Grouchy Old Cripple in Atlanta points out the new French Homeland Security Alert System. We recently moved from "RUN" to "HIDE."

We're not really in danger until the alert moves to "SURRENDER," but once it hits "COLLABORATE" you know that the terrorists are about to attack.

Aren't we supposed to "collaborate" after the terrorists attack? I'm confused.

ha I agree with Zoomer. Collaborate is the Default position for France. It should correspond with a green alert in America.

You know times are bad when even the terrorists go on strike in France. - Could AZF be pranking you for April Fools day?

US Green Alert: everything's OK, keep stuffing yourselves!

US red alert: holy shit, let's bomb Afghan mountains, these rocks are evil.

French Red Alert: "We bribed them, we helped them kill Americans, we tried to give them nuclear weapons, we protected them, we lied for them, why do they still want to kill us?"

drive-by, you can do better than this! i know that, c'mon buddy!

look at this one

french red alert: vive les usa, our liberator!

"We helped them kill Americans"

Another wishful thinking from drive-by shooter. You're sinking lower and lower amigo.

You're sinking lower and lower amigo.

Sorry, I tried to be on your level. So I guess I will offer you my reasoning on that one.

France would not stand beside the US when we demanded that Saddam step down, he thought that France could save him, making a war necessary that might have been avoided.

Maybe I should have said Europe, since many of those hijackers were living on the dole in Europe while hatching their plot against the US. Germany especially, which staged a fake hijacking to let go the terrorists in Munich in '72, apparently in exchange for the terrorists agreeing to attack other countries, and only using Germany for a base.

All right, I takc it back, but you guys have to keep up your end here too.

Since you said "another" wishful thinking, please point out one of the other ones with your reasons why it was wrong. I would be happy to defend just about anything I say here.

You're wrong in implying constantly that France is working against the US on Iraq when your overthrow better work for the interest of everyone. I really hope for peace and stability.

Please remind everyone the reason you wanted Saddam to step down. Don't blame the French for not rushing into your own bluff and down-spiralling with you into the kind of nightmare we just saw on TV. You know we've seen that kind of shit before, in Vietnam and Algeria. And are you that gullible to think Saddam would have stepped down with France's pressure? You wanted Saddam's head right away, you got it. "DEAD OR ALIVE".

... wait a minute, that was Bin Laden.

oh Zoomerx, don't take the high road with us. You frogs were sooooo wrapped up in the "Oil for Fraud" UN program is what kept you out of Iraq.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah zoomer, a quick survey of the evidence will show why Chirac wanted to inflict "Saddam plus sanctions" on the Iraqi people.

If France's hands were clean of filthy lucre, you might have more authority on the subject, but since you asked my to remind you again, how about reading this article by leftist Christopher Hitchens.

Falluja

Bottom line is that I know you have the overwhelming urge to surrender, but this is what we have to face to make a better world, and what we were afraid to face a decade ago, at a great cost in human life and suffering.

And are you that gullible to think Saddam would have stepped down with France's pressure?

So you had another practical option short of war? Or do you think we should have left the Iraqis to the torture rooms and mass graves, and their terrorism training camps? Continued the sanctions so that the innocent suffered while Saddam lived well anyway? Which is it, what other solution did you have that had a better chance of working than a united front or war?

You wanted Saddam's head right away, you got it.

This is why we think you frogs are stupid. This too is subtle and I don't expect you to understand it. If we sent any other signal to Saddam than step down or be taken down, it would never have worked. You recieved the same message that Saddam recieved from the US. That we meant what we said. If we had secretly told France, "Don't worry, we are just kidding, you go along with us an maybe we can scare him", well, let's just say that the US cannot trust France at that level.

