Saturday, November 20, 2004
Jacques’s Cracks
Sam Spade had it right: The cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter.
If what the U.N.'s own investigators are saying is true, however, petty fraud and the like may be the least of Chirac's crimes. In a recent Washington Times piece, Jacques has been fingered as the guy on the receiving end of a con's work in Iraq as part of the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food scandal.
Denis Boyles: When Chirac spoke on the eve of his visit to Tony Blair to celebrate the centenary of the Entente Cordiale (a French term meaning "you may not shoot us while we sabotage you"), it was with typical Gallic arrogance. In a widely publicized interview with the Times, Chirac ridiculed Blair's support of the war in Iraq.
Chirac: I said then to Tony Blair: 'You absolutely have to obtain something in exchange for your support.' Well, Britain gave its support but I did not see much in return. I am not sure that it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favours systematically.
That, of course, is exactly what we should by now expect from Chirac — the notion that if it's not a bribe, it's not a deal. It would never occur to Chirac that what Blair got in exchange for liberating Iraq had nothing to do with the U.S.
What Blair got was what he thought he'd get — the knowledge that he had done the right thing for his own country and for others.
A French leader would never say, "Either you are with us, or you're against us." In French, it translates like this: "Either you give us something, or we are against you."
Chirac's remark explains a great deal about the deep, permanent animosity between the U.S. and France. And thanks in part to Jacques' cracks, it's now an antagonism George W. Bush overlooks at his peril.
When Bush said, "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," he said something that most Americans, Red and Blue, felt was absolutely true.
Sam Spade had it right: The cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter.
If what the U.N.'s own investigators are saying is true, however, petty fraud and the like may be the least of Chirac's crimes. In a recent Washington Times piece, Jacques has been fingered as the guy on the receiving end of a con's work in Iraq as part of the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food scandal.
Denis Boyles: When Chirac spoke on the eve of his visit to Tony Blair to celebrate the centenary of the Entente Cordiale (a French term meaning "you may not shoot us while we sabotage you"), it was with typical Gallic arrogance. In a widely publicized interview with the Times, Chirac ridiculed Blair's support of the war in Iraq.
Chirac: I said then to Tony Blair: 'You absolutely have to obtain something in exchange for your support.' Well, Britain gave its support but I did not see much in return. I am not sure that it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favours systematically.
That, of course, is exactly what we should by now expect from Chirac — the notion that if it's not a bribe, it's not a deal. It would never occur to Chirac that what Blair got in exchange for liberating Iraq had nothing to do with the U.S.
What Blair got was what he thought he'd get — the knowledge that he had done the right thing for his own country and for others.
A French leader would never say, "Either you are with us, or you're against us." In French, it translates like this: "Either you give us something, or we are against you."
Chirac's remark explains a great deal about the deep, permanent animosity between the U.S. and France. And thanks in part to Jacques' cracks, it's now an antagonism George W. Bush overlooks at his peril.
When Bush said, "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," he said something that most Americans, Red and Blue, felt was absolutely true.
