SMART DIPLOMACY: Even leftist Joschka Fischer, of all people, grieves about “the loss” of America’s role as the world’s “indispensable nation”

These days, he grieves about what he sees as “the loss” of America’s role as the world’s “indispensable nation” — the only country able to say to outrage and oppression enough is enough — as demonstrated by “its absence” as the decisive element in the fight against Bashar al-Assad in Syria. 

Thus writes John Vinocur, the most conservative commentator working for the New York Times, in the International Herald Tribune, quoting Joschka Fischer: “even inveterate anti-Americans will be crying out in the future for the old global order-maker.”

The situation is not just an historical footnote-to-be. Last week, Fischer wrote in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, “What we’re watching is a post-American world take shape, not involving some new order, but replaced by ambivalent power-politics, instability and, yes, chaos.”

Syria, in relation to America’s response, has been the scene of several events that point to Fischer’s concerns. 

In contrast to Russia’s function as arms supplier and chief diplomat for Syria, and Iran’s and Hezbollah’s battlefield presence, the Obama administration is stuck in facing more than 80,000 dead with a two-year record of indecision. 

Ambivalence? America’s projected nonlethal assistance to Assad’s opponents includes, according to The Associated Press, military vehicles — but not night vision goggles or body armor. 

 … In conversations in London and Paris with high British and French officials, there were expressions of concern about how the Obama administration aims to prevail in the Syria crisis, showing a kind of determination in the process meant to cow Iran from its rush to nukes. 

No one advocates American or allied boots on the ground in Syria. But when it comes to other serious military assistance for the rebels, the French and British experience is not positive. 

The allies, who favor supplying arms, were told by the White House last October that such U.S. lethal assistance was in preparation. It was urged by Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and Gen. Martin Dempsey. But the allies were left hanging when the White House withdrew the plan following Barack Obama’s re-election. 

For one French official, American indecision has left the Russians in a position of strength in relation to Syria.

 … The French also puzzle about a possible deal on Syria. In opposing an Iranian presence at Geneva, advocated by Russia, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has warned of a Tehran-engineered bargain in which Iran would “keep the atomic bomb while making concessions on Syria.” If the “international community” can’t stop Assad, he asked, “where’s the credibility of our assurances Iran will not get nuclear arms?” 

In this situation, what is clear is that Russia has bet the farm on Syria, aiming to thwart the United States there, while profiting from American unwillingness to link Russia’s on-going provocation to any countermeasure. 

America, in contrast, is standing at the $2 bettors’ window. It has no real horse in the race, not supporting moderate fighters with weapons while having insisted Assad was sure to fall in the coming weeks. 

The substance of the Geneva meeting hardly looks favorable. Assured of Russia’s wherewithal, why would Assad come to it to acknowledge, as proposed, that he will give way to a transitional government? 

It is here that a real measure of British and French concern enters about Barack Obama’s seeming movement away from his announced red lines on the use of chemical weapons. In April, when Britain tested samples from victims of a Syrian chemical attack, a statement from Prime Minister David Cameron asserted that the results indicated “a war crime.” 

France’s announcement last Tuesday that it is now “certain” Syria used the nerve agent sarin was meant, I was told, to stir U.S. engagement at a juncture when the rebels’ overall defeat was becoming a possibility.

Of course, Iran could make a gesture of enormously misplaced overconfidence and meet with a U.S. military response, the French official said. Otherwise, the Middle East faced on-going disruptions without the assured support of an American rampart. 

While the notion of America’s global indispensability goes back to World War II, an assertion of it came in 1996 with President Bill Clinton’s explanation, after years of dawdling, about why the United States was getting involved in Bosnia. He spoke then of America as “the indispensable nation” and said, “There are times when America, and only America can make a difference between war and peace.” 

For Joschka Fischer, a man of the left, the perspective of the Obama administration having turned away from a U.S. role as stability’s ultimate recourse was so dangerous, that “even inveterate anti-Americans will be crying out in the future for the old global order-maker.”

Related: Europeans Hardly Impressed by Obama's Position (or Lack Thereof) on Syria and Its WMD

Europeans Hardly Impressed by Obama's Position (or Lack Thereof) on Syria and Its WMD

Neither Le Monde's Plantu nor Le Monde's Serguei seem very impressed with Barack Obama's stance (or lack of stance) on Syria's chemical weapons…

(In defense of Obama, it's true that the Apologizer-in-Chief is far more occupied with "nation-building at home " and having to deal — thanks, IRS and FBI — with that true enemy of mankind, those despicable American conservatives!)
 




• Le Monde:
Chemical Warfare in Syria
• BHO: Somebody hold me back
or I swear I will do nothing!



 




The West's Limits, by Serguei
• The Europeans:
The red line has been crossed, Obama
• BHO:
I can't manage to cross my own!





Update: SMART DIPLOMACY — Even leftist Joschka Fischer, of all people, grieves about “the loss” of America’s role as the world’s “indispensable nation”: “even inveterate anti-Americans will be crying out in the future for the old global order-maker.”
Related: With all those articles on Syria's WMD, meanwhile, Le Monde is being accused of working in tandem with France's secret services, leading Le Monde ombudsman Pascal Galinier to devote an entire column to the subject. All we can say is that's what happens when you can't stop repeating that believing in Saddam's possession of WMD can only be ridiculous and that George W Bush can be described as nothing less than an outright liar. (Needless to say, our old friend Rémy Ourdan has to step in and repeat the mantra that Saddam's WMD were a lie of Dubya's, while Assad's WMD are plainly and mainfestly nothing of the sort…)

Le Monde appartient-il aux services secrets français ?" En voilà une question ! Cela n'est pas un courrier de lecteur. Pas tout à fait. Cette interrogation en forme d'accusation est le titre d'un courriel en bonne et due forme, envoyé au médiateur le 28 mai, au lendemain des révélations de notre journal sur l'usage de gaz toxiques par le régime syrien. Le dénommé "Do" y cache son identité mais pas ses idées. …

"Do" ne pose de questions que pour mieux asséner ses réponses. Un grand classique du conspirationnisme, phénomène déjà évoqué dans ces colonnes, notamment lors de l'affaire Merah ou des printemps arabes. Une chronique du médiateur fut même titrée "Conspirationnite" (Le Monde daté 16-17 septembre 2012).

Deux autres lecteurs, dans leurs courriels, relaient sans ambages les soupçons véhiculés par un site qui a fait du Monde une de ses cibles favorites, Investig'Action. "De plus en plus de lecteurs, en France comme en Belgique, se demandent à la solde de qui vous travaillez ou par qui vous êtes muselés", affirme le premier, Bernard Van Muy, de Bruxelles. "Le quotidien de référence est devenu le quotidien des mensonges éhontés et de la manipulation otano-qatariote", assène le second, un certain Bruno Drweski...

N'en jetez plus !

Inutile de dire que la confirmation par Laurent Fabius, mardi 4 juin, de l'utilisation de gaz sarin en Syrie, après analyse des échantillons rapportés par nos journalistes, relance la machine à soupçons à notre égard...

