Skip to comments.BUSH'S MANDATE FOR EUROPE
Posted on 11/08/2004 12:41:20 AM PST by kattracks
THE French spent the days leading up to the U.S. election cat aloging the evidence of an irreparable schism between les deux Amérique: Red states vs. blue states, coastal voters vs. heartland voters, rich vs. poor. But the re-election of President Bush last Tuesday will expose more domestic fault lines in Western Europe than in the United States over the next four years.
More than three-quarters of French citizens would have voted for John Kerry, according to international polls. But say this for the French: They accepted their electoral rout quickly and stoically.
The French from the elites of the political class to the waiters in cafés understood immediately that they could no longer view their two-year-old split with America as a temporary quarrel with a barely legitimate president. The Le Monde newspaper called Bush's triumph "a conservative revolution." Le Figaro lamented that "this year, the Democrats' resounding defeat cannot be doubted."
And when Bush reforms America's Social Security system during his second term, America will leave France and Germany further behind because an aging Europe faces the same entitlement-reform challenges that America is finally confronting.
So Bush's second-term mandate for Europe is: Change economically, or admit your political irrelevance.
Europeans loathe the message. But after last Tuesday, they know they are in no position to fight the messenger.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Its one thing for a news paper to make a patronising statement about the Conservative success, its quite another for the leadership of France to change their anti-american jihad.
Until Chirac is gone France will continue to be a trouble maker.
I'll probably be pulled for this or considered a troll, but I'm actually willing to listen. If everyone wants to insult me, so be it, but it's sincere. I'm a liberal, and I know you guys don't like that.
I feel that I was lied to about this war. I feel that UBL hated Saddam (yes, I am familiar with the fact that both were mass murderers). And I think this war was a victory for UBL, because it distracted from the WOT.
Give me links to websites if you need to; just tell me why my country has not lost its mind. I'll probably still disagree, and that's OK. I just don't want to think we've gone mad. I usually go on left-wing sites, so maybe there's something I don't know.
Who lied to you? I do not understand why it is so difficult for some people to judge character. Bush does not lie for sport like his predecessor did. Nor is he totally deceptive. It is not his nature!
As Donald Rumsfeld so eloquently pointed out, the relevance of France as a partner has been reduced to that of an accordian at a duckhunt.
In fact, the sole greatest contribution France has made to America in the past century has been to drag us into virtually every major conflict we've been in, either through their own inability to wage war, or more recently by supplying us with false intelligence, causing us to go where they fear to. (I personally think we should have gone, as we did, into Iraq, but we learned a great lesson on the "value" of French Intelligence.)
While the article points out that we now have clearly taken the lead in dealing with the irresponsible social benevolence of the past sixty years, the unspoken question is "When will the French ( and for that matter the rest of western Europe) come crying for help in dealing with the civil unrest, upheaval and inevitable violence that will arise from their continued tolerance of willful minorities (specifically Islamic) bent on reforming society in their own image?"
The French today are posturing for conciliation, hoping for lucrative contracts in Iraq. This would amount to "Our blood for their oil." Undoubtedly, they will regard this a just payback, since we ruined their sweetheart deal with Saddam. Next will come their need for us to cooperate in "Joint Ventures" to help boost their flagging economy, while ours booms as a result of an overhauled tax code. Before its all over, they'll be asking for our Marines to help them keep order in their streets.
My personal opinion is that , if they need aid, we should allow them to compete in our free market to earn it. Let them sell overpriced wines to pseudo-sophisticates with more money than brains, or perhaps they could just bake a lot of bread. I hear there's a great market for that kind of stuff in Massachusetts and the Pacific Northwest.
RELAX! The country has not lost it's mind. It's just going through withdrawl from socialism, globalism and amorality.
(This capitalist, free-market, superpower, self-reliant America First stuff really works, you know!)
The war in Iraq did not distract from the WOT.John sKerry distracted the war on terror.We could go into 30+ more countries and not distract from the war.You still haven't answered the question.
OK, I'll answer the question.
I feel President Bush lied to me. He said the weapons were there, and they weren't.
Look, I think we should kill the people who knocked down the towers, and their buddies. As I understand, Saddam killed the religious fanatics. An evil man, but not one of the guys that knocked down our towers, that's all.
