Reply
Sun 29 May, 2005 10:51 pm
I know Bush laughed his ass off.
As did I.
Suck it, Jaquey!
Lash wrote:I know Bush laughed his ass off.
As did I.
Suck it, Jaquey!
Doesn't sound like you like the guy.....
A thousand times non
The Times (U.K.) ^ | 05/30/05 | Tim Hames
IT IS appropriate today, in the tradition of Private Eye magazine, to begin with an apology. Regular readers of this column over the years (both of them) might have been left with the impression that Jacques Chirac, President of France, is a bounder, a cad, an opportunist devoid of consistent principle, an ostentatious fraud and an enormous obstruction to the cause of progress not merely in his home country, but across an entire continent and, at times, the whole world. A reasonable reader might deem, from the words often offered here, that he is, in short, good for absolutely nothing.
Mais non. Admittedly by accident, not design, M Chirac has, this morning, raised himself to the status of the immortals. By his shameless attempt to bounce his nation into endorsing an EU constitution for which it had scant enthusiasm, for the sheer ineptitude of the administration over which he (periodically) assumes authority, and thanks to the hysterical character of the campaign that he has conducted over the past few weeks, the French President has doomed the very text that he sought to impose and saved the EU from the stagnation that its provisions threatened.
At Verdun in 1916 France was rescued by a commander who declared of his German enemy "they shall not pass". Almost nine decades later the population of France has liberated itself by repudiating a politician who had declared "thou shall pass this, or else".
And what the French have beaten to within an inch of its life, the citizens of the Netherlands will surely finish off on Wednesday. There could be no more awesome condemnation of the direction that the EU has taken for the past two decades than that the Dutch ?- the most cosmopolitan, the most internationalist, the most tolerant participants in that body for nearly 50 years ?- should be cast as Brutus. Let us not mince words. Another "no" verdict would not be murder by irrational voters. It would represent a mercy killing.
On these pages last week, Magnus Linklater, a kindly soul, professed to see much to praise in the words that were put before the people of France and rejected. He claimed that they were a model of clarity and coherence. He made his case in an elegant and eloquent manner. I fear he was misguided. In fairness, his assertion was predicated on the "summary" of the tome drawn up in Brussels. To assess any EU entity on the basis of its summary is, however, an optimistic exercise. Not merely the Devil but the realm of Hell itself lies in the details ?- or the lack of them. If Magnus can truly divine clarity in this constitution, then I have a cup of tea leaves for him to interpret.
I have no objection to the notion of a constitution for the European Union. Indeed, I can envisage much value in the concept. This does not mean that I, or anyone else, must sing the praises of anything that calls itself an EU constitution. Treaties should be considered on their merits. This one is fatally flawed by three features.
The first comes courtesy of its authors. It was devised by a grotesque carnival of a constitutional convention. A ludicrously large collection of fanatics, flunkies and functionaries ?- a Field of the Cloth of Fools' Gold ?- struggled to shape a document in their own image. This pompous forum was personified by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, a man compared with whom, unbelievably, even M Chirac does not seem so imperious. Their volume was handed over solemnly to heads of governments who had little choice but to haggle over a few points and amend incrementally at the edges.
This might not have mattered much if the constitution had some literary charm to it. It does not. Jeffrey Archer has crafted more compelling prose and a more plausible narrative. The constitution manages the rare feat of being excessively long and disturbingly ambiguous, simultaneously. It is a cross between the Berlin telephone directory and the prophecies of Nostradamus. Even if every French adult had read it cover to cover they would still have few clues what it meant or stood for. I have been professionally obliged to download several versions of this monstrosity as it went through its many manifestations. Despite that effort, it remains a mystery.
Which, in a sense, it was meant to be. This is a constitution that the citizens of Europe were meant to salute and not to scrutinise. It is laced with the assumption that all that those who live in the EU need to know about this institution is that it is "a good thing". To have proceeded with this enterprise despite rising popular antipathy towards Brussels everywhere (even in Belgium) was the height of arrogance. At last, this elite has been held accountable by an electorate.
