France says adieu to le bulldozer

Jacques Chirac has been a fixture of the French landscape for so long, it is hard to imagine him leaving. He goes tomorrow, though he plans to stay active at 74, joining the ex-statesman's circuit with a foundation of his own.

People in their 40s and younger can barely remember a time when Chirac was not either Prime Minister, running for President or reigning in the Elysée Palace. Older Parisians still call the municipal water Château Chirac from his 18 years as Mayor. Tony Blair likes to recall that the bulldozer, as Chirac was known, was Prime Minister when he was a student working in a Paris bar. At that time, I was briefly in Paris as a trainee reporter for Reuters and Chirac, all vigour and motion, was the first senior politician whom I ever watched in action.

Over the years, we have all at times rubbed shoulders with the genial, extrovert Chirac. When he was down in the polls six months ahead of the 1995 presidential election  he gave me an hour in his Paris Mayoral office for The Times magazine. He mused on France and life in general and impressed me with the famous charm. He sounded positively presidential and went on to win, although he was being written off as a certain loser at the time. Like much of France, I found it impossible to read the man behind the sleek, blustery exterior.

As the country takes stock of the very bumpy années Chirac, the consensus holds that the man has been a bit of an enigma. Admirers call him a sensitive soul and loyal friend with far deeper knowledge and understanding of the world than his caricature as a power-hungry opportunist. They credit him with holding together a fractious country and for projecting France well in the world, most remarkably by opposing the US invasion of Iraq.

Opponents have always seen Chirac as an unscrupulous political carnivore with an unmatched lust for power and great resilience but little depth or vision. They give him credit for Iraq and reconciling the country with the darker periods of its history - notably the wartime collaboration with the Nazi Holocaust -- but little else.

The headline for the history books' chapter on the Chirac era should read: Missed Opportunity. Chirac arrived promising to reverse the sense of decline that was already prevalent. He would modernise France, heal the "social fracture", integrate immigrants, reduce unemployment and restore national pride. He achieved very little of that. He gave up reforms under pressure, lost power for five years to the opposition and seemed for much of the time to be observing his country like a distant monarch. He lulled France with reassurances that nothing need change much.

Over the past 18 months he became eccentric. He reverted to the radical ideas of his youth, calling the American-led globalised economy a threat to the world as great as Soviet totalitarianism had been. Jacques Marseille, the Sorbonne economics professor, said on Monday that he was grateful to Chirac. "I write history manuals and he has enabled us to deal with the 1995-2007 period very quickly: there will be nothing to say."

Yet France is still fond of Chirac, like a family is fond of a roguish old uncle. Libération, no friend of Chirac, came up with a good line today.

General de Gaulle wanted to show the French what they should be, wrote Laurent Jauffrin, Libé's editor. Chirac gave them a reflection of what they are. Thus the strange mixture of indulgence and animosity that they feel for a human presidency - a too human one.

 

Comments

[PJ]

I agree that twelve years of Chirac have mainly been about missed opportunities - rather like ten years of Blair and Brown actually. He has sacrificed France to his own ambition, and displayed every bit as much opportunism as his unloved predecessor. About the best you can say about him is that he avoided obviously disastrous courses like the one Mitterrand pursued between 1981 and 1983.

[richard jones]

A, perhaps the, major contributor to France's decline. The only good thing he did was to allow his court to reduce his second term to five years

[Terry]

Chirac is a man of shortsighted vision. The construction of a nuclear reactor for Saddam in 1980 was his project. I guess it never occurred to Chirac why would a dictator in an oil rich company want to go nuclear. We should all thank God that the Israelis made rubble of that idea.

If Chirac's greatest success was opposing the Second Gulf War, then his presidency should be deemed a complete failure. What was this great foreign policy success Chirac had in opposing the Second Gulf War? Did it stop the coalition from invading Iraq? No. Iraq was invaded and Saddam was removed. Chirac's policy demonstrated the futility of using the U.N. to resolve international disputes and that that U.N. resolutions are meaningless. (On second thought, perhaps Chirac did accomplish something useful).

All Chirac managed to do was coddle a dictator and destroy French-U.S. relations. Sending De Villepin around the world to make the U.S. look like the bad guy did nothing more than give Chirac's buddy Saddam the false illusion that he could avoid war because the coalition was seemingly diplomatically isolated. In the end, Chirac's "diplomacy" guaranteed the invasion.

The twin reasons for Chirac's opposing the war were to take the U.S. down a peg and to protect French contracts with Saddam. Apparently, French contracts were more important than ridding the world of a ruthless dictator who killed millions of people. How altruistic.

Patton once said he would rather have two German divisions in front of him rather than one French Division behind him. I think this sentiment expresses how many Americans now view France as an ally. The French people may love Chirac for sticking his thumb in our eye. But French wine and cheese sales in America are way down.

The only clear vision Chirac had, was his own aggrandizement of power.

P.S. An interesting link showing who benefitted from keeping Saddam in power.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm

[AL]

It's always interesting to read the insightful comments of foreigners on our politics.....

French people aren't fools and we are aware that chirac is not the best president, but all Frnace is behind him when it comes to Irak. We would rather loose all sales from America and UK on our cheeses and wines, (by the way noone buys them in the states because of the import tax, it makes the produce to expensive anyway), than invade another country without any good reason.