I'll try and do my best to address your concerns.
Why is it so hard for liberals to see the difference between an intentional lie (such as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman") and making a decision based on bad information? The CIA told Bush that they had a "slam dunk" against Saddam that proved he was developing WMD. British, Russian, and French intelligence all said the same thing. Also, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee warned Bush that Saddam not only had WMDs, but was an imminent threat that needed to be dealt with. Who was the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee? None other than John F'n Kerry himself.
We already know that Saddam was a tyrant of the worst kind. Since the press has been too focused on bringing down Bush, they don't report the horrors that have been found in Saddam's mass graves. Women who were lined up and executed while still holding their children (yes - the children were executed too), and much worse. So far, we've found over 400,000 innocent Iraqis buried in these mass graves. Most of them were Kurdish, a group that Saddam hated, so he just killed as many of them as he could.
We already know for a fact that Saddam had "tested" chemical weapons on the Kurdish people and it seemed perfectly reasonable to assume that he was still developing these weapons.
Saddam had to go, and the CIA saying it was a "slam dunk" that Saddam was developing WMDs was just the icing on the cake. Bush's only fault was believing the intelligence reports. It's disappointing that we haven't found any WMDs, but the world is MUCH better off without Saddam Hussein in power.
"I feel President Bush lied to me. He said the weapons were there, and they weren't."
If one believes something to be true, tells you, later it turns out to be false, is this "lying" to you?
It was believed and stated by many others they, too, believed there were WMD. Included Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and so forth.
Were Clinton and Gore equally "lying" to you?
It still is unknown what happened to the WMD that so many believe were there. It may well be proved the WMD were moved to, say, Syria.
If Saddam harbored terrorists, he was warned 9/20/2001 that we'd be going after those situations.
Notice Libya changed their tune. They decided it wasn't worth the risk, to get caught.
Do you understand the scope of islamic terrorism around the world? Philippines, Indonesia, India, Sudan, Israel to name a few places.
Aren't these forces dangerous enough to use pre-emption?
Do you really trust the UN to do the right thing? They didn't in the Balkans, and haven't in Sudan.
Go back to DU!
Fine, I'll go to bed, although I'm not sure that it's healthy that the two sides never talk to each other. If we didn't want the best for our country, we wouldn't vote.
And of course Clinton/Gore were lying. I suppose our side could be accused of many things, but believing the dems to be anything less than a lesser evil is not one.
Sorry, more than a lesser evil.
We, Red State, people will do the fighting for you. Or not for you. You go ahead and live your life. Sleep well, eat a big breakfast. Drive your Honda. Read Mother Jones by the fire. Feed the squirrels. Somewhere your betters, real men and women, are on patrol in Falooja, standing midnight watch far to Sea, flying with the moon and stars seven miles high, or resting in a hero's grave in a small town in America.
France was a trouble maker long before Chirac and will likely continue to be long after he is gone.
Oh, yeah, did I mention that Saddam Hussein was the ONLY leader in the world who openly praised the 9/11 attack against the U.S.
But if you really want to believe that Bush is the bad guy, then go right ahead. Poor Saddam... getting picked on by that evil Bush guy who lied to Americans about WMD.
Give me a freakin' break!
There is no historcal precedent for leaders or groups needing to like each other before they conspire with each other for a common goal. Liking or hating each other - or any emotion in between has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Hitler and Stalin paired up nicely to slice up Poland and let Hitler consolidate Europe. Check out the writings pre WWII to see how they saw eye to eye. NOT!
How about Stalin and Roosevelt. Or better yet Stalin and Churhill. Did they cooperate cause they were buddies? You wouldn't want to concede that Roosevelt was pro soviet?
How about Pol Pot and the anti Communists teaming up to fight the Vietnamese with majority funding from Red China? Don't think that team wasn't made up of folks who "hated" each other.
How about the Saudis, Pakistan and the arab (foriegn) mujahaddeen and the USA teaming up to fight the USSR in Afganistan. No love lost there between those folks. Those mujahadeen evolved into Al Qaeda.
You can go back as far as u want in history and to any part of the globe and find that alliances are formed by necessity.