Someday, perhaps sometime soon, perhaps sometime in the distant future, war and destruction will revisit the whole of Europe including France. This fate will either be thrust upon you, or possibly you will instigate it yourselves out of a perceived or actual threat. One can believe or hope otherwise, but it is inevitable. This is a simple matter of history repeating itself at some point. To deny it is to ignore the cycle of human events since time immemorial. When this day comes will any stand beside you? Will there be any who rise to your defense? Or shall you be abandoned by all, to suffer your fate alone? The choices one makes today determine one's future. Choose carefully. Choose wisely.

Here's a goody. I think it should be posted.

France Lied to U.S. During Iraq Crisis By our old friend Timmerman.

OK first it was the French-made WMD's, that didn't work. Now it's the Oil for Food case. You got us by the balls on this one. Btw, it is being investigated in France. Halliburton's "cash for food" anyone? Talk about greedy bastards!

you have the overwhelming urge to surrender

One more dumb stereotype and I'm going to puke. Do they teach you History beyond 1940 in the US?

Nice words MB, and I don't necessarly disagree. But again were you "imminently" threatened by Irak's WMD? Were Irakis behind 9/11? Is the world safer from terrorism now? 3 out of 5 Yanks beleive so, that's pretty frightening and it's no wonder you hate us, thanks Dumbya.

Were Irakis behind 9/11

So we have to have a signed reciept from bin Laden to Saddam for the specific attack on 9-11. The first attempt at mass murder at the trade center doesn't count? Just answer the question.

Does the first attack in '93 on the world trade center count as an act of war against the US?

One more dumb stereotype and I'm going to puke

You said before:

You know we've seen that kind of shit before, in Vietnam and Algeria.

If that is not surrender talk, it is sure defeatist. I leave it to others to judge whether I just pulled that stereotype out of a hat or you suggested it with your logique.

I know you won't answer the question. Not your style. If you get involved in too many real-world details you might shake your delusion of intellectual superiority.

It is commony said here that the reason Europe hates America is because their only alternative is to hate themselves. The lack of depth of your insight indicates that this may well be true. We don't really hate the French, at least I don't, but I do hate that you do not seem to beable to think for yourselves. Otherwise you could back up your statements. You could tell me why the first attack in '93, definitely linked to Saddam by finding the ringleader in postwar Iraq, was not an act of war?

Did they teach you any history beyond the Suez Crisis? Get over it already.

from Drive-by's Timmerman link ~The French never fully appreciated the dramatic changes in American thinking that followed 9/11, a top de Villepin adviser admitted. They found it inconceivable that the United States could feel threatened by the possibility of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein. But when I asked how French national security would have been threatened by acquiescing to U.S. war plans - what was so important to French vital interests to require them actively to oppose the U.S. - de Villepin's adviser sank into a stunned silence that lasted nearly a minute.

How well we know this silence from our days spent at this blog.

~ , he uttered a mush about hurting the feelings of the Arabs. "Nations don't always act from self-interest, but also from conviction," he said finally.

Sounds like Villipin has it reversed. How many times have we heard our French regulars tell us "Nations act from self-interest" when we talk about Ivory Coast, Congo or China?

~"The problem with you Americans," de Villepin hectored a visiting United States senator in Paris last December, "is that you don't read Machiavelli." His meaning, the senator's aide told me, was crystal clear. De Villepin and Chirac had lied to the United States during the Iraq crisis, and if we didn't like it, we should get over it. That's how the "big boys" played politics.

Yes we know history from before 1940.

No enterprise is more likely to succeed
than one concealed from the enemy
until it is ripe for execution.
—Machiavelli from The Art of War

We succeeded without you. Machiavelli was an asshole, serving a self appointed dictator of Italy. Get over it.

Does it count as an act of war? Apparently not, Clinton did nothing at the time, but that's not for me to say. Did you know the perpetrator is an Egyptian-born cleric? Again I'm not sure how Iraq comes in the equation although I can't be certain.

So I hate you because I hate myself (sounds like a Morrissey lyric)? Would you care to elaborate a little before I shoot myself?

Again I'm not sure how Iraq comes in the equation although I can't be certain

See, this is what I mean about being deliberately dense, obtuse. Saddam gave Ramzi Yousef shelter in Iraq. We found him there after the war.