You want to know the result for France, teh last terror atack was in 1995 and no french citizen has died beceause of the second gulf war. The other result is that France is not resposnible for the fact that Irak is in worst shape than with Saddam, that Irakee people are dying of hunger, diseases and war.

And yes, French people are prooud of that and proud of having a president who has the guts to say no to the USA.

Some should take lessons before criticising other countries.

[The 3rd column]

Al,

I agree entirely with you. President Chirac will leave a legacy of being the better statesman than the lying Blair and Bush and their accolytes put together.

On the moral issue that is Iraq, the two major Western leaders who pretend to lead by example - Bush and Blair - failed and failed miserably on that score.

Foreigners may criticize Chirac but we are proud to have had a leader who knew that the illegal invasion and war on Iraq was wrong and it is wrong whatever Bush, the warmonger, the political cavalier and his lapdog Tony Blair may say or do.

Chirac's leadership on that very moral issue will never ever be flawed.

For that alone, we would forever be indebted to the president and leader that was Jacques Chirac.

[Daniel Strohl]

Terry,

A simple question : do you think that the US would have invaded Irak if this country would not have been "an oil rich company" (??) but only a poor sandy spot populated by some overarmed Chia, Sunnites and Kurds led by a dictator?

By the way, their weapons were as well of American as of French origin ,plus some others as well.
Weapons of mass destruction (the main reason claimed for the invasion of Irak) were not found there after the war and that was obvious prior to the war (UN inspection mission, satellite observations, intelligence etc.)

[Anne]

Terry,
In France, a majority of people don't really like or admire the current US president. But we like America and the American people. We believe in the long history of friendship between the two countries, irrespective of governments on both sides of the Atlantic. I was fascinated by the outpouring of resentment and (sorry for this strong word, but it seems appropriate) hatred in the comments you wrote in the Times today. The topic is simply Chirac’s departure from the French presidency. So why turn it into a negative fixation about France as a whole ? You did not leave anything out, you even go back in time to WWII !(were you there ? my grandfather was, and sadly died in the American convoys). Dear Terry, move on. You apparently (still, after all these years) feel very strongly about war in Irak and France’s decision not to join in. What specially does not impress me in what you wrote today, is that you seem to rejoice in the retaliation measures inflicted upon French …cheese producers. You are right, this should truly force our admiration…What an achievement, how courageous on behalf of a great country. Highly symbolic measure there. No economic motive behind it, of course not..
Well, if I remember well, France was not isolated in its decision to stay out of the conflict in Irak. So how is it that you don’t mention the other countries opposed to it , namely China, Germany and Russia? Why didn’t they get victimized the same way ? And, by the way, just where are Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, ready to strike ?
There is very little interest in trying to find a scapegoat for the political, diplomatic and military disaster Irak has now turned into. True, Saddam had to go. But something better was expected to follow his horrendous regime. Can you honestly say it is the case ? Everybody makes mistakes, still the US (maybe because it is such a young country) seem to have a remarkable incapacity to understand other mentalities, other countries. That might partly explain the fact that - while, as you like to say, “French wine and cheese sales in America are way down” (your well meaning closing words) – at the same time the number of friends of America on this planet is – also - way down. Sadly it seems the USA don’t have much of a fan club left in the world today. Food for thought.
Don’t get me wrong. I like America. I have met wonderful people there, really. But I believe it is a shame to try and encourage (or relay in your case) hatred between people, whatever the political circumstances or politicians in office. Remember, Chirac is no more France than Bush is America. And thank God for that. Anne

[Anne]

Terry,
In France, a majority of people don't really like or admire the current US president. But we like America and the American people. We believe in the long history of friendship between the two countries, irrespective of governments on both sides of the Atlantic. I was fascinated by the outpouring of resentment and (sorry for this strong word, but it seems appropriate) hatred in the comments you wrote in the Times today. The topic is simply Chirac’s departure from the French presidency. So why turn it into a negative fixation about France as a whole ? You did not leave anything out, you even go back in time to WWII !(were you there ? my grandfather was, and sadly died in the American convoys). Dear Terry, move on. You apparently (still, after all these years) feel very strongly about war in Irak and France’s decision not to join in. What specially does not impress me in what you wrote today, is that you seem to rejoice in the retaliation measures inflicted upon French …cheese producers. You are right, this should truly force our admiration…What an achievement, how courageous on behalf of a great country. Highly symbolic measure there. No economic motive behind it, of course not..
Well, if I remember well, France was not isolated in its decision to stay out of the conflict in Irak. So how is it that you don’t mention the other countries opposed to it , namely China, Germany and Russia? Why didn’t they get victimized the same way ? And, by the way, just where are Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, ready to strike ?
There is very little interest in trying to find a scapegoat for the political, diplomatic and military disaster Irak has now turned into. True, Saddam had to go. But something better was expected to follow his horrendous regime. Can you honestly say it is the case ? Everybody makes mistakes, still the US (maybe because it is such a young country) seem to have a remarkable incapacity to understand other mentalities, other countries. That might partly explain the fact that - while, as you like to say, “French wine and cheese sales in America are way down” (your well meaning closing words) – at the same time the number of friends of America on this planet is – also - way down. Sadly it seems the USA don’t have much of a fan club left in the world today. Food for thought.
Don’t get me wrong. I like America. I have met wonderful people there, really. But I believe it is a shame to try and encourage (or relay in your case) hatred between people, whatever the political circumstances or politicians in office. Remember, Chirac is no more France than Bush is America. And thank God for that. Anne

