The French Press "Must Spread Healthy Ideas", Says…

…Serge Dassault. While the National Assembly was working towards the creation of a French CNN (will the CFII ever risk being as loathed in l'Elysée as Ted Turner's news-only channel is in the White House?), the head of the Dassault armaments group made the above remark (on the France Inter radio station), adding that healthy ideas are "ideas which make things go forward" (scroll to bottom). And the UMP senator goes on to explain that newspapers cannot only report that leftist politicians and organizations have said so-and-so and such-and-such (which he calls "fiction"), they also have a responsability to say "stop, we are going in an erroneous direction. That is not what is working."

Not much of a problem here. So far. The problem comes in that Serge Dassault makes his comments exclusively in regards to 1) economic ideas on 2) France's domestic scene. How about a press not only refusing to letting leftist politicians off the hook, Monsieur Dassault, but politicians and organizations (and armaments makers — hint, hint, nudge, nudge) in general? And that, in relation to diplomatic and international relations as well?

Thus, when Dominque de Villepin, say, declares that America must be opposed in Iraq (and everywhere else) and that, with a bit of dialogue, Saddam Hussein can be made to come to terms, a newspaper (a French one) might tell him that "halte là, on va dans l'erreur. Ce n'est pas ça qui marche" — that psychopath is not our friend and ally, and there is no way democracy can ever be made to work if it involves keeping a mass murderer in power.

Or if a politician (say, the senator from Essonne) says that a good idea would be to lift the embargo on selling weapons to China, a member of the press (say, Le Figaro) could jump in, and say "stop, we are going in an erroneous direction. That is not what is working."

Oui, je sais : it's hard to imagine. N'est-ce pas?

"The matters are too controversial, the events are too recent to be seen with objectivity, the facts are still coming in, blahblahblah…"

Does anybody remember how World War II was treated in the French press and in French schools during the 60th anniversary of D-Day? Why is it that I see similarities between the country mentioned in Howard W French's New York Times article and a number of nations in Europe?

… many [Chinese students] believe that [in World War II] Japan was defeated largely as a result of Chinese resistance, not by the United States.

"The fundamental reason for the victory is that the Chinese Communist Party became the core power that united the nation," says one widely used textbook, referring to World War II.

No one learns that perhaps 30 million people died from famine because of catastrophic decisions made in the 1950's, during the Great Leap Forward, by the founder of Communist China, Mao Zedong.

… Most Chinese students finish high school convinced that their country has fought wars only in self-defense, never aggressively or in conquest, despite the People's Liberation Army's invasion of Tibet in 1950 and the ill-fated war with Vietnam in 1979, to take two examples.

… Asked why Chinese textbooks do not mention such matters as Tibet's claim to independence at the time Communist troops invaded, Ren Penjie, editor of a history education magazine in Xian, said: "These are still matters of controversy. What we present to children are less controversial facts, which are easier to explain."

Others said such events were too recent to be seen with objectivity, or that the facts were still coming in, both of which are common explanations offered by Japanese historians who defend the lack of candor about Japanese atrocities in World War II.

Oh, but events like Bush's war in Iraq, they, by no means, are too recent to be seen with objectivity. In cases such as those, it is entirely clear as spring water that they in no way are "matters of controversy", but examples of unscrupulous American imperialism, while the "peace members'" claims to nobleness and nobility are just as undeniable facts devoid of controversy. Good thing the Chinese have their masters in Beijing to tell them that.

Incidentally, do you know how many discussions, or arguments, I've had with Frenchmen (and -women) in which, when the evidence started going against them and their defences start breaking down (Paris's role in the oil-for-food scandal, Iraqis being overwhelmingly critical of the supposed "peace camp's" supposed pacifism, etc), they retreat to positions that, if not exactly the same as, then very much mirror those of China (and Japan, which, after all, is a Western-style democracy)? They go "Well, it's too early to tell" or "let's see what the Iraqis say a couple of years from now", my favorite having to do with the Baghdad couple who named their son George Bush: "Does their kid still bear that name today?"

