Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's exactly what you did.> Well, no. Offering supporting evidence is not the same as saying something is proof. <They knew of the letter and knew it was being delivered to Congress. Had they wanted to, they could have said "you should make the qualifications clear, otherwise it looks like there's a definite link, when there isn't."> You're assuming facts not in evidence. If the White House knew of the letter, it's more probable that they believed it reflected the best estimates of the Intelligence community.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<Why this strange hatred or dislike some Americans have of the French?>> I can't answer for everyone, but Steve Martin nailed it for me: the French have a different word for EVERYTHING. They just have to act so special. Ugh.
Originally Posted By jonvn Most people in France actually quite like Americans. The people in Paris are rude. The people in the rest of the country are not. It's just how they are in Paris. They are rude to each other, too.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I can't answer for everyone, but Steve Martin nailed it for me: the French have a different word for EVERYTHING." I'd like a shoe with cheese on it, and I want to massage your grandmother.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda I just have one question: If we lay off the French, who will do their work?
Originally Posted By DlandDug I always found the "Hate France" blather kind of nonsensical. Historically, relations between France and the US have blown hot and cold. The nadir in the last century was during the regime of Charled DeGaulle. After humiliating losses in two world wars, DeGaulle seemed determined to raise French prestige by discounting the support received from other countries-- notably the United States. My parent's generation found the whole thing sort of irritating. The most recent "Boycott France" blather was very much fueled by France's initial reluctance to support America in the invasion of Iraq. It was pretty much solidified when it turned out that many high level French officials, as well as prominent business people, were being bribed by Iraqi officials to withold support. Here is a relevant passage from a newspaper in Scotland: >>Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one. To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers. Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights. Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," it said, including two of his "counsellors" and spokesman for his re-election campaign. They even assessed the chances for "supporting one of the candidates in an upcoming French presidential election." Chirac is not mentioned by name. A memo sent to Saddam dated in May last year from his intelligence corps said they met with a "French parliamentarian" who "assured Iraq that France would use its veto in the UN Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq."<< <a href="http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1167592004" target="_blank">http://thescotsman.scotsman.co m/index.cfm?id=1167592004</a> Right or wrong, this is the reason why many are currently angry at France. Personally, I find it about as silly as countries who hate America on the basis of our present administration.
Originally Posted By barboy "After humiliating losses in two world wars" You lost me here DDug. But if you mean the staggering loss of life and appalling war zones like Somme and Marne over Alsace-Lorraine during WWI and if you mean the Panzer and Tiger Tanks tanks rolling under the Arc de Triumphe in 1940 and Nazis feasting on fine wines, cheeses and Parisian ladies during WWII, then I guess I know where you are headed.
Originally Posted By barboy Correction: the Tiger Tanks did not show up until 1942 so they could not have rolled under the Arc in 1940.
Originally Posted By hightp In and around the city of Philadelphia, here is very little love for France, for 2 reasons: Ira Einhorn and Mumia Abu Jamal. In 1977 Ira Einhorn supposedly murdered his ex girlfriend, Holly Maddux. Police later found Maddux's body in Einhorn's Philadelphia apartment. While out on bail in 1981, Einhorn skipped and went to Europe. In the meantime, he was tried and found guily in absentia. When he was finally found, 16 years later, living in France, married to another woman, France initally refused extradition to the US because they did not feel he had a fair trial, and would, possibly, face the death penalty. Einhorn was finally returned to the US after there was promise of a new trial and he would not face the death penalty. (His conviction was upheld in 2002.) Mumia was a former motorcycle gang member who was tried, and convicted of murdering policeman Danial Faulkner. France said the conviction was politically motivated and he was a political prisoner (he also faced the death penalty). In 2003 Mumia was awarded honorary citizenship in Paris by Paris's mayor as a reminder of the continuing fight against the death penalty, and in 2006 a Paris suburb named a street after him. Needless to say, the Philly Police department didn't care too much for the foreign support of a convicted cop murderer. There was a lot of press given to these issues around Philly, and none of it was complementary to the French.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...I guess I know where you are headed.<< I was "headed" nowhere. It's an observation.
