a vicious circle, where the media, the citizenry, and the ruling classes of a nation feed each other constantly in self-serving opinions; how they are (or seem to be) conditioned to immediately react to dissent (through mockery, castigation, or dismissal such as "how can you believe such propaganda?" — which is even more powerful for a French(wo)man than for an outsider like me — along with "Eh bien, if you do not like it here [or, if you like l'Amérique so much], maybe you should leave"); and of course how this will (or at least, can) go on for generations… (Children growing up among citizens, members of the media, and leaders lionizing French humanism and complaining of foreign propaganda become citizens and, for some, members of the media and/or leaders…) Now, do you see why I have written that it doesn't make much sense to argue?…

But wait, Slama's column isn't over yet:

In order to intervene without provoking disasters, it is necessary to have a deep knowledge of men and the terrain. In June 1990, at La Baule, François Mitterrand expressed the wish to link economic aid to the assisted countries' efforts to democratize; he only succeeded in encouraging a chain reaction in coups d'état. For the past year, the George W. Bush team has been making the world pay a very heavy price for its unfathomable ignorance of Iraqi society.

No "lucid premonition" (about WMDs or the future activities, planned or not, of Saddam Hussein), here, much less "angelism" or "humanitarian justifications" or "trust in the power of the rule of law" (meaning, not the type of international law that allows psychopathic dictators to remain in place, obviously, but a systems that keeps a country's leaders answerable to the population and the laws passed by their duly-elected representatives)…

But what is Dubya — and what is America — doing in a column about France and the Ivory Coast in the first place?

Why must you even ask that? We knew this one was coming, didn't we?…

Do you remember how the French tried to cast the blame for the Haiti episode on Uncle Sam… And how they tried to cast the blame for Kofigate (!!!) on Washington … And how they tried to cast the blame for the failure to secure the release of their hostages on America (and don't expect them to thank the Pentagon, either, for securing the release of Malbrunot and Chesnot's Syrian driver)…

Well, guess what… That's right, the rumor mill has started whispering that the perfidious actor behind the Ivory Coast unrest is, directly or indirectly, Uncle Sam… (Well, why not?)

Edwy Plenel writes in Le Monde 2 that

It turns out today, that, hélas, an African socialist, Laurent Gbagbo, converted to the same pentecoastal illuminations that throw American politics into a panic and turn them to extremism, to radicalize [the] chimera [of Ivoirité (Ivorianness) or Ivory Coast nationalism]

— the "alas" meaning of course, how could a fellow socialist have fallen so low, as to embrace something so basely American?! Something both so basely American and so baseless rightist as the "poison" of "narrow identities, both closed and invented, exacerbated and hysterical identities, dangerous because ill-induced".

But it gets better. In Metro, a "journalist-writer" named Alain Chevalérias writes ominously that the current mess in Ivory Coast…

is not a coincidence. Starting on November 4, it erupted on [dramatic pause] the day after the proclamation of the victory of George W. Bush [!!]. Last June, as it happens, Gbagbo made a one-week private trip to Washington. … We do not think that Washington is behind Gbagbo, but, along with his wife Simone and his chaplain, "the Prophet Koré Moses", we know that they are in the hands of fanatic Protestant networks, extremely active in Africa and powerful in the United States. … The madmen of God [i.e., the religious fanatics] in the Star-Spangled-banner vein may not be the only ones implicated …

And Chevalérias goes on to invoke a stock market trader of …British origin! And to speak of the willingness to risk a blood-bath for cocoa.

Oh. So it's not only treacherous America's fault. It's a conspiracy… A conspiracy involving the greedy Americans, the war-mongering Anglo-Saxons, and the Protestant fanatics. Against the humanistic, tolerant, reasonable, and peace-loving Frenchmen (as well as, presumably, the world-wise Catholics).

Well… why didn't you say so in the first place…?

(…And no wonder they never say "Merci"… or "Sorry"…)

Just Enter Into Talks with the Iranians, and All Will Be Well…

Don't be ridiculous, Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda-type terrorism. As for Iran: it's just that the oafish Americans are unwilling , and incapable, of understanding them. Just enter into talks with Tehran, and you will see what miracles open-mindedness, and dialogue, can create…

(Shoukhran, Grégoire)

What a Reassuring Thing It Is to Know That the Reasonable, Pacifist Europeans Have Their Priorities Straight…

They refuse to watch Fox News, for one thing…

It's when you read about this, though, that you wonder whether Bat Ye'or isn't right when she describes Eurabia and Palestinianism…

Update: Still, it must be admitted that, according to the dialogue-is-always-the-best-option theory, there is no better alternative to bringing about peace than to show respect for these people and put some trust in what they say…

Plus ça change…

John Vinocur and The European Dream Through American Eyes:

The acceptance of trans-Atlantic reality, [an] American said, meant that basic postwar divergences in vision between America and Europe (the welfare state, religion, the legitimacy of military force, etc.) had been exposed by the passing of the cold war. Since the 19th century, America's annexation of Florida, and a European ambassador's complaint back then about "an extremely aggressive country," he said, not much had changed.