[richard jones]

Cher Al,

Méfiez-vous quand vous désignez le titre d'étranger aux personnes qui contribuent à ce BLOG.
D'abord des fois le nom de famille déguise une nationalité même des fois un lieu de naissance.
Deuxièmement le plus longtemps que vous vous accepter le point de vue que les étrangers ne comprennent rien de la France ou pire ils n'ont pas le droit de la critiquer le plus longtemps vous risquez d'être aveugle aux problèmes grave en France et le débat qui a dû se passer pour les régler.
Surtout svp rappelez bien qu'une France en moins de difficultés et moins perturbés est pour le bien de tous, soit l'EU, les Etats-Unis, et le monde en générale.

[Terry]

Well, Charles was right. The French just love there Chirac for his cowardly "Non!".

3rd Column said: Chirac's leadership on that very moral issue will never ever be flawed.

Really? Coddling a dictator is moral? Building a nuclear power plant for a dictator who used chemical weapons on his own people is moral? Giving diplomatic cover to a brutal dictator to protect France's business interests is moral?

Saddam Hussein is not a sovereign leader. He was not elected by the Iraqi people. He rules solely at the point of a gun not by an election. And he was removed by the same rules he plays by.

It's okay if France (as usual) didn't not want to help with the heavy lifting. Please remember that French independence you so swagger about was only achieved through our (england, aust., can., nz, etc) liberation of your country. Permit us to do the same for Iraq without mocking us with some false sense of higher morals. France's opposition was all about your wallet, 3rd column.

Daniel asked:

A simple question : do you think that the US would have invaded Irak if this country would not have been "an oil rich company" (??)

Yes, certainly a "simple" question. This is the same simplemindedness that is so tiresome but easy to swat down. The price of oil has gone up to nearly $4 a gallon here (200% increase). So, the inference that we wanted to control the oil to benefit consumers has no merit. Somalia, Grenada, Vietnam, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Korea, Serbia (kind of), Lebanon, Panama. None of these countries has oil, yet the United States sent troops to these countries in order to protect democracy. Oil is important to democracy. But freedom is more important to democracy. Name for me one war between two democracies (maybe War of 1812). All the most destructive wars are totalitarian countries verse free countries (or verse other totalitarian countries). These middle eastern countries still live in a political system akin to the 12th century. With nuclear weapons, we can't wait any longer. It is time to start helping these people toward democracy.

The French are not reknown for their foresight. It was too late to use an ounce of prevention when German tanks were rolling under the Arc de Triumphe . And it will be too late when someone lights off a nuclear firecracker in New York or someplace that is dear to you.

BTW: It was not the French opposition that insulted Americans. Germany said no. It was the manner it was done that provoked such anger in America.

[rocket]

http://www.rte.ie/business/2007/0515/france.html

dah! don't have to be a genius to figure that out. Just go into the street and listen

[R Bernadette Shah]

As an international statesman, Chirac would be remembered as the firm voice of reason against the US nvasion of Iraq which was a clear violation of international law.

[Terry]

Anne:

Why don't I resent Germany, China, etc.? Well, I don't think it was any country's obligation to agree with us. Each one has the right to say no. Those countries said no, so what? What I objected to, and what you ignore, was the MANNER in the French did it. Chirac sent Dominique De Talleyrand around the world to campaign against the coalition and to make us the villian. That was really bad form from a supposed friend. And what was all this about? So Chirac could protect his little dictator and all those perky contracts. How nice. Why didn't Chirac just build Saddam another reactor?

Of course I did not fight in France. But three of my four uncles fought there to liberate your country (the fourth was in the pacific). Ironically, they both hate Bush. But they hate France even more for the way they went about it the whole Iraq method. The word my Uncle Bill used was "ingratitude". There was another word before that but this is a family blog. I understand that the French may want to forget how they had to be liberated by the U.S. but sometimes it might be good for you to remember how that came to pass.

Lastly, I don't believe Iraq is a disaster. The coalition took the entire country with only a couple hundred casualties. Compare that to the slaughter of Iwo Jima and that is quite a military accomplishment. We are controlling a country of 25 million with 150k soldiers. That is very impressive. The Iraqis have had several free elections. Yes, a bomb goes off every day or so in a market. But, militarily, that is insignificant. For the most part, Iraq is quite peaceful. I know since my Rotary sends packages to troops from my town.

[Terry]

Chirac. International statesman. What a laugh. More like-International salesman. Will sell to highest bidding dictator.

[richard jones]

Bernadette,

You are quite correct, or are you? Do you remember Chiraq's reasons for saying no? I bet all you remember was his saying Non! Do you remember Chiraq being loudly against the American build-up in Kuwait and Gulf right from the start? You don't because he wasn't until he could see a clear means of humiliating the USA by causing them 'to loose face' a serious Semtic cultural thing if they pulled out.
There are also the money issues, perhaps overplayed.
The NON was right and as soon as we began to see the pictures on the wall and the Colin Powell show we all realised something was not quite right and yes we didn't exactly believe George had the intellectual wherewithal to see it through to a 'good end'. But 'La France, c'est moi' Chiraq did not offer any other solutions to the USA as a genuine world statesman might have done.
He simply rubbed salt in the wound.
He was right but the way it did it was a cheap and nasty gesture much more likely from a school bully than an international figure.
Then he slags the new members of the EU in another fit of self-righteous pontification.
The man did so badly here. He had an opportunity to do a Lafayette and ended up doing a de Gaulle bis.