"The matters are too controversial", "the events are too recent to be seen with objectivity", "the facts are still coming in" are all entirely rational comments, of course, except that they are never applied to George W Bush (the American original), Uncle Sam, capitalism, and American policy in the Middle East. In other words, in Europe as in Asia, the language of tolerance and pausing before making judgments is used in an entirely self-serving manner.

"Quite frankly, in China there are some areas, very sensitive subjects, where it is impossible to tell people the truth," said Ge Jianxiong, director of the Institute of Chinese Historical Geography at Fudan University in Shanghai and a veteran of official history textbook advisory committees. "Going very deeply into the history of Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping and some features of the Liberation" — as the Communist victory is called — "is forbidden. In China, history is still used as a political tool, and at the high school level, we still must follow the doctrine."

By the way, China is one country (the others include Russia and Vietnam) that France is working hard at engaging in closer relations with (along with Germany), at the detriment of Uncle Sam. Offhand it may sound unfair, but still, one is tempted to think, Birds of a feather…

Schröder's Asia trip "revolved around a depiction of rivalry with America and an attempt to win capital from Germany's position on the Iraq war"

You have heard angry voices spew cynical comments about America's reasons (their real reasons) for going to war against Iraq, niechtwar?

Since Germany's military and strategic responsibilities in the Far East are virtually nil, [Gerhard] Schröder's position [of support for a plan to lift the European Union's embargo on selling arms to Beijing] demonstrates pretty substantial disregard for the American view that German and French arms sales to China (the real issue at hand) will not make Beijing less expansionist, more sensitive to human rights, or unvaryingly reliable

writes John Vinocur in the International Herald Tribune.

… Schröder's pressing forward with the issue has a rather exceptional, or quixotic, aspect in that it clashes with both an EU consensus against supplying China with arms and motions passed by the Bundestag (widely supported by the chancellor's own coalition) and European Parliament urging that the embargo be retained. …

Voices within the German government have said everyone should understand China feels itself "politically discriminated against." [Apparently noone should ever pay any attention to the fact that United States, at times, might find itself politically discriminated against.] The idea has a violently counterinstinctive quality to it, but Schröder, who seems to want to cast himself as China's best friend in the West, may choose to make this case directly to George Bush when he travels to Europe in February in what is being described as a "reaching out" initiative by the White House. … The grand idea there would be to proclaim a restoration of trans-Atlantic cooperation. In the German-American case, the get-together would be aimed at rekindling a notion of shared sentiment in a country where Michael Moore, as the newspaper Berliner Zeitung noted last week, creates a thousand times more enthusiasm than an explosion of democracy in Ukraine. …

As consensus views go, there is a fairly wide one in Europe that a "non-U.S.A." identity for Europe is firm if deniable French policy. This notion casts French and German resistance to the Iraq war as the basis of a genesis legend for a future Europe's arm's-length relationship with the United States.

How much has Schröder the short-term tactician bought into this line? On one hand, better relations with the Americans, however desentimentalized, just might be a help when he likely seeks a third term in 2006. On the other, Schröder justified his actions on Iraq to his party leadership last year, not so much in terms of international law or doubts about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, but as "protecting European sovereignty." He argued then that he and Jacques Chirac's decision to oppose the war would determine the development of Europe over the next 10 to 15 years.

This casting of Europe's development in opposition to America — the refrain goes the Iraq war had to be opposed to unite Europe in escaping America's hegemonic grasp — resurfaced in another form, according to accounts of Schröder's most recent trip to Asia, in October.

Jochen Buchsteiner, the politically astute Asia correspondent of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, who accompanied Schröder to New Delhi and Hanoi, wrote that the trip revolved around a depiction of rivalry with America and an attempt to win capital from Germany's position on the Iraq war. He described Schröder as saying that a domineering power could only generate resistance, but out of embarrassment, avoiding any specific mention of the United States. Schröder's behavior in Asia, Buchsteiner reported, followed "an anti-Atlanticist direction" that resembled that of Chirac, who was in China at the same moment. …