Franklin Pierce on American Politics

Today is the birthday of Franklin Pierce, America's 14th president (1804-1869) who said

"A Republic without parties is a complete anomaly. The histories of all popular governments show absurd is the idea of their attempting to exist without parties."

"Frequently the more trifling the subject, the more animated and protracted the discussion."

"The storm of frenzy and faction must inevitably dash itself in vain against the unshaken rock of the Constitution."

Socially Conditioned to Acquire a Herd Mentality

Here is another type of entry that Le Monde 2 refrains from quoting when citing Healing Iraq's Zeyad as a weblog suppedly intent on castigating the American intervention of March 2003 (links and all emphasis mine). It is suggested that you read through the article before clicking on any links…

I spent the bulk of my time a few days ago closely following the various Arab satellite channels and their extensive coverage on the present state of Islam, global terrorism and the Arab world three years after the earthquake of September 11th.

Not surprisingly, a few channels, such as the Iranian based Al-Alam and Hizbollah's mouthpiece Al-Manar, focused on recycled conspiracy theories that have long been debunked and rubbish speculations unsupported by even the slightest evidence (Al-Alam named its program "9/11, The Hoax Of The Century"). Some of these include the false claim, wildly propagated by the Arab media at the time, that 3,000 New Yorker Jews did not go to work on 9/11, that the Mossad had prior knowledge of the attacks, that the CIA had trained the suicide bombers, that the planes were directed to hit the buildings by ground control, that the Pentagon was not hit by an aircraft, that the Pennsylvania flight was downed by the US Air Force, that there were no Arabs on any of the 4 flights, and the idiotic self-pitiful argument that Arabs simply do not have the required know-how to carry out such a highly coordinated attack. These are only a tiny fraction of the theories given by Arab viewers but, for the sake of brevity, I will not recount them all.

Most Arabs and Muslims are unfortunately unaware that these claims would be laughed at by most people, they also cannot be possibly blamed for such thinking simply because they have been repeatedly fed prepackaged rumours and conspiracy theories as truth throughout their lives by school texts, speeches of immortal Arab leaders, official statements and state-sponspored media. Sociologists call this process 'communal reinforcement' One cannot think for himself when he has the state to think on his behalf. One would even feel 'wrong' and out of place if he disagreed with the prevalent opinion all around him. In time, the Arab individual would be socially conditioned to acquire a comforting herd mentality.

Try to imagine it this way: starting with your early childhood you hear adults around you blaming 'Jews', 'Israel', 'Zionists', 'infidels', 'colonialism', 'imperialism', 'the West' for all the ills of your society. At school you are taught a flowery refined version of Arab and Islamic history. One in which the Ummah was the center of the world. You revel in the glories of your ancestors, their superior military and economic power, their benign tolerance of religious minorities, all the wealth of scientific knowledge they brought to humanity while the west was wallowing in the Dark Ages. You then learn about the conspiracies against the Islamic Empire and its divine message for humanity. Colonialism. How the west came to enslave your countrymen and plunder your riches for centuries. You look around you at the Arab and Islamic world today and you wonder what went wrong. How can such a glorious 'chosen' Ummah suffer such a pathetic fate.

Remember that you are completely blocked from the outside world, you only read newspapers and books allowed by the government, the rest are censored. You only watch state-sponspored tv channels. Websites that are 'unacceptable' are blocked by state-sponspored Internet providers. The government tells you that 'this is for your own good', they protect you from 'the other' which is trying to poison your thoughts, undermine your faith, and destroy your traditions. Your fellow countrymen who inadvertently step over the lines are strictly 'punished' by the state because they have become 'spies' and 'agents'. Anyone else who dares to ask for more liberties, reforms, who criticises or acts against the ruler/government/state is an enemy acting on behalf of Zionists and imperialists, or is part of a grand plan (that has been planned for centuries) against 'the revolution' or the historical role of the ummah/Caliph/Sultan/ruler/government/state.

The above situation is not out of George Orwell's 1984, it is what all Iraqis for the last 50 years had to endure. Arabs and Muslims in other countries suffer from basically the same albeit in different or lesser degrees, but again nobody can really know exactly because the state has all its citizens in a constant state of paranoia. I have faintly sensed it when communicating with other Arabs by email or IM. I had online friends from Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Palestine and Egypt reluctant to answer any of my questions regarding their domestic affairs. I remembered my own situation before the war when people asked me about Iraq or Saddam and how I would steer to change the subject or simply end the conversation out of paranoia and fear.

My point is that a significant percentage of Arabs and Muslims (especially the simple minded and the uneducated) are irreversibly affected by this elaborate brainwashing process. Repeated exposure to outlandish theories and nonsensical propaganda propagated by the state, mass media and other members of society strongly engrains them into one's worldview and over time they turn into concrete facts that are almost impossible to let go of, despite their lack of supporting evidence. They become so strong that the person turns a blind eye to any information or evidence that refute his theories. In fact the person may be profoundly astonished that you can't see things the way he does, when his evidence is as clear as the sun in the sky. He might even call you a Zionist or a CIA agent because you would rather think for yourself and refuse to adopt his worldview. He might even go farther and try to harm you or your family physically. Indeed, thousands of individuals across the Arab and Muslim world have been killed for just that.