Votre médiateur a d'abord hésité entre ironie et cynisme : si même nos contempteurs nous aident à refaire du Monde le bon vieux "journal de référence"... Un peu facile. Et pas si simple. D'autres lecteurs s'interrogent. Dont plusieurs habitués de cette page Dialogues. Ils posent des questions qui méritent des réponses. Que nos amis complotistes ne trouveront évidemment ni sincères, ni convaincantes, ni honnêtes, ni pertinentes - rayer la mention inutile...

"Le travail de journaliste est-il fiable dans la recherche de la preuve militaire ?, se demande le fidèle Igor Deperraz (Bully, Seine-Maritime). Demain, deux journalistes russes pourraient échantillonner sur des populations civiles des pseudo-neurotoxiques de l'autre côté de la barricade..." "Dans un vieux pays démocratique comme le nôtre, l'empathie n'est-elle pas le plus grand danger pour un journaliste professionnel ?", observe Bernard Lart (Nages, Gard). "Le journal Le Monde vient de préparer le terrain pour une initiative française en Syrie, s'inquiète Heinz Mundschau, d'Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen, Allemagne). Vraie ou pas, l'histoire de ces armes chimiques nous rappelle les fameuses armes de destruction massive de M. Bush junior en Irak..."

"C'est tout le contraire, répond au médiateur Rémy Ourdan, le directeur adjoint des rédactions, qui a supervisé l'opération Syrie. En 2002 et 2003, l'administration Bush ment, invente de fausses "preuves" sur la présence d'armes de destruction massive, et intoxique des médias à New York et Washington, loin du terrain. Là, on est dans le cas inverse : les journalistes vont sur place, rapportent des échantillons qui permettent d'établir la preuve, et les Etats se prononcent ensuite..."

Certes, admet M. Deperraz, mais "si l'on exclut la possible appartenance aux services de renseignements français de ces professionnels de l'info, on ne peut exclure une manipulation politique d'une des parties au conflit. Le journaliste peut témoigner de ce qu'il perçoit, il ne peut se substituer aux organismes de contrôle internationaux pour "échantillonner" un théâtre de guerre. Il y a donc dans cette volonté de porter la preuve au niveau de la responsabilité d'un Etat comme un soupçon de confusion des genres."

Le Monde a précisément pris toutes les précautions pour éviter ce soupçon, rappelait Natalie Nougayrède dans son deuxième éditorial sur le sujet (Le Monde du 6 juin) : "C'est en constatant sur place l'ampleur de l'utilisation de gaz toxiques que nos journalistes ont décidé qu'ils devaient tenter de sortir du pays des échantillons, destinés à être expertisés." Si lesdits échantillons ont été confiés aux autorités françaises, c'est "pour une raison simple : le seul laboratoire en France habilité à établir de manière incontestable la nature des substances transportées dépend de la Délégation générale de l'armement".

"Il y a eu un échange de lettres recommandées avec les autorités françaises, qui se sont engagées à nous remettre les résultats des analyses de nos échantillons, indique Rémy Ourdan. C'est une situation très inhabituelle, mais c'était le seul moyen dont on disposait pour compléter notre travail d'information. Le gouvernement nous a aussi remis les résultats des analyses des autres éléments de preuve qu'il possède, qui confirment l'usage de gaz sarin par les troupes d'Assad."

Pour autant, ajoute-t-il, "le journal ne défend pas un camp, il fait du journalisme. Si nos reporters avaient eu des éléments montrant que des rebelles avaient utilisé des gaz toxiques, ils l'auraient évidemment dit !".

Et maintenant ? "Nous sommes quelques-uns à attendre un reportage symétrique, tout aussi spectaculaire et susceptible de médiatisation : celui qui nous ferait vivre, avec la même empathie, le quotidien des populations restées sous la tutelle des autorités gouvernementales, prévient Alain Coulon (Paris), membre de la Société des lecteurs du Monde. Nous pourrions apprécier leur appétence à vivre dans une Syrie gérée par les différentes factions de l'ASL, l'Armée syrienne libre, sous l'égide des Saoudiens et des Qataris, avec la bénédiction des Occidentaux..."

How About the Computer Nerds Who Helped Obama Win in 2012? Did Also They Get Help From the IRS and the FBI, as Well as Their Computers?

 Obama was elected, twice, by the American people.

writes Ann Althouse (thanks to Instapundit).

We studied him. We listened to him. He is surrounded by advisers and checked by Congress and the press.

Remember election night, when conservatives the country over — not least Mitt Romney himself — became increasingly flabbergasted about how badly the Republican candidate was faring?

It turns out that Obama was elected with the help of a double-standard-wielding mainstream media, along with, it is becoming increasingly clear, help from places such as the FBI and the IRS.

We studied him. We listened to him.

Did we study Obama and listen to Obama? Or did we study and listen to the MSM's take on Obama (along with their takes on Romney, Bush, Cheney, etc etc etc), to the MSM's narrative?

And how about those computer nerds who somehow devised algorithms to help Obama win? Any chance that they had help in developing those programs from, say, IRS honchos (sorry, IRS low-level employees, I meant to say) and their government computers?

that's the kind of thought pattern I suspect is developing out there in the minds of these computer technicians. Look at the contempt, the grandiosity, and the recklessness.

I am 100% — one hundred percent — against Snowden; at the same time, do not confuse him with those who support him: there are times when contempt is the natural response — the natural thought pattern — to those in power and when, indeed, it is outright called for…

To conclude: Yes, Ann, it's good to give those who govern us respect; it's also good for those who govern us to respect us, the citizenry, in return, and for us to make a note of it when they — consistently — fail to do so.

Update: From the comments — Radegunda adds:

Did Ann Althouse really not notice that anyone who made a serious effort to "study" Obama or "check" his record was loudly and insistently branded a racist?

Update: Glenn Reynolds adds:

WHEN WOMEN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE DISAPPEARANCE OF CHIVALRY, I’m prone to point out that chivalry was a system, one that imposed obligations of behavior on women and girls as well as on men. Likewise, when David Brooks complains that Edward Snowden is an unmediated man, I must note that in the civil society Brooks invokes, Presidents and other leaders were also mediated; they were not merely checked by Congress, courts, etc., but they were also checked by themselves, and a sense of what was proper that went beyond “how much can I get away with now?” Obama, too, is unmediated in that sense. That Brooks couldn’t see beyond his sharply-creased pants to notice that when it was apparent to keen observers even before the 2008 election is not to his credit. If the system of civil society has failed, it is in no small part because its guardians — notably including Brooks — have also failed.

In France, Second Thoughts About Obama (Albeit Slowly, Slowly)

Suddenly, Barack Obama ain't that hot any more in France, as testified by a Plantu cartoon on Private Life in the USA, an Jean-Pierre Stroobants and Frédéric Lemaître article on how Washington spies electronically on Europeans, and a Le Monde editorial entitled The Old Continent Face to Face with Big Brother…


And yet: not once does the Le Monde editorial mention Obama's name; how much are the odds that that would have occurred had the scandal erupted under a Bush administration?

Meanwhile, in an article entitled Syria — Putin 1, Obama 0, Alain Frachon writes that Washington gives iutself neither the means to pressure Moscow nor that to intimidate Damascus:

La Russie défend un allié, le régime de Bachar Al-Assad, avec détermination ; les Etats-Unis défendent quelques principes, pas toujours avec conviction. Jeu inégal. Au milieu, les Syriens sont entrés dans la troisième année d'une guerre intérieure qui, chaque jour, déborde un peu plus à l'extérieur.

