Monday, November 21, 2005
The reason we have Freedom Fries (HP, you can skip this one.)
Lately George Bush has been showing deep disdain for those in Congress who have (finally) dared to come out against his policies in Iraq. He keeps playing his same old song, saying that our senators saw the same intelligence he saw and that the intelligence from around the world showed the same thing. He claims that it is the anti-war folks who are re-writing history and that by doing so they are dishonoring our soldiers. So, in the interest of calling him on his bullshit I would like to reprint a segment of a speech given by the French Foreign Affairs Minister, Dominique de Villepin to the UN Security Council on February 14, 2003.
"Then there are those who believe that continuing the inspection process is a kind of delaying tactic to prevent or avert military intervention. That naturally raises a question of how much time is allowed Iraq. And this brings us to the heart of the matter. What is at stake is our credibility and our sense of responsibility.
"Let us have the courage to see things as they are. There are two options. The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest, but let us not forget that having won the war, peace has to be built. Let us not delude ourselves. This will be long and difficult because it will be necessary to preserve Iraq's unity and to restore stability in a lasting way in a country and a region harshly affected by the intrusion of force.
"Faced with that prospective, there is an alternative -- inspections -- which allow us to move forward day by day with the effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq. In the end, is that choice not the most sure and most rapid?
"No one today can claim that the path of war will be shorter than the path of inspections. No one can claim that it would lead to a safer, more just, more stable world, for war is always the sanction of failure. Would this be our sole recourse in the face of the many challenges at this time?...
"Ten days ago, the U.S. Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported alleged links between al-Qaida and the Baghdad regime. Given the present state of our research and intelligence in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links. But we must assess the impact that disputed military action would have on this level.
"Would such intervention today not be liable to exacerbate divisions between societies, cultures, peoples; divisions that nurture terrorism?"
In return, a wave of intense French hatred swept through our country. We even went so far as to rename French Fries, how pitifully childish is that?
Let's not forget the way things actually went down.
"Then there are those who believe that continuing the inspection process is a kind of delaying tactic to prevent or avert military intervention. That naturally raises a question of how much time is allowed Iraq. And this brings us to the heart of the matter. What is at stake is our credibility and our sense of responsibility.
"Let us have the courage to see things as they are. There are two options. The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest, but let us not forget that having won the war, peace has to be built. Let us not delude ourselves. This will be long and difficult because it will be necessary to preserve Iraq's unity and to restore stability in a lasting way in a country and a region harshly affected by the intrusion of force.
"Faced with that prospective, there is an alternative -- inspections -- which allow us to move forward day by day with the effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq. In the end, is that choice not the most sure and most rapid?
"No one today can claim that the path of war will be shorter than the path of inspections. No one can claim that it would lead to a safer, more just, more stable world, for war is always the sanction of failure. Would this be our sole recourse in the face of the many challenges at this time?...
"Ten days ago, the U.S. Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported alleged links between al-Qaida and the Baghdad regime. Given the present state of our research and intelligence in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links. But we must assess the impact that disputed military action would have on this level.
"Would such intervention today not be liable to exacerbate divisions between societies, cultures, peoples; divisions that nurture terrorism?"
In return, a wave of intense French hatred swept through our country. We even went so far as to rename French Fries, how pitifully childish is that?
Let's not forget the way things actually went down.
posted by GodlessMom, 7:13 AM
10 Comments:
United We Lay said:
Excellent post! Thanks for the reminder.
Posted at 8:58 AM
BarbaraFromCalifornia said:
Great post.
It does seem as if people around the world, and here, are finally beginning to understand.
It does seem as if people around the world, and here, are finally beginning to understand.
Posted at 9:24 AM
Saur♥Kraut said:
At first glance I thought you were saying that this was Bush's speech until I reached "a priori". Realizing that it couldn't be something Bush uttered I started again.
Although this was a genteel speech, I do have to point out that he was still wrong and sanctions weren't working and inspections were being subverted. And, let's not forget Saddam was a murderous thug equivalent to a constrained Hitler.
However, I believe we should've gone in there, decimated them, and retreated. We are not the world's policemen & are not in charge of fixing other countries' mistakes. We should only nullify them, IMHO.
Although this was a genteel speech, I do have to point out that he was still wrong and sanctions weren't working and inspections were being subverted. And, let's not forget Saddam was a murderous thug equivalent to a constrained Hitler.
However, I believe we should've gone in there, decimated them, and retreated. We are not the world's policemen & are not in charge of fixing other countries' mistakes. We should only nullify them, IMHO.
Posted at 10:59 AM
Saur♥Kraut said:
BTW, Underground Logician has an interesting post about this very thing today.
Posted at 11:31 AM
nigel paddell said:
And what gets me is that after we did it anyway, we never found any WMD's and obviously failed in planting any (Not as easy as planting a bag of weed on some college student is it?) suddenly it wasn't even about that. It was about getting rid of Saddam, because, you know, he's all bad and stuff.
Well President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and probably anybody in Iraq with a relative killed by the Americans must think that our own President Junior is all bad and stuff, and by that reasoning, they have a rationale to try to come over here and get 'im.
I'll hold him down.
Well President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and probably anybody in Iraq with a relative killed by the Americans must think that our own President Junior is all bad and stuff, and by that reasoning, they have a rationale to try to come over here and get 'im.
I'll hold him down.
Posted at 4:03 PM
United We Lay said:
Carefull Nigel. If you keep making comments like that the men in black will come and get you.
Posted at 5:39 PM
dAAve said:
LOL
I read it anyway.
See.
I'm open-minded enought to listen to other points of view. Over the past year, I have swung much more to the middle of the pendulum.
Your quote would have much more credility if it wasn't by a Frenchman. LOL
I read it anyway.
See.
I'm open-minded enought to listen to other points of view. Over the past year, I have swung much more to the middle of the pendulum.
Your quote would have much more credility if it wasn't by a Frenchman. LOL
Posted at 9:42 PM
The Lazy Iguana said:
The sanctions were not working? Is that why no evidence of WMDs were found?
The sanctions were working. Before the war, Iraq had an ass for a leader, but there were not a bunch of rebles running around planting roadside bombs everywhere. People had running water, electricity, and universities. Women could drive and go to school.
We are not the world's policemen, but by the same token we can not just go in, overthrow a government, then leave the place with a long and bloody civil war to sort out.
Bush broke it, and the USA has to buy it. Troops will be in Iraq for a long time to come, if the job is to be "finished".
The sanctions were working. Before the war, Iraq had an ass for a leader, but there were not a bunch of rebles running around planting roadside bombs everywhere. People had running water, electricity, and universities. Women could drive and go to school.
We are not the world's policemen, but by the same token we can not just go in, overthrow a government, then leave the place with a long and bloody civil war to sort out.
Bush broke it, and the USA has to buy it. Troops will be in Iraq for a long time to come, if the job is to be "finished".
Posted at 9:47 PM
Lucy Stern said:
At this point I don't believe anything the French have to say. Bush may have gone to war for the wrong reasons, but we can't just yank you troops out and leave the people of the country in the hands of terrorists. The news media goes out of it's way to not show everything that is going on in Iraq. Many good things have taken place since Saddam was taken out. Bush opened a Pandora's box and it may never get closed.
Posted at 2:50 AM
GodlessMom said:
Gothamimage, you definitely have a point. Perhaps this is the proof I've always looked for!
Posted at 1:27 PM