[marine]

I guess Jacques Chirac is like any other person you'v got used to. We have always seen him around. You end up growing some kind of affection for him.

I agree with Charles comments, he said some necessary truth about French past and I consider he didn't do too bad on the world and european scenes. He did so with his own strenghts: he has strong and diverse networks, real interest in other cultures and little respect for transparency and use of public money.

It's a good thing he retires, I hope the bad manners and habits of the French politician elits of his time will be gone too... But I am not very optimistic.

Terry, you gave us a great list of democratic and free countries as the result of do-good military interventions.

[The 3rd column]

Cool it, Terry, no need be frightfully upset. I suggest you read Anne's post to learn a bit more.

If you notice, my appreciation of President Chirac for his opposition to what was unequivocally Bush's and Blair's illegal invasion of and war on Iraq does not make me (or those I know who are opposed to the Iraq invasion) hate the ordinary Americans or Brits.

I do believe that there are many people in France who despise Bush and Blair for what they've done and for what they continue to do but I don't believe for one second that they would stoop as low as you do with your vitriolics against the French.

Oh and by the way, do revise your history again. While we are grateful for the rest of the Allies for helping the French free France of the Germans, it would do you a lot of good to acknowledge that the French were part of the invading forces to free France.

It would also do you a lot of good to know that a French marquis and French troops helped George Washington defeat King George's armies in the former British colony that you now call United States of America.

Anyway, Terry, you may believe what you want - your absolute right to do so - but I counsel prudence when it comes to intimating that "you know the French"; it is not because "you scream louder or loudest" that you are right.

[The 3rd column]

Re Lies about the WMDs: I suggest good reading material on the matter, i.e., the Downing Street Memos found in Mick Smith's webs site (Mick is Charles Bremner's fellow Times writer).

http://www.michaelsmithwriter.com/memos.html

On Bush's planned invasion of Iraq:

'The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy.' says Sir Richard Dearlove, chief MI6 in 2002

[Sherry]

As an American, I feel compelled to chime in here.

Terry, I don't quite understand your apparent(continued) anger on this point towards France. Sure Chirac probably could've been a bit more diplomatic in his approach, but that's really not a reason for your broad generalisations about the French and, frankly, your hostile comments towards French people in general. As a sovereign nation they had every right to make the choice they did...perhaps it's time to respect this choice and move on. The reality of the situation is that we're still allies and work together on several fronts (trade/investment, anti-terrorism efforts, etc), so doesn't it make sense to move forward on this point rather than going-on on this 'your with us or against us' theme for any longer?

In addition, I don't believe for one second that the 'anti-french' boycott bandwagon that we saw leading up to the Iraq war (and just after the invasion) in the US is still going on. In fact, as someone who loves wine (and reads up fairly regularly on the industry), you actually were not correct on the 'declining' sales of french wine in the States. Perhaps you didn't follow the 2005 Bordeaux en primeur campaign which was one of the biggest (in terms of sales) in the US in years, or the fact that there was actually a fairly significant inc in French wine exports to the US in '06 (even with the weak dollar), etc...also one other pt, I believe the avg national gas price per gallon in the US now is $3, not $4 ;-).

You mentioned previously you were visiting France soon...honestly, given your views expressed on this board, why do you want to come here (France) again?

[Sherry]

As an American, I feel compelled to chime in here.

Terry, I don't quite understand your apparent(continued) anger on this point towards France. Sure Chirac probably could've been a bit more diplomatic in his approach, but that's really not a reason for your broad generalisations about the French and, frankly, your hostile comments towards French people in general. As a sovereign nation they had every right to make the choice they did...perhaps it's time to respect this choice and move on. The reality of the situation is that we're still allies and work together on several fronts (trade/investment, anti-terrorism efforts, etc), so doesn't it make sense to move forward on this point rather than going-on on this 'your with us or against us' theme for any longer?

In addition, I don't believe for one second that the 'anti-french' boycott bandwagon that we saw leading up to the Iraq war (and just after the invasion) in the US is still going on. In fact, as someone who loves wine (and reads up fairly regularly on the industry), you actually were not correct on the 'declining' sales of french wine in the States. Perhaps you didn't follow the 2005 Bordeaux en primeur campaign which was one of the biggest (in terms of sales) in the US in years, or the fact that there was actually a fairly significant inc in French wine exports to the US in '06 (even with the weak dollar), etc...also one other pt, I believe the avg national gas price per gallon in the US now is $3, not $4 ;-).

You mentioned previously you were visiting France soon...honestly, given your views expressed on this board, why do you want to come here (France) again?

[pouet]

I think Chirac was rather good on Iraq. The way he led contestation was rather harsh, but what was at stake was the failure of this war.

But don't miss the point, it was a political and economical calculation:
- Iraq was a broken country (2 wars in less than 20 years + massacres)
- It was not a short-term threat
- War would not lead to peace but to chaos, and no army can stay in the place more than a few years
- The first Gulf war was an economic opportunity for USA, but not for France
- France would not benefit from military expenses
- Making war against Iraq was not the best way to reduce terrorism

So let's be the challenger.