Did the French Ally with the Rebel colonists in the American war because the Tallyrand or King Louis thought so highly of the Continental congress or it's Generals. No way. There target was Britain. They saw America as a weapon to bleed the British. And they tried to tie up the Americans so that an American US peace would not be effected.
Am i mistaken or were the Red Chinese not allied with the Vietnamese. Only to invade them and fight them to stop anymore dominoes from falling in SE Asia.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
This is poster seems to share the Jimmy Carter like vision that got the world in a mess 35 years ago. Carter did not think the shah was a nice enough man to be an ally and let the world know it. You can draw a line from that event to the invasinon of afganistan and the forming of the arab mujahadeen (brezinskis idea) to were we are today.
Please answer truth_seeker's question...JFK
Do you think Clinton, Gore, Kerry, et. al. were lying to you when they said virtually the same thing that Bush did or are you simply another hack partisan who can't think/reason for him/herself?
Can you not see the strategic advantage of establishing a beachhead in the war on terror at the epicenter of its roots? Did you fail to notice how Libya and other Aftican nations started to cooperate after we invaded Iraq? Do you not understand that the terrorists are after control of mideast oil our would you have preferred that we let them have it? Did you miss the part where many/most intelligence offices think Saddam moved his WMD into Syria? Did you not ever understand what the Salmon Pak complex was for?
OK, probably 2 sides to the story. I hope you're doing the right thing.
I'll read the info I got from another person, too. Looks like a lot.
We do need to talk to each other, you know. I don't know where you live, but people in the cities are ***SCARED*** of getting hit again. Lots of tears that night. You won an election, but the two sides will have to convince each other that they're reasonable human beings if we are to get through the next four years.
We can disagree, that's OK, but we are not enemies.
McGovern got his ass whooped, but Vietnam was still stopped. Our opinion does mean something, but I think as long as we are convinced that the country has not gone mad, we'll do what's best for the country.
OK, answer to questions:
Nobody that I know trusts Kerry, which is part of the reason he lost. Lesser evil, in the opinions of everyone I know who voted for him. I don't think he would have gotten us into this war, but of course he's scum. By the time it was clear to us that Howard Dean was a loonie, it was too late to find an electable antiwar candidate.
You do understand that virtually nobody really endorsed Kerry, don't you? They believed that Bush was the worst pres in our history, not that Kerry was good.
And if Bush believed Saddam had WMD, no, he wasn't lying.
I could see the strategic advantage, but if you think he was good enough buddies with Syria to give them his WMDs instead of blowing up Israel when he had nothing to lose, I don't know what to say.
One last point. Remember the tape released by bin Laden 4 days before the election? Did you take the time to read the transcript? It sounds just like a Kerry campaign speech. Seriously. Does that not make you look in the mirror and wonder why the world's most evil man is saying the exact same things as your party's leaders? What happened to the old Democratic party that was willing to stand up for America and didn't blame it for all the world's problems? You guys need to get away from the far-left America-hating loonies like Michael Moore, or you'll never win another election again.
It isn't that Saddam was buddies with Syria. Rather he was, or thought he could be, buddies with terrorist factions in Syria, which are not something that Assad necessarily controls. You may also recall that Saddam sent his fighters to Iran during the first Gulf War and he certainly had been buddies with them.
Oh My, there you go again. Being buddies has absolutely nothing to do with it.
You do not understand. Syria provides safe harbour for terrorists right now cause they pay. And they do not threaten regime. [Earlier, When the palestinians did cause trouble the current leaders father killed oh 30,000 or so destroying a town completely - since then they came to a more profitable arrangement]
No i would not be surprised if weapons or material was sent to Syria from Iraq.
In Gulf war part I , i was surprised that Saddam made a deal to send his surviving air force to Iran for safe keeping. This only months after a ten year slaughter between the two countries. But i have learned a lot since then and hope i am not quite so naive as i once was.
Correction: Meant to say Saddam hadn't been buddies with Iran.
Have you read this book by Laurie Mylroie called The War Against America?
She makes the case that Saddam was involved in 9-11.
I am not sure she is right, but she has some interesting information.
Also, after 9-11 how can we let someone like Saddam be sponsoring terrorists and giving them money and weapons?
He had biological and chemical weapons. If he got rid of them, he knew how to make more fast enough.
