If you want proof that Jacques Chirac would never, ever have acquiesced in the removal of his old buddy, Saddam Hussein, you only have to look at his decision to prevent any NATO cooperation in Iraq, now that sovereignty has been transferred. He has one central plank in his foreign policy: the obstruction of American power. If that means hoping for the failure of Iraqi democracy, so be it. If it means turning a blind eye to terror, so be it. But even Le Monde is beginning to see through his cynicism. Here’s an extract from their editorial today, translated by my France-watcher:
“For the 15 months since the beginning of the American-British [notice avoidance of the Vichy expression “Anglo-American” — translator] intervention in Iraq, Jacques Chirac has been working on the solution to a difficult diplomatic equation: how to maintain his opposition to the war without seeming to be shamefully nostalgic for Saddam Hussein — something the Americans have hinted at on several occasions — and while also fulfilling his obligations as an ally of the US. . . . In Iraq, the United States has two goals: to give international legitimacy to its intervention and to replace a portion of its troops with NATO forces. France has conceded the first point in voting in favor of the recent UN resolutions. France still resists the second, but without having been able to block an involvement susceptible of leading, sooner or later, to the presence of the trans-Atlantic organization in Iraq. This is a rear-guard battle that illustrates Chirac’s dilemma: he must not oppose the reconstruction of a “sovereign” Iraq while at the same time not appearing to give the lie to his own [anti-war] policies. This is also a position of watchful waiting, permitting cooperation with John Kerry, if he wins the Presidential election, and also permitting living with George Bush, if reelected.”
But it’s so nakedly self-interested it’s self-defeating. Chirac is already being isolated within Europe, and is striking out at potential rivals in his own party. He’s a tired, pompous, corrupt hack. Always has been.
WHAT THE MEDIA WON’T BROADCAST: Oh, they’ll find out details of people’s sex lives and sue to publish and broadcast them, and they’ll show endless footage of Abu Ghraib abuses. But terrorist beheadings? Nah. Here’s a classic statement of the journalist elite, from the Los Angeles Times:
“Any news outlet – or any private individual, for that matter – who makes available footage of the actual beheadings is, to my mind, an accessory to the crime itself,” says Kunkel, dean of journalism at the University of Maryland. “Those are the individuals who are essentially finishing the work of the terrorists, by delivering their grisly ‘message.'”
And why isn’t the broadcasting of the Abu Ghraib abuses also adding to the humiliation of the victims? Remember that the acts occasioned shame (which was, in part, the point) and the shame is immeasurably amplified by repeated broadcasts. I think the answer is that the media will broadcast anything that will embarrass Americans or America. But they will give terrorists a pass. No surprises there, I guess.
The Dish 