I agree that the last part is stupid, but I don't think there was any other way (Europe was divided on this subject)I think Chirac hoped to bring back USA to reason. Once he discovered it was not possible, he put aside politeness (everyone would do that for what is a matter of lif or death) Truly, I don't think he wanted to have a confrontation with USA (he likes the country so much)
For the supposed interest he had with Sadam Hussein, I don't think that it weighed very much in comparison to the interest France shares with USA.
Clearly, the ego part is a very important one in his decision.

Please, forget the argument "we are not going to buy your wine". The decrease of french exportations to USA is null. It makes me think of your comment, Terry, when you talked about not spending your money during your stay in France. From my point of view, I'm not expecting you to spend your money in France, but I'd rather like you to enjoy your stay here. It's going to be hard, I'm afraid.

To me, Chirac was an archaic president. We had no choice but him, because he was embodying the old politic system. This system, we deserved it. For our lack of pragmatism, and vigilance (against corruption for instance)

But still, I've red some people on this blog rejoycing for the election of Sarkozy. It's truly a new era. A time for action. But I'm really sceptical about the way he is going to act.
We'll need more change after that: police, justice, corruption (he is not going to do anything on this subject, he is part of the business)

[Stephen Bull]

1997-2007 Tony Blair
1995-2007 Jacques Chirac

Two stories of disappointment and failure.

Chirac was elected in 1995 to cure the divisions in French society. He not only failed but each time he had the chance to succeed he fled, leaving good ministers like Alain Juppe to hang out to dry. He claimed that a president who failed to carry an election should resign rather than share power but he hung on twice. He promised everything and did nothing. Chirac lied to the French and left them disappointed.

Blair was elected in 1997 and promised to cure Britain's ills. He did spend what he said he would; he spent emormously on health and education but without much effect. The results are still not clear. But there was a but and that was Iraq. He lied enormously and he will always be remembered as the British Prime Minister who lied to the British people.

Blair tried to do what he promised; he failed because he was not bold enough, and he added a major mistake; Chirac was a enormous grandstander as godfather of Europe, but on the big issues for the rejuvenation of France or the world, he did not even try!

[Dominique]

I am afraid Terry is in denial this time.

By the way, why shouldn't France be allowed to try to stop the US from doing a mistake if it belive it is the right thing to do? You could say that the US stopped France from trying to avoid the Irak war and therefore betrayed France!

Terry, come on.

[Ros]

3rd Column says to Terry,"it would do you a lot of good to acknowledge that the French were part of the invading forces to free France." - I must add that I agree - my late french husband was in the maquis at a very young age when I was still at boarding school in England! He wasn't very expansive about it but I did learn quite a lot.

[Valentin]

Oh just let Terry say what he wants... all americans here are the same, just like George Bush, they would rather die or turn the world into ashes than admit mistake.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died already, and all they care about is that 105k troops keep a country of 20m. (do they really...)
I was looking at the latest neocon story on TV, Wolfowitz being "convicted" by the World Bank board, and seeing how all Bush found right to do, was stand by him.
They just never admit mistakes. Let millions more die in Iraq, they'll still babble around about Freedom and Democracy and so on and so forth...
It's just sad, please let's just drop it on Iraq.

[honestJon]

"illegal invasion of and war on Iraq": A total falsehood! Please remember that The U.N. passed a resolution that allowed military intervention. Please also remember that the U.S.A. went there at great cost to itself for numerous reasons other than WMD. Foremost among them: so that the Iraqis would have a chance at democracy and a good life. If it werent for evil Muslim terrorists, that country would be one of the most prosperous in the world by now. It still may become a great world power but only if the Iraqis themselves will pony up and forget their religious urges to murder each other to come together for long enough to become a true nation-state.
My only real beef with Pres. Chirac was his handling of the run up to the war. It is fine to disagree (the U.S. has 300 million disagreers) but not to try to thwart the good will of the American people.
The bottom line: if you don't agree with us, that is okay. Just get out of our way, s'il vous plait so we can at least attempt to do a good deed!

[Daniel Strohl]

Terry,

You do not have answered really and convincingly my « simplistic » question, but it does not matter. You are what one may possibly call a fanatic – that means a reasonable conversation is hardly possible.

It seems that you like history (me too – this is an interest we have in common). You made a reference to the 12.th century. At that time occured what is called by the French historians « la croisade des Albigeois « (croisade means crusade; the Albigeois were the inhabitants of the city of Albi in Southern France). The Albigeois had been declared as heretics by the pope. The king of France dispatched an army, led by Simon de Montfort, to curb the heretism (and also by the way to gain a new province). Many « heretics » were killed, some of them were made prisoners. One of his officers asked Simon de Montfort what he should do with the prisoners. He is quoted to have said : « Kill them all, God will recognize His followers » - « Tuez-les tous, Dieu reconnaitra les siens ». May be the quote is apocryphal, but the net result of this crusade was that the kingdom of France had gained a new province, with of course some casualties in the king's army – may be a couple of hundred soldiers - I do not know.

PS : You are right, the manner used by the French diplomacy was wrong and I fully understand that many Americans were hurt and therefore resentful. But this does not entitle you to make "below the belt" attacks.