Even of OBL and Saddam hated each other, theat doesn't mean they won't cooperate against an enemy. We didn't love Stalin, but he was our ally to beat the NAZIS.
The French, Russians, Arabs and others were getting bribes from Saddam to promote his policies in the UN. He was very corrupting. I think this war is worth it.
Ok. I definitely agree that there needs to be more dialogue between the 2 parties. If we fail to understand each other's points-of-view, then we'll just drift farther and farther apart.
What turns off those of us on the right is when people like Al Gore get up on stage and start raging about how "Bush lied" or how "He betrayed this country". That's deceptive, takes advantage of people's emotions, and drives a wedge between liberals and conservatives.
As a side note: nearly all conservatives that I've talked to really like Joe Liebermann. He loves this country and when the chips are down, he's willing to stand up and defend it. We didn't vote for him in 2000 because Gore is a prick. Take a lesson from that. If you want to win back voters, get away from Michael Moore and start learning from Joe.
Forget about Europe.
Bush had better look in the mirror, the dollar is on a long term slide against the Euro along with our standard of living.
The world is threatening to dethrone the dollar from its reserve currency status, especially the oil suppliers and Asians who are tired of a dollar overhang and our burgeoning debt.
It is too late for the country to reverse course because the money has been spent. Hyperinflation is coming and the smart money has been dumping its dollar assets before it is too late.
"Mcgovern got his ass whooped, but Vietnam was still stopped. Our opinion does mean something.." Vietnam was STOPPED? In that statement you betray your inability to come to a sound judgement, in terms of national self interest, or by broader moral criteria, even after thirty freakin years. I don't think your time here tonite is going to be to much avail.
Please define for me what a 'weapon of mass destruction is'? I've been asking this question for 3 years to whomever uses the term and have yet to get an answer.
How many people need to be killed in order for it to be a weapon of mass destruction? Is it a car bomb with a relative of yours being one of the victims? How about any bomb which can take out 1 city block ... or, just how many city blocks? Maybe it's a 2 ounce vile of poison thrown into the water supply and kills 10,000 people. My guess is, you and others have narrowed the definition strictly to some sort of nuclear device capable of turning 100 square miles into waste land.
obviously you are not very well read and get your info from the MSM..No connection between all you mention ?..I suggest Victor Davis Hanson for starts ..Iraq was for starters the $$ behind terrorist training , a breeding ground , weapons store etc ..Oh yes you must have forgotten about WTC I as well ..READ MORON
I quote Hanson
The harpies shrieked that Saddam's petrofueled barbarity was not connected with al Qaeda or even the larger wave of Islamic terrorism as if, say, Aryan Nazis could not have had anti-democratic alliances of convenience with Asian imperialists in Japan; as if the first World Trade Center bombing, the North Africa killings, the career of Zarqawi, and the al Qaedists in Kurdistan were either nonexistent or irrelevant.
In response, George Bush maintained that Islamic fascism is global, fed by self-induced failures of Middle East autocrats, who hand-in-glove with terrorists diverted the frustration of the Arab Street against America a hyperpower that is not, pace bin Laden, libertine Sweden but rather their worst nightmare. Autocracy is their illness, and democracy, not American apologies, is their cure.
ummm sorry we dont need to talk to each other.
i want the left in this country destroyed nearly as much as i want the terrorists destroyed. i have no use for dumbocraps ever in my life.
Your assumptions about a strong Euro are somewhat wrong, as a strong Euro vs. the $$$ isn't neccessarily a good thing for the Union countries.
Why? Because a weak dollar hurts the European export economy, i.e. it makes their exports shipped to the States more expensive vs. domestically manufactured products, hence they lose market share over here. This is a good thing for U.S. companies.
Also, U.S. exports to Euro countries are cheaper(before the tariffs are tagged on), building market share overseas (due to the weaker dollar vs. Euro), however profit margins will be down for the domestic(U.S.) manufactured goods.
Feelings...nothing more then feelings....
That must have been why they were having talks in the nineties about Saddam giving UBL refuge in Iraq, because they hated each other.
Whatever. Go forth and read some of the reports from back then.
You still have time to come over from the Dark side......
