The world’s most tiresome pol is evidently no Clinton on TV. His time might have been better spent picking up a hose.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
Most of the 20 dead (including 10 children, numbers continuing to rise) were African immigrants, not French.
I’m not sure if that should make your little jest more hilarious or less…
Kenneth Timmerman’s “The French Betrayal of America” is not kind to Chirac. The title misleads; the book is a juxtaposition of the savvy, beneficial, tho testy, French American relationship under Mitterand contrasted to its complete implosion under Chirac. The fact driven Timmerman tho not a smooth wordsmith but his story line and revelations fascinate. Beyond the obvious questions about Chirac’s intergrity, his ploys, schemes and posturing have not been in the best interests of France. The probablity of a French rejection of the EU Constitution will weaken him and make him exceedingly vulnerable to the cagey Nicholas Sarkozy.
Jedrury,
You got me thinking to the good old days with Mitterand. After 9.11 I’m guessing he would’ve have laid low or waited for a chance to make common cause on his/France’s terms, say in Lebanon, and France’s influence would be spreading and I’d be drinking a heck of a lot more French wine. Bush was Chirac’s Waterloo, DeVillepin his ( ) (someone with knowledge of French history fill in the blank). I always thought Shakespeare kind of laid it on a bit thick in the scene of the French waiting for daybreak, bragging and convinced of victory, before the battle of Agincourt in Henry 5. Chirac and DeVillepin have convinced me otherwise.
I especially liked this from the NYT: “Mr. Chirac appeared before an audience of randomly picked, but carefully screened people, ages 18 to 30.” Huh. After careful screening I always thought the randomly picked part kind of loses its oomph.
Bush was Chirac’s Waterloo, DeVillepin his ( )
(Boy-toy?)
a4g,
I was thinking of some general of Napoleon’s who helped lose Waterloo, but Boy-toy has a certain logic to it.
Roger;
I wonder if the no to europe campaign in the UK will pick up on the Chirac battle cry to diminish the anglo-saxon influence in the world. Hopefully they will pick up on Chirac’s “Shut up, we will deal with it, don’t worry your stupid little minds on things you do not understand” attitude. Peter, where are you?
Yama:
Bush was Chirac’s Waterloo, DeVillepin his ( )??
I guess that would be Marshall Grouchy, who wandered off with a quarter of the army and allowed the Ango-Prussians to reconcentrate and crush Boney.
Thanks Vegetius.
Definitely not a name on the tip of my tongue. Off topic, do you have any suggestions about what to read if I wanted to become informed about Waterloo (the Battle of Jena is also of interest to me).
Even state-run France2 news was lukewarm on the idea, before the program aired. Going by the press, it must have really been a doozy (article in French): “Chirac played deaf”.
According to the Beeb, the other day Libération was saying,
“A single word” from Jacques Chirac this evening “will ensure a referendum victory for the Yes camp,” the paper says.
All he has to do is to answer Yes himself if asked whether he will resign if the French accept the constitution, it suggests, adding that left-wing voters would be won over immediately.
“He would earn himself a place in the history books… [as] the man who sacrificed himself to make Europe triumph”.
Since being in office is the only thing keeping Jacques from prosecution, when Libération says sacrifice, they really mean sacrifice
Yama: So much good journalism and history does not get translated from French to English. So we miss it here in the States. But, my point is to get beyond the quite deserved Chirac bashing and consider his place in French history.
Mitterand truly fascinates; his political life was a ballet swinging from accusations of colloboration to socialism [he came to power as a socialist], but the ultimate pragmatist and survivor.
Chirac’s past as mayor of Paris is marked by corruption; Timmerman accuses him of acting while out of office as a lobbyist for Iraq.
His decisions in 2003 as a lead up to the Iraq War were arrogant and at odds with Mitterand’s pragmatism and realpolitik as to shock. He and de Villepin sounded so out of touch with the reality of the times and the inevitablity of the politics of the moment. They were so obviously out of touch with the intentions of the Americans. I am still puzzled and flabbergasted.
Well said Jedrury.
I think back to the G-7 meeting in Williamsburg when Mitterand, after a little gentle prodding from Nakasone, signed on to Reagan’s early, but critical, steps towards calling the Soviet Union’s bluff. I’m not a fan of Mitterands, but I think he deserves fans. As for Chirac/deVillepin, I just wish Burke were still around to have at them.
Yama:
David Chandler’s “Campaigns of Napoleon” is supposed to be the best single volume on the
Corsican’s wars. Unfortunately, it usually costs about $75!!!! I have one more kid to get through
college before I can get my copy.
Yours,
Veg
“Bush is Chirac’s Wellington,
De Villepin, his Napoleon.”