Originally Posted By barboy What do the Philadelphians expect? Do they really think that France has a moral obligation to indirectly send a person to his death? France has universally abolished the death penalty back in the early '80's and by not sending those two back to the US France showed integrity not hypocrisy irrespective of one's stance on the death penalty.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<That's exactly what you did.>> <Well, no. Offering supporting evidence is not the same as saying something is proof.> Okay. You offered as "supporting evidence" something that did not support the evidence. Bravo. <<They knew of the letter and knew it was being delivered to Congress. Had they wanted to, they could have said "you should make the qualifications clear, otherwise it looks like there's a definite link, when there isn't.">> <You're assuming facts not in evidence. If the White House knew of the letter, it's more probable that they believed it reflected the best estimates of the Intelligence community.> No. They knew of the qualifications and caveats because they had been told of them previously by the CIA. And they would have seen that these qualifications were not in the letter delivered to Congress. And they did not object to that, which makes them complicit with Tenet in presenting cherry-picked intelligence to Congress, just before the vote for authorization.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You offered as "supporting evidence" something that did not support the evidence.> Of course it did. <They knew of the qualifications and caveats because they had been told of them previously by the CIA. And they would have seen that these qualifications were not in the letter delivered to Congress.> They may have know of some minor qualifications and caveats, but there's no evidence that they believed the letter did not represent the best estimates of the Intelligence community. Everyone believed that Saddam was out of compliance with the cease fire due to his failure to cooperate with the UN inspectors, his support of terrorism, and his pursuit of WMD's.
Originally Posted By hightp barboy, I'll give you the Einhorn case, on principle, but he was a convicted murderer who escaped justice. The evidence was overwhelming from what I understand, and at the time of the conviction, Pennsylvania did not have a death sentence. France, initially refused to incarcerate Einhorn and only returned him to the US after an international court demanded. Since he was convicted in abstentia, I can almost see the French government's point of view. The Jamal case is another story. He never fled to France, but was arrested at the murder scene. Jamal admitted to shooting Officer Faulkner in the back, 4 eyewitnesses testified Jamal killed Faulkner, and Jamal's gun with 5 spent cartridges, evidence he had fired it, and the dead officer were all at the scene. Jamal had been wounded by Faulkner at the time of the shooting. Even if Jamal did not murder Faulkner, he is guilty of numerous other offenses at the crime scene by his own testimony. To then have the city of Paris award Jamal an honorary citizenship, and name a street after him is an insult to Faulkner's memory and police everywhere. Philadelphia's anger toward France (Paris in particular) is justified.
Originally Posted By barboy "To then have the city of Paris award Jamal an honorary citizenship, and name a street after him is an insult" I agree with you on this.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You offered as "supporting evidence" something that did not support the evidence.>> <Of course it did.> No, it didn't. <<They knew of the qualifications and caveats because they had been told of them previously by the CIA. And they would have seen that these qualifications were not in the letter delivered to Congress.>> <They may have know of some minor qualifications and caveats, but there's no evidence that they believed the letter did not represent the best estimates of the Intelligence community. Everyone believed that Saddam was out of compliance with the cease fire due to his failure to cooperate with the UN inspectors, his support of terrorism, and his pursuit of WMD's.> Nice try. The letter here dealt specifically with possible Iraq ties to Al Qaeda, and Tenet himself has been clear that it shouldn't have been issued without serious (not minor) qualifications. He's been clear that the impression it left did not accurately reflect the CIA's position.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No, it didn't.> A CIA letter with unqualified assertions that Saddam had WMD technology and ties to terrorists does not support the idea that the CIA genuinely believed that Saddam had WMD technology and ties to terrorists? Really? <The letter here dealt specifically with possible Iraq ties to Al Qaeda, and Tenet himself has been clear that it shouldn't have been issued without serious (not minor) qualifications.