It should be important to note that the process above is not exclusive to Arabs or Muslims. It can apply to almost any nation, group or society, though perhaps in a lesser degree.

Why is it that France and certain other European countries come to mind here? In fact, I suggest you think of those countries while rereading the parts of the text in bold (all the while bearing in mind the "lesser degree" that Zeyad mentions, needless to say).

What distinguishes us Arabs is that most of us continue to live under repressive totalitarian regimes that owe their existence to such tactics. The recent developments in Lebanon with the constitutional amendment to ensure Lahhud stays in rule are a sad example in practice. … Another example in Sudan where the government accused Israel of being involved in the Darfur crisis. And last, in Iraq where it seems a Mossad agent is behind every bombing and every assassination, and that Israelis are buying land and building settlements in the Kurdish north. Again, the biased Arab media is to blame for spreading such absurd claims without evidence.

Another thing that distinguishes us Arabs is our rich heritage and the wide gap between what we are in theory and what we are in reality. I mentioned before the flowery version of our history and religion every child of ours is fed since the age of nine. Not one word is mentioned about the violent internal conflicts in early Islam, not one word about the bloody civil war that followed the assassination of the third Caliph Othman which marked the schism in Islam, not one word about all the bloody revolts and assassinations throughout our history, not one word about how Muslims converted the defeated nations and how minorities were treated as slaves or tax paying second-class citizens when they did not convert, not one word about the plight of women under Islam, not one word about all the massacres and atrocities that were committed in the name of Islam in all corners of the world.

When I first started to read other history books written by early Muslim historians such as Al-Baladhiri, Al-Tabari, Ibn Al-Athir and Ibn Khaldun, I seriously thought that I was mistaken and was reading about some nation other than Muslims. A few years later, and after devouring every tiny bit of history written about Islam by Muslims and non-Muslims, I had come to the realisation that I was fooled and duped into believing a totally different picture. In fact, I was even scared of what else I might discover next. With that realisation in mind I moved on to the 'untouchable' scriptures, the Quran and the Hadith, but that is another story. …

Le Monde's Partisan Article on Weblogs

True to nature, the independent newspaper's Le Monde 2 weekly has articles that are baffling in their partisanship.

Most remarkably, issue 40 (November 20) has a story on "the blog shock", in which it proceeds to parrot Paris's partisan viewpoint.

Straight away (in the opening sentence of the subhead), the tone is given: "The Iraq war is the first www.war" said the Times of London in March. Indeed, hundreds of Iraqi blogs describing the country's occuption, the attacks and life in Baghdad give a different story than that of the 'embedded' press."

Completely ignoring Iraq's pro-American blogs (dare I say Iraq's pro-freedom-from-torture,-from-sadistic-thugs,-from-censorship,-and-from-dictatorial-government blogs?); completely ignoring the fact that the very existence of the blogs (no matter what their tone and viewpoints) is due to the American intervention of March 2003; completely ignoring the fact that the pro-American blogs usually have a (far) longer blogroll than the antis; completely ignoring the fact that embedded journalists were entirely correct not to follow in the footsteps of their couch potato colleagues predicting a long and bloody war, a mass of refuges, Saddamgrad, and other tragedies; completely ignoring the Iraqi people, for that matter, Frédéric Joignot lends credence to the belief that journalists (or citizens) not castigating, mocking, or bemoaning the American presence in Iraq can be nothing but liars, poodles, or dupes; and that gratefully, a popular groundswell of humanists is rising to fight back at America, if not with weapons, then with words.

Joignot proceeds to list a handful of Iraqi blogs that are supposedly among the hundreds telling the truth about the horrors and the devastation in Iraq (Where's Raed, Baghdad Burning, etc), and it ends the list with… Healing Iraq. Now I never heard that webmaster Zeyad was all-out against the war, but it turns out that this is how Le Monde 2 proceeds (or how the European press proceeds):

Either they remain vague about the blog mentioned, or they search through all the weblog entries for the rare critical comment, or for a comment that can be constructed as being critical. Le Monde 2 even mentions the Healing Iraq entry mentioned above (in which Zeyad corrects the Times' estimate of people in a peace demonstration) being quoted in (and on) the Weekly Standard (as if even they were beginning to see through the lies of the Bush administration)!

For an example of their way of proceeding, how could anyone broach the story of blogs without mentioning the granddaddy of weblogs? Well, Joignot does mention InstaPundit. But all he writes, basically, is that it got 200,000 hits during the Iraq war, followed by a quote from the Blogs of War, in which Glenn Reynolds writes that weblogs say what journalists don't dare say. In other words, because nothing else is said about InstaPundit, the impression comes across that Glenn Reynolds is part of the (imagined) world-wide popular wave trying to stand up to (and only to) the Bush administration, its "lies", and its "illegal" war (as well as Yankee capitalism and imperialism).

That is what is most galling (no pun intended) about the article: the numerous weblogs which are pro-invasion and/or pro-Bush (basically, at least) but which are quoted out of context or not at all. Needless to say, Le Monde 2 doesn't mention any blog (or blog entry) that is critical of France (or the Chirac adminstration) — certainly not Le Monde Watch. And certainly not Iraq the Model.