[terry]

3rd Column:

IM NOT SCREAMING!

Actually, I don't quite see where I am screaming. Perhaps you are just becoming angry reading comments you do not agree with. As usual, my specific arguments were ignored. I asked was Chirac coddling a dictator? Did Chirac not help prop up a brutal regime? Did Chirac try to build Saddam a nuclear reactor? Was that so wise? All I heard in response to these questions were crickets chirping.

Well, that's not entirely true. I received the usual anti-French accusations. That does not work on me. Please sell your wares elsewhere. If you do not have a direct response to my arguments, I merely assume you cannot answer them.

Anne:

The subject of the article was Chirac leaving and his accomplishments. I found it amusing that opposing the invasion was a major triumph for him. Was it? I made specific arguments that Chirac was propping up a brutal dictator. Do you have any response to my arguments or do you wish to take the intellectually lazy route of calling me anti-French and saying the USA is not popular so I am right? I just love when people says America is unpopular so I must be right. Back when Reagan was President and my country was defending Europe from the Soviet threat, hundreds of thousands of lefties came out into the street protesting the hard line we took against the Soviet Union. The USA was very unpopular then too. Well, the hard line worked and the wall fell. Sometimes doing the right thing is unpopular. Conformity and popularity might be the standard followed among a group of 14 year old girls but it does not make it the proper choice.

Marine:

Most often, the countries who need are military assistance are not functioning democracies. That's why they need our help. Every so often, though, we do have to come to the aid of a democratic country that cannot defend itself. I can think of at least one.

[anthony mayer]

And, yes, Marine, and you yourself forget that, aside of the military support provided by de La Fayette against France's old colonial rival, most of those revolutionaries who founded what is now called the United States were also Brits.

And, as for Chirac's opportunistic US-scapegoating and Anglophobism, a convenient way to distract from France's own declining influence in the wolrd.

[Josh]

Cheer Iraq este Chirac should be credited for standing against the likes of Adolf Hitler, invading a sovereign nation. Why the US supports Saddam previously eventhough he's such a brutal dictator. and now invade and hanged him when this friendship gone.

[Sherry]

Valentin,

Agreed Terry should move pass this one. But, can I ask you to drop your negative generalisations of all Americans as you said 'all americans here are the same, just like George Bush, they would rather die or turn the world into ashes than admit mistake'? ...Fact is, Terry is now in the minority in terms of opinion on Iraq - the majority of Americans now disagree with the war, believe it was a mistake and a disaster, and believe that we should pull out. In addition, Bush's approval ratings in the States are now at only 28% (I believe Dick Cheney's are in single digits ;-). Seems that many Americans have come to the same conclusions as you (even if the Bush Administration hasn't).

Terry,

Another question out of curiosity, you state 'Most often, the countries who need are military assistance are not functioning democracies'...If this is your logic, why are we not intervening militarily in Zimbabwe, Darfur (Sudan), Cuba, etc? When, according to your logic, would be the right point to intervene?

[marine]

Anthony,
I was refering to this list of countries: Somalia, Grenada, Vietnam, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Korea, Serbia (kind of), Lebanon, Panama.
Let's say it was a bit of irony and not totally right since South Korea is a democracy, Lebanon tries hard and Serbia may take this way (their last nationalistic government doesn't convince me much).

I don't believe military interventions bring many positive outcomes for freedom and democracy in our time. I don't believe one can force democracy into countries. However I acknowledge that sometimes the international community has no other solution, we're really at the beginning of peace building and peace restoring policies, we have not understood yet how to do that properly. Even though, sometimes it works, the UK did pretty well in Sierra Leone.

But to give Somalia as an example of the good results of military intervention, I find that hilarious (or desperating if you look at the situation of this country).

Thanks, I am well aware that many Brits founded the US.

[Donald]

Chirac will be remembered for Iraq?

Chirac was respondible for building a French nuclear reactor for Saddam. With the First Gulf War (which the French supported) where would that have gone if the Israelis hadn't destroyed that French reactor? Saddam would almost certainly have had a nuclear bomb, or at least a dirty bomb by 1991.

The U.S. was wrong to use military force in Iraq without United Nations approval, the French say. The French did not complain when they wanted NATO (that is, the United States) to use military force against the Serbs after the French allowed 250,000 innocent civilians to be killed in and around Sarajevo on European soil. And the French wanted this military intervention WITHOUT approval from the United Nations! (Russia and China would not have agreed to it.) Then the French wanted the United States to come in again WITHOUT approval from the United Nations to save Kosovo in 1999. But when it came to Iraq, the United States should have gotten United Nations approval according to the French!!

A blatant double standard.

The Europeans (France, Germany and Britain) failed completely in their negotiations to get Iran to not build nuclear weapons. They have been as successful in this as they were in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990's.

The Europeans don't like the thought of Iran having the bomb. If the U.S. had not invaded Iraq, by now Saddam would have been working on the bomb to counter the one from Iran. There would have been a nuclear arms race going on right now in that part of the world.
The Europeans conveniently don't mention this fact when they condemn the U.S. for invading Iraq. If they think they have problems now with Iran, they would have had double the problems with Iraq (Saddam had already invaded 2 other countries and had used WMD against his own people and the Iranians). The U.N. inspectors had no mandate to destroy Iraqi infastructure like laboratories and factories for building nuclear weapons once the inspectors had left. The infrasture and scientists were left in place to start up all over again.

