The more things change, the more they stay the same
When was the following article written?
"Many contended that the political situation in Iraq would probably remain unchanged, and worried that the military campaign may hurt relations among Western allies, harden resentment of the West in the Muslim world, and increase the threats from terrorism worldwide. These were regional views:
"EUROPE: European media was divided on the wisdom of striking Iraq. Papers from Britain, Germany, and Italy and some smaller countries applauded the decision as courageous, demonstrating that 'the world's greatest democracy lived up to its responsibility.' Nevertheless, even those who supported the military action cautioned that there should be a long-term diplomatic strategy after the bombing stops. Many agreed with a Cologne commentator that 'the military strikes carry a high political risk. But the consequences of not acting would have been much worse.' Several leading French papers, as well as those from Spain, Russia and Serbia-Montenegro opposed the U.S. decision to attack. [One] paper bristled that the Milosevic regime 'will be next on the U.S. list for retaliation' under 'the new strategy of NATO...to use force anywhere in the world without consulting the UN.'"
Okay, the last sentence gives it away - the answer is December 1998. But aside from the Milosevic reference, it doesn't sound a whole lot different from what we get out of the Eurocracy today. And that was when George W. Bush had only just been re-elected governor of Texas, and You Know Who was still calling the "shots."
France in particular hasn't been an American "ally" in the commonly understood definition of the term for some six decades. It should be recalled that Paris withdrew from NATO clear back in the mid-1960s, denied our F-111 bombers overflight rights en route from their British airbases to bomb Tripoli, Libya in 1986 to avenge Khaddafy's Berlin disco bombings. And it was but seven years ago that John Kerry himself was inquiring as to the whereabouts of French spines when they were blocking yet another UNSCR on Iraqi weapons inspections.
About the only instance in recent times when French officials had anything positive to say about the United States was on...9/11. Puisque vous êtes défait, nous nous tenons avec vous!
And yet Kerry just can't wait to suck up to Black Jacques Chirac, as John J. Miller & Mark Molesky recount in today's New York Post:
"Germany's Der Spiegel magazine recently reported that Richard Holbrooke, a leading candidate for secretary of state in a Kerry administration, promised German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder that he and French President Jacques Chirac would be the first foreign dignitaries invited to the White House in 2005.
"They won't be eager guests. Schroeder's response to news of Kerry's intention: 'I was afraid of that...'"
I feel like throwing up. That has got to be one of the most pathetic two paragraphs I've ever read. John Kerry would attempt the seemingly anatomically impossible task of kissing Chirac's ass and licking Schroeder's shoes at the same time, and the two America-haters are already so contemptuous that they're dismissing him like the purblind loser he is. In fact, judging by the near groan that you can just hear accompanying Schroeder's reply, it may be that the EUnuchs would almost prefer Bush's re-election, since his presence as a boogeyman and scapegoat is of more use to them than Kerry's tiresomely endless courting would be.
I can see it now: John Kerry, the pesky kid brother of the G-8.
And to think that this is the same man who actually claims that Bush has spiked international respect for America. Elect him and we might as well tape a mammoth "kick me" sign to our collective national back.
Or perhaps that should be "Donnez- un coup de piedmoi."
"Many contended that the political situation in Iraq would probably remain unchanged, and worried that the military campaign may hurt relations among Western allies, harden resentment of the West in the Muslim world, and increase the threats from terrorism worldwide. These were regional views:
"EUROPE: European media was divided on the wisdom of striking Iraq. Papers from Britain, Germany, and Italy and some smaller countries applauded the decision as courageous, demonstrating that 'the world's greatest democracy lived up to its responsibility.' Nevertheless, even those who supported the military action cautioned that there should be a long-term diplomatic strategy after the bombing stops. Many agreed with a Cologne commentator that 'the military strikes carry a high political risk. But the consequences of not acting would have been much worse.' Several leading French papers, as well as those from Spain, Russia and Serbia-Montenegro opposed the U.S. decision to attack. [One] paper bristled that the Milosevic regime 'will be next on the U.S. list for retaliation' under 'the new strategy of NATO...to use force anywhere in the world without consulting the UN.'"
Okay, the last sentence gives it away - the answer is December 1998. But aside from the Milosevic reference, it doesn't sound a whole lot different from what we get out of the Eurocracy today. And that was when George W. Bush had only just been re-elected governor of Texas, and You Know Who was still calling the "shots."
France in particular hasn't been an American "ally" in the commonly understood definition of the term for some six decades. It should be recalled that Paris withdrew from NATO clear back in the mid-1960s, denied our F-111 bombers overflight rights en route from their British airbases to bomb Tripoli, Libya in 1986 to avenge Khaddafy's Berlin disco bombings. And it was but seven years ago that John Kerry himself was inquiring as to the whereabouts of French spines when they were blocking yet another UNSCR on Iraqi weapons inspections.
About the only instance in recent times when French officials had anything positive to say about the United States was on...9/11. Puisque vous êtes défait, nous nous tenons avec vous!
And yet Kerry just can't wait to suck up to Black Jacques Chirac, as John J. Miller & Mark Molesky recount in today's New York Post:
"Germany's Der Spiegel magazine recently reported that Richard Holbrooke, a leading candidate for secretary of state in a Kerry administration, promised German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder that he and French President Jacques Chirac would be the first foreign dignitaries invited to the White House in 2005.
"They won't be eager guests. Schroeder's response to news of Kerry's intention: 'I was afraid of that...'"
I feel like throwing up. That has got to be one of the most pathetic two paragraphs I've ever read. John Kerry would attempt the seemingly anatomically impossible task of kissing Chirac's ass and licking Schroeder's shoes at the same time, and the two America-haters are already so contemptuous that they're dismissing him like the purblind loser he is. In fact, judging by the near groan that you can just hear accompanying Schroeder's reply, it may be that the EUnuchs would almost prefer Bush's re-election, since his presence as a boogeyman and scapegoat is of more use to them than Kerry's tiresomely endless courting would be.
I can see it now: John Kerry, the pesky kid brother of the G-8.
And to think that this is the same man who actually claims that Bush has spiked international respect for America. Elect him and we might as well tape a mammoth "kick me" sign to our collective national back.
Or perhaps that should be "Donnez- un coup de piedmoi."
posted by JASmius at 10:35 PM
<<< Home