Flip- Flop...oh, and btw, which president "shuttled aside" arafat? could it be John-He's -everywhere-you-want-to-be-Kerry agrees with the administration's mid-east policy?
The French explain why they love JFK: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107879611059049943,00.html?mod=opinion -- March 9, 2004 COMMENTARY Are We Still All 'American'? By JEAN-MARIE COLOMBANI NEW YORK -- On Sept. 12, 2001, Le Monde carried an editorial by me whose title -- "We Are All American" -- had a certain resonance with people in this country. Today, on a visit to this city from Paris, I have the opportunity to ask the question: Are we still all "American"? Frankly, the question concerns us -- French and Europeans -- less than it concerns America itself. For us, the answer is relatively simple: Of course, we must be and must remain "American" in everything that involves our common destiny against terrorism, the war waged on democracy, and on all those who wish to live free, by the shadowy group called al Qaeda. I am not sure that America, on the other hand, perceives the true extent of the reality that has been created by the war in Iraq. What could be the perception of a European today? It is a vision that has unfolded in two steps. The first step, in the intensity of the shock caused by the twin towers' destruction, was the absolute need for solidarity. Let us remember here the involvement of French and German soldiers, among other European nationalities, in the operations launched in Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban, track down bin Laden and attempt to free the Afghans. The second step, the war in Iraq, led to confusion regarding Washington's intentions, and to a division within "the Atlantic community" and among the Europeans themselves. The problem was not so much the war itself, but the fact that it was launched without U.N. approval, when certain countries -- including France -- considered the inspectors' job unfinished and thought that international pressures on Saddam Hussein could be increased before a military invasion of Iraq, under the authority of the U.N. What George Bush is criticized for is very simple: not only to have lied about the weapons of mass destruction -- the official pretext for the war -- as now publicly established by recent investigations; but also to have swayed American opinion, and tried to sway European opinions (much closer to one another than one would think from the different positions of their governments, with Paris and Berlin on one side, and London, Madrid and Warsaw on the other) into believing that the war on Iraq was part of the battle against al Qaeda and international terrorism. Everyone clearly sees, and now admits, that this link did not exist. Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq today is in fact a consequence of the war, and not the opposite. So by introducing this distortion, Mr. Bush has diverted the attention from a cause -- the fight against al Qaeda -- that called for solidarity, and has taken a path -- the unilateral war on Iraq -- that has led throughout the world to the rebirth of an incredible current of hostility against the U.S., which no one should rejoice at. On the contrary, it should cause concern. This said, however, we have moved on. Clearly, the United States' difficulties in the field have led Washington to be more lenient with those of its allies -- France and Germany -- that it had drifted from; and these allies are willing to get involved once more now that the banner of the U.N., and therefore of international legality, is raised again. It is moreover not impossible, once Paul Bremer's mandate is accomplished and an Iraqi legitimacy is established, that French soldiers will participate in the consolidation of the situation in Iraq. But beyond that which separated us when Colin Powell and Dominique de Villepin were clashing at the U.N., and beyond what will likely draw us together again -- the urgent need to prevent the situation from deteriorating in Iraq -- we must realize the need for Europe and the U.S. to rebuild their relationship. For if no one pays heed, the two shores of the Atlantic will drift ever further from each other. On both sides, the reasons are deep-rooted. Europe can no longer be considered Western Europe. Since the end of the Cold War, its center of gravity has moved to the east. The enlargement of the European Union dominates its agenda. Should other milestones occur, they would take place to the east of the " Old Continent." So would the threats, as a form of authoritarianism re-establishes itself in Russia. The symbol of the Continent's shift eastward is probably the transfer of the German capital from Bonn to Berlin. On the other hand, the Americans will have to get more and more involved, whether they want to or not, in a "hemispheric" mindset; which is why they are attempting to organize their whole hemisphere, from the largest (the relations between Mr. Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox attest to this) to the smallest (as shown by the military intervention in Haiti). And after the hemisphere looks at the problems of its own well-being, the concern will be Asia, and mainly China. Therefore, if we do not do anything, "in the long run" we shall become strangers to one another. Which we are not. If we are not yet estranged, we owe it to two men, two concepts that have allowed the United States and Europe, whatever the misfortunes, to remain, all-in-all, bound together for 50 years. They are Lord Keynes and George Kennan. One inspired the West's development policies, the other its "containment" strategy. The first policy allowed progress and wealth; the second finally triumphed over the Soviet empire. Today, "containment" has given way to "pre-emptive" war; and the logic of development and free-trade threatens to be replaced by a return of protectionism. In our interdependent and already multipolar world, the two main axes being wielded by Mr. Bush (as opposed to his father) are therefore a threat to the very foundation of the historical alliance between the U.S. and Europe. This is why John Kerry is, a priori, perceived with so much sympathy. He personifies the promise of an America that will get back on track -- more just, more cohesive, more generous. In brief, less "unilateral." So that we can still all remain "American" in years to come. Mr. Colombani, editor of Le Monde, is the co-author, with Walter Wells, of "Dangerous De-Liaisons," just published by Melville House Publishing. (This piece was translated for the Journal by Alfred de Montesquiou.)