Les Russes savent ce qu'ils veulent. Ils ont une stratégie. Dans la guerre de Syrie, ils appartiennent à un camp. Le régime de Damas est leur allié au Proche-Orient, héritage d'une alliance passée du temps de la guerre froide. La Russie de Vladimir Poutine se retrouve dans la forme de dictature affairiste, aux services de sécurité omniprésents, que représente le régime Al-Assad.

Elle protège des intérêts commerciaux et militaires en Syrie. Elle y dispose de son unique base navale en Méditerranée, à Tartous. Elle équipe l'armée syrienne – du fusil d'assaut aux missiles balistiques en passant par les Migs.

 … L'ensemble dessine une politique claire, poursuivie avec constance et détermination. Le Kremlin n'a jamais cru que les rebelles étaient en passe de renverser le régime syrien. Et a tout fait pour que ceux-ci n'y arrivent pas. Non seulement la Russie n'a cessé de livrer des armes à Damas, mais elle envisage de fournir au régime des Migs dernier cri et des missiles de plus en plus sophistiqués.

Soutien politique, diplomatique et militaire : en Syrie, Moscou a une ligne. Et pas de "ligne rouge". La Russie ne trouve rien à redire à l'emploi de Migs, de Scuds et de munitions chimiques à l'encontre de la population syrienne. Vladimir Poutine, l'ancien du KGB, ne pèche pas par sensiblerie, il croit dans les rapports de force.

Les Etats-Unis aussi ont choisi leur camp. Depuis le début, Barack Obama a accordé son appui politique à la rébellion syrienne. Les alliés arabes de Washington dans la région, l'Arabie saoudite et le Qatar, dispensent aide financière et militaire aux principaux groupes rebelles. La Maison Blanche exige que Bachar Al-Assad quitte le pouvoir – un jour.

Tragique incompréhension

 …M. Obama agit comme s'il jugeait que la crédibilité des Etats-Unis se jouait ailleurs qu'au Proche-Orient. Il a dit, redit et écrit que la capacité des Etats-Unis à conserver leur learship mondial se décidait à l'intérieur. Etre capable de projeter sa puissance suppose d'abord de la reconstruire : assainissement des finances et redressement de l'économie du pays. L'un des grands sachems de la diplomatie américaine, Richard Haass, président de l'éminent Council on Foreign relations, publie ces jours-ci un livre au titre révélateur : Foreign Policy Begins at Home ("La politique étrangère commence à la maison", non traduit). On ne peut pas faire moins interventionniste.

Holder has decided that Eric Holder did nothing wrong; Eric Holder is free to go now

Eric Holder is routinely tasked with investigating his own shenanigans and routinely determines that everything is on the level 

writes Benjamin Duffy in a post entitled Eric Holder Invokes the Doofus Defense.

People accused of malfeasance aren’t usually tasked with investigating themselves for obvious reasons. The guy caught with his hand in the cookie jar has a tendency to conclude that the cookies are all present and accounted for.

Attorney General Eric Holder, on the other hand, is routinely tasked with investigating his own shenanigans and routinely determines that everything is on the level. Amidst the furor concerning the DOJ’s spying on Associated Press and FOX News journalists, President Obama ordered the formation of a panel to “review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters.” Heading up the panel will be AG Holder, hardly a disinterested party.

Apparently the DOJ investigates reporters for violations of the Espionage Act whom it never intends to prosecute. Either prosecuting Rosen was on the table or the investigation was a time-consuming fishing expedition pursued at great cost to the taxpayer. I suspect the former.

This is not the first time that America’s top law enforcement official has been caught telling fibs under oath and for the same purpose—so that he can feign ignorance about what happens in his own DOJ. His defense seems to be that he isn’t responsible for the department’s transgressions because he’s irresponsible and unaccountable. We’ll call this “the doofus defense.”

On May 3, 2011, he testified before Congress that he had only learned of Operation Fast and Furious, the ill-fated gunwalking scandal that placed American guns into the hands of Mexican mobsters, “for the first time in the past few weeks.” His testimony was contradicted by a July 2010 internal DOJ memo directed to Holder that outlined the program by name. Holder invoked the doofus defense, claiming that he doesn’t read many of his briefing memos.

But the memos kept coming.

 … Eric Holder has thus perjured himself on multiple occasions and never faced legal consequences. Obama’s AG is entirely above the law.

Not only is he entitled to lie but also to blow off congressional subpoenas. During the aforementioned Fast and Furious investigation, Holder was ordered to turn over documents relevant to the case. He initially refused, then backtracked. In hopes of staving off a contempt resolution, the AG promised to deliver them personally to Congressman Darrell Issa at a private meeting. When the day arrived, Holder delivered a briefing on the contents of the documents rather than the documents themselves. Congress then voted to find Holder in contempt, which he undoubtedly was.

   … Eric Holder has decided that Eric Holder did nothing wrong. Eric Holder is free to go now.

The man appointed to enforce the nation’s laws can’t be bothered to follow them himself. He spies on reporters and furnishes underworld figures with boatloads of guns, then lies under oath and stonewalls congressional investigators to cover his tracks. America’s top cop is a law unto himself, both untouchable and unashamed

The Life & Times of Queen Margrethe in Graphic Novel Format

Kristian Lindberg has an article in the Danish daily Berlingske Tidende about a new biography of Queen Margrethe II of Denmark in graphic novel format:

Dronning Margrethes liv bliver til en tegneserie

Af Kristian Lindberg
6. juni 2013, 17:00

7.000 fotografier er en del af researchen på Thierry Capezzones og Erik Svanes tegneserie om Dronningens vej til tronen – og tiden derefter.

I 2015 fejrer Danmark dronning Margrethes 75 års-fødselsdag, men allerede til næste år vil regenten blive hyldet med en tegneserie i to bind, der skildrer hendes liv fra fødsel til i dag.

Bag serien står to meget erfarne tegneserieskabere, nemlig den 49-årige herboende franske tegner Thierry Capezzone, der blandt andet står bag tegneserien om »H.C. Andersen Junior«, og den 45-årige danske manuskriptforfatter Erik Svane.

Tegneserien om dronning Margrethe bliver i to dele, hvor første del, med arbejdstitlen »Daisy«, blandt andet handler om hendes fødsel, kort efter at Tyskland besatte Danmark, uddannelsesårene i Cambridge, hendes deltagelse i arkæologiske ekspeditioner og hendes ægteskab med prins Henrik. Anden del handler om tiden efter hendes indsættelse som regent i 1972.

»Dronningens liv er som et eventyr, men vi vil gøre alt for at få alle de historiske detaljer gjort så korrekte som muligt,« siger Thierry Capezzone.

For tegneren er serien om dronning Margrethe et skridt væk fra den eventyrprægede stil, som han hidtil har været kendt for. Han har foreløbig tegnet fem album om »H.C. Andersen Junior«, hvori den unge digter oplever sine egne mystiske eventyr i datidens Odense og København. Disse album har solgt i flere oplag i Danmark, Norge og Frankrig.