Justement, here is what Iraq the Model's Ali had to say about Jacques Chirac's recent comments in London (hat tip to Tom Penn, emphasis mine):

I heard what Mr. Chirac said few days ago and read about it everywhere I turn my head to. At first, it was something I felt I shouldn’t even bother to listen to. It was something like what Al Jazeera keep showing us or what Arab leaders say all the time. But again this was a president of one of the most advanced and civilized countries in our times. It wasn’t Kaddafi or Assad and it made me sad and furious.

The French government keep surprising me with their intentionally stupid and vicious arguments and I don’t know what to say about it or if it’s even necessary to say something at all. But then I’m an Iraqi citizens and these people are taking about Iraq and usually how the war brought nothing good to Iraq or the world, and I just can’t stay silent about it. I know there’s almost no chance that you’ll read my words Mr. Chirac, but it doesn’t matter, as I’m not writing for you anyway. You live in a different world.

In the past, I used to swallow my anger and frustration because I could get killed if I messed up with one of Saddam’s personal friends, but now Saddam is gone and I’m not afraid and I won’t stay silent anymore. This is a difference Mr. Chirac, and it’s a great one, probably just to me and the rest of Iraqis but not to you, and you just have to understand that it’s not all about you and your European dream which no one want to steal from you by the way.

The world is certainly not a better place after the war Mr. Chirac, but that’s your world, while our world, Iraqis as well as tens of millions of oppressed people everywhere who are dying for some help, is certainly MUCH better now, and I’m sure the Americans and the British world as well as most countries (including yours) is better and safer and will keep getting better. However I agree with you, as your world, your own personal world, the world of your fellow corrupt politicians in France, Russia, Germany, China and the stinking UN, your fortune and your influence is definitely suffering. I’m even surprised that you ‘saw’ that Saddam’s departure was positive “to a certain extent”, and I can’t wonder why is that! Is it because it left you with some bills you don’t have to pay?!

Is my language too offensive?! Not as half as offensive and irritating as yours and I will NEVER apologize, not even after you apologize and pay the Iraqis back all the money you have stolen from us in return for supporting your partner, Saddam and keeping him in charge for few more years.

You see, your problem and what separate you from men like Tony Blair is that you look only for what you might gain, and again “you” is not the French people, but rather you in person and the bunch of hypocrites that so sadly control the French people and manipulate them through lies and silly arguments. You never cared what would happen to Iraqis and the rest of the world had Saddam stayed in power, while Tony Blair did. Do you know why? Because he and the British government with all the brave British people live in our world, while you don’t.

Stupid British! Why should they care for us, America or their own kids when they can do exactly like you; take advantage of America’s need, blackmail her, support Saddam without taking much risk and gain billions of dollars.

Stupid British! Haven’t they learned from WW2 when you got your country back and even decided the fate of other nations on victory even though half of you made peace with the Nazis!? You certainly don’t owe the British and the Americans anything for that, as it was just their own stupidity not to do the math and see how much would they gain. Their lands weren’t invaded and the Nazis were trying to make a peace with them, yet they refused and fought as hard as men and women can fight to free your country for you, so that your troops could march victoriously in Paris! And you dare say that the US doesn’t repay favors!??

If you don’t like the world after Saddam, and if you miss him that much, you can keep living in your own world and we won’t bother you ...at all.

Lire la traduction de American Boy

Strangely enough, Iraq the Model was not mentioned in Frédéric Joignot's Le Monde 2 article, (but perhaps I already mentioned that?). Comme c'est bizarre…

"If you want to see true Islam, you must…"

Last week, Ralph Peters had an inspiring conversation with a Muslim-American.

An immigrant from Pakistan, [the latter] hadn't yet been granted citizenship, but he had more faith in America than our native-born elite does.

"I write to my brothers and sisters," he said, "And I tell them that they do not know true Islam. If you want to see true Islam, you must come to America."

He meant the social justice and the respect for the individual, rich or poor, prescribed by the Koran. He had not found those qualities in the land of his birth. Nor do they prevail in any Muslim state between Casablanca and Karachi.

Islam sets high standards for the daily behavior of its adherents — but all too often the Koran's calls for fairness, charity and common decency are rejected in favor of social strictures misinterpreted by bitter old men and fanatics. The oppression of women, terrorism and the police states of the Middle East were not part of the Prophet Mohammed's vision.

My Muslim friend had recently found yet another reason to believe in America — in a place the rest of us would overlook. Coming from a land where the rich can even murder with impunity, he was thrilled that Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps had to face drunken-driving charges.

"Seven gold medals!" my friend said. "He is a hero, sir! And still he must face the court!

"It is not hidden away because he is powerful. This is very good, this is Islam."

The crime and possible punishment of young Mr. Phelps looks very different to a man born where the poor are eternal victims. …

(Thanks to Gregorio)

One of the Greatest Triumphs of American Arms

Jack Kelly on Victory in Fallujah:

Fallujah ranks up there with Iwo Jima, Inchon and Hue as one of the greatest triumphs of American arms, though you'd have a hard time discerning that from what you read in the newspapers.