It is about time the Europeans shouldered some of the responsibility that they have always given to the United States to do like stop the killing in Bosnia and Kosovo. If their methods worked, they would have been successful there and in their talks with Iran which have proved to be a complete failure.

It is a cheap shot to condemn the U.S. for its unilateral action (with Britain) when they wanted U.S. action in Southeastern Europe just a few years before. Where are the success stories of European diplomacy with Iran, or Kosovo or Serbia? If they can do better in the real world, let's see it. So far, within their own backyard (Bosnia and Kosovo) and Iran, they have completely failed.

It is easier to condemn than to do better.

[Louis Billerey]

The allegation that Chirac did'nt do very much is a point in his favour. You only need to contemplate the long list of bad mistakes made by the current Labour régime to come to the conclusion that masterly activity by the politicos who interfere in our lives would be a godsend.
From a pragmatic point of view it would seem that the conquest of Iraq has not been a good thing for the conquered. Whether it has been OK for the conquerors is not clear. There has'nt been a great deal of talk about how the Iraq oil industry has been doing recently. Nor much about the state of the National Museum in Baghdad.

[Maggie]

Hurrah !!! at last the Poseur is leaving.
Maybe now we will see him in court ! how fantastic that will be. Maybe he could return some of those 'gifts' he has reputed to have taken from his ' much beloved country .
Yes, I know it's wishful thinking, pigs will fly over the Elysee before that happens , no doubt.

[textibule]

As an American living in Albi for quite awhile now (site of the aforementioned Croisades Albigeoises), I feel like I gotta chime in here.

Looks like a post-mortem on Chirac has been hijacked by an American neocon France-basher who just can't resist reading/commenting on Charles' pertinent insights into France.

In the end, France and America have a lot in common: both have lost their way. As befits a great hyperpower, America's descent into incoherence causes much destruction and havoc everywhere. France's malaise is much better contained, the incoherence remains intramuros, and to compensate, the cheese and wine are still extraordinary.

What has been wrong in France has been wrong for quite awhile. Chirac was awful for France, a 12-year sleeping pill, and now France's long overdue awakening might just become possible.

The difficulty might be that one should move slowly for a little while after taking such a powerful sleeping potion as Chirac. But the mood is to change, reform. There will probably be some sprained ankles getting out of bed.

[terry]

The amusing thing about my first post was that I was only attacking Chirac policies. Some of you may wish to read it again. Slowly and carefully.

I'll ask the questions a third time. Was Chirac coddling a brutal dictator just to protect business interests in France? Did he not try to build Saddam a nuclear reactor? Were these moral policies?

Those were the points of my original post. Any takers?

[Valentin]

Sherry,

You're right, I'm sorry, I was of course speaking about our favorite bunch of americans, Terry, Rocket, MCD and a couple more.
Polls in the US might show it differently, but here at least there are very few dissenting voices to the neocon ones.

[JuanE]

Terry,

Was Chirac coddling a brutal dictator just to protect business interests in France? At the risk of endangering the French business interest with the US? At the time I think France had more business interest with the US than with Iraq, and those were at risk for his policy towards the war.
Did he not try to build Saddam a nuclear reactor? Dont know, guess he did, like Rumsfeld sold him chemical and biological weapons he did use. Have you forgotten Saddam was the west main ally against Iran?
Were these moral policies? After the two previous answers, you can answer that.

[Terry]

Juane:

You need to read up a bit. The project to build the iraqi reactor was Chirac's deal. Please inform me I can find support for your notion that Cheney sold bioligical and chemical weapons to Saddam.

My questions still stand. Was Chirac Saddam's poodle?

[sam]

Sounds like one of those "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" situations. Both France and the US are guilty of quite a bit if you look carefully. Maybe they can help eachother to move forward in a positive way.

[Terry]

Marine:

I did not say U.S. military intervention always works. I merely noted that we don't intervene just because of oil, which was your point. Our military intervention certainly worked in Germany, France, Italy and Japan.

As for "forcing" democracy on people, perhaps you forget that Saddam ruled by the gun. That is how he achieved power. He forced his rule over the people of Iraq by killing anyone opposed to him. So, we are not forcing democracy on Iraq. We have removed Saddam and now we are giving Iraqis the chance to choose how to run their lives. The high turnout of Iraqis at the polls was quite telling. They may have a long way to go but at least they now have a chance for freedom.

Again, people like textibule don't respond to arguments. They just call people names like "neocon" and "frenchbasher". How intellectually lazy.