Alt skal være korrekt

Manuskriptforfatter Erik Svane har i mange år været bosiddende i Paris og leveret manuskripter til den store franske og belgiske tegneseriebranche. Blandt hans tidligere projekter har været en såkaldt kontrafaktisk biografi om Leonardo da Vinci, hvor man forestiller sig, hvad der kunne være sket, hvis de historiske rammer havde været anderledes. Hvad angår dronning Margrethe er forbilledet dog klassiske biografiske film som »Gandhi«, hvor der ikke gås på kompromis med det faktuelle.

»Alt skal være korrekt, men vi laver ikke bare en opremsning af facts. Vi vil koncentrere os om de dramatiske afsnit af Dronningens liv,« siger Erik Svane.

En rød tråd i fortællingen vil være at beskrive, hvordan Dronningen gradvist finder sig til rette med de pligter, der følger med positionen som statsoverhoved.

»Det har ikke altid været lige sjovt, og jeg tror faktisk, at det er en af årsagerne til, at Dronningen og prins Henrik faldt for hinanden - de har begge kæmpet for at finde deres plads i systemet,« siger Erik Svane.

Som et led i sin research har forfatteren rejst rundt i Danmark og taget omkring 7.000 billeder af blandt andet rigets slotte, fotos som Thierry Capezzone skal holde sig til under udarbejdelsen af sine baggrundstegninger.

Ideen

Ideen til en tegneserie om dronning Margrethe begyndte, da Thierry bemærkede, at hans tegnestil var begyndt at udvikle sig i en mere realistisk retning end den tegnefilmsagtige stil, som hans serie »H.C. Andersen Junior« er holdt i.

»Noget, jeg godt kan lide at tegne, er 1940ernes bilmodeller, og derfor fyldte jeg gadescenerne fra besættelsestiden med biler. Erik påpegede dog, at der på grund af benzinrationeringen kun var få privatbiler i gaderne. Folk cyklede mest,« siger Thierry Capezzone.

På trods af sin franske baggrund er tegneren i øvrigt overbevist royalist.

»Hvis man sammenligner kongedømmerne Danmark, Holland og Storbritannien med det republikanske Frankrig, så føler jeg selv, at kongedømmerne er at foretrække som statsform. Jeg elsker kongehuset og vil gøre mit bedste for at behandle det med den respekt, det fortjener,« siger Thierry Capezzone.

Tegneren og forfatteren har indgået aftale om udgivelsen med tegneserieforlaget Cobolt, der udgiver klassikere som Tintin, Linda og Valentin og Smølferne. Og snart også albummerne om dronning Margrethe. Redaktør på Cobolt Carsten Søndergaard ser de kommende album som et vigtigt skridt for danske tegneserier.

»I Danmark bør vi tilstræbe at fortælle danske historier i stedet for at lave efterligninger af amerikanske eller franske tegneserier, og de tegnere, der har gjort det, har også haft succes med det, som for eksempel Claus Deleuran og Orla Clausen,« siger Carsten Søndergaard.

På hjemmesiden hc-junior.dk/wordpress vil man kunne følge Thierry Capezzones og Erik Svanes arbejde med tegneserien.

Many Men Won't See the Sun Set

…when it ends the longest day…

The story of D-Day.

From Instapundit:

REMEMBERING D-DAY.
And — as reader Eric Beeby notes — it’s always nice to remember D-Day with Patton’s Speech To The Third Army.

Pointing a Smoking Finger at the NRA

In a cartoon of exquisite subtlety, Le Monde's Selçuk points the smoking finger of a bloody hand at the gun lobby, the National Rifle Association

France and Its International Image: A nation for whom richness is more of a scandal than poverty

France has to deal with an international image little interested in the creation of riches and reputed for making life difficult for entrepreneurs and companies, writes Marion Van Renterghem in a two-page spread in Le Monde, and symbolized in foreign business circles by the red flag nicknamed 75%.

It's an old story: the economy does not play a part in France's founding myths. Go see the list of great men — including two women — who have lain in the Pantheon: they include writers, politicians, scientists, resistants, doctors, navigators, soldiers. Never a businessman, never an entrepreneur.

 … The gold rush, lionized in America, is not a French dream and those few Frenchmen who do so dream don't dare tell anybody about it. Rather than winning the West and dreams of success, we prefer arts, weapons, and laws.

 … It is the old story of a nation built by Catholicism and for whom, by contrast with Anglo-Saxon Protestants, richness is more of a scandal than poverty.

 … Says Philippe Lentschener … friend of Arnaud Montebourg and McCann group CEO: … "We are the developed country with the weakest economic personality. We glorify research and intellectual activities, but we drop the link with the money-oriented department. We invent the Minitel, the smart card, 50% of the electronics on the Curiosity robot, but it is the Americans who build Apple, the Koreans who build Samsung. The question is: where is it that our creativity gets lost?"

 … Abroad, France is described as an over-regulated country practicing the heaviest tax rates in the European Union, surtaxing success, where administrative procedures are Kafkaesque, where labor, productive but expensive, is linked to deference for its 35-hour rule, where the social climate is tense and where bosses are sequestered.

 … "When they speak of France, foreign buinessmen bring it down to two numbers," quips Alexis Karklins-Marchay of the Ernst ESPERLUETTE Young audit cabinet: "75 and 35."

 … Adds external commerce minister Nicole Bricq: "In Koweit, I was told: 'I will tell you who you Frenchmen are — you are excellent engineers and awful entrepreneurs."

More excerpts at Le Monde Watch

France "Is Positive" That Sarin Gas Has Been Used "Several Times" by Syria's Assad (aka Saddam Hussein's Neighbor)

France, which considered it a mark of honor to vilify, demonize, and/or ridicule America — or at least George W Bush — for having the audacity to "lie", claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), had just declared (write the BBC and Le Monde) that Syria (also known by its synonym as the neighbor of… Iraq) has… weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Related: Why castigate the U.S. for having intervened in Iraq for "no reason," given that Saddam had "no" WMD, while doing nothing in Syria now that Assad does have WMD?

The BBC:

France's foreign minister … Laurent Fabius said lab tests in Paris confirmed numerous uses of the nerve agent, adding that those who resort to chemical weapons must be punished.

But he did not specify where or when the agent had been deployed; the White House has said more proof was needed.

The UK also says it has tested samples which give evidence of the use of sarin in Syria.

According to a Foreign Office spokesman, Britain "has obtained physiological samples from inside Syria which have tested positive for the nerve agent sarin".

… UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon described the atrocities listed in the report - which details evidence of fresh suspected massacres, sieges and violations of children's rights - as "sickening and staggering", said his spokesman.

Children have been taken hostage, forced to watch torture and even participate in beheadings, says the report.

 … Mr Fabius said various samples taken from unspecified locations in Syria and tested in France showed the presence of sarin.

"There is no doubt that it's the regime and its accomplices" that were responsible, he told France 2 television in an interview.

Mr Fabius said the test results had been handed to the UN.

"All options are on the table," he added. "That means either we decide not to react or we decide to react including by armed actions targeting the place where the gas is stored."

The tests came after journalists for French newspaper Le Monde smuggled blood and urine samples out of Syria following what they believed were chemical attacks in the capital Damascus and the northern town of Saraqeb.

