From National Review Online 11/18/02, via Lonewacko:

The French way is based on what is known in Paris as "France's Arab policy" (La politique Arabe de la France).

Devised by the late General De Gaulle in the early 1960s , this is based on three assumptions.
The first is that it is natural for Arabs to be ruled by a "strongman."
The second is that the Arab "strongman" has no particular principles apart from a keen desire to stay alive and in power.
The third is that, if handled intelligently, the Arab "strongman" could be useful to the West.
The "strongman" could take decisions that no democratic government, subject to the pressure of elections, would be able to take.

French "morals?" That must be a reference to some kind of mushroom. It think it's spelled m-o-r-e-l-s.

For some reason, the French are increasingly reminding me of these guys:

http://web.mit.edu/patil/www/media/video/yatta.asf

Oh, yeah, that'll smooth things over - make up by starting off telling us how we 'screwed up'.

Not too much of a gallic learning curve here - think they'd have figured out that the condescending approach isn't the best way to win friends and influence people.

Schmucks. Putzes.

Listening to the Vichy lecture us about morals is like seeking the advice of a whore on chasity and fidelity.

French officials are working really hard to make sure that they'll have NO influence AND NO business deals in Iraq. Smart!

Vichy is to logic what Clinton is to chastity.

"first of all a moral mistake, and I think we have to say this: there was an alternative to war. We could have disarmed Iraq differently."

Hrmn, well no. We didn't make a moral mistake. There were no other options as a direct result of France and Germany stating outright that under no circumstances would they approve military action. By removing the threat of force, the teeth behind inspections, the inspectors became useless.

"Also, (they made) a political mistake, because we know very well the difficulties of this region of the world," he added. "We see how serious the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, and at any moment it can set the world ablaze. It's a serious political error to start trouble in this region."

So the fact that we were willing to do what needed to be done despite the fact that the palestinian-israeli conflict is right next door was a bad thing? I fail to see the relevance. We made a political move that sent the message of, "while we have the power to do something, we will not allow the actions of lies, deceit, and murder to go unpunished." We did not make a political mistake, we held to our convictions and moved on them.

"And then, there is a strategic mistake: that today one country can lead the world," he said, arguing that Europe should be one of the major poles of influence in the world."

I fail to see the relevance. We made a strategic mistake because we showed that one nation can lead the world? Because Europe should be one of he major poles of influence? So we made a mistake because on our side of he Atlantic we have one unified nation, as opposed to many smaller nations that are making attempts to form a union? We made a strategic mistake because we pointed out the will of europe to become irrelevant?

Europe is one of the major poles of influence of the world. It is not the only one.

... and worst of all, we failed to submit ourselves to french racism and arrogance.

Disgusting. Americans and Brits are dying in an effort to end a brutal regime and the French are scolding the coalition!

Never, ever, will anyone in our household buy another French wine, cheese, ski, etc.

My thoughts on the latest French outburst.

The Gaullist Arab policy is a cruel, stupid, & racist. Anyone who promotes such a policy does not deserve being listened to.