[Tom]

The world is a much more dangerous place today than it was 25, 50, or even 200 plus years ago. I am not confident that Chirac really understood this fact. WMDs are no longer comic book stories, but are today's reality. Democracies, including France, must face this fact. As an American, I am painfully disappointed in our President for not managing and prosecuting the Iraq war in a manner that would have resulted in a more expedited democracy.
Regardless of my own disappointment with the war, I am almost as disappointed in Chirac's antics. Chirac deliberately and with vigor proceeded to poke a finger in the eye of France's biggest protector and historical friend. If this action was not enough, he then foolishly acted like a proud peacock. This was not cool. We Americans are very thick skinned and generous people, and we are very proud of our historical efforts to protect our friends.. to have a friend act in this manner gave us a great deal of heartburn. Democractic Countries can disagree, but you do not poke each other in the eye. You need all eyes clear to watch for the next terroritst attack. I think both countries will be better off with new presidents. Let us just hope that we can quickly re-establish a bond of friendship and focus on the goal of peace, prosperity and "equality" for everyone in this world...including all French citizens.
Tom

[LEGION]

Give me a break! The fwench only came in at the end of the Revolutionary War when we started winning. They did not come to help us, but to help themselves and hurt Britian! Layfayette was a laughingstock in his home country. Benjamin Franklin begged for years for help with no takers. You barely helped us in the Revolutionary War, but we saved your a** in TWO World Wars. You owe us BIG TIME!
Story in the traitor NY Slimes about how Saddam raped the southern marshes of his country- slaughtering the Marsh Arabs, to drill for oil, not mentioned it was done at the behest and fortune of fwwench Oil Companies! No Blood for Oil is their cry!! Torture chambers, rape rooms, mass genocide, invading other countries, no problem, as long as they get their oil, the fwwench, germ mans, and commie chinks and ruskies are all complicit!!! TRAITORS to all of mankind. Rwanda, Somolia, Darfur region all go unheeded because of these scum. USA, only decent country in the world, thats why all flock to us. Although with the traitor demo-rats hamstringing us for political gain, we may go down. By the way, Chemical weapons and a nuclear program WERE found in Iraq, but you won't find the mainstream traito press mentioning that. The museum in Iraq got 99.99% of its items back- the STAFF took the stuff home to keep it from being looted and it has been returned- go search on the internet to find those buried stories! Speaking of buried, sandstorms revealed the tips of buried fighter jets outside of Baghdad's airport fitted with illegal fwweench upgrades on them!!! Also, who cares who likes us- we are the boss of the world, the boss does whats right, not to do stuff to please the clueless employees, we we 'nice' under clit-ton, and we got the Koybar towers bombing, the embassies in Africa bombed, the USS Cole attacked, yadda yadda yadda, nice guys finish last. So GIVE ME A BREAK with your foolish claptrap!

[rocket]

Valentin

"You're right, I'm sorry, I was of course speaking about our favorite bunch of americans, Terry, Rocket, MCD and a couple more.
Polls in the US might show it differently, but here at least there are very few dissenting voices to the neocon ones."

Once again dommage pour toi!

Who are you calling neocon and why is having an opposing opinion to yours considered to be neocon.

This is the same type of remarks that I got from my former French family (once upon a lifetime ago)when I didn't agree with their left leaning (voire communiste) views. Aren't you able to put into perpective that opinions may differ and responses can be more direct than what you allow yourself.

I am anything but a neocon and I'm not even sure you understand the full meaning of the word. In the last US election that I voted in I voted Clinton by the way. But in YOUR world if we don't agree with all things French we suddenly become neocons. Kinda like the Maginot line mentality. non?

[marine]

Terry,
I didn't write a word about oil or Irak. My point was more about the efficiency of military interventions to promote democracy, regardless of which country or organization is leading those interventions. Still, I agree sometimes there is no other solution, but it is likely that we disagree on when and why such intervention is necessary. Also, I failed to precise I was rather considering post cold war conflicts.

I agree with you, dictators generally use violence and force to reign.

[Sherry]

Terry,

You consistently accuse those on this board as being 'intellectually lazy' b/c they disagree with you. Well, I would also assert that it is intellectually lazy to make broad, stereotypical generalisations about 60 million people - such as "The French are not reknown for their foresight" or "It's okay if France (as usual) didn't not want to help with the heavy lifting" or "Patton once said he would rather have two German divisions in front of him rather than one French Division behind him. I think this sentiment expresses how many Americans now view France as an ally." In addition, your views are your views...how do you know what the views of Americans are on France as an ally? Any articles, surveys, etc you could share on this pt?

Secondly, you also said people here haven't responded to your questions. You also haven't responded my questions...so, I'll ask them again: you stated 'Most often, the countries who need are military assistance are not functioning democracies'...If this is your logic, why are we not intervening militarily in Zimbabwe, Darfur (Sudan), Cuba, etc? When, according to your logic, would be the right point to intervene? Honestly curious to hear your point of view on this.

[Daniel Strohl]

Textibul,

I like your post and your pseudonym is quite funny.

You are right, Charles insights into France are always pertinent and I would add, with a subtle dose of humour which makes the reading of his chronicles so pleasant. Politics are often boring, but not with Charles

A commentary to your formulation « the incoherence remains intramuros » : Thanks God, we are lucky to have a rather big country relative to the number of inhabitants – that means that the walls are far away and thus, the reverberation on them is somewhat attenuated ... But unfortunately the walls are porous.

Sam,

You have made the point – next time, I will address you as Solomon ...

[JuanE]

Terry

Did I mention Cheney?? As far as i know rumsfeld went to Iraq and found Saddam to be a wonderful guy to work with. What happened to the questions you mentionned in your post? Do you actually think Chirac opposed the war in Iraq because of the business interests there, at the risk of endangearing the massive business interest with the US?
And are you interested in a frank discussion or in point scoring?

[Dominique]

Donald,

"It is easier to condemn than to do better"

I would also say :

"It is easier to condemn than to do worse"