Funny that basso seems to hold it AGAINST Kerry that the Europeans like him. Shouldn't that be a positive for a candidate???
Quit using common sense, SJC! Or I guess you didn't get the memo, since you don't live in the US of A. 95% of the world is absolutely wrong, about everything. That includes pre-emptive wars, global warming, beer temperature, you name it. So if some country other than Poland or the UK likes a certain candidate, we rootin-tootin durned sure ain't gonna vote for that SOB! Naw. Hell-fire no. Res the werld got all stoopid on us somehows.
B-Bob and SJC- this issue is not that the europeans like kerry, but rather why they like him. they like him because he would allow france to have veto power of US foreign policy via the UN. this is a stance i simply cannot countenance, and until kerry changes his mind (he always does eventually- it's called "nuance") on this issue, everything else he says is suspect, in my mind at least.
basso, I read Colombani"s commentary twice and I completely fail to see what you find wrong with it. I find it a very intelligent, well reasoned analysis of where we are under Bush in our relations with Europe and with the world community. I just don't see this as something that makes Kerry look bad. On the contrary, thanks for posting it. It gives ample reason for someone to vote for Kerry.
Basso's obsession with Kerry and his Gallic-ness is making me think that basso is a jealous part-francophone neighbor, likely a Swiss or Belgian, which would make his arguments either full of holes or waffling.....
I'm thinking about putting basso on my ignore list and just going straight to teh RNC web site. (Not really... I'll never put anyone on ignore... it was a rhetorical device.) __________________ Tuesday's Broadside The Republicans tell us that John Kerry can't make up his mind. A close look at the record shows a different story. Matthew Yglesias, The American Prospect John Kerry is a flip-flopper. I know this because the RNC tells me so. Just take a look at their new "Interactive Game," Kerry versus Kerry, or listen to the president's speech last Wednesday alleging that "Senator Kerry's been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue." The groundwork for this critique has certainly been well-laid. On Feb. 13, Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby argued that Kerry is the "candidate for nearly every point of view." On Feb. 20, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer picked up the banner, writing that Kerry's greatest flaw is his "breathtaking penchant for reversing course for political convenience." Such is the all-pervasive power of this conventional wisdom that The Washington Post's Marjorie Williams, a "charter member" of the Anybody But Bush society, used her column last Sunday to deplore Kerry's "career-long opportunism, the knowledge that Bay State political junkies trade their favorite flip-flops like baseball cards." One wouldn't want to argue that Kerry has never engaged in an opportunistic change of views over several decades in public life -- what politician hasn't? -- but upon examination there is surprisingly little to this critique. Discussing this issue on Sunday's Meet The Press, Tim Russert referred derisively to Kerry's "shall we say, rather 'nuanced' positions on a number of issues." The Senator's only real sin of nuance, however, is to do what every other Senator -- and every member of every legislative body throughout the world -- does on a regular basis: vote for some complicated pieces of legislation without approving of every single provision each bill contains. Kicking off his campaign in a Feb. 23 address to the Republican Governor's Association, the president laid out the basic critique: The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions: For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts. The dubious cogency of this critique is well captured by the line, "For tax cuts, and against them." Yes, it's true, John Kerry believes that it is right to cut certain taxes under certain circumstances and wrong to cut other taxes under other circumstances. Hard to disagree with that. And is Bush really for cutting all taxes, all the time, no matter what? How does he propose to finance the government? When you run your oil company into the ground, your father's Saudi friends can bail you out, but as an approach to the federal budget this method is somewhat flawed. Is Kerry both for the Patriot Act and against it? Well, he voted for it, and now he criticizes it, so he must be inconsistent. Howard Dean's campaign pioneered this argument; it didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now. First off, read the law. You can download it here from a special Department of Justice website dedicated to singing the bill's praises. Kerry voted for the bill because he believed that the law, in all its 132 pages of glory, would do more good than harm. That's what Senators do. Does that mean he thinks each and every word written on each and every page is a good idea? Of course not, and as president he'll have the opportunity to alter the law. Kerry's website offers five proposed improvements to the Patriot Act. I happen to think he's right about only four of them. So would it be inconsistent of me to prefer Kerry to Bush on the question of the Patriot Act? Of course not -- there are two options, and Kerry is the better of the two. He's not perfect, but I'll support him. Just as Kerry supported an imperfect law he regarded as better than nothing. On NAFTA, a flip-flop is even harder to find. Kerry supported the treaty; nowhere in his trade issues page is there any suggestion that he intends to abrogate it. Rather, "John Kerry will also order an immediate 120-day review of all existing trade agreements to ensure that our trade partners are living up to their labor and environment obligations." One wonders what part of this Bush disagrees with -- does he think our trade partners should evade their obligations, or is he simply opposed to finding out whether or not they are doing so? The situation in Iraq is a somewhat more complicated matter. Kerry's position here has been genuinely nuanced, neither dogmatically hawkish nor reflexively dovish, but rather changing to reflect an evolving factual situation. In the fall of 2002, when Bush asked Congress for a resolution authorizing him to threaten the use of force if necessary to ensure Iraqi compliance with U.N. dictates, three situations held: inspectors had not visited Iraq for years, the consensus of the global intelligence community was that Iraq possessed prohibited weapons of mass destruction, and it remained an open question whether the United States could attract substantial international support for military actions. Kerry supported a resolution. Months later, when the war actually began, much had changed. Inspectors were in the country, casting doubt not only on the administration's more extravagant claims but on much of the intelligence community's earlier work. Saddam was not cooperating fully with the inspectors, but they maintained that they were engaged in productive and useful work. A series of botched diplomatic moves had left the United States internationally isolated, not only lacking a U.N. resolution because of the opposition of veto-wielding France, but lacking even majority support on the Security Council. Global public opinion had turned dramatically against the American position, with majority support for war limited to the United States, Israel, and (on some days, at least) the United Kingdom. A compromise resolution was on the table that would have tightened the screws on Saddam somewhat and given the inspections process more time. It was clear that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat to the national security of the United States or any other country. Nevertheless, Bush chose to go to war, though his administration had failed to even assemble a reasonable plan for the postwar occupation or conduct an honest assessment of the costs. Kerry opposed this course of action, and rightly so. Many liberals questioned the propriety of having delegated so much authority to Bush the previous fall, especially in light of the president's general record of dishonesty and ineptitude. This is a legitimate issue to raise (and it was raised, many times, in the Democratic primary), but it's hardly a criticism available to conservatives, and has nothing to do with flip-flops or inconsistency. Criticism of Kerry's record on the war, moreover, cuts against the notion that he is an opportunistic panderer. His vote for the authorizing resolution was deeply unpopular within the Democratic Party and nearly cost him the nomination, forcing him to spend months trailing behind the more forthrightly dovish campaigns of Dean and Gen. Wesley Clark. Indeed, on the general subject of opportunism, Kerry's record compares quite favorably to the incumbent's. As governor of Texas, Bush opposed a strong patients' bill of rights that nevertheless passed over his veto. On the 2000 campaign trail, he tried to take credit for the law and implied he would support comparable legislation on the national level. Once in office, he sought (successfully) to block the bill's passage in the House, all the while indicating that if it did pass he would sign it rather than pay the political price for vetoing a popular bill. Similarly, Bush opposed the McCain-Feingold bill in the 2000 GOP primary, tried to kill it in Congress, and then signed it when it passed. He has twice proposed immigration reform measures aimed at bolstering his support among Latino voters and twice backed away from them when they proved unpopular. He campaigned as a supporter of partial privatization of social security and then denied he'd ever supported any such thing when that proved to be unpopular. He proposed a temporary tax cut conditioned on the idea that the government could afford it without spending the Social Security surplus; then, when the surplus vanished, he supported a further tax cut. Now he wants his first cut made permanent. There's a consistency of a sort here, but it's not a very admirable one. Given a choice between Kerry's nuance and Bush's policy of, well, lying about what he wants to do, I think I'll stick with Kerry.
By the way, I think The Economist is one of the best magazines in the world. I know one of their directors very well and he is a brilliant guy.
i never said it made kerry look bad. i do think it makes colombani look like a smug twit, but that's just my own personal prejudice. YMMV. Yeah, i suppose i do have something of a personal axe to grind with the french right now. i've spent a lot of time there and recently lost my job w/ a french company, which sureptisously decided to move my job out of state on about ten days notice. with my wife 40 weeks pregnant. you could say i have...issues... and yes, i have a very french last name- my father immigrated from denmark, and his ancestors derived from a group of hugenots who fled france in the late 16th century, settling in Jutland. and although i have been know to hold a grudge for a long time, 300 years is perhaps overdoing it.
"My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low-grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a 15 year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical: summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring, we'd make meat helmets. When I was insolent, I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds. Pretty standard, really."
I spoke to their book editor today- i've been a subscriber for years. why can't america produce a magazine as erudite, witty, and politically neutral? my politics mirror theirs most of the time. one of the main drawbacks of this board is that it hardly encourages "nuance" to use a kerry-ism. god forbid any republican should express doubts about a policy of Bush's, since it would never be reciporcated by the other side expressing discomfort at something their candidate said. i think if the liberals on this board tempered their language a bit, quit referring to bush as the born-again anti-christ, you might begin to see more thoughtful debate about the issues and candidates. of course, many republicans, myself included, see kerry in similarly apocalyptic terms. couldn't hurt to turn down the heat for awhile though. just because the RNC, DNC, and MoveOn have resolved to make this the dirtiest campaign ever, doesn't mean we have to follow suit. it's along 8 months until november.
Interesting that you just posted this. I was about to post, in response to JSC, that I thought the Economist's column was a good read and also showed Kerry in a favorable light. It's more "middle of the road" than the column by the Le Monde editor, but that's to be expected by anyone who reads it. I don't subscribe, but I buy it on occasion, read it on my trips to the book store and the library, and think it's excellent. As for the rest of your post, I thought you sounded reasonable until the end. If you had left MoveOn.org off your little list or added from a long list of comparable right-wing media outlets (National Review and Rush Limbaugh spring to mind, off the top of my head), then it would have sounded a bit better. You post stuff like that, basso, which sounds very reasonable indeed, but you consistently post garbage from a variety of sources as facts, so long as it slams the Democrats and now Kerry, since he's locked up the nomination. You shouldn't act like you're filled with wounded surprise at what you read here. You dish out plenty. In my opinion, of course. edit: you sometimes post good stuff as well, basso... didn't want to imply that you just posted garbage.
btw, i'm not sure MoveOn and NRO, the weekly standard, etc., are quite in the same league, although i'm sure there are better right-wing analogs to MoveOn. i just don't know who they are. NRO, etc, are opinion journals, and don't run ads, or engage in direct political action. MoveOn is a PAC, and had raised considerable funds to advertise against the president. ads, that are, btw, filled with slander,lies, and half-truths. if you'll direct me to a similar rightist organization i'll happily edit my post to balance the ledger, fairly.
Here's an interesting "snapshot" of PACs released on 3/4/04 by the FEC. Ideological/Single-Issue PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates Total Amount: $10,718,588 Total to Democrats: $4,086,687 (38%) Total to Republicans: $6,595,501 (62%) Number of PACs Making Contributions: 377 Republican/Conservative: $538,624 2% to Dems 98% to Repubs Democratic/Liberal: $458,153 100% to Dems -1% to Repubs Leadership PACs: $6,469,749 26% to Dems 74% to Repubs Foreign & Defense Policy: $74,739 66% to Dems 34% to Repubs Pro-Israel: $1,451,923 62% to Dems 38% to Repubs Women's Issues: $101,779 84% to Dems 16% to Repubs Human Rights: $625,542 78% to Dems 21% to Repubs Misc Issues: $291,320 56% to Dems 44% to Repubs Environment: $112,173 52% to Dems 48% to Repubs Gun Control: $6,200 100% to Dems 0% to Repubs Gun Rights: $401,500 14% to Dems 86% to Repubs Abortion Policy/Pro-Life: $27,169 0% to Dems 100% to Repubs Abortion Policy/Pro-Choice: $159,717 78% to Dems 22% to Repubs Based on data released by the FEC on Thursday, March 04, 2004. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.asp?txt=Q01&cycle=2004 Then, of course, there is other PACs... Subpoenas aim to find DeLay role with PAC Lawmaker's daughter included on long list of committee workers By JANET ELLIOTT and R.G. RATCLIFFE Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau AUSTIN -- A slew of subpoenas released Wednesday show Travis Country prosecutors are trying to determine how deeply involved U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was in the possible criminal misuse of corporate funds in the 2002 legislative campaign. Nearly 50 subpoenas -- some issued Tuesday and others dating back to last October -- were made public as part of the ongoing investigation into Texans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee formed by DeLay, R-Sugar Land. http://www.HoustonChronicle.com I'll grant you that I didn't list a specific Republican national PAC. Do I really need to?
Moveon.org is not strictly a PAC, though it does run one; but the PAC doesn't run the ads; from moveon's site: Which ads are filled with slander, lies and half-truths, btw? If you are referring to the ones from the "Bush in 60 Seconds contest", do you mean the one that was actually selected to air? or ones that users submitted that were not chosen to air?
deck- how about we include citizens united, they're the republican pac running the kerry/priceless ad, although i think moveon has a much higher profile.