The swift capture of Fallujah is taxing the imagination of Arab journalists and — sadly — our own. How does one portray a remarkable American victory as if it were of little consequence, or even a defeat? …

The resistance has suffered a loss of more than 2,000 combatants, out of a total force estimated by U.S. Central Command at about 5,000 (other estimates are higher) as well as its only secure base in the country. But both the Arab media and ours emphasize that the attack on Fallujah has made a lot of Arabs mad. By this logic, once we've killed all the terrorists, they'll be invincible.

"The experience of human history has been the more people you kill, the weaker they get," [former Canadian army officer John] Thompson noted.

For the Arab and European media, the old standby is to allege American atrocities. …

Journalists quick to judge the Marine [shooting a wounded Iraqi feigning death] are more forgiving when it comes to the terrorists. "They're not bad guys, especially, just people who disagree with us," said MSNBC's Chris Matthews.

(Shookhran to Gregory S)

Le Petit Baudelaire illustré

A small pause in the blogging to announce a book which was illustrated by a friend who passed away prematurely :

Une sélection de poèmes de Baudelaire, tirés des Fleurs du Mal et du Spleen de Paris illustrés par Philippe Rosenthal. Quand le poète inspire le peintre… une très bonne raison de redécouvrir Baudelaire !

Acheter le livre online…
Lire les premières pages

The Stunning Charles de Gaulle

Today is the birthday of Charles de Gaulle, the French general and president (1890-1970) who allegedly told Winston Churchill, regarding the aid and efforts that the Americans and British had provided for the liberation of France from her Nazi overlords:

We shall stun you with our ingratitude.

Why is there is so little French criticism of French policy among French elites?

John Zvesper of the Ashbrook Center asks

why is there is so little French criticism of French policy among French elites? Why does this critical capacity not extend from my bistro chef to French journalists and politicians?

Read about the type of questions French journalists neglect, questions that are "the most important" of all…

Voltaire, the Man Frenchmen Love to Quote

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong

Today is the birthday of Voltaire, the French philosopher and author (1694-1778) who said

A company of tyrants is inaccessible to all seductions

A witty saying proves nothing

Appreciation is a wonderful thing: It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well

As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities

And

Behind every successful man stands a surprised mother-in-law

Last but not least, Voltaire is the man Frenchmen love to quote as saying

I may not agree with you, but I will fight for your right to be able to say it

except that if, in the final analysis, you do not conclude (or you do not agree with the analysis) that the French are more humanistic, more wise, more humble, more brotherly, more generous, and more visionary than everybody else (especially those oafish Americans), that the type of society the French live in is conducive to such a fraternal state in every citoyen, and that French foreign policy invariably follows those humanistic principles, they (the French) will lose interest in what you have to say, snort in mockery, fly into a rage, and/or ask what are you doing living in France if you don't think that way…

RFK on Living in a Turbulent World

Today is the birthday of Robert F. Kennedy, the US Politician (1925-1968) who said

All of us might wish at times that we lived in a more tranquil world, but we don't. And if our times are difficult and perplexing, so are they challenging and filled with opportunity.

Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total; of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.

Standing Up to the Yanquis, Kowtowing to Fidel

Since Spain's left of centre government took power in March, Madrid has been most active in lobbying to revise the EU's common position to the Cuban opposition, Andrew Beatty writes in the EU Observer.

Diplomats said on Tuesday that they would continue to engage with Cuba's opposition but were looking to do so in a more productive way, leaving the path open for talks with government officials.

In real terms, this means that the EU would put an end to the largely symbolic move of inviting dissidents to national festivities at EU embassies, a move that has seen Havana restrict European diplomats' access to top Cuban officials.

The Spanish leaders (foremost among them R2D2, I mean, Mister Bean) wanting to break off with Cuban opposition figures for the sake of relations with Fidel Castro are the same humanists who haughtily state that they should "no longer be subordinated" or "kneeling" before the perfidious Yanks and who refuse to stand for the American flag. Isn't it good to know to what extent Europeans — contrary to those oafish Americanos — have their priorities straight?

Strangely enough, Zapatero's "move has not gone down well with Cuban pro-democracy campaigners." Said Oswaldo Paya, a 2002 laureate of the European Parliament's Sakharov Prize:

[The EU governments] can act according to their interests and abandon this ethical position, for reasons of their interests. But what no-one can say, without insulting our intelligence, is that to abandon this position and destroy these acts and symbols is in the interests of Cuba and peaceful change.

Don't forget to read John Vinocur's
piece on Spain's double-language
and its relations with Washington
(the final sentence is priceless)

Before, there was no support from European leaders. Now, in many cases, in many countries, unfortunately including my own, anti-Americanism doesn't come from the street, but from the governments themselves.

José María Aznar

(Gracias para GS y BarcaPundit)

Fuck fear	La peur, c'est pour les nazes (et surtout pour les franchouilles)
Make the myths.	Forgez les mythes.

Against us tyranny's Bloody standard is raised	Contre nous de la tyrannie L'étendard sanglant est levé
More French scum snuffed out in Iraq. Kill faster. Total war.	Encore des raclures de chiottes franchouilles clamsées en Irak. Tuer plus vite. Guerre totale.