The hatred thing is just someone's theory, but I can find no good explanation as to why all of the France defending posters refuse to look at the facts.

For instance, the fact above has been restated several times, and yet you bring up the fact that this nephew of Al Quaeda paymaster KSM was born in Egypt. So was Zahowri, or however you spell it, the mastermind behind 911. What does it have to do with anything? It looks for all the world like you are avoiding looking at the truth for some reason. So I grope for a psychological explanation.

I am not saying that I have to be right, I am just saying that until you can point to some evidence or logic, other than "Americans have fat asses", and we are "morons", I've got to think you are deluded. Don't you ever ask youself why you have no facts at your disposal to counter mine when I am such a moron?

But we did make some progress this week. Steph finally admitted that it was not Bush that killed Kyoto, that it happened while Clinton was president.

"I am not saying that I have to be right, I am just saying that until you can point to some evidence or logic, other than "Americans have fat asses", and we are "morons", I've got to think you are deluded."

Read our posts instead of making cartoon views on what we are saying.
But sometimes, if we taunt you with your fat asses, perhaps it's because you deserve it.

"SURRENDER"
"COLLABORATE"
"COWARDS"
"I couldn't be happier[...]unless France became a third world penal colony"
and more...

"Don't you ever ask youself why you have no facts at your disposal to counter mine when I am such a moron?"

With a same fact you can elaborate different hypotheses you know. If you really want to be true, prove it.

But we did make some progress this week. Steph finally admitted that it was not Bush that killed Kyoto, that it happened while Clinton was president.

Is the progress having the same ideas than you?
What I can see on Kyoto protocol is that US government didn't sign it.
Tell me when there will be any progress in my way of thinking.

Lying about WMD then telling everyone to forget about it sounds exactly like what the Bush administration has done, drive-by.

But again were you "imminently" threatened by Irak's WMD? Were Irakis behind 9/11? Is the world safer from terrorism now?

Hindsight being 20/20 and all, it would appear that Iraq's WMD's were not an imminent threat. Although personally I was less concerned with imminence than I was with Saddam's demonstrated capacity and propensity to use such weapons.

Neither have I seen evidence that Iraq was directly or indirectly involved in 9/11. But that never was a factor in my own support for deposing Saddam. I am one who feels it necessary to take a comprehensive approach to the problems of terrorism and it's "root causes". To narrowly focus on Al Qaeda is a recipe for failure in my opinion. In order to make real and significant progress it is necessary to radically alter the status quo in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Are we safer? No one can possibly know for certain. There are inherent risks involved in any enterprise that cannot be predicted with certainty. But to gamble one's well being on the benevolence and goodwill of Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, or their ilk is deluded in my opinion. Had we not deposed Saddam would we be safer? Had we instead removed the sanctions and abandoned the no-fly zones in Iraq would we be safer? Had we not invaded Afghanistan would we be safer? Who can answer any of these questions with certainty? I can only say for myself that I prefer being on the offensive as opposed to the defensive. Not that there won't be setbacks and defeats, there will. However, to set the agenda, rather than have to react to someone else's, is the far more preferable option.

Lying about WMD then telling everyone to forget about it sounds exactly like what the Bush administration has done

I knew you wouldn't answer the question. Because you have no answer so you change the subject.

Read our posts instead of making cartoon views on what we are saying.

I read your posts, too faithfully actually. And after reading them, I ask you questions. You never answer them. Why don't you elaborate on your point of view when I ask a question? Enlighten me? Disabuse me of my "cartoon views" of France.

Take the opportunity to change one vote for Bush to a vote for Kerry. You say you have no say in our election, yet if you could prove to me that what you believe to be true were true, you could change a vote, in Florida! There are other Americans reading this blog. Perhaps one of them has an open mind. Instead you fall back on insults which change nobody's mind.