Coupled with Chirac's trip to China, Schröder's Asia "trip revolved around a depiction of rivalry with America and an attempt to win capital from Germany's position on the Iraq war". Do you get it? Those who have said that America's position (the Iraq war) was all for riches (oil) have countered that the "peace camp's" position (amplifying the demonization of the Bush administration's position in the Iraq war while defending the status quo, sorry, I mean, standing up for world peace) was all for the highest humane considerations (standing up for world peace). This has nothing with (the United States) being "politically discriminated against"? Maybe it is not for Uncle Sam that one should reserve an attitude of the deepest disbelief, cynicism, und, ja, disgust…

Update: Don't forget to read Ray's excellent Spreading Christmas Joy in China ("In Beijing they are making a list and checking it twice. And frankly, Santa Gerd doesn't really care whether the Chinese have been naughty or nice"…)

The truth is, any accusation against America that comes to hand is used without scruple by the Old World intelligentsia

The truth is, any accusation that comes to hand is used without scruple by the Old World intelligentsia. Anti-Americanism is factually absurd, contradictory, racist, crude, childish, self-defeating and, at bottom, nonsensical

concludes Paul Johnson in his Forbes article, Anti-Americanism Is Racist Envy, but not before he had the following words to say about one of the most visible culprits:

France … is a republic run by bureaucratic and party elites, whose errors are dealt with by strikes, street riots and blockades instead of by votes. Elements of the French system are being imposed throughout the EU, even in countries such as Denmark and Sweden that have long practiced democracy with success. In a French-style pseudodemocracy, intellectuals have considerable influence, at both government and street levels. In a true democracy, intellectuals are no more powerful than their arguments.

Here is the full article by the eminent British historian and author:

Anti-Americanism is the prevailing disease of intellectuals today. Like other diseases, it doesn't have to be logical or rational. But, like other diseases, it has a syndrome — a concurrent set of underlying symptoms that are also causes.

• First, an unadmitted contempt for democracy. The U.S. is the world's most successful democracy. The right of voters to elect more than 80,000 public officials, the length and thoroughness of electoral campaigns, the pervasiveness of the media and the almost daily reports by opinion polls ensure that government and electorate do not diverge for long and that Washington generally reflects the majority opinion in its actions.

It is this feature that intellectuals—especially in Europe—find embittering. They know they must genuflect to democracy as a system. They cannot openly admit that an entire people—especially one comprising nearly 300 million, who enjoy all the freedoms—can be mistaken. But in their hearts these intellectuals do not accept the principle of one person, one vote. They scornfully, if privately, reject the notion that a farmer in Kansas, a miner in Pennsylvania or an auto assembler in Michigan can carry as much social and moral weight as they do. In fact, they have a special derogatory word for anyone who acts on this assumption: "populist." A populist is someone who accepts the people's verdict, even — and especially — when it runs counter to the intellectual consensus (as with capital punishment, for example). In the jargon of intellectual persiflage, populism is almost as bad as fascism — indeed, it's a step toward it. Hence, the argument goes, the U.S. is not so much an "educated democracy" as it is a media-swayed and interest-group-controlled populist regime.

The truth is, on the European Continent there is little experience of working democracy. Italy and Germany have had democracy only since the late 1940s; Spain, since the 1960s. France is not a democracy; it is a republic run by bureaucratic and party elites, whose errors are dealt with by strikes, street riots and blockades instead of by votes. Elements of the French system are being imposed throughout the EU, even in countries such as Denmark and Sweden that have long practiced democracy with success. In a French-style pseudodemocracy, intellectuals have considerable influence, at both government and street levels. In a true democracy, intellectuals are no more powerful than their arguments.

• Second, anti-Americanism is a function of cultural racism. An astonishingly high proportion of European elites know very little about U.S. history or culture and even deny that they have a separate existence apart from their European roots. It is strange that those seeking to bring about a European federal state or union have at no stage sought to study the lessons Americans learned during the creation of the U.S. in the 1780s. After all, the U.S. Constitution (suitably amended) has lasted for more than 200 years, and within its framework the country has emerged as the richest and most powerful society in world history. You might think, therefore, that European elites would seek to learn something from such a successful process. Not at all: The view is that sophisticated, civilized Europe has nothing to learn from "adolescent" America. What these Euro-elites particularly abhor is the way in which the framers of the Constitution made every effort to involve the population through the process of public debates, town meetings and ratification votes — and this at a time when Europe was still governed (for the most part) by the absolute sovereigns of the ancien régime.