How Could They?!…

How could America have voted for Dubya?!

Didn't any of us read the European editorials? Didn't we hear the mal mots directed at Bush whenever he traveled overseas? Didn't we know Bush is not — repeat not — considered cool by Europe's ultra-intellectual chattering classes?

Apparently not.

Read Euro-Angst…
(Thanks to Gregory Schreiber)

U.S. Soldiers Doing the Job (of)…

No way you can be more racist that the French	Plus raciste que les franchouilles, tu meurs
Chiraq in Marseilles 14 November: 'Africans are naturally happy'.	Chirak à Marseilles le 14/11: 'Les Africains sont joyeux par nature'.

Arise children of the fatherland Al-Jazira, The day of glory has arrived	Allons, enfants de la Patrie Al-Jazeera, Le jour de gloire est arrivé
French djiahdist, from the Seine-Saint-Dénis, blows himself up in a Baghdad suicide attack. I suppose his stinking family back in its chicken coop welfare apartment is rightfully proud.	Un jihadiste franchouille, résidant dans le 9-cube de son vivant, se fait sauter dans un attentat suicide à Bagdad. Je suppose que sa famille merdique, dans son apart' clapier à lapins HLM, est justifiablement fière de lui.

Cancer mutates into Tsimtsoûm	Cancer se mue en Tsimtsoûm
MiF is now a member of the counter-counter-culture.	MiF est désormais membre de la contre-contre-culture.

Has the Iraq War Led to an Increase in Terrorism?

Jacques Chirac, who led European opposition to the March 2003 invasion, arrives in London on Thursday for annual summit talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, George W Bush's staunchest ally on Iraq, says the AFP:

On the eve of an official visit to London, French President Jacques Chirac said he is "not at all sure" that the world has become safer since the downfall of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

That's because you never bothered asking the Iraqi population, Monsieur le Président.

In a BBC television interview, … Chirac suggested that the situation in Iraq — where US forces are still locked in battle with insurgents — has helped to prompt an increase in terrorism.

That's because you do not equate terrorism with state policemen violating citizens' homes with impunity to take away its inhabitants to be tortured and killed, Monsieur le Président.

"To a certain extent Saddam Hussein's departure was a positive thing," said Chirac when asked if the world was now a safer place, as US President George W. Bush has repeatedly stated.

You say "to a certain extent" only because you never had to live in the psychopath's Iraq as a common citizen, Monsieur le Président.

"But it also provoked reactions, such as the mobilisation in a number of countries, of men and women of Islam, which has made the world more dangerous," he said.

If you say the mobilization in a number of countries, Monsieur le Président, it is because thanks to Uncle Sam, the mobilization of a number of countries, i.e., state- or government-sponsored terrorism — and governments' willingness to sponsor terrorism in general — has come to a virtual end.

"There's no doubt that there has been an increase in terrorism and one of the origins of that has been the situation in Iraq. I am not at all sure that one can say that the world is safer."

Oui et non, Monsieur le Président: there has been a decrease in state-sponsored terrorism (as stated above), but you are entirely correct in saying that the origins of that decrease is the situation in Iraq (and Afghanistan). You are also correct in pointing to an increase in individual-based terrorism inside of Iraq. But that is due in no small matter to the anger — nay, the fury — of those individual terrorists, and terrorist groups, over having lost their state-sponsored governments and the willingness of any government, in that region or elsewhere, to support their activities in the near future.

(Cheers to Gregory Schreiber)

Axis of Eiffel

As so-called French intellectuals like to say,
the war to liberate Iraq was indeed about blood and oil
— American and Iraqi blood and French oil

Yahoo Financial News printed this a week before Arafat died…

Geopolitics: A gravely ill Yasser Arafat's final journey to Paris has reunited the father of modern-day terrorism with the birthplace of modern-day appeasement.

Arafat's presence in Jacques Chirac's France must warm the hearts of America's enemies who cite our support for Israel and our liberation of Iraq as the prime motivations behind their desire to do us harm.

The French government's opposition to our Iraq policy seems less rooted in principle and more rooted in cash. As so-called French intellectuals like to say, the war to liberate Iraq was indeed about blood and oil — American and Iraqi blood and French oil.

French oil company TotalFinaElf had exclusive rights to develop the Nahr Umar and Majnoon oil fields, which hold 25% of Iraq's reserves. Some 60 French companies did $1.5 billion in trade with Iraq under the U.N. oil-for-food program. France controlled 22.5% of Iraq's imports. And, most important, from 1981 to 2001, France sold Iraq 13% of its arms imports.

Soon after Desert Storm in 1991, French oil companies Total SA and Elf Aquitaine, which later merged to become TotalFinaElf, signed secret and exclusive deals with Saddam Hussein's regime to develop future Iraqi oil fields, deals estimated to be worth $100 billion over a seven-year period. They were conditioned on the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Iraq and the avoidance of war.

Enter the U.N.'s corrupt oil-for-food program. A French bank, BNP Paribas, handled the oil-for-food accounts that provided Saddam a slush fund to build palaces, buy foreign weapons and bribe foreign leaders. A number of movers and shakers in France — including government officials and friends of Chirac — got rich.