Is is because you don't even understand what it is that you are saying? Are you really as stupid as you seem? That's what it is starting to look like from this side of the pond. Prove me wrong by answering my questions.

Max,
I will declare progress when I see you stop repeating lies that you are fed by your media. One of them is that Bush personally killed Kyoto, when in fact all he did was pronounce its mouldering corpse dead. Kyoto was killed during the Clinton administration. That is a historica fact. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. So as we agree on common facts, we make progress toward agreeing with each other.

You just don't seem to have any actual facts to try to get me to agree to, just failed ideas. Maybe once we all agreed to the same set of facts, we could then think about those facts in our own cultural ways, and perhaps we would come to different conclusions. But if your ideas are so strong and correct, they can withstand exposure the the real facts.

One of the real facts is that Saddam was hiding a terrorist who attacked the World Trade Center in '93. This is a fact, if you acknowledged it, I would be more likely to listen to your opinion on Iraq. If you fear to acknowledge it, I can only assume that you know you are wrong.

making cartoon views

I don't make your cartoon views, I expose them.

Thanks for not exposing yourself drive-by.

What did France have to fear from backing the US in Iraq? Loss of oil contracts? French Arabs rising up?
Dont they burn your cars every year anyway? Don't they fill your jails?
Oil will be coming your way anyhow. It is a global comodity. Contracts to rebuild the pumping stations could have been had by French companies for the price of a Oui! Good will of the second largest Oil reserve country would have cost the same.
And yet you back the dictator. Did it buy you security? Do you sleep with an untroubled mind?

When Mr. Clarke reported, six days after the 9/11 strikes, that no evidence existed linking them to Iraq, or Iraq to al Qaeda, he was reiterating the position he and others had taken throughout the Clinton years. They systematically turned a blind eye to such evidence and failed to pursue leads that might result in a conclusion of Iraqi culpability.

Laurie Mylroie, an advisor on Iraq to the 1992 Clinton campaign

Sounds like some people around here....

ok, finally, I admit it, I'm vanquished, I praise the country of the farting preacher

Halleluia! \o/

"[...]now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid" C.Powell

There are 55 countries with trade sanctions against the USA. Including the European Union as one country. That is without Kyoto.

Drive-by, I read that the Senate rejected the kyoto treaty in a vote 99-0. I wonder if Mr. Kerry was the one who abstained? Clinton never sent the actual treaty for a vote, but the Senate voted on a resolution "would we accept Kyoto in its present form?"

You know how rare it is for the Senate to vote unanimously? For an example the Senate didn't vote unanimously for War with Japan after pearl harbor.

Gas prices are up to $2.oo a gallon roughly $.53 cents a liter, or Euro .45 per liter.

The only reason it is so high is 18% tax. When will our bureaucrats figure out that this added tax burden only retards the economy.

Andy,

Concerning the Oil for Food program, well our own free press (sorry it's in French, this press is free, not bilingual) asserts that US companies traded with Iraq (through their european subsidiaries), that 41% of the oil-for-food money transited through Chase Manhattan, and that a letter to the editor from the French ambassador stating those facts as a reply to William Safire's Comment in the NYT was partly censored because it needed to be "double checked". Which means they just threw away what bothered them, since it takes a phone call to the CM to "double-check" (the letter dates from March 31st).

Oh yeah, and the article also adds that all contracts were checked and approved by all UNSC members. That would include the good ol' US of A, wouldn't it?

Here's what's left of the letter to the editor (bloody damn' free subscription required).

Not like the old days is it? Can't bury stories forever. We will see where the wrongdoing came from, although to call the New York Times, which campaigned against the war, and practically held de Villpin's coat whil he stabbed Bush and Powel in the back, conservative, is laughable.

It was not the US that demanded that the Oil for Fraud program continue, it was France and Russia, and I particularly like the part about 100 audits. If the original rules were corruptable as written, no audit will turn up wrongdoing. Only an independent investigation of what was actually recieved, knowledge of this is coming from Iraq now, and may have explained some of Chirac's reluctance to remove Hussein, although this was small potatoes compared to Timermann's accusations.