But, “Anglo-Saxon” peril? He hasn’t even made it to 1066 yet, much less 1815. The article puts him selling an EU “Yes, Sir!” in front of young folks saying “No, man!”…So to beat ‘Anglo-Saxons’, he needs a NO MAN CONQUEST! (ugh, shameless)
Yama, wrt “audience of randomly picked, but carefully screened people, ages 18 to 30” maybe the ‘random pick’ was “Earthlings”?
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I’m sufficiently cynical that I’m still expecting the constitution to carry–the French government has options for encouraging a high turnout that aren’t available in the U.S., and vote fraud isn’t a uniquely American specialty–but a lukewarm “oui” vote might well serve pour encourager les autres elsewhere in Europe. The concept of Europe as a genuinely integrated quasi-nation-state has had problems from the start, but the three issues of a non-competitive economy, demographic collapse, and unassimilable immigration may prove to be its undoing.
On the upside,a loss on the EU constitution would destroy what little remains of Chirac’s credibility as a leader. I don’t follow French politics that closely, but Sarkozy seems to be an adroit, pragmatic politician with far less ethical baggage than Chirac. He’d probably be a major improvement over the present government, both at home and abroad.
Thanks for the title Vegetius, given the expense, maybe we can share a volume. Or take up a collection.
And as usual Buddy has brought me a chuckle, three or four in fact, and though I don’t consider myself having been given the power to judge, nevertheless, I declare him the winner of the fill in the blank contest. (Actually some deft combination of all three entries is my real preference, but I’m too slow, and not shameless enough, to figure out how it can be done.)
What a delightful mess.
France’s age old hatred of the dreaded Bosche, and the Anglo Saxon disdain for both.
I’m quite encouraged. The French are a proud and brave race. Never forget Verdun. Perhaps, they’ll throw of their socialist and islamofascist chains.
Mssr. Chirac, and your top-heavy EU,
At Waterloo is where we all see you;
you can blame Anglo-Saxons,
and create distractions,
But the problem is you and your milieu.
Yama:
I just returned from Paris.It may be safe to say that in a country which seems to stay with its lead politicians for a long time, a new generation of politicians is coming to the fore. Adroit political moves have come from Sarkozy and maybe the French voter will recognize this when it comes time to vote on Chirac and move to a new generation of leaders.
France is a highly effective blend of free enterprise and governmental involvement with an real element of corruption/favortism added in.
Example: Charles DeGaulle Airport is an advanced successful international airport gaining market share from Heathrow and Frankfort. It may be the leading European gateway. Air France is major international air carrier which is unusually profitable at this time because of talented leadership. Airbus, based in Toulouse, is the world’s leading manufacturer of passenger air transports. These are a few of the apparent successes; the point being, new political leaders have a good foundation to build on.
Then why such gauche moves in the lead up to the war in Iraq? As I said earlier, I am perplexed. I am dissatisfied with answering my own question by saying that it is the arrogance of Chirac/de Villepin but that’s what I am left with.
There once was a Frenchman named Jacque,
Whose coup quite resembled a block.
He said with disdain,
the Yanks are a pain
And the war against Saddam’s a crock.
Jedrury,
I don’t have any answers for you, and I agree with you and Old Dad, or at least the vibe I’m getting, that is to say deep down I like France and wish it all the best, and sincerely hope it is turning a corner. I think Bush’s reelection was important not only for getting the job done in Iraq and girding up the possibilities in places like Lebanon, but also for Europe, and especially old Europe. Not to mention Asia. Chirac and Schroeder bet everything on Bush losing. He won and they lost. The French people are also primed for a revolution. Or an update. After all isn’t it due, this is France is it not? But France is a tough cookie, you can’t have a revolution like theirs and then Napoleon, and not, as a result, have a combination of corruption and egomania, and worst of all bad judgment, like in the present form of Chirac/deVillepin, come around every so often. 9.11 presented them with what they thought was the opportunity to accomplish the post-war goal, courtesy of DeGaulle and a few intellectuals, of creating a Latin empire, and better yet, on top of that a united Europe, both centered on France. Heady stuff. I don’t blame them for giving it a shot. In the end they lost this battle because they misunderestimated Bush and the Americans who re-elected him. (In my opinion.) I hope before they add insult to injury, on our beloved France, for instance by selling China weapons, the French come to their senses and kick the bums out. I’m looking forward to where leaders like Sarkozy might take all this after that, and am hoping that some real French intellectuals emerge to tickle the world’s fancy once again. But I am not hopeful.
