Lileks Ping!
If you'd like to be added or removed, just drop me a line...
Posted on 07/28/2004 11:12:22 AM PDT by Mr.Atos
While making dinner, I listened to Hugh broadcasting from the Dem convention, he was interviewing Regis Le Sommier, the American bureau chief for Paris Match, and a man whose name appears to mean King Bedspring. I don’t know if King Bedspring knew how he was being played; I don’t think so. Mr. Hewitt’s objective was simple: explore and amplify French support for John Kerry. It was like a cat playing with a mouse he intended to eat, and the mouse thought they were having dancing lessons. Amusing.
“Do you think Chirac’s opposition to the war,” Hugh asked, “was motivated by his connections to Saddam, by kickbacks for oil for food?”
“I don’t think so! You should clean up your own backyard, you know, you helped Saddam get in power with the CIA in 1968. Some French politicians had some connection, some of them had been in Chirac’s party, must admit that, but Donald Rumsfeld went to meet Saddam in 1983 and he gave him killing weapons.”
Said the American bureau chief for Paris Match. He went on to note how the United States armed Saddam. French military assistance? Hardly any.
Regis left but promised to come back at the top of the next hour. I called the family to dinner, served everyone tacos, walked the dog and had the 6 PM cigar. Googled Regis. Ah, of course. I remember him. Go read; I’ll wait.
Regis returned. More of the same. The subject of American anti-French sentiment came up; he was surprised to hear about it, didn’t think there was much of it. Americans are shunning French wines? He had never heard about this. No, no, he doubted it was true. Anyway, any assertions that Chirac was unduly tied to Saddam were baseless, and besides, America armed Saddam.
If I understood the pith of his gist: Anti-Americanism was understandable, given that George Boosh was bent on ruining the world (pauvre Irakis, deprived of pere Saddam). Anti-French sentiment - if such a curious thing existed – would be an irrational response to legitimate criticism. You Americans are so - what's your word? - chauvinistic.
That’s what I inferred, anyway. I got out the super-secret studio hotline number. I had one objective: get this guy to admit that the relationship betweeen France and Saddam was stronger, and much more current and lucrative, then the relationship between the US and Iraq. Then we could move on to really hard problems, such as whether water flows uphill or down.
I had two web pages before me: this one and this one. His response: my facts were wrong. My assertions were contradictory. The oil-for-food money went through the Chase Manhattan bank! (Therefore . . . I don’t know; maybe Chase is the new HALLIBURTON. Or maybe it’s a French talking point.) The British set up Iraq in the first place. Nasser. Balfour. Ergo there was no special relationship between Chirac and Saddam.
It’s like saying they couldn’t have been in bed knocking boots last night because they were married in the 70s, and besides the English invaded India in the 19th century.
On it went. The Iraqi nuclear reactor that France sold to Saddam? Couldn’t have made bombs, oh no. The special artillery pieces France designed for Saddam to use in the Iran-Iraq war? Change the subject to put them in the context of Nasser’s Pan-Arab movement and the courting of the Soviet Axis. (At that point I truly wished that God would break His silence and shout NON SEQUITUR! in a voice that shattered windows across the continent.) And so on. Either Regis Bedspring doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or he’s lying. And that’s the American bureau chief for Paris Match.
Hugh concluded the second segment by suggesting I walk the dog, collect my thoughts, and write about it here on the Bleat.
“You are a journalist?” said Regis. “I would hope you look at all sides, not one side. What kind of journalist are you? Fox news?”
Better a renard than a chanticleer, monsieur. Better a crafty canine than a braying rooster who thinks he’s responsible for the dawn.
But don’t take my word for it. Here’s a clear-headed account of the last 20 years of French-American relations, and the ties between Chirac, French oil and defense-industry interests, and Saddam. The book doesn’t attempt to paint the French as some malign force for eeeevil determined to bend the world to its needs – it has more to do with how national self-interests compete and clash, and why the French claim to some sort of moral purpose in their international affairs is a rather vain and foolish boast.
