As much as Pave admires President Bush, his abundant forbearance of a timid Euope, broadly -- and Jack's recreant government, particularly -- confounds us.

Tomorrow I leave on a trip to Europe, where I will reaffirm the importance of our transatlantic relationship with our European friends and allies. ... We do not accept a false caricature that divides the Western world between an idealistic United States and a cynical Europe. America and Europe are the pillars of the free world. We share the same belief in freedom and the rights of every individual, and we are working together across the globe to advance our common interest and common values. ... Even the best of friends do not agree on everything. But at the dawn of the 21st century, the deepest values and interests of America and Europe are the same: defeating terrorism, conquering poverty, expanding trade and promoting peace. ... Today, security and justice and prosperity for our world depend on America and Europe working in common purpose. That makes our transatlantic ties as vital as they have ever been. And during my visit to Europe next week I will discuss with our friends and allies how we can strengthen those ties to build a future of peace and freedom for our children.

And this:

In the run-up to his trip to Europe, Bush underscored in media interviews with European journalists his second-term drive to foster improved trans-Atlantic relations and work on common problems... "I know we had a difference of opinion," Bush said of U.S.-European strains over the Iraq war. "And it was a big difference of opinion on Iraq. But now is the time for us to set aside that difference and to move forward in areas where we can work together."

"I don't feel bitter, personally," Bush said of Chirac, who was the chief Iraq war opponent in Europe.

[ Mr. Bush's generous outreach is the more confounding when compared to the grudging and crabby remarks of the French. Oh, except when they are grabbing the credit for a liberated Iraq:

"France never stopped saying, in unison with the international community, that this was a crucial step," government spokesman Jean-Francois Cope told Europe 1 radio after polling stations had closed in Iraq.

When asked if the polls constituted a victory for the administration of US President George W. Bush, Cope called the elections "a great success for the international community" that backed the process.

It has never been lost on us that the salutary outcome in Iraq by French lights would have been the crushing defeat of the Allies:

“This is not about Saddam Hussein, and this is not even about regime change in Iraq or even the million people killed by Saddam Hussein or missiles or chemical weapons. It is about what has become two conflicting views of the world. It’s about whether the United States is allowed to run world affairs and battle terrorism and weapons proliferation essentially with a small group of trusted allies.”
— Pierre Lellouche, French legislator and close Chirac ally, Washington Post, March 6, 2003.

During a question and answer session at the end of his speech [the French Foreign Minister] refused to answer the question: "Who do you want to win the war?"
— Dominique de Villepin, following speech at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, March 27, 2003.

“Once the crisis is past, one could think that French companies ... could be left out of contract bids. That’s what French leaders are the most worried about.”
— Le Figaro editorial, Associated Press, March 29, 2003.

"We consider that all military action [in Iraq] not endorsed by the international community, though, in particular, the Security Council, was both illegitimate and illegal, is illegitimate and illegal. And we have not changed our view on that."
— Jack, Evian news conference, June 3, 2003 ]

Mr. Bush went on to question Jack's "multipolar world", French code for a French-led Europe capable of circumscribing American policies.

Some have said, 'Well, we must have a unified Europe to balance America.' Why, when in fact we share values and goals? ... Why don't we view this as a moment where we can move forward in a concerted fashion to achieve those goals?"

Why indeed. Perhaps because France can't swallow what France can't deny, her subsidairity.

As regards a France helmed by Jack, we're of the same mind as the newly confirmed Secretary of State.

Reagan said "...there is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit."
I hear that Chirac might be on board with us in regard to Lebanon. So let them brag if it means we get cooperation. The goal is getting close.

Damian

It occures to me that I didn't thank you for the Friend of Pave loving cup you sent my way.
It is on a treasured spot over my virtual fireplace. I was trudging through the blogroll and came upon this. Think you might enjoy it.

If any of the other pavers know the tune please feel free to post the name and/or a translation of the lyric (it's German I believe).

Que es, don Paper? Did you get the right link?

"It’s about whether the United States is allowed to run world affairs and battle terrorism and weapons proliferation essentially with a small group of trusted allies."

What's the point in asking our untrustworthy "allies" when france and germany already said no?