This cultural racism is particularly directed at the supposedly "know-nothing" President George W. Bush and his "gung ho" Texas background. The European intelligentsia gets its notion of America chiefly from Hollywood, TV soaps like Dallas and fiction. Few of them have any experience of America, outside of three or four big cities. Middle America is unexplored territory. The fact that the U.S. has proved a highly efficient crucible for melding different peoples into a human sum greater than its constituent parts is seen as a misfortune in Europe because it produces a cultural stew that lacks purity of any kind and is therefore at the mercy of commercial forces.

• Third, European elites tend to look at Americans as a subcivilized mass, whose function is to be obedient consumers in a system run by big business. The role of competition in U.S. economic life — and in every other aspect of life — is ignored, because competition is something Continental Europeans like to keep to a minimum and under careful control.

Although Americans are seen as highly materialistic consumers, they are also despised and feared for their spiritual interests, their participation in religious worship and their subscription to creeds of morality. Europeans see no inconsistency in their condemnation of the U.S. for being at one and the same time paganly unethical and morally zealous.

The truth is, any accusation that comes to hand is used without scruple by the Old World intelligentsia. Anti-Americanism is factually absurd, contradictory, racist, crude, childish, self-defeating and, at bottom, nonsensical. It is based on the powerful but irrational impulse of envy — an envy of American wealth, power, success and determination. It is an envy made all the more poisonous because of a fearful European conviction that America's strength is rising while Europe's is falling.

(Thanks to Honky Tonk)

Lionizing the Do-Nothings and the Risk-Nothings Who Stay at Home and Produce Nothing But Self-Praise and Criticism of Uncle Sam

I had no idea.

In June, NATO agreed to assign forces to train Iraqi military conscripts, and the program began only a few weeks ago. But five of the alliance's 26 members — France, Germany, Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg — have refused to allow their officers serving with NATO to take part, even if the training occurred in another country.

writes Joel Brinkley in the New York Times.

This is the newspaper that, like Europe's mainstream media, voices admiration for the position of the members of the so-called "peace camp". As it turns out, all the latters' wise declarations, all their "hard-edged" criticisms, and all their principled points of view come from the comfortable position of the sidelines, where they have nothing to risk and little to fear.

I remember France (in particular) making a big deal about blocking NATO officers from training members of the Iraqi military within Iraq and insisting it be done in the officers' home nation or in a third country. Already at the time, this brought no sympathy from me. Now, it turns out that after forcing others to do less when they could do more, they haven't even contributed officers of their own to the program.

What is just as appalling is how, in their earnestness to lionize the "peace camp" and their eagerness to castigate the Bush administration, the media — both domestic and foreign — let such information slip by, and how it surfaces only by accident in articles whose main subject is only indirectly related to it.

This is just more of the same facile lecturing and grand-standing from comfortable armchairs in their cozy living rooms and dens…

Update:

"When it comes time to perform a mission," [Secretary of State Colin L. Powell] said at a news conference, "it seems to us to be quite awkward for suddenly members in that international staff to say, "I'm unable to go because of this national caveat or national exception.' " …

Mr. Powell said the nations refusing to participate in the mission are "hurting the credibility and the cohesion of such an international staff or organization" …

Live free or die: Surrender monkeys lecture Iraqis	Vivre en liberté ou mourir: Singes capitulards sermonnent les irakiens

What comes around, goes around	La boucle sera bientôt bouclée
French now pay for sucking up to scum.	Les franchouilles paient cher le fait de faire la pute aux raclures des chiottes.

Last night: Prowling for books on 14th Street in NYC	Hier soir: Rôder à la recherche de livres sur la 14ème rue à New York
Thanks to Doug for the address.	Merci à Doug pour la bonne adresse.