France built the Osirak nuclear reactor outside Baghdad, which Israel destroyed in 1981 and which would have given Saddam a nuclear weapon by the time he invaded Kuwait, making the world a very different place.

And by 1989 an estimated half of French arms output went to Iraq. It was an Iraqi French-built Mirage fighter firing a French-made Exocet missile that hit the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf on May 17, 1987, killing 37 American sailors. …

(Thanks to Gregory Schreiber)

Anti-Americanism and Its Double Standards

From Spain:

… adding up to the usual leftists' anti-Americanism, they are also still resenting that the Eisenhower administration helped ending Spain's isolation and gave the country international respectability for the first time since the end of the Civil War (examplified by the iconic hug between Franco and Eisenhower when the US president landed in Madrid for his historic visit, the first one by a mejor head of state since the end of the conflict). Oddly, the US-Spanish treaty of 1952 started the economic development that trickled down towards a gradual social and political modernization, which ultimately lead to a successful democratic transition after Franco's death. I'm saying it's odd because the same people who where protesting regime change in Iraq by the US because "you can't bring democracy with guns, but with engagement and pressure" are also complaining that the US engaged and pressured (as much as it was reasonable during the Cold War, of course) the Spanish dictatorship toward relaxing its authoritarian rule.

… I wonder how someone against regime change via war can also be against peaceful regime change (engagement, pressure plus a targeted decapitation, perhaps). Maybe it's just the Revel rule: "reproaching the United States for some shortcoming, and then for its opposite ... a convincing sign that we are in the presence not of rational analysis, but of obsession."

Barcepundit has more…

Powell's out, Condi's in ...	Powell sort, Condi le remplace ...
... and the French try to roll with punches.	... et les franchouilles encaissent.
He was a false hawk.
Powell: I'm going to go now. Hey, I'm talking to you. Bush: Sshhh! I'm praying.

Zeropa takes it up the ass	La Zéropa se fait ramoner grave
The United States will never again run the gauntlet for the United Nazions.	Les Etats-unis ne passeront plus jamais sous les Fourches Caudines de l'ONUzi.

Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs	Y'a bon Banania

Mais… c'est injuste ! You Do Not Understand! La France, elle, Is Acting in Good Faith!

No, no, no! The French and the UN are the good guys. It's the Americans, and the Bush administration, that you need to demonize and protest against. They are the ones who are the murderers and colonialists and imperialists…

And just give the UN a bit more time… Then you will see that they will pull everything together, as by magic… Understanding is the key… Have patience, exercise tolerance, and you will see that this attitude of trust can only cause everyone to come together…

Yes, and scandals involve American soldiers having fired on Iraqi civilians and having heaped abuse upon Abu Ghraib prisoners, and nothing else…

If only you read the French press (as well as some of the comments of certain people on this website) and watched French TV, you would understand that — whereas the Americans are ever and always guilty of blockheadedness, simplicity, greed, and/or treachery — it always turns out that, in the last resort, the French, eux, are acting in good faith; there are always rational reasons explaining their largest error; and for anyone — anyone — to put this into doubt can only be labelled grossly unfair.

Certainly, you should be more intelligent than listen to Ian Robinson when he castigates a "peace camp" member's

preposterous pacifism, belief in nonsense such as "soft power" and fidelity to a morally bankrupt United Nations overrun with tin-pot dictators and other left-wing idiocies

or when the Calgary Sun columnist writes that

America invades Iraq without UN approval and America is portrayed as a barbarian striding across the world stage. Recently, France essentially invaded the Ivory Coast to protect its interests there ... without asking the UN squat. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

And needless to say, you should not listen to Victor Hanson, when he writes that

Europe offers a … paradox. Our Western cousins have chosen a path far different from our own, on almost every social, economic, and military issue. Throughout this war Europeans have snickered that over-the-top Americans blast their way across the globe, leaving needless wreckage in their wake, in their Team America-like search for mythical jihadists. But ask the Dutch, who, as thanks for crafting the most liberal society in Europe, are now living in fear of a jihadist assassination campaign. Or talk to the Spanish — whose appeasement after the Madrid bombing earned them an Islamist plot to obliterate their Supreme Court judges. France — in its old blow-up-Greenpeace mood — claims that it only supports the use of force in extremis, but then almost immediately exploded the tiny air force of the Ivory Coast on news that nine of its soldiers were killed, prompting thousands of Africans to hit the streets in anti-Gallic rage.

The only difference in the American use of force has been one of magnitude: We lose 3,000 — not 9 — and send out 1,000 planes — not 3 — when attacked. Why does France get a pass in its postcolonial interventions? Simply because there are no French to criticize them. For all the European hysteria over the reelection of George Bush, I would wager that privately, leaders there are sighing with relief that a resolute U.S. is fighting the Islamists, taking the heat, and supplying them with both emotional and material cover at no cost. How can you buy off the Iranians to drop their bomb plans without fear by the mullahs that a cowboy George Bush is the dreaded alternative? [Emphasis on the double standards mine]

George Bush thus will get no credit for elections replacing the Taliban or for the liberation of women in Afghanistan, much less for democracy in Iraq. Instead he will be the target of constant venom for the human costs of war, with the silent proviso that he is not to cease, lest a Holland, France, or Spain become even more besieged by anti-Western jihadists emboldened by American appeasement. Indeed, Bush must endure elite European hatred, even as the majority there silently expects the United States to maintain the alliance and protect the West.