I’m not a French-hater; I love much of their culture. Ravel. Debussy. The great gauzy painters, the stern neo-classical work of Jacques-Louis David. Even Piaf, although after a while you want Patsy Cline to show up and teach her a lesson in getting over it, for God’s sake. I love the architecture, even though it’s the one style that never seemed comfortable when imported to America. The Beaux-Art classical style, sure. But some of the more egregious Second Empire overly puffy stuff always looks like the mansard roofs are having an allergic reaction to shellfish. I’m fascinated by the French Revolution; I just wish they’d taken a page from our experience and hadn’t tumbled into bloodshed, regicide, collectivism and imperial militarism, but hey, to each his own. They have a nice democracy now, a relatively new one, and I hope it works out for them.
In any case, I’ll end this like I ended the exchange with King Bedspring: If Iraq in five years resembles France in 1950 – still rebuilding, but securely on its way to being a free and prosperous society, do you think the Iraqi people will thank? The French, or the Americans?
“I do not understand the analogy,” he said. No, I imagine not. “World War Two was a global war to defeat the Nazis, who had conquered all of Europe. I do not think that al Qaeda had conquered all of Irak.”
Which is what you say when can't answer the question. But I understand; there was something special about World War Two. The allies had the honor of liberating France. How lucky they must have felt; how special.
(Excerpt) Read more at lileks.com ...
I listened to the interview and it seemed that there was a large change in the attitude of Le Sommier when interviewed by Hewitt and when taking calls from listeners.
Le Sommier was clearly upset with the repeated questions from listeners regaurding french arms sales to iraq.
He's absolutely right... which made it even MORE pertinent that we set things right by removing that butcher.
Michael Dukakis could storm Paris on a bicycle and the French would meet him waving white flags!
What was the end result of the French Revolution?
A pile of headless corpses and a tyrant!
A pile of headless corpses and a tyrant!"
That, My Friend, should be the Quote of the Day here on FR.
Atos
More to the point, when we provided aid to Iraq the purpose of the aid was to help defeat another country that we were in a de fact state of war with, i.e. Iran. As such, we had a pretty good excuse for giving such aid as we did to Hussein (i.e. satellite photos that showed where the Iranians were massing for an attack). But once the war ended, we stopped giving aid to Hussein. What I would like to know is what was France's excuse for continuing to give significant aid, including weapons, to Hussein after the Iran-Iraq war ended?
Oui, monsiuer.
Paging the Lileks Pinglist.
I've read that the chem and bio material we may have supplied to Saddam were initiated during the Carter Administration. Anyone know for sure?
Lileks is, day in and day out, the best read anywhere.
Thanks for posting this. I checked this morning & it wasn't up yet.
Lord, give me the gift of saying things as well in a thousand words, as Lileks and Steyn do in twenty five.
Lileks Ping!
If you'd like to be added or removed, just drop me a line...
I still loved it when he accused Lileks of being 'one of those Fox people!' I half expected James to turn into the Hulk on the other end of the line and bound his way to Boston on the spot...
...Or just tell Msr. Bedspring what to do with himself.
I don't have a source at hand, but I think you will probably find that the stuff that was sold was almost certainly dual-use stuff like chlorine.
I listened and Hugh wasn't arguing with the guy because he wanted to get him to say that the French favor Kerry. However, none of the people Hugh had on ever mentioned the fact that we didn't sell ANY weapons to Hussein. They only mentioned the SIPRI report and the fact that less than 1% of Hussein's weapons came from us.
You can do this by hitting the "abuse" button, and asking nicely.I will ping my Hugh Hewitt list here, but to get folks to read this thread, it would REALLY help to have something in the title like:
The Bleat: James Lileks responds to encounter with "Paris Match" editor on Hugh Hewitt show 7/27This MUCH more informative thread title uses 96 of the maximum 100 characters allowed in an FR thread title. :o)
Regis Le Sommier, the American bureau chief for Paris Match..Try HERE:-- snip --
...Googled Regis. Ah, of course. I remember him. Go read; I’ll wait.
Google search for Regis Le Sommier.
(If you want OFF - or ON - my "Hugh Hewitt PING list" - please let me know)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.