Refined and Sophisticated Humor Has a Long Tradition in France…

Just today, Les Guignols did a sketch of Rumsfeld's town-hall-style meeting in Kuwait (merci, V8), in which the Canal + puppeteers introduced us to their typically refined and sophisticated humor, in this case of two American soldiers (both portrayed by Sylvester Stallone puppets) complaining that 1) they don't have tape-players in their vehicles so they don't have to hear Iraqi children screaming as they (the GIs) massacre the country's entire population and 2) that their weaponry is not strong enough to raze the entire country so that they can all go home.

In case you don't spend too much time with the comments section (either on this blog or in general), be sure to check out AF's hyperlinks which point out the similarity between today's anti-Americanism and yesterday's anti-Semitism (something I already pointed out while analyzing Canal +'s Guignols, justement), in which supposedly rational, sophisticated, level-headed, progressive, forward-looking, and secular individuals equate foreign bodies with all that is negative and revolting, even with evil and deviltry (e.g., snakes). While you're at it, follow AF's link to the type of stomach-churning photos from Iraq that French humorists (at Canal + or elsewhere), for some reason, do not spend much time dwelling about…

Oh, and do you remember
one visitor's ironic comments about Washington infamously playing host to Pakistan's strongman? (Reply here) Turns out that immediately after visiting Washington, Pervez Musharraf headed for… Paris. But given that it is only Uncle Sam that must be castigated, criticized, caricatured, and mocked at all times, you should not expect Paprika and his ilk to leave their usual type of nasty comments on webs like this one (or anywhere else for that matter)…

On the rag again

Toujours avec leurs ragnanas

Act-Up brigade sponsored brown shirts are going ape shit because a French congressmen made some comments about homosexuality yesterday. The Thought Police will accept no less than total submission to the State Party Line©®™. Al-Manar, on the other hand, continues to operate its hate fueled electronic Madrassa for French suburban youth.

Des chemises brunes agréées par les brigades Act-Up sortent de leurs gonds car un député franchouille a fait quelques commentaires au sujet de l'homosexualité hier. La Police de la Pensée n'acceptera pas moins que la soumission totale et inconditionnelle à la pensée unique Non-Pensée Inique de l'Etat©®™ Al-Manar, par contre, continue à faire tourner sa madrassa électronique haineuse pour la jeunesse franchouille des banlieues.

Let them get drunk on Sidi Brahim	Qu'ils se dopent à Sidi Brahim
French wine sales in the crapper.	Les ventes de vinasse franchouilles se cassent la gueule.
their cheap wine and their cheese, is the only claim to fame for these nutjobs.	leur pinard et leur camenbert, c'est leur seule gloire à ces tarrés.
Renaud, Hexagone

French wingnuttery	Loufoqueries franchouilles

Two Different Interviews, Two Different Standards

Today's Figaro has two major interviews. Check them out, and see if you can spot the legendary objectivity of the French reporter…

The first interview is with Iraq's ambassador to France.

One of Isabelle Lasserre's first questions is, "Is Iraq's stability linked to the departure of the American troops?"

(To which Mowafak Abboud answers: "Above all, it is linked to the end of terrorist activities." He adds: "The terrorists claim to be fighting against the occupation but in fact they are contributing to having American forces stay longer by keeping the country from normalizing. If there weren't all those attacks, we would not need the American troops any longer." Later, incidentally, he estimates the number of foreign fighters in Iraq at between 1,000 and 1,500.)

Subsequent questions include the following: "How do you judge the French position on Iraq, before, during, and after the war?", "The French approach, relatively [sic!] complacent, vis-à-vis Saddam Hussein, was it efficient?" (ho-hum, matter-of-fact questions and a let's-have-a-calm-and-objective-discussion-about-it perspective which in no way resembles the attitude of anger and spite towards the Bush administration, an attitude which, at best, invariably makes mention of its "colossal blunders"), and "Do you think that the American project of imposing democracy in the Greater Middle East is a good or a bad idea?" (Notice that Lasserre in no way admits to the possibility that France, or the "peace camp", or simply the Chirac administration, made blunders — colossal or otherwise — and that she indirectly suggests that the status quo was/is not that bad — she does not ask, for instance, what would be a far more objective question: "Which idea is the better one — the Americans' for democracy in the Greater Middle East or France's (or the 'peace camp's' or Chirac's) for the status quo?")