If US companies were involved, I hope they are thoroughly punished. Although, from what I can gather from the article, it only says that American companies "must have paid th 10% commision to Saddam" since they could not have gotten any business any other way. My French is far from perfect and I could be wrong on that point, but the main point is, and stands, that the UN's Oil for Food program was worse than useless. No matter who's fingers get caught in the cookie jar.

And did you read about it first in the French press or first here?

What is especially amusing is the statement that the US companies mainly used their French subsidiaries to pay the bribes. Go with your core competencies, eh guys?

See here for further analysis of how the Oil Fraud For Food program was reported by the French press.

I think that they have finally become dispririted. I don't blame them.

Look at the cheerleading tone of the article. Now I know why they are so hateful of Fox News, because they get the equivalant of it and worse every day. Even Fox News, which likes George Bush would be embarrassed to run a Bush press statement as if it were a news story.

"I think that they have finally become dispririted."

Coming from a fool, it's very amusing.

The french have one terror alert level that's actually higher than 'Collaborate'.
It's: "Start actively denouncing Jews and deporting them to extermination camps (again)".

france is, yet again in its history, rushing headlong towards this particular "alert level" and will reach it within the next ten years.

Hell, thy name is france.

"What did France have to fear from backing the US in Iraq?"

face ...concidering how easily and openly debatable the charges against the iraqi regime were. look, the world knew saddam was a sketchy figure, but given his 12 year neutering at the hands of UN sanctions, US/brit patrolled no fly zones and having his country on 24/7/365 satillite lock down, most saw saddam as a paper tiger, caged. why this seems illogical to most americans escapes me, but to be truthfull, it doesnt.

as a kid growing up overseas on air bases that sent f-16's patrolling over iraq, i grew up "around" this situation. while the news gave the official reasons for the no fly zones, it was common knowledge amongst the military
folk the true intent of policing that country.
oil. life giving oil. it wasn't a shamefull thing to admitt. after saddams invasion of kuwait
his status as regional CIA assent took a 180 and we sure as hell weren't going to allow him to man the wells.

france, along with a large part of the world, knew that saddam was america's obsession, and that he was being tied into their terror war.

perhaps the message that the world felt the american war on terror was being co-opted by iraq
didnt get through to most americans. instead they
saw france and russia saying they wouldnt support an ousting of saddam as a sign of weakness. sorry, telling the most powerfull country in the world to rethink their approach is NOT a sign of weakness, and to have done otherwise, in the face of what they saw as the right way to go about working together, is what france feared from backing the US.

Mellow are you Pato's brother?

Is Max French for Pato?

Mellow obviously has a weak spot for Germany.

Fab5freddykruger,

Good post.

"Is Max French for Pato?"
I'm trying to avoid generalities like "American people are bad". He don't (with French people of course).

"Coming from a fool..."

Prove I'm a fool Max. Go ahead.

concidering how easily and openly debatable the charges against the iraqi regime were

To this I respond with the constant refrain of writing teachers throughout history, except perhaps, based on the resultsl of their efforts in France, "Don't tell us, Show us!"

Please deign to share some of these "easy" debate points.

And as far as the Iraqi connection to terror goes, it has been explored on this thread thoroughly, if you wish to assert that no such connection exists, please take the time to catch up on what has already been said on the subject here, and if you would, please answer the points raised, or shut up on the subject.

but given his 12 year neutering at the hands of UN sanctions, US/brit patrolled no fly zones and having his country on 24/7/365 satillite lock down, most saw saddam as a paper tiger, caged. why this seems illogical to most americans escapes me, but to be truthfull, it doesnt.

Not just Saddam was locked down, so was the 90 odd percent innocent population of Iraq. Leading up to the war, some famous leftist said that we were "opening the gates of Hell", to which an Iraqi replied, "Good, because we want to get out!"