Others have mentioned a couple of good books to read, I'll just add the following for your consideration. I agree that both sides should talk more; however, whenever I've tried to have any discussion w a liberal, they keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm lying, etc., etc. and will not even listed to my point of view(of course, most of them get all their news from the Seattle PI (or a similar liberal rag in their community or CNN). Sorry it's still early here and I'm on my 1st cup of coffee, so if I incorrectly listed anything, please correct - -I do not want to be accused of lying or misleading.
1. Saddam used WMD against the Kurds and the Iranians
2. There was a Cease Fire at the end of the 1st Gulf War (this was not a Peace Treaty), which stated we would cease fire if he agreed to certain items (including UN insepctions).
3. There were approximately 17 UN resolutions over 10 years stating he needed to comply. The last one (which was approved by all the Security Council members said he must comply or face the consequences).
4. He kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq in 1998-2001 (sorry don't remember the exact year).
5. He attacked our pilots in both the North and South fly zones almost daily (they had a right to be there as part of the Cease-Fire Agrmt).
6. He financed the homicide bombers in Israel - $25k to their family members.
7. All the intelligence agencies of the world (including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Russian, UK, US, etc., etc.) said he had WMD.
8. The last UN Chief Inspector (sorry, his name escapes me right now - the one that just came out of there said, while they didn't find WMD,
(a) he's not sure that they were not moved (possibly to Syria), and
(b) Saddam was just trying to bide his time and was working w the French, Chinese, etc. so that the sanctions would end and this inspector said he would have been much more dangerous in a couple of years as he was actively pursuing a nuclear program.
9. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall reading that he was actually trying to buy yellocake from Africa (contrary to reports from Joe Wilson). Yellocake is used in nuclear weapons.
10. Clinton stated in 1998 that we were changing our policy to pre-emptive strikes and Kerry and all the other Dems agreed.
11. Clinton and most in Congress said in 1998 that Saddam and Iraq were threats and needed to be dealt with. And, they believed at that time he had WMD.
12. The Dems and Reps in Congress said the same as what is in #11 in 2001-2003 (don't remember the exact dates, but it was at least a couple of times during this period).
13. Ilwaqri (sp) is the most wanted terrorists in Iraq today. He is Al Queda, was injured in Afghanistan, and has been in Iraq for some time (was initially taken to one of the best hospitals). He would not have been allowed to do this without Saddam's approval.
14. There are reports of meetings of some of Saddam's men with Bin Laden's men.
15. Terrorist training camps were found in Iraq (including 1 with an airliner).
16. Americans have been attacked at home (WTC in 1993)and abroad - the barracks, embassies, the Cole, etc. over a number of years and we did little in retaliation. The terrorists kept getting bolder because we did little in response. We had to take some action or it would have kept getting worse.
17. Iraq is part of the greater WOT. We've been able to wipe out some of the terrorists, the training camps, and freeze a lot of their $s worldwide.
18. After 9-11 the Bush doctrine was that if you harbor a terrorist, fund a terrorist, you're as guilty as a terrorist (paraphrasing) and we'll come after you too (Clinton and the Dems seemed to approve of this
Thanks. It looked ok when I reviewed it, obviously, it wasn't :-(
Don't live up to your name do you....
Excellent, excellent observation supported by great examples.
If you're referring to the phony Niger yellow-cake documents, I thought the Administration position was that they didn't influence our actions. If not, what are you referring to?
Sorry, in the heat of my anti-Gallic rhetoric, I misspoke. (Surely liberals are familiar with that phenomenon!)
I should have phrased it: "supplying us with phony intelligence in an ATTEMPT...."
The point being, they will sell out anyone, even those they are doing business with. Lying to the French is more of a habit than an anomaly. This probably explains why the most recent Democratic Pretender spoke their language so well.
Intimately. And with every other sin known to man including, specifically, pomposity and constipation. But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I wasn't criticizing. I was just inquiring.
Sure I do. I won't surrender; I just hope I can understand what just happened, to be honest. I don't want to think that a majority of this country is insane. I wouldn't want to think 30% were, to be honest.
Pomposity is something I will freely admit to, but I'll have you know that I eat at least eight servings of fruit and vegetables every day. In fact at this very moment, I'm consuming a sushi roll, cucumber salad and half of a fresh pineapple. It really works, too!