Mowafak Abboud, incidentally, notes that "Without the war, Saddam Hussein would have stayed in power for centuries. Irak and the countries of the region would have continued to suffer."

Four pages later comes an interview with Michèle Alliot-Marie. Although the main part of Alexis Brézet, Philippe Migault, and Judith Waintraub's interview deals with the danger for Jacques Chirac's UMP of the government and the ruling party going in opposite directions, a second part touches on Ivory Coast.

Read the type of deferential questions being asked in this case: "What do you answer to those who, on the subject of Ivory Coast, accuse the French army of deliberately shooting on civilians?" and "In what circumstances [did the French troops open fire]?" In other words, setting the scene for France's defense minister to provide her explanation, and to do so in a way [it really sounds more like "What is the answer to those who accuse…"] that makes her statement appear as the bottom line and the final word on the matter...

Slightly refreshing, though, in view of this case of double standards, is to read Renaud Girard's editorial on American successes from Kabul to Ukraine through the Middle East and to hear someone say (and with no negative connotation) that "Maybe, in France, we have underestimated George Bush." (Of course, this did come only after the obligatory mention of the Americans' "colossal blunders".)

Still, I like the following quote:

It's a tactic as old as the world to accuse an opponent of having the bad intentions one has oneself.

Could also be said of France, or the "peace camp", or Chirac, on certain occasions, n'est-ce pas?

According to the French intelligence service, among the 2,000 foreigners fighting the American army in Iraq are several dozen Frenchmen

Dominique Dhombres :

Five young Frenchmen have been killed in Iraq since July in the ranks of the guerilla [sic] fighting the American army, we learned … during the TF1 evening news. The information comes from the French intelligence service.

…the TF1 team was able to film a class, in [the La Villette neighborhood] establishment which welcomes young people from the entire world … One spends entire hours learning the Koran by heart. …

According to the French intelligence service, among the 2,000 foreigners fighting the American army in Iraq are several dozen Frenchmen.

Of course, if Dominique Dhombres were talking about religious schools in the States (Islamic, Christian, fundamentalist, or other), he would have shaken his head and made a big case about how America's tendencies towards absolutism and fanaticism were making the entire world much more divided and much more dangerous…

James Thurber on Knowing All the Answers

Today is the birthday of James Thurber, the US humorist (1894-1961) who said:

All human beings should try to learn before they die what they are running from, and to, and why.

He knows all about art, but he doesn't know what he likes.

Human Dignity has gleamed only now and then and here and there, in lonely splendor, throughout the ages, a hope of the better men, never an achievement of the majority.

And, concerning the ever-wise and know-it-all Europeans,

It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers.

... and don't forget the chili sauce	... et ne lésine pas avec l'harissa
Here's 20 million and I don't want to see your ugly face unless you're serving me up a falafel at the corner shop. Now take your sorry ass and beat it.	Voici 20 million et je ne veux plus voir ta sale tronche à moins que tu me vendes un falafel dans la gargote du coin. Casse-toi sale race.
UPDATE: Bog blast them.	DERNIERES INFOS: Que Gogre les emporte.

American bashing is risk free	Insulter les américains, c'est gratos
In this socialist humanist shithole, some people are human, but some are more human than others. There are laws in France protecting certain categories of deviants. But since insulting Americans is risk free, the French go at it like there's no tomorrow. Cowards.	Dans ce trou à merde socialo-humaniste, il y a certaines personnes qui sont plus humaines que d'autres. Il y a des lois en France qui protègent certaines catégories de déviants. Puisque insulter les américains est sans risque, les franchouilles y vont à fond. Bande de lâches.
Planet? What planet?

It cannot be that good people actually like the US and oppose those who share the "enlightened" public's hatred of Uncle Sam

Caroline B. Glick:

… TV news broadcast [Kevin] Sites's footage [of a Marine shooting a prostrate terrorist lying in the mosque] over and over as wizened anchors shook their heads with revulsion over the inhumanity of US armed forces in Iraq. The newspapers played up coverage of the event to make certain that all of us knew just how awful American forces really are.