> The letter dealt with more than that. You may want to review it. <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/10/dci100702.html" target="_blank">http://www.fas.org/irp/news/20 02/10/dci100702.html</a> <He's been clear that the impression it left did not accurately reflect the CIA's position.> And that's the Bush administrations fault? Really? Does Mr Tenent have any evidence to support his current position? I sure don't remember him correcting the impression right after the letter was released.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<No, it didn't.>> <A CIA letter with unqualified assertions that Saddam had WMD technology and ties to terrorists does not support the idea that the CIA genuinely believed that Saddam had WMD technology and ties to terrorists? Really?> The whole point is that the assertions should not have been unqualified. Really. <<The letter here dealt specifically with possible Iraq ties to Al Qaeda, and Tenet himself has been clear that it shouldn't have been issued without serious (not minor) qualifications.>> <The letter dealt with more than that. You may want to review it. <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/news/20" target="_blank">http://www.fas.org/irp/news/20</a> 02/10/dci100702.html> Yes, but that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about the final section of the letter that was in response to questions from Senator Bayh. <<He's been clear that the impression it left did not accurately reflect the CIA's position.>> <And that's the Bush administrations fault? Really?> Yes, because they knew of the qualifications, knew that the letter would be submitted to the senate just before the vote on authorization, and did nothing to stop the dissemination of misleading information that it represented. Tenet is culpable in this, but so is the administration. <Does Mr Tenent have any evidence to support his current position? I sure don't remember him correcting the impression right after the letter was released.> When he was still employed in the Bush administration? No, he didn't. You seem to be thinking I'm giving Tenet a pass in all this. I'm not. I'm only saying he's not the only culpable person here.
Originally Posted By ecdc I had said I would post Maher's complete comments since it was the catalyst for starting this thread. Here they are: Conservatives have to stop rolling their eyes every time they hear the word, "France." Like just calling something "French" is the ultimate argument winner. As if to say, "What can you say about a country that was too stupid to get on board with our wonderfully-conceived and brilliantly-executed war in Iraq?" And, yet, an American politician could not survive if he uttered the simple, true statement, "France has a better health care system than we do, and we should steal it." Because here, simply dismissing an idea as French passes for an argument. "John Kerry? Couldn't vote for him; he looked French." Yeah, as opposed to the other guy who just looked stupid. Now, last week, France had an election, and people over there approach an election differently. They vote. Eighty-five percent of them turned out. You couldn't get 85% of Americans to get off the couch if there was an election between "[Breasts]" and "Bigger [Breasts]," and they were handing out free samples! Now, maybe the high turnout has something to do with the fact that the French candidates are never asked where they stand on evolution, prayer in school, abortion, stem cell research or gay marriage. And if the candidate knows about a character in a book other than Jesus, it's not a drawback. The electorate doesn't vote for the guy they want to have a croissant with; nor do they care about private lives. In the current race, Ségolène Royal has four kids, but she never got married. And she's a Socialist. In America, if a Democrat even thinks you're calling him "liberal," he grabs an orange vest and a rifle and heads into the woods to kill something! Madame Royal's opponent is married, but they live apart and lead separate lives. And the people are okay with that for the same reason they're okay with nude beaches; because they're not a nation of six-year-olds who scream and giggle if they see pee-pee parts! They have weird ideas about privacy. They think it should be private. In France, even the mistresses have mistresses. To not have a lady on the side says to the voters, "I'm no good at multi-tasking." Now, like any country, France has its faults, like all that ridiculous accordion music. But, their health care is the best in the industrialized world. As is their poverty rate. And they're completely independent of Mid East oil. And they're the greenest country. And they're not fat. And they have public intellectuals in France. We have Dr. Phil! They invented sex during the day, lingerie and the tongue. Can't we admit we could learn something from them? So, from now on, all you high-ranking Bush Administration officials, because the French are righter than you on most things, when France comes up in conversation, you are not allowed to roll your eyes. The only time you get to do that is when your hooker from Ms. Julia is... Let's go ahead and cut that last line off