Why the suffering of the people of Iraq, why the torture chambers that existed inside the "cage", and the mass graves that were filled during the "lockdown" mean nothing to you has always puzzled me, but really it doesn't. Europeans are far more concerned with their personal safety, than the most egregious human right violations elsewhere, as has been proven over and over in history, and as has been echoed in the argumentation of these threads.

If you believe that the suffering of the Iraqi people carries no weight, just say it. We happen to think that the brutal regimes of the Near East are the root cause of terrorist attacks in the West.

If you believe that the stories of Saddam's brutality were nothing but pro-oil interest agitprop that is easily proven, please do so.

So far all I see is another poseur poster who tells us that it is so obvious that we are wrong that he needn't bother to prove it. Whatever. You will be beaten down too unless you can come up with some facts.

The Iraqi Governing Council has retained London-based KPMG, the accounting firm that tracked money looted by the Nazis in the Holocaust, to pore over thousands of documents found in the files of Saddam's Oil Ministry and intelligence services about the bribery schemes.

The scandal also involves documents that indicate Saddam bribed 270 sympathetic international political figures and businesspeople through vouchers that permitted the recipients to buy millions of barrels of oil at below-market prices and then resell them at profits of up to 50 cents a barrel.

The papers were unearthed in the Oil Ministry and published in the Baghdad newspaper Al-Mada.

Claude Hankes-Drielsma, a British businessman who is advising council members on the investigation, told The Post that Saddam's regime kept meticulous records of the kickbacks and bribes in the program.

a href="http://nypost.com/news/worldnews/22249.htm">New York Post

The truth will out soon enough froggies. Maybe you will not have crowed too early this time, but I doubt it. I am sure that this is the reason that Europe wants Iraq under UN control, however.

New York Post

Mother Theresa (drive-by),

Why the suffering of the people of Irak......means nothing to you has always puzzled me

It would have been far easier to expose Saddam's brutalities at the UN with photos and testimonials than some sexy James Bond report about imminent world destruction. The fact is that you did not. You never did. You never cared about the Kurd eradication in the hands of Saddam at the time. You don't care about North Korea's mass starvation, Sudan or Sierra Leone's systematic human right violations. We're all guilty of that and we care mostly when it's convenient, Irak winning the prize in that category.

btw... Stephane found the Time link. So am I realy "deluded"?

It would have been far easier to expose Saddam's brutalities at the UN with photos and testimonials than some sexy James Bond report about imminent world destruction. The fact is that you did not.

The UN would have termed it an internal affair of Iraq, and if you are interested in the failure to find WMD, please refer to my post on the other thread.

I will be happy to find and read his link, but tell me before I do, is your claim that Chirac said that he believed that Saddam had no WMD proved there?

Twelve years of keeping Saddam's forces from the Kurdish and southern areas with our air force puts a lie to your claims that we "never cared about the Kurd eradication in the hands of Saddam at the time."

Our permanently based troops in South Korea puts the lie to your claim that we "don't care about North Korea's mass starvation, Sudan or Sierra Leone's systematic human right violations."

List of companies doing business with Sudan:
Talisman Energy of Canada
Petronas, the state-owned oil company of Malaysia
China National Petroleum Carnation (CNPC) the state-owned oil giant of the People's Republic of China.
Lundin Oil of Sweden (NASDAQ listing under: LOILY).
TotalFinaElf of France/Belgium
BP (BP on the New York Stock Exchange and in London).
OMV of Austria.
Agip of Italy.
Royal Dutch Shell

reference source
Heres a source from your own home grown news service, AFP. Please note the date. Also note the country raising the cry of outrage. No Haliburton? I am shocked simply shocked.

Conflict diamonds? You want to talk to your lawless neighbor to the north. Antwerp is the mother of all Sierra Leone atrocities.

No, you never cared about Saddam's brutality at the time , circa 1980 up until the nineties. In fact, you supplied Saddam with chemical agents (remember Rumsfeld's little visit?) and turned a blind eye to his atrocities (ooops, sorry Kurds, that anthrax bomb was for Iran (wink wink). That is a fact.