No one bothered to make mention of the fact that Marines and soldiers fighting in Fallujah had been repeatedly attacked by terrorists playing possum. No one bothered to make mention of the numerous instances of terrorists raising the white flag of surrender only to fire at forces coming to take them into custody. What does the context of the battle matter when a case can be made for vilifying US Marines as war criminals – on the basis of Sites's isolated, deconstructionist footage – rather than praising them as battle-trained warriors?

Terrorists have two basic advantages over the Western armies and societies that fight them: their own invisibility, and the self-obsession and hatred of Western Leftists. By not abiding by the centuries-old rules of war that stipulate that combatants are uniformed members of the armed forces of a country or a recognized insurgency in control of territory, the terrorists have an upper hand despite their relatively small numbers and outdated weaponry. How can a war be justified against an enemy you can't see who looks just like the civilians you are obligated by law and your values to protect?

Add to this the fact that terrorists eagerly exploit universally recognized symbols of non-combatants and you have a war that you simply cannot justify on camera. Terrorists shoot from mosques so mosques must be raided. Terrorists are transported in ambulances so ambulances must be inspected. But of course, the television cameras aren't filming when the terrorists fire RPGs from minarets, only when terrorists wounded while shooting them lay pitifully on the floor. And there is no camera on hand when they plant explosives beneath gurneys. …

Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum reported this week that a new legend is being propagated in left-wing circles in Europe and the US that the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who have been demonstrating against the patently fraudulent elections results in their country are actually all CIA provocateurs. An article in the UK's Guardian, for instance, alleged that the protests are "an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in Western branding and mass marketing." As Applebaum argues it, the myth is being created to explain away the inconvenient truth that millions of people look to the US as an inspirational beacon of freedom which they wish to emulate. It cannot be, say these reactionary anti-American "progressives," that good people actually like the US and oppose those who share the "enlightened" public's hatred of Uncle Sam. Therefore, anyone advancing a claim that could be viewed as pro-American cannot be an authentic activist. Rather, the CIA must be paying his light bill. …

Read the whole article…

Anne Applebaum adds:

Many of the same people who would refuse to condemn a dictator who is anti-American cannot bring themselves to admire democrats who admire, or at least don't hate, the United States.

Grand Theft Ego

Unless (and Until the Time that) Karzai Decides to Oppose Uncle Sam, the First Elected President in Afghanistan's History Is Nothing But a Puppet

Hamid Karzai is the first elected president in the long history of Afghanistan but, needless to say, Françoise Chipaux does not show much respect for that as she feels the need to entitle Le Monde's in-depth portrait of the leader A president under supervision. The sub-head adds that now he "must prove that he is also a chieftain". Meaning, of course, that he must prove his independence vis-à-vis Uncle Sam. (For some strange reason, there is never a need to prove one's independence from, say, France — whether it is Paris's former African colonies, her European allies against the Iraq war, etc!)

Karzai's bodyguards are imposed by Washington, notes Chipaux ominously, and America's "heavy-duty and hardly diplomatic security apparatus exasperates the Kabul inhabitants more and more". Only later do we learn that this imposition (and the traffic jams) occurred for a reason, that reason being the assassination of two of the Afghan government's ministers. But never mind — Chipaux ignores that in order to make it sound like Karzai, in some ways, is an American puppet and "a prisoner in his palace".

More of the same follows on how "the president has never shown much interest for independent ideas" and concerning "his need to be loved and not to offend anybody". "The legitimacy that this election has given him will it give him the will or the courage to act at the risk of displeasing?"

Nice-sounding words, but hardly those that resound when the French are discussing, say, an African country in the French sphere of influence. Or, indeed, any leader opposing Paris…

Speaking of respect and leaders, Jean-Philippe Rémy and Stephen Smith manage to misspell the name of Ivory Coast's president twice in the first three sentences (Laurent Gbgagbo and Laurent Gbgabo).

But, writes Fabienne Pompey, there is a president (or would-be president) whom the French, echoing a Star editorial, manage to show respect for. His name is Marwan Barghouti and the reason they feel this way towards this "peacemaker" is because a "respected intellectual"
in South Africa (Allister Sparks) has compared the Palestinian to Nelson Mandela.