It will shortly fall to Tony Blair to be less the president of the EU than its pathologist. As a Francophile to the fingertips but a Chiracphobe to the core, the Prime Minister must be secretly celebrating at this outcome. It is a pity that his back has been painful of late, it will have rendered laughing his socks off less pleasurable. Yet there are lessons he must learn from the French President's folly.
When he examines the wreckage of this referendum result, Mr Blair should reach five conclusions. The first is that there is nothing of the old blueprint that can be salvaged. The second is that any successor should be framed by a committee consisting of elected individuals from each member state ?- not aides, civil servants or supposed elder statesmen. The third is that it must be a less philosophical, more practical undertaking. The fourth is that, as a guide, any fresh version should be no more than 5,000 words in length in any EU language. Finally, as far as possible, it should be submitted to the voters of every EU nation for approval.
By such means, Europe might find a constitution worthy of the name and one capable of mustering public approval. This would, paradoxically, be Jacques Chirac's one lasting political memorial.
One of my English profs in college once noted that when people get old, they have increasingly difficult times with a number of the seven deadly sins like lust and gluttony and what not, and that the one sort of sin whichpeople sometimes get better at as they get older is AVERICE (the love of money).
It sounds kind of like old Jock got to worrying too much about all the oil4food dollars and what not and his attention to this EU constitution sort of suffered.
(in my best french accent) pfft!
They voted against the constitution, not chirac, neccessarily. It may bode badly for chirac, it may be to prove a point, but geezus, you guys are out for blood.
Can I just say, "eeeww"? Ok. EEEWW!
littlek wrote:(in my best french accent) pfft!
They voted against the constitution, not chirac, neccessarily. It may bode badly for chirac, it may be to prove a point, but geezus, you guys are out for blood.
All anylysises say that most of the French indeed voted against their conservative government and president.
Re: Chirac and Schroeder just got mugged by reality
Any reason why you think so - or is this just because you know nothing about the German and French political situation?
Walter Hinteler wrote:littlek wrote:(in my best french accent) pfft!
They voted against the constitution, not chirac, neccessarily. It may bode badly for chirac, it may be to prove a point, but geezus, you guys are out for blood.
All anylysises say that most of the French indeed voted against their conservative government and president.
Taking money from Saddam Hussein is gangsterism. I don't have any more sympathy for rightwing gangsters like Chirac than for leftwing gangsters like Slick KKKlinton, and the French people don't seem to either.
gungasnake wrote:One of my English profs in college once noted that when people get old, they have increasingly difficult times with a number of the seven deadly sins like lust and gluttony and what not, and that the one sort of sin whichpeople sometimes get better at as they get older is AVERICE (the love of money).
It sounds kind of like old Jock got to worrying too much about all the oil4food dollars and what not and his attention to this EU constitution sort of suffered.
It appears that you probably did as well in History as you did in English. What year was it that you flunked out, Gunga? I always thought that university was meant to give one an appreciation for critical thinking and the facts.
Has there been any contention by anyone that Chirac knew of and participated in illegal actions wrt the oil4food program? Are you making such allegations, Gunga?
Quote:
US 'backed illegal Iraqi oil deals'
Report claims blind eye was turned to sanctions busting by American firms
Julian Borger and Jamie Wilson in Washington
Tuesday May 17, 2005
The Guardian
The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.[/color]
A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.
The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.
In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.
"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.
Yesterday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. Firstly, it found the US treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, Bayoil, which facilitated payment of "at least $37m in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime".
The surcharges were a violation of the UN Oil For Food programme, by which Iraq was allowed to sell heavily discounted oil to raise money for food and humanitarian supplies. However, Saddam was allowed to choose which companies were given the highly lucrative oil contracts. Between September 2000 and September 2002 (when the practice was stopped) the regime demanded kickbacks of 10 to 30 US cents a barrel in return for oil allocations.
In its second main finding, the report said the US military and the state department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8m barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the UN-monitored Oil For Food system. Jordan was permitted to buy some oil directly under strict conditions but these purchases appeared to be under the counter.
The report details a series of efforts by UN monitors to obtain information about Bayoil's oil shipments in 2001 and 2002, and the lack of help provided by the US treasury.