Sarin, an extremely potent chemical nerve agent, is colourless and odourless. The use of chemical weapons is banned by most countries.

 Le Monde:

Le ministre des affaires étrangères, Laurent Fabius, a assuré, mardi 4 juin, que, selon des analyses françaises, du gaz sarin a bien été utilisé "avec certitude à plusieurs reprises et de façon localisée" en Syrie.

Des soupçons sur l'utilisation d'armes chimiques en Syrie circulent depuis plusieurs mois. Mardi, la commission d'enquête de l'ONU sur le conflit a indiqué, sur la base d'entretiens avec des victimes, du personnel médical et d'autres témoins, qu'"il y a des motifs raisonnables de penser que des quantités limitées de produits chimiques ont été utilisées".

Les enquêteurs font état de quatre événements : à Khan Al-Assal près d'Alep le 19 mars, à Uteibah près de Damas le 19 mars, dans le quartier de Cheikh Maksoud à Alep 13 avril et dans la ville de Sarakeb le 29 avril.

Au cours de ces derniers mois, les envoyés spéciaux du Monde en Syrie ont pu être témoins d'attaques chimiques contre les rebelles. Notre photographe a filmé une attaque, a recueilli le témoignage des combattants et a rencontré des médecins qui ont soigné des victimes des gaz.

Lire : l'enquête du Monde au cœur de la guerre

UN GAZ INODORE, INCOLORE ET VOLATIL

Produit en quantités énormes par l'Union soviétique et les Etats-Unis après la seconde guerre mondiale, le gaz sarin est utilisé comme arme chimique. "La France conduisait des essais sur le terrain en Algérie, même pendant la guerre d'Algérie", indique John Hart. Il a été étiqueté comme arme de destruction massive par les Nations unies en 1991, par la résolution 687 (PDF).

Il fait partie des armes et munitions stockées par certains pays : la France, par exemple, en a immergé une certaine quantité, noyée dans du béton, au large d'Ouessant. En 1995, ce gaz a été utilisé lors d'un attentat dans le métro de Tokyo, au Japon, par la secte japonaise Aum, faisant 13 morts et plus de 6 000 blessés.

Substance inodore, incolore et volatile, il passe facilement la barrière des poumons et est absorbé par la peau, d'où il passe directement dans le sang. Quand il ne tue pas, il laisse de graves séquelles neurologiques. Le sarin attaque le système nerveux humain.

The left's unmistakable trend toward weaponizing the tax code

What the IRS was doing behind closed doors may soon be official policy in California

writes Benjamin Duffy in his post on conservatives Staring Down the Barrel of Weaponized Tax Code.

Last week, the State Senate voted to revoke the nonprofit status of any group within the state that does not allow full participation of homosexuals, a move aimed directly at the Boy Scouts of America. According to the Associated Press, the bill “would require those organizations to pay corporate taxes on donations, membership dues, camp fees and other sources of income, and to obtain sellers permits and pay sales taxes on food, beverages and homemade items sold at fundraisers.”   Groups that sponsor troops would also have their tax returns and membership policies scrutinized by the Franchise Tax Board, California’s version of the IRS.

If further proof was needed that the BSA’s partial surrender on the homosexual issue only emboldened their opponents, here it is. Compromise is not in the left’s vocabulary. Not until Dan Savage is taking your son camping will they be happy, and probably not even then.

The thread that connects California’s proposed tax policy with the IRS scandal of recent weeks is the unmistakable trend toward weaponizing the tax code. What was once a neutral instrument used for the purpose of collecting revenue for legitimate governmental functions is now employed to punish behavior that powerful people don’t like. Lois Lerner of IRS infamy had a concealed carry permit but the State of California is carrying theirs right out in the open.

The government can indeed punish citizens monetarily. Until recently, monetary punishments were called “fines” and they were extracted for offenses such as parking in front of a fire hydrant.

California cannot however, fine the Boy Scouts for their membership policy. Thirteen years ago the Boy Scouts fought and won a legal case called Boy Scouts v. Dale, which affirmed the organization’s right to freely associate. Private organizations are private and, as such, have the right to set their own membership requirements. Membership in a private club is not an equal rights issue.

Yet the totalitarian impulse of Left Coast liberals knows no bounds. What was once called a “fine” is now called a “tax” and is specifically targeted at ostracized groups such as the Boy Scouts, even if what they are doing has been upheld as constitutionally protected behavior by the Supreme Court. If the tax code were an “assault rifle,” the Boy Scouts would be looking down the barrel of it.

A fine by any other name is still a fine. Fines disguised as taxes that are used to punish constitutionally protected behavior are unconstitutional. It would be no different than having a free speech tax or a free exercise of religion tax, both of which the left would love, I’m sure.
 
 … The precedent is chilling. The tax code could be used to punish churches that don’t recognize same-sex marriages or prefer only male clergy. Religious organizations could be required to include atheists. Liberals should worry too. If California can point the muzzle of their tax code at the Boy Scouts for refusing to allow homosexual adult leaders, Arkansas can do the same thing because the BSA now permits homosexual youth. It would be just as wrong for socially conservative states to use their tax code to punish groups it doesn’t like. This one trend that’s bad for goose and gander alike.

Update: thanks to Instapundit for the link

French Chef Puts Crickets on Menu in Push to Use Insects as Food

French Chef Puts Crickets on Menu in Push to Use Insects as Food titles Bloomberg's Rudy Ruitenberg (thanks to RV who pointedly remarks: "But at least he'll be proud to anounce he will ferociously defend French cuisine tradition and never [imported] American junk food).

French chef David Faure says diners don’t complain about the crickets he started serving with his foie gras starter last month. Some say they wouldn’t mind more.

Faure, who runs the Michelin-starred restaurant Aphrodite in Nice, praises the popcorn flavor of crickets and the nutty tones that mealworms bring to his cod dish.

“I had this idea for several years, after travel to continents where it’s normal to eat insects,” the chef said by phone from his restaurant two days ago. “It’s really a question of taste.”

Faure says eating insects may soon be as normal in Western countries as having sushi. He may be onto something. The United Nations agency in charge of agriculture published a report today promoting insects as food, saying their benefits merit educating consumers in rich countries to help overcome their aversion to finding critters in their plate.

“Consumer disgust remains one of the largest barriers to the adoption of insects as viable sources of protein in many Western countries,” the UN’s Rome-based Food & Agriculture Organization said in the 201-page report promoting the practice known as entomophagy.

Insects are healthy and nutritious, convert feed more efficiently than livestock and produce less greenhouse gases than pigs and cattle, according to the agency. With 9 billion people expected on the planet by 2050, new ways of growing food are needed, the FAO wrote.

At least 2 billion people worldwide eat insects as part of their traditional diet, the FAO said. The practice hasn’t caught on in Europe nor in the U.S.

$76.50 Meal

Faure said his insect-themed “alternative foods” menu at 59 euros ($76.50), which also includes a desert with mealworms, may provide confidence to diners who want to try eating a little differently.

“People will continue to put a steak on the barbecue, but if from time to time people make this gesture, that can make a difference,” the chef said.

 … In Western societies, communication and education needs to address the “disgust factor,” it said.