Other nations such as Russia and China opposed the Iraq War, but pretty much let it lie there. Chirac has gone out of his way to oppose the US, constantly, from lobbying Turkey to NOT let US troops transit the country into Iraq’s north, to his speech in Vietnam urging a “United Front” to oppose US culture, language, and commerce.
He has not just opposed the War in Iraq, but has been the forefront of opposition to pretty much everything American.
Why? What does he gain from this enourmous gamble, which seems VERY risky with little payoff?
Objectively, his actions make very little sense as he and his financial backers stand to lose more than they gain by opposing the US every step of the way.
There once was an old Jacques of France
who took an anti-American stance,
He trumpeted everything gallic
pushing a policy phallic
whilst ignoring helpful ads to enhance.
Why is Chirac getting a pass on his blatent racist comment?
“Europe needs to be strong and organised if it is to stand up with social and humane values in a world dominated by Anglo-Saxon style free-market economics and open market”
The implication is clear,Anglo-Saxons do not have humane social values,this is hate speech,somewhere in the ripe mound of ordure that is EU legislation there is a law against this.It is about time the old mountebank retired to Devils Island to re-write Papillon.
Peter,
Don’t charge him – just put his quote on billboards all over the UK and the Netherlands. Next to a picture of Tony standing between Jacque and W. That ought to do it.
The irony of Chirac’s anti-Americanism is that he was seen as very pro-American as French politicians go. He even lived in the US for a while and supposedly almost married a Charleston, SC belle (both their families opposed it).
Had things turned out a little differently, Chirac probably would be a regular on Food Network extolling the virues of the fine French cusine of Chraleston!
Well of course he’s all frog-frantic phallic
can’t even sell his vine alcoholic;
those lies he told Colin
didn’t stop the tanks rollin’,
now he’s faded, and merely symbolic.
Roger:
“Bush was Chirac’s Waterloo,DeVillepin his ?
DiVillepin his Citizen Genet.
Why oppose the US, because Chirac is a crook, with a capital C. Chirac was up to his neck in oil for food, plus we have the web of connections which reaches all the way into the current government of canada. With the freeing of Iraq, all of M. Chirac dirty dealing would come to light. Follow the money, follow, the, money.
“Europe needs to be strong and organised if it is to stand up with social and humane values in a world dominated by Anglo-Saxon style free-market economics and open market”
I have no idea how someone could say something so stupid. The questions surrounding economic theory transcend the classifications of race, nationality, gender, etc. The only thing that matters is whether they are sensible.
ìThe French people are also primed for a revolution. Or an update. After all isn’t it due, this is France is it not?î
The original French Revolution was one of the greatest tragedies recorded in human history. Everyone should read Edmund Burkeís writings concerning why he defended the American Revolution—and condemned the French attempt at a new political order. The French will not be able to get their act together until they have officially condemned their ignoble revolution. A tacit renunciation is probably not good enough.
I don’t believe Burke ever defended the American Revolution. He did defend the rights of American subjects quite vociferously prior to the revolution and condemned Lord North (although not King George) quite strenuously.
He expressd his views on the French revolution in ‘Reflections on the Revolution in France’. I doubt that he would be at all surprised by the actions of Chirac. French perfidy has never surprised an Englishman.
yeh…adjusted for population, i’d guess that the French Revolution emulated in the here and now, would have a small group of leftist intellectuals huddled in DC poring over IRS returns, then sending for about 500,000 Americans of their choice to be arrested, brought to town and guillotined. What would the NYTimes say to THAT?
Wonder where all that broken-chain-of-custody property went, back in Revolutionary France? Let me guess.
The French Revolution was a quite disgusting affair,the guillotine had to be stilled because there was so much blood running through the streets the Parisians complained.Republican weddings were the mocking name given to the execution of close relatives drowned after they were induced to copulate,prisoners were pushed out of prison for the mob to hack to pieces.They killed a King and gained an Emperor who left the mouldering corpses of his 500,000 strong Grande Armie lying in the frozen wastes of Russia whilst he rode back to France.Any country which is proud of shit like that has a problem.
Buddy:
“what would the NY Times say to THAT”
The Times would prattle on about the tree of revolution needing to be watered by blood now and then. Paul Krugman would list the financial crimes of the arrested people and calculate how many people their actions killed so the death penalty for them is overdue. Mo Dowd would list the theocratic crimes of the counter revolutionaries and that their repression of women justified their losing their heads. In fact the guillotine is mercifull after what these bible thumpers have put our nation thru.The editorial page would justify the “temporary” suspension of the bill of rights because of the necesity of cleansing the nation of wrong thinking people. The academic world would say that their new bill of rights, all 4000 pages of it, would be out soon and would bypass the normal ratification process because the great unwashed lumpen proletariat has not progressed far enough in their revolutionary thinking to pass judgement on their august ramblings. The Times would also recommend that all church buildings be stripped of their religous markings and be given over to the state to be used for needle exchange and re-education camps.