After repeated requests over eight months from the UN and the US state department, the treasury's office of foreign as sets control wrote to Bayoil in May 2002, requesting a report on its transactions but did not "request specific information by UN or direct Bayoil to answer the UN's questions".
Bayoil's owner, David Chalmers, has been charged over the company's activities. His lawyer Catherine Recker told the Washington Post: "Bayoil and David Chalmers [said] they have done nothing illegal and will vigorously defend these reckless accusations."
The Jordanian oil purchases were shipped in the weeks before the war, out of the Iraqi port of Khor al-Amaya, which was operating without UN approval or surveillance.
Investigators found correspondence showing that Odin Marine Inc, the US company chartering the seven huge tankers which picked up the oil at Khor al-Amaya, repeatedly sought and received approval from US military and civilian officials that the ships would not be confiscated by US Navy vessels in the Maritime Interdiction Force (MIF) enforcing the embargo.
Odin was reassured by a state department official that the US "was aware of the shipments and has determined not to take action".
The company's vice president, David Young, told investigators that a US naval officer at MIF told him that he "had no objections" to the shipments. "He said that he was sorry he could not say anything more. I told him I completely understood and did not expect him to say anything more," Mr Young said.
An executive at Odin Maritime confirmed the senate account of the oil shipments as "correct" but declined to comment further.
It was not clear last night whether the Democratic report would be accepted by Republicans on the Senate investigations committee.
The Pentagon declined to comment. The US representative's office at the UN referred inquiries to the state department, which fail to return calls.
gungasnake wrote:
Taking money from Saddam Hussein is gangsterism. I don't have any more sympathy for rightwing gangsters like Chirac than for leftwing gangsters like Slick KKKlinton, and the French people don't seem to either.
Any facts or even rumours when Schröder took money?
Any facts when Chirac did so?
Well, the French people decided (via yesterday's referendum) that they didn't want a conservative government and a conservative president: so politics will change to the left again in France, I suppose.
When you would read, gunga, and when you would read International News, than you would know that Chirac is conservative, and the right wings are called e.g. Le Penn et De Villiers.
Re: Chirac and Schroeder just got mugged by reality
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Any reason why you think so - or is this just because you know nothing about the German and French political situation?
It could be argued that I know very little about a situation that is unknowable but it could be argued that you as an international political Junkie, know very little about the American political scene but that never seems to enter your mind.........you just keep trying.......and trying ..........and. My god you're arrogant Walter
Re: Chirac and Schroeder just got mugged by reality
rayban1 wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:
Any reason why you think so - or is this just because you know nothing about the German and French political situation?
It could be argued that I know very little about a situation that is unknowable but it could be argued that you as an international political Junkie, know very little about the American political scene but that never seems to enter your mind.........you just keep trying.......and trying ..........and.
Therein lies the distinction between you and Walter [or any other intelligent being], Rayban the tangent man. He keeps trying and trying and trying. That's what curious people do.
You, you're completely satisfied with your own narrow, smug viewpoint; no facts get in your way, nosireebob.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20050511-115405-2031r.htm
Quote:
A longtime ally of French President Jacques Chirac and a leading British critic of the Iraq war received huge contracts to resell Iraqi oil from Saddam Hussein under the U.N. oil-for-food program, Senate investigators have found.
In findings being released today, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs permanent subcommittee on investigations charges that former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua and British Member of Parliament George Galloway each received the right to market more than 10 million barrels of cut-rate oil from dictator Saddam's Oil Ministry between 1999 and 2003.
Now, under such circumstances, when a guy like Jacques Chirac is sitting there basing political decisions and the foreign policy of France on this sort of thing, then there is no difference between that and him hauling the thirty pieces of silver or whatever off in a bag over his shoulder in the dead of night himself personally. Anybody who thinks Chirac was not profitting from this activity is living in never-never land.
Problem is--as disgusting as Chirac is--isn't the right there racist? Vehemently anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic?
Do you have a viable alternative there?
Could it be that the share the wealth aspect of the EU is unappetizing to the people of the wealthier nations of Europe?
Saddam's butt buddy.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace