two articles -- Andrew Sullivan on Bush, Clinton and Iraq and THE CASE FOR THE FRENCH

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Hiawatha Bray <watha () monitortan com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:30:49 -0500
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Andrew Sullivan on Bush, Clinton and Iraq



There's almost no difference between the stated policies of Bush and Clinton
on Iraq.  So why the fuss?  In an article in the Sunday London Times, Andrew
Sullivan tries to explain:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030310

Excerpt:

On Iraq, in particular, there isn't a smidgen of principled difference
between this administration and the last one. In fact, Bush came into office
far less interventionist than Clinton and far more modest than Gore. His
campaign platform budgeted less for defense than Al Gore's did. And his
instincts were more firmly multilateral. That, of course, changed a year and
a half ago. 9/11 made him realize that American withdrawal from the world
was no longer an option. But even then, the notion of Bush's unilateralism
is greatly exaggerated. To be sure, last spring, the Bush White House argued
that taking out Saddam's weapons was non-negotiable, implying that it would
be done with or without U.N. support (a position, by the way, that Bush had
announced in the 2000 primaries). But by last September, as the world knows,
Bush decided to pursue the policy of disarmament through the United Nations,
despite the risk of falling into the inspections trap that has proved so
intractable. And now, even after a unanimous resolution supporting serious
consequences if Saddam refused to disarm immediately and completely, he's
still going back to the U.N. for further permission to enforce the
resolution by military means. His reward for this multilateralism? Contempt
and derision.

Now compare that policy to Clinton's similar dilemma with how to deal with
the Balkan crisis throughout the 1990s, culminating in the Kosovo
intervention. Did Clinton go through the United Nations to justify his
eventual NATO bombardment of Serbia? No he didn't. He didn't go through the
U.N. because the Russians pledged to veto such a military engagement. So
where were the peace protestors back then? In terms of international law,
those American bombs in Belgrade - even hitting the Chinese embassy - were
far less defensible than any that will rain down on Baghdad. Serbia had
never attacked the U.S. No U.N. mandate provided cover. But Clinton ordered
bombing anyway. And the same people who now viciously attack Bush as the
president of a rogue state - Susan Sontag anyone? - actually cheered Clinton
on.


------ End of Forwarded Message


------ Forwarded Message
From: Barry Ritholtz <ritholtz () optonline net>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:17:36 -0500
To: dave () farber net
Subject: THE CASE FOR THE FRENCH

Dave,

For IP:  A rather intriguing and mostly jingoistic-free perspective :

(I have to admit to a little xenophobic joke repeating at the expense
of the
French; This Op-Ed gave me some needed perspective).


Barry L. Ritholtz
Chief Market Strategist
Maxim Group
britholtz () maximgrp com
(516) 918-5529



THE CASE FOR THE FRENCH
By Ted Rall
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=127&e=1&cid=127&u=/
ucru/20030228/cm_ucru/the_case_for_the_french


LOS ANGELES- The trouble began when President Jacques Chirac openly
expressed the private beliefs of virtually every other world
leader--that George W. Bush's desire to start an unprovoked war with
Iraq (news - web sites) is both crazy and immoral. It has quickly
disintegrated into a ferocious display of American nativism that would
be hilarious if its gleeful idiocy wasn't so frightening.

"Axis of Weasel," howls the New York Post in reaction to France and
Germany's U.N. stance. A North Carolina restaurateur replaces French
fries with "freedom fries." In West Palm Beach, a bar owner dumps his
stock of French wine in the street, vowing to replace it with vintages
from nations that support a U.S. invasion of Iraq. (Well, there's
always Bulgaria.) Also in Palm Beach, a county official is working to
boycott French businesses from government contracts: "France's attitude
toward the United States is deplorable," says commissioner Burt
Aaronson. "It's quite possible that if we didn't send our troops there,
the French people would all be speaking German."

Allied troops liberated the French in 1944. The least France could do,
the French bashers argue, is show a little gratitude. They think that
France should stand by--or better yet help out--when U.S. troops go to
invade/liberate/whatever other countries. Sovereignty and
self-determination are fine as mere words. But it just ain't right for
a country we rescued from Nazi occupation to disagree with our policy
50 years later and threaten us with a U.N. veto.

To be sure, France owed America a nice thank-you card for D-Day. But we
owe them a more. Without France, the United States wouldn't even
exist--it would still be a British colony.

Every American schoolchild learns that a French naval blockade trapped
Cornwallis' forces at Yorktown, bringing the American revolution to its
victorious conclusion. But fewer people are aware that King Louis XVI
spent so much money on arms shipments to American rebels that he
bankrupted the royal treasury, plunged his nation into depression and
unleashed a political upheaval that ultimately resulted in the end of
the monarchy. Franklin Roosevelt wrote some fat checks to save France;
Louis gave up his and his wife's heads.

No two countries were closer during the 19th century. Americans named
streets after the Marquis de la Fayette, Louis' liaison with the
founding fathers. During the Civil War, France bankrolled the Union to
neutralize British financing for the Confederacy. How many Americans
remember that the Statue of Liberty was a gift from French
schoolchildren?

Despite that long friendship, the French--along with Asians and
overweight folks--remain one of the few groups Americans still feel
free to openly insult. A recent Gallup poll shows that 20 percent fewer
Americans view France favorably because of its unwillingness to go
along with Bush's war on Iraq. Support for Germany, perpetrators of
Nazism and the Holocaust (and which also opposes war), holds steady at
71 percent.

Some of the contempt dates to France's quick defeat in the blitzkrieg
of May-June 1940. "Do you know how many Frenchmen it takes to defend
Paris?" joked Roy Blunt, a Republican who evidently represents the
unfortunate voters of Missouri. "It's not known; it's never been tried."

Perhaps Congressman Blunt should visit the graves of the Frenchmen who
lost their lives for their country during World War I (the first
two-thirds of which, by the way, the U.S. sat out). One of them, my
great-grandfather Jean-Marie Le Corre, died in the muddy trenches of
eastern France in 1915. His death plunged his family, never comfortable
to begin with, into abject poverty. His name is engraved on a memorial
near a small church in Brittany. They say that he was a handsome guy,
popular with the ladies and always good for a joke. Because of him and
1.4 million other young men who sacrificed their lives for their
country, Paris didn't fall.

France lost a staggering four percent of its population during the
Great War. (Imagine a war that killed 11 million Americans today.)
Twenty years later, in 1939, the French army still suffered from a
massive manpower shortage. Demographics, lousy planning and equipment
shortages--the Great Depression had also hit France--cost 100,000
French soldiers their lives during six awful weeks in 1940.

They failed to save Paris, but they died defending it.

The Bush Doctrine advocates invading weak states, imposing "regime
change" and building an American empire composed of colonies whose
dark-skinned races can be exploited for cheap labor. Napoleon
Bonaparte, who terrorized Europe, had similar ideas. He easily
outclasses our AWOL-from-the-Texas-Air-National-Guard Resident in the
pure bellicosity department, but would we really choose Bonaparte over
Chirac?

French-bashing is a nasty symptom of an underlying American
predilection for anti-intellectualism: a society whose most popular TV
show features smoky chatter between poets and novelists naturally
threatens the land of football and Pabst.

The fact is, France is a good friend and ally trying to make us see
reason, and it doesn't deserve to be treated this shabbily. The United
States, as led by Bush and his goons, is like a belligerent,
out-of-control drunk trying to pick a fight and demanding the car keys
at the same time. The French want to drive us home before we cause any
more trouble, so we lash out at them, calling them rude names and
impugning their loyalty. Sure, we'll be ashamed of our behavior in the
morning, after the madness wears off. But will we have any friends left?



------ End of Forwarded Message


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/