“Some clients say it’s not cuisine or stupid things like that,” Faure said.

Preferring death to house-cleaning, William Brandol quit beating carpets in the yard of his house and went to an abandoned quarry to jump into the deep hole

From the International Herald Tribune's 100 Years Ago section:

1913 — Death Preferable to Cleaning

Preferring death to house-cleaning, William Brandol quit beating carpets in the yard of his house, at 16 Centre street, Nutley, N.J., a little before noon yesterday [May 12], and went to an abandoned quarry and prepared to jump into the deep hole. Brandol decided he would leave a note: — “Dear Wife, Farewell. I can’t beat carpets or clean house, and it ain’t no use of your trying to make me.” When he had finished the noon whistles were blowing, and this reminded Brandol that his wife was to have corned beef and cabbage for the noon meal. He decided that he liked corned beef and cabbage more than he disliked house-cleaning, so he placed the note in a cleft in the rocks, returned to the house and ate a tremendous quantity of his favorite delicacy.

What could have been......

The news this afternoon is certainly grim:

Another month, another 95,000 people lost their jobs in the eurozone.

The EMU unemployment rate nudged up a point to 12.2pc, but this understates those who have dropped out of workforce. The European Commission says the real rate for Italy is around 20pc, not the declared rate of 11.2pc.

There are now 19.4 million registered unemployed in Euroland and 26.6 million in the EU as a whole. There are 5.6m youths below the age of 25 looking for jobs.

By comparison, the US economy looks to be in absolute rude health. Would that be the case had US policy-makers been following the economic advice of the NYTs Paul Krugman, circa 2005:

Americans tend to believe that we do everything better than anyone else. That belief makes it hard for us to learn from others. For example, I've found that many people refuse to believe that Europe has anything to teach us about health care policy. After all, they say, how can Europeans be good at health care when their economies are such failures? 

Now, there's no reason a country can't have both an excellent health care system and a troubled economy (or vice versa). But are European economies really doing that badly? 
The answer is no. Americans are doing a lot of strutting these days, but a head-to-head comparison between the economies of the United States and Europe -- France, in particular -- shows that the big difference is in priorities, not performance. We're talking about two highly productive societies that have made a different tradeoff between work and family time. And there's a lot to be said for the French choice. 

First things first: given all the bad-mouthing the French receive, you may be surprised that I describe their society as ''productive.'' Yet according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, productivity in France -- G.D.P. per hour worked -- is actually a bit higher than in the United States. 

It's true that France's G.D.P. per person is well below that of the United States. But that's because French workers spend more time with their families. 

O.K., I'm oversimplifying a bit. There are several reasons why the French put in fewer hours of work per capita than we do. One is that some of the French would like to work, but can't: France's unemployment rate, which tends to run about four percentage points higher than the U.S. rate, is a real problem. Another is that many French citizens retire early. But the main story is that full-time French workers work shorter weeks and take more vacations than full-time American workers. 

The point is that to the extent that the French have less income than we do, it's mainly a matter of choice. And to see the consequences of that choice, let's ask how the situation of a typical middle-class family in France compares with that of its American counterpart. 

The French family, without question, has lower disposable income. This translates into lower personal consumption: a smaller car, a smaller house, less eating out. 
But there are compensations for this lower level of consumption. Because French schools are good across the country, the French family doesn't have to worry as much about getting its children into a good school district. Nor does the French family, with guaranteed access to excellent health care, have to worry about losing health insurance or being driven into bankruptcy by medical bills. 

Perhaps even more important, however, the members of that French family are compensated for their lower income with much more time together. Fully employed French workers average about seven weeks of paid vacation a year. In America, that figure is less than four.

So which society has made the better choice? 

I've been looking at a new study of international differences in working hours by Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser, at Harvard, and Bruce Sacerdote, at Dartmouth. The study's main point is that differences in government regulations, rather than culture (or taxes), explain why Europeans work less than Americans. 

But the study also suggests that in this case, government regulations actually allow people to make a desirable tradeoff -- to modestly lower income in return for more time with friends and family -- the kind of deal an individual would find hard to negotiate. The authors write: ''It is hard to obtain more vacation for yourself from your employer and even harder, if you do, to coordinate with all your friends to get the same deal and go on vacation together.'' 

And they even offer some statistical evidence that working fewer hours makes Europeans happier, despite the loss of potential income. 

It's not a definitive result, and as they note, the whole subject is ''politically charged.'' But let me make an observation: some of that political charge seems to have the wrong sign.

American conservatives despise European welfare states like France. Yet many of them stress the importance of ''family values.'' And whatever else you may say about French economic policies, they seem extremely supportive of the family as an institution. Senator Rick Santorum, are you reading this?

According to the latest statistics, Europeans are indeed working ever fewer hours these days, months, years. They must be absolutely ecstatic at the moment, what say you good doctor?

At the dawn of the 21st century, the military’s primary concern seems to be “diversity”, not winning wars

At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the military’s primary concern seems to be “diversity” with all of its hideous hydra heads, not winning wars

writes Iraq War veteran Benjamin Duffy in his post on Barack Obama's Recipe For A Weaker Military.

 The Pentagon continues to charge full speed ahead toward integration of women into combat roles by 2016. If you harbored any doubts that standards will be lowered in order to achieve the goal, rest assured that they will be.

Perhaps you’ve heard otherwise. In January, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told reporters,

”If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job — and let me be clear, I’m not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job — if they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed or color or gender or sexual orientation.”

Panetta summed up the classic argument in favor of allowing women to serve in combat roles: If standards remain the same, why shouldn’t a woman be allowed the opportunity to meet them? Good question, though I’d suggest that anyone who asks it doesn’t know the state of today’s military. This isn’t your daddy’s army, or even your older brother’s.

 … We now know that efforts to lower standards are already underway. The US Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is currently conducting a scientific review to determine gender-neutral physical standards for the co-ed combat units of the future. Why is a fancy study even necessary? Won’t women be expected to meet the same old standards that men always had to? Well, no. If that were the case no study would be needed to formulate new standards because they would simply apply the old ones.

The newly minted gender-neutral standards will likely fall somewhere between the current “gender-normed” separate standards of today’s military. … Combat effectiveness will thus suffer on two fronts—units will be forced to include both males and females who otherwise wouldn’t be qualified. The standards will be the same for both genders, only lower. If a woman is too weak to throw a grenade sufficiently far to avoid blowing herself up, that’s fine because a man who does the same will also pass. Equality is a wonderful thing.

How difficult it can be to explain this to people who think that the current policy is just petty sexism. Proponents of women in combat roles like to tug at our heart strings with emotional appeals to fairness, insisting that gobs of women who are both qualified and patriotic are simply not permitted to do the most for their country because male chauvinists won’t let them “try out for the team.”

The number of women who are truly qualified is probably paltry, hence the lower physical standards already in place across all services. Yes, a few exceptional superwomen may be able to make their male counterparts look like chumps. I met a handful of these women during my army years. The military will not however, formulate policy with only the top one tenth of one percent of womankind in mind.

The new policy of women in combat arms is not about allowing women the opportunity to meet the same standards; at least not the current standards. It’s about lowering the bar for both sexes, a recipe for a weaker fighting force.