Can you explain to me what do US troops in South Korea have anything to do with N.Korea's massive food shortages? Is there oil in North Korea?

My point is that WE too often care when it's convenient and turn a blind eye when there's no self-interest involved. It's cynical I know, and the good US of A is certainly no stranger to the process. Please spare us your ad nauseum pontification.

Our troops are there to keep the Million plus man army of Kim Jong Ill from invading South Korea, and turning that model nation into a bug eating shit hole also.

North Korea/South Korea is the clearest picture of the difference between Socialism and those evil capitalists.

Sorry if you find the truth disturbing.

OF COURSE THERE IS NO OIL IN NORTH KOREA!!!! Why do you think the UN has not started any fraud, er I mean aid programs there?

So, what help is France giving the starving North Koreans?

I have never maintained that the invasion of Iraq was done with no US interests in mind, we have one very large interest. We believe that the root cause of terrorism is the brutal way that Arab countries in particular, and most Islamic countries in general are governed.

We believe that it must be changed, or we will suffer attacks forever, since, like France, the Arab world seems to blame all of their problems on us.

The president of the United States first duty is to protect US citicens from foreign attack. This actually comes before keeping oil prices low, believe it or not.

We also believe that the more oil that comes on the market, the less power the terrorist regime in Saudi Arabia has over the West in general and the US in particular.

We also remember what Europe did to the Jews. But that cannot be said, in all honesty, to be the driving motivation. However, it is an imporatant factor that cannot be ignored, unless you are European.

WE too often care when it's convenient and turn a blind eye when there's no self-interest involved.

Fine, you have conceded my point that you don't care about the mass graves. You soothe your guilt by saying everybody does it, like you do with bribery.

You think that by cowering and giving in and turning a blind eye, they will spare you. We think that confrontation is what will keep us safe. Look who the terrorists are striking, the cowards whom they hold in contempt. I am not saying they won't strike us again, but they know, and any state sponsers of them know, that we will make them suffer.

If you want to talk about North Korea, a situation set up by the UN, I will be happy to. How many Americans died fighting the communists in Korea? How many French? Spare me your pontificating. The north Koreans have 10,000 artilary tubes pointed at Seoul, if we attacked, that city would be vaporized. But I guess your counsul is to go ahead, millions of lives be damned.

Don't talk to me about Rwanda, that was Clinton, a president I detested.

Oriana Fallaci, bless her heart, Describes Europe in her new book, The Strength of Reason as “Eurabia” — a mix of Europe and Arabia — the Italian writer said the continent “has sold itself and sells itself to the enemy like a prostitute.”

/sniff I love that ol lady

Don't talk to me about Rwanda, that was Clinton, a president I detested.

well, don't talk to me about Chirac then.

You don't defend Chirac, and I won't talk to you about him.

As for de Villepin, good riddance to bad rubbish.

The view of some Bush administration officials and U.S. analysts is that de Villepin was reshuffled to the ministry of interior because President Jacques Chirac is keen to repair France's damaged relations with the United States.

French analysts have a different take on the move. They say Chirac has strategically positioned one of his closest collaborators to become the next prime minister. Still it is true Washington would probably have found it hard to accept de Villepin as Monsieur Nice Guy ready to repair the damage to U.S.-French ties when he is widely perceived as a major contributor to their stark degradation in the first place.

U.S. sizes up new ministers --UPI

As for the Normandy visit, I am pretty sure that Bush has calculated that the hateful reception he recieves from the brainwashed French left will help him in his re-election campaign.

Oops, I guess you have to start a new emphasis tag on every new paragraph. That second paragraph, just to make clear, was also UPI.

As for the Normandy visit, I am pretty sure that Bush has calculated that the hateful reception he recieves from the brainwashed French left will help him in his re-election campaign.

Kind of like taking a question from Helen Thomas at a press briefing?