(Thanks to Gregory, Vik, Joe, and FR Hoffmann)

Of Course, the Threat of Gbagbo's Ivory Coast Is Far Greater than Saddam's Iraq Ever Was

Quick: What Western power bypassed the U.N. recently, ignored the international community and launched a pre-emptive attack against the forces of a sovereign foreign government?

Why . . . France, of course.

… And, so far, the closest thing to WMDs that's been found is . . . chocolate. (It can lead to deadly obesity, n'est-ce pas?)

Which raises a question: Did that cowboy, Jacques Chirac, fear President Laurent Gbagbo's forces would attack Paris?

… The irony in the strike by the French, who criticized President Bush's war against a real threat in Iraq, is, of course, hilarious. France did what it wanted (but don't expect U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to call it "illegal").

The New York Post

The French are now doing EVERYTHING they accused the United States of prior to and during the war with Iraq!

Aucun sang pour le chocolat!

Lire le bloc-notes d'Ivan Rioufol…

A Nation Crippled By Dishonest Pacifism

Ian Robinson:

Canada has become a nation crippled by a dishonest pacifism. Rather than announce we're wimps, we pretend in the councils of the powerful that we'll send our soldiers to fight ... but only if the stars are aligned just so.

We'll send "peacekeepers," an abominable word that denies the reality that it is only the application of brute and vicious force in the disordered and deadly precincts of the world that can ensure peace.

In that perspective, I thought that peace was not anything that could be imposed, especially by Western countries using military means. Isn't that the lesson constantly being given to Uncle Sam and his simplistic citizens?…

Oh, and while we're on the subject of Canada, here is what the Toronto Sun's Bob MacDonald has to say:

…that's the quiet way Bush operates. He greatly appreciates such loyal allies as [José Maria] Aznar or British PM Tony Blair or Australian PM John Howard.

He doesn't shout it from the rooftops, but he also doesn't appreciate such fair-weather Canadian "friends" as [Jean] Chretien and [Paul] Martin. The only thing that will heal that situation is time — and real supporting action by Canada.

What does that tell you about condescending "peace camp" members putting the onus on Dubya and haughtily asking him (demanding of him, really) that he resort to action to heal the rifts of the past?

(Thanks to FR Hoffmann, eh?)

Simplifying, Misunderstanding, and Condescending to the People Who Voted for Bush

Peter Schramm writes that "The mainstream media and the liberals (and the French) are already starting to try to have their spin color the election returns: Bush's victory was not broad-based; it was tied to angry evangelicals voting, egged on by homophobia. Liberals are insular in their thinking and this insularity, which has caused them to lose touch with the rest of the country, now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. While this is just the start—other spins will follow—it is worth noting, and David Brooks has already reacted to it. He argues that it was a broad and deep victory for Bush":

Every election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.

In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.

This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong …

John Moser adds that

It matters little that Kerry had explanations for all of [his] positions, and that he seemed to address them satisfactorily in his three debates against Bush. What mattered ultimately was that he needed to explain them at all. And this gets down to the real difference between the two men in this race—George W. Bush was Andrew Jackson; John Kerry was Woodrow Wilson.

The President, like Jackson before him, didn’t need to explain his views. Jackson’s views struck most people as nothing more than common sense…

Jacksons try to tailor their message to the desires and fears of the average person. Wilsons tell the average people that their desires and fears are irrational, and try to convince them that they should want something else.

Jacksons lay out their agenda clearly, in simple black-and-white terms. Wilsons tell people how complicated the world is, suggesting that public affairs is therefore best left in the hands of an educated elite.

Jacksons act decisively in defending what they see as the national interest. Wilsons fret about the "international community."

Gratitude a la française

We are waiting impatiently for that to happen

Foreign Minister Michel Barnier

How about un merci (even a small one) to American forces for having solved one third of France's hostage problem in Iraq (albeit admittedly not the French nationals themselves)?…

(Merci to Gregory)

Kill faster. Total war.	Tuer plus vite. Guerre totale.
A US marine from the 3/5 Lima company

French girly-man on the rag	Mec femmelette franchouille a ses ragnanas
Chiraq is on the rag when it comes to the States. Now he can get all that 'girl talk' out of his system with Condi.	Dès qu'il s'agit des States, Chirak a ses ragnanas. Maintenant il peut discuter tant qu'il voudrait 'entre filles' avec Condi.

Good for dead ends, garbage dumps, and shit holes	C'est bon pour les culs-de-sac, les dépotoires, et les trous à merde
French consider naming streets after Arafat.	Les franchouilles étudient la possibilité de nommer des rues d'après Arafat.

The Iraq Crisis Is All America's Fault!

And if, instead of resorting to war, those simplistic, reactionary, and trigger-happy Yanks had only listened to the dispassionate, reasonable, and disinterested views of the "peace camp" and the United Nations, and had chosen the path of dialogue with with Saddam Hussein, everyone would be far better off…