Fast Food Accounts for 54% of Restaurant Sales in France

According to a recent survey on restaurants, the French prefer fast food to their fine cuisine.

Sacrebleu says Hervé as Time's Courtney Subramanian tells us that Fast Food Makes Up 54% of Restaurant Sales in France

As NPR reports, food consultancy firm Gira Conseil conducted its annual survey on restaurant spending in France and found that 54% of total sales belong to the likes of McDonald’s, Burger King and Subway. The new fan favorite increased 14% in consumption in the past year, shattering any notion that the French, known for world famous chefs and sophisticated palates, look down on the cheap and easy alternative to traditional restaurant dining.

McDonald’s racks up more than 1,200 locations in France, Subway has opened hundreds of stores in the past 10 years and Burger King, which shuttered its French locations 16 years ago, recently returned to the market.

An uncomfortable message for those who believe that Stalinism was an aberration or a reaction to mistakes made by the West

FIRST and foremost, Stalin was a communist, who believed that the sacred cause justified the most extreme measures

writes The Economist in its book review of Robert Gellately's Stalin’s Curse (Battling for Communism in War and Cold War):

what non-believers would call unparalleled barbarity. This central message in Robert Gellately’s masterly new book is an uncomfortable one for those who believe that Stalinism was an aberration, or a reaction to mistakes made by the West. It is facile to say Stalin was simply a psychopath, that he believed in terror for terror’s sake, or that the Red Tsar’s personality cult replaced ideology. A Leninist to his core, he was conspiratorial, lethal, cynical and utterly convinced of his own rightness.

Mr Gellately's latest work has a good claim to be the best single-volume account of the darkest period in Russian history. It is part of a crop of excellent new accounts of the era. It sits well with Timothy Snyder’s 2010 book, “Bloodlands” (about mass killings) and Anne Applebaum’s “Iron Curtain” (which deals with eastern Europe after 1944 and which came out last year). It is also a worthy successor to his “Lenin, Stalin, Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe” (2008), which compared and contrasted the three monsters.

Stalin’s supposed strategic genius gets short shrift, along with his generalship. Because
communist doctrine said all imperialists were equal, Stalin failed to see that the Western powers were not the same as Nazi Germany, and might even be useful allies against it. For all his paranoia and cynicism, the Soviet leader was determinedly friendly to Adolf Hitler, apparently believing that close ties with the Soviet Union made a Nazi attack less likely. But Hitler saw it the other way round: relying on Soviet imports endangered his long-term goal of destroying communism.

Where Stalin excelled, again and again, was in ruthlessness and attention to detail. … Communism probably killed around 25m: roughly the same toll of death and destruction as that wrought by the Nazis.

Aside from the chief villain, Western leaders too come in for quiet but deserved scorn.   Both Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman failed to grasp their counterpart’s malevolence. Winston Churchill made casual deals that consigned millions of people to slavery and torment. The foreigners thought Stalin was a curmudgeonly ally to be coaxed and cajoled. He treated them as enemies to be outwitted. Far from provoking Stalin into unnecessary hostility, the Western powers were not nearly tough enough.

Why castigate the U.S. for having intervened in Iraq for "no reason," given that Saddam had "no" WMD, while doing nothing in Syria now that Assad does have WMD?

Ah! what didn't we hear in 2003 when the question of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq arose!

remembers Lucien SA Oulahbib as he evokes the Western Contradictions Face to Face With Chamical Syria.

— Huh?! WMD in Iraq?! But how could you believe such nonsense?! —Uh ... didn't Saddam have such weapons for a time when using them against the Kurds and Iranians? Wasn't there at the time a henchman of Saddam's who was called Chemical Ali as he gassed right and left? — Perhaps! but that was before ...  — Before what?! ... — Before ... — So there had been WMD ... — yes, but "before" ... and "after" the first Gulf War Saddam had been disarmed… —But the stocks … what happened to them? Where did they go?…

In The Secret History of the Iraq War (2003, HarperCollins, p 54), Yossef Bodansky wrote that

Using their wide array of technical capabilities, US Intelligence tracked Iraqis as they used barges and other river craft, particularly in northwest Iraq near the Syrian Border, to transfer and store materials used in its WMD programs, laboratories, and technical facilities.

A type of bilateral aid between two neighbors that is completely understandable, given that Saddam and Assad (the elder Assad at the time) were players on the same team, the Ba'ath party, Nasser's spearhead of the famous "Arab nationalism", the term "nationalism" being accepted in the West without the slightest problem. It was even a subject of scholarly studies. There was obviously no talk at the time of any kind of "right-wing" movement, no, and some indeed even spoke of a progressive, secular party, yes truly they did...

— The ADM "never existed", repeats Pascal Boniface in the microphone of BFM Buziness on Monday, May 27, on the same day that a report from Le Monde testifies on the use of chemical weapons in... Syria, which contains an impressive arsenal. — And so? ... — The "red line" drawn by Obama (in person) has been reached, has it not?

Well no ... How come? ... Here we get into Molière with touches of Marivaux: the USA and the UK (Blair and Bush) were accused by all those principled souls, including Pascal Boniface, of having intervened in Iraq, that "secular republic", because of those WMD which "never existed" (at least not "after" their alleged "dismantling"), but now when they are clearly seen to exist in Syria, this changes exactly zilch, as Obama kicks the problem out of sight while Europe votes to lift the arms embargo. Something that doubles as good news for Hezbollah, which will soon be gaining an impressive war booty, as well as Hamas, which will be precipitating everyone, including Israel and Iran, into bloody conflict. Egypt is not far away, especially if the war can be a way to address its growing socio-economic problems ...

However, why castigate the U.S. and the UK for having intervened in Iraq for "no reason", given that Saddam had "no" WMD, while doing nothing in Syria now that Assad does have WMD?

Moreover, the vehement howls of protests of some, speaking of lies and manipulation etc, were based on the premise that if there indeed were WMD, then yes the war would have been legitimate, but they were required to be present, absolutely, it was really the sine qua non! Except that now WMD are present, they are definitely present, and the West's eyes turn in another direction, the voices demand more "proof" etc ... especially on the U.S. side ... In addition, Roland Garros has just opened, plus Cameron's Ibiza holidays had to be canceled two days after the videotaped assassination of a soldier in the name of Islam which had nothing to do with Islam, according to the same Cameron who was not known to be an expert or a Ph.D. in Islamic studies. Islam which is being torn asunder in Syria while nobody can say who, between Assad and his enemies, is the most Muslim, especially given that the so-called "secular" Baathism never was meant to refer to atheism, since Arabic socialism never considered the original Islam as being in any way a foreign entity.

So chemical weapons exist, the Le Monde journalists have even seen them in action. And that's all, folks. End of story. Please welcome Realpolitik. Obama has too much to do in Asia. For ten years, Bush and Blair have been dragged through the mud, insulted, demonized. Some even accused them of having instigated the current war between Sunnis and Shiites, as if it had never existed before, and as if the division between Sunni and Shia was a "Bushist" creation. One feels like howling with laughter at such nonsense worthy of Canal +'s Grand Journal, RTL's On Refait le Monde, and all these programs licking the boots of public service media, as typified by Charles Enderlin and his obstinacy in making people believe that the child Mohamed al-Durrah was killed by "Israeli" bullets while in truth, he has no way of knowing (and Philippe Karsenty proved otherwise, highlighting the new Dreyfus affair as it has been dubbed by S. Trigano).

In short, mountains of rubbish have been written and continue to be written. Meanwhile, the Iraqi Kurds have escaped the clutches of Arab progressivism and Syrian Kurds are following in their steps, while waiting for the Turkish Kurds and Iranian Kurds ... The Medes' ancient empire is recovering, regenerating ... When will it finally be France's turn to wake up?

Update: France "Is Positive" That Sarin Gas Has Been Used "Several Times" by Syria's Assad (aka Saddam Hussein's Neighbor)

Why must Republicans be targeted when a scandal, or three in this case, hits a Democratic president?

In a twinkling [Barack Obama] has gone from a weakling Jimmy Carter to a modern-day George III

writes The Economist's Lexington as he compares the Benghazi scandal to the IRS scandal, suggesting Republicans are opportunists.

    Why must Republicans be targeted when a scandal, or three in this case, hits a Democratic president?  Were Democrats painted as opportunists, enraged or other, during Watergate and the Valerie Plame affair (no deaths in either)?  Were Democrats described as playing politics?

    Lexington claims (Notes on three scandals, May 18) that it was a "dizzying turnaround" to go from depicting Barack Obama as "a weakling Jimmy Carter" in the Benghazi scandal to "a modern-day George III" in regards to the IRS misconduct.

    The two positions are not incompatible, however, far from it.  Au contraire.  In the opinion of people on the right, Barack Obama is one more leftist who believes in the fairy tale that America, and the West, have no international enemies — none, at least, that are not of their own invention.  America, it turns out, is its own worst enemy.

    To the left, therefore, a good leader is someone who ignores or minimizes the misdeeds of foreign countries and who, with the simple power of the word, can heal the world — exactly as Obama has done with such states as Russia and China (conveniently ignoring such things as the imprisonment of opposition leaders, the killings of reporters, the delivery of missiles to Syria, saber-rattling in the China Sea, etc).  All the while taking on the clueless traditionalists at home.  Better yet, he is one who travels to countries around the world to apologize for America and the West.

    After the Arab Spring (for which George W Bush and his overthrow of Saddam Hussein get not an iota of recognition) and after Ben Laden's demise (all the work indubitably of one Barack Obama), we were told that, thanks to "smart" diplomacy, the newly-"democratized" Arab states were now our friends as well, that Al Qaeda had been defeated, and that terror was a thing of the past.

    When the phone call for help came from Benghazi, therefore, it proved the unthinkable — that the leftist fairy tale was defective — and the reaction of the apologizer-in-chief and his White House was first to freeze and later (I am being generous here) to twist the truth.

    Moreover, the camaraderie that the apologizer-in-chief seems to enjoy with foreign leaders, from elected leaders to autocrats, does not seem to be mirrored in his relations with Americans who don't believe in the same avant-garde dreams that he he does.

    Indeed, in this New Age mantra, as it happens, it is not true that there are no enemies; there is one exception — those in America (and in the West) who are so reactionary as to believe in enemies and to see through the other fairy tales — notably economic — of the left.

    And the voices of these (conservative) Americans must be silenced, minimized, or ridiculed, insofar as possible, and if these people can't be silenced, they must be dealt with ruthlessly.  And so it was that in this atmosphere, the operatives of IRS knew what targets to pick.

    Thus it is that Obama appears — quite consistently — as a weakling abroad while a tyrant at home (they are two sides of the same coin), which in turn explains why he is described as someone who bears no love for his country, or for his countrymen, or rather for those countrymen who aren't sophisticated enough to subscribe to the left's self-serving fairy tales.


From The Economist's Lexington column:

Republicans have duly pounced, and in doing so executed a neat pivot away from their Benghazi rage. In essence, the real charge driving their Benghazi scandal was one of dereliction of duty, and the insinuation that Mr Obama is too weak (or does not love his country enough) to use American might to keep his own envoys safe. Now Republicans have begun calling him a tyrant, willing to use government power to crush freedoms crafted by the founding fathers. In a twinkling he has gone from a weakling Jimmy Carter to a modern-day George III.
 
That may be a dizzying turnaround, but it makes political sense. The IRS row is, at a minimum, a gift to Republicans ahead of 2014 mid-term elections, while the AP row deals a double blow to a president who has disappointed supporters over civil liberties before, and suffers from chilly relations with the press.

More broadly, calling Democrats weak on national security used to be a vote-winner. Two costly wars have altered that. This may be the first lesson of the scandals now lapping at the White House door. Spend months attacking Mr Obama for using America’s might too cautiously, as in Libya, and he shrugs it off. Attack him for government overreach, and he is on the defensive. For supporters of an activist government, these are perilous times.

During the 2008 campaign five years ago, Lexington compared one of the candidates to Tricky Dick; but it was not Barack Obama…

More Leftist Civility Lesson-Giving: “We’ll all celebrate Maggie ’Cause it’s one day closer to your death”

In another New York Times item about the Iron Lady, Jennifer Schuessler shows again how the demand for civility is one-sided.

“The lady’s not for turning,” Margaret Thatcher famously said in an early speech. But almost from the moment she moved into 10 Downing Street in 1979, Mrs. Thatcher, who died on Monday at 87, was most definitely for filming, recording, and generally excoriating by British artists and writers who saw a rich target in her stiff-necked conservative politics and stiffer coiffure.

From the beginning, some of the toughest depictions came from musicians. Opposition to her free-market ideology infused albums like Gang of Four’s 1979 “Entertainment!” and, in the same year, the Clash EP “Cost of Living,” the cover of which Joe Strummer reportedly wanted to include a collage featuring Mrs. Thatcher’s face and a swastika. … In 1985 Billy Bragg, Paul Weller, Kirsty McColl and other musicians founded Red Wedge, a collective aimed at forcing her to do just that.

When that effort failed, some turned to dark fantasies. In “Margaret on the Guillotine” (1988), Morrissey trilled “People like you/Make me feel so tired/ When will you die?” Elvis Costello, in “Tramp the Dirt Down” (1989), promised “When they finally put you in the ground/I’ll stand on your grave and tramp the dirt down.”

… Onstage Mrs. Thatcher’s presence was felt in the West End as early as 1981, when she and her husband, Denis, once spent an awkward evening at the farce “Anyone for Denis?” She received acid portrayals in plays by Alan Ayckbourn, David Hare and Peter Morgan, whose new play, “The Audience,” about Queen Elizabeth II’s meetings with her prime ministers, has drawn some criticism for its depiction of Mrs. Thatcher as a combative, racial-epithet-slinging vulgarian at frequent odds with the queen. (“What is it about the left that it attracts so many contemptible, vicious and anti-social people these days?” Lord Tebbit, one of her former cabinet ministers, said to The Telegraph.)

The news of her death hardly seems to be softening the portrayals. Tonight’s performance of “Billy Elliot,” according to a press representative, will include the usual rendition of “Merry Christmas, Maggie Thatcher,” which includes the verse “We’ll all celebrate/’Cause it’s one day closer to your death.”