This of course is just a guess.
The priests didn’t get the steel, they got rowed out into the Seine, tied up face-to-face and dumped overboard. Later, seeing the empty-place where the religious calendar had been, they invented a new calendar, and–when that still left the people non-plussed on Christmas and Easter–the Committee of Citizens (the little gang of Boss Intellectuals running the show) invented elaborate new festivals, replete with Robespierre dressing up Jesus-like and leading Easter parades.
Kevin P; scary, really scary, because, ya know, those people you named, they’re already nut jobs…who knows where the boundaries would be, if they got to set them?
Merde! Wot’s dat dumbwit t’inkin’? ‘E’s shot ‘isself in de butt! Merci, Jacques!
There once was a cad named Chirac
who left Lady Liberty in the French-Yank sack
He preferred exotic bad men
like il Jong, Hu, and Sean Penn
A pity about his close “friend” in Iraq…
Veg, here: is Chandler for $53. They’ve got some third-party ones too.
Oui/Non.
Who cares?
Personally,I would pay good money to see Chirac humiliated by a rejection of the proposed Constitution.But that is the only reason why it matters to me.Is it not a 70,000 word document by commitee,that attempts in the usual European manner to regulate everything that moves,and has it not already been watered down to overcome that nasty ‘Anglo-Saxon’competitiveness?
And the Constitutional opposition in France is hardly the stuff of revolutions or even meaningful reform.From what I can gather it is primarily based in equal measure in Leftist delusions of a ‘socialist’paradise,and the usual French chauvanism.Horrors,France might not be the big fish in a small pond anymore.It might devolve into its true state,namely that of a small fish in a still relatively smallish pond.I don’t think the French could adjust.
As was said during the Iran/Iraq War;Its unfortunate that they both can’t lose.Anything that distresses La Belle France,can’t be all bad,can it?
jedrury: Effective? The airport? Have you forgotten this!?
Corruption reigns. Despite talk of revolution, the ancien regime never left.
But France’s Iraq blunder remains a mystery. Dan Darling looks for an explanation, without much success…
Vegetius, Yama-Arashi ó I would have gone with Marshal Ney, who wasted regiment after regiment in futile charges. Grouchy was wandering around because he could never get a clear instruction out of Napoleon.
JedRury ó Yup, the Airbus, best plane today trying to fly without a tail assembly… but hey, it’s a bargain.
Ney at Waterloo reminds me of Longstreet at Gettysburg. Not that Longstreet wasted troops…but Ney’s earlier, lead-up ‘slowness’ and truculent hesitancy sort of analogs Longstreet’s lead-up truculent ‘slowness’in developing late the attack on Little Round Top…the key to the battle, which led later to Pickett’s disaster. Which resembles the waste of the whatchacallit French bearskin-hats, whose break became the break of the entire French army. Lee of course never broke, but he did have to beat it out of Pennsylvania.
Someone and Richard:
Thanks for the very interesting cut to Winds of Change.
I did not forget the collapse of the terminal when I expressed my opinion. In fact, I considered it. The complete terminal is being replaced not just the collapsed section.
Design flaws exist; e.g., yesterday’s revelation of Amtrak and its design flaws with its braking system, WTC design flaws, etc, etc. ADP, Paris’ airport authroity’s acknowledgement of their existence and the wholesale repair evidences a society’s efforts to match style with functionality along with a dogged determination to make the terminal safe. Any advanced society will undertake this effort for its people.
Richard: I am clueless to the import of your comment about Airbus’ tail less aircraft.
Reminded me of this piece by James Dunnigan, “How NOT to build an Aircraft Carrier“.
Napoleon’s collosal defeat in the Russian Campaign should not be forgotten the French Army was never the same again.
BTW,our valliant British architects have been designing building from which bits drop off,for the French for some time.
Jedrury ó Airbus planes have been having some serious safety problems…
Richard:
Thanks. I don’t opine about the Airbus’ safety probems – A318, 319, 320, 321 (?). I do say that Airbus is the largest manufacturer of commercial aircraft in the world. The recent dust off between the US and EU over developmental subsidies is as much a battle for marketplace dominance as it is between governments. But that is a whole different subject. Thanks again.
Milwaukee library Countycat lists several copies of the Campaigns of Napoleon, along with 19 other books by Chandler. If your local system does not have as good a collection (most don’t; I once checked out a book about Zizka published in 1879) you could try inter-library loan.