As for German states, again, you are talking anecdotes here, not entire nations, but I'll put Merkel up against Clinton and see who falls out on the right and on the left. It's a tough call.
And I'll go so far as to place Chirac in a better light than most of the Democratic party in the US as well, if it pleases you. After all, on important matters of war and peace, he got it right and most Democratic leaders didn't, prefering to assume the position for the neo-cons. (And truth be told, UMP social and economic policy under the chiracquiens is not appreciably different than your average Democrat. Maybe it's true the Chiracquiens are ever so slightly to the left of the Democrats, but not by much, and they certainly aren't to the right.) Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
Is it? That perhaps is something I believed back when Mitterand came into power and that nice rose in the fist looked so cool, but, in the end, the differences between the PS elephants and the UMP was hard for me to quantify. Perhaps one needs a more subtle eye.
Compare Pelosi to Merkel. This will be easier. And tell me how for example Blair and Gerhard Schröder delivered the progressive agenda. But certainly the richest and most powerful states in Germany are run by the right. No?
And I'll go so far as to place Chirac in a better light than most of the Democratic party in the US as well, if it pleases you. After all, on important matters of war and peace, he got it right
Really? So can you point me to his decisive actions to prevent genocide in Bosnia or Rwanda or to encourage democract in Cote d'Ivoire or Lebanon? His moral stand on French responsibility to former colonies? His opposition to arms trade and nuclear proliferation? No? Oh, you mean that he did not sign up for Bush's moronic adventure in Iraq but made some ineffective complaints quietly. Very impressive. A French leader takes such vast risks to sneer at US wars while actually not doing anything. He should get recognition for bravery - perhaps Bush has an extra Medal of Freedom to award.
and most Democratic leaders didn't, prefering to assume the position for the neo-cons. Actually, most Democratic House members voted no.
(And truth be told, UMP social and economic policy under the chiracquiens is not appreciably different than your average Democrat.
On that we agree, but also not so different from the PS.
Maybe it's true the Chiracquiens are ever so slightly to the left of the Democrats, but not by much, and they certainly aren't to the right.)
I don't know what "left" "right" means in concrete terms. As far as I can tell, European social democrats are quite similar to Democrats except of course that Barbara Lee and Al Sharpton would be "greens" if there were any non-white Green leaders.
I don't want to defend a man I don't particularly care for, but Chirac was not President when Rwanda or Bosnia happened.
Nor, for that matter, were these events as simple as this comic book comment you make imply.
But if you want to deal with comic-strip color, we should point out that while these events happened before Chirac's watch, there were most definitely on Clinton's, and I don't remember him doing much if anything.
And at least Mitterand knew where the places were (he actually went to Sarajevo when it was under siege, while when Clinton finally sent military aid to UN forces in Rwanda, somehow it got sent to Uganda. Y'know, they rhyme???)
And name me one credible leader currently running for President of the US who voted against the war in Irak either in 2004 or in 2008? It's nice to see that the House had a majority of Dems vote against, but surely you know a majority of Senate Dems voted for, right? Seems you want the butter and the money for it here.
Ditto your Pelosi comment. That's nice that she's fairly center-left. Are you going to tell me Reid or Biden or Clinton or Dodd or Hoyer or Murtha or Feinstein or any of the others who voted for that war are really progressives like Nancy Pelosi? Nancy Pelosi is not, unfortunately, the Democratic party in America, far from it. Hillary Clinton is far closer to the center of power in that party than she is - follow the money.
Your Lucky Luke-style analysis of foreign affairs and contemporary history is duly noted. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
http://www.iht.com/articles/1995/07/15/assess_1.php (and the answer to their question was "yes")
And he became PM in 1995 - see Rwandan timeline.
And of course, I know those events were not so simple. The Iraq war is not simple either. Inexcusable does not require simple.
As for Mitterand, his knowledge of geography is morally impressive.
The moral failings of the US Democrats, sadly, do not redound to the moral credit of the French government.
Foreign policy is the province of the President. One of the only ones, in fact, unless she decides to declare a state of emergency. Being a PM in cohabitation means next to nothing in this regard.
Your IHT article is equally uninformative; the facts discussed occur well after your original charge of inaction in the face of "genocide" in Bosnia. As for that Kosovo thing America finally got serious about....well, where was the genocide?
As for Irak, here the facts are relatively simple: naked imperial aggression by an American government bought and paid for by the wealthy, but financed via the future of its middle classes with the blood of its poor, via the best "democracy" American Kapital can buy. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
May 1995 - Chirac wins election as President of France.
July 1995 - brave European peacekeepers at Srbrenica "safe area" turn over unarmed civilians to General Ratko Mladić's soldiers who murder more than 8000 of them. Chirac bravely and honorably makes some statements and even speeches. The Court at the Hague later declares this to be genocide, but since there is no way to blame the USA, we know it must be nothing of the sort.
Are we talking about Rwanda, Srebrenica, or Bosnia?
The Rwandan genocide happened in 1994. Mitternad was President, conservative Edouard Balladur, who Chirac would go on to beat in the 1995 Presidential election by running to the center, was PM in cohabitation. Chirac has also been PM under Mitterand in an earlier cohabitation government, but not while the tragedy of Rwanda took place.
The Bosnian conflict and the resulting ethnic cleansing began in 1992. Over 100,000 dead and almost 2 million people displaced, with the ethnic cleansing in the center-eastern part of Bosnia, where Srebrenica is, beginning in that year. The area was considered very strategically important to the Bosnian Serbs, who were angling for their own independant state, starting in 1992, and most of this area had already been "cleansed" of Bosniaks by the Bosnian Serbs well before 1995, with Srebrenica, a so-called UN safe-haven, a notable exception.
The Srebrenica genocide occurred weeks after Chirac became President, as Dutch troops let in Mladic's war criminals and 8,000 men and boys were massacred. A Dutch government fell because of the shame of this, though the siege conditions which obtained for the Dutch peacekeepers, which reduced them and residents of Srebrenica alike to scrounge for food due to lack of it, and do foot patrols because there was no fuel, certainly couldn't have made protecting Srebrenica very easy. Clearly, the blame for Srebrenica lies squarely at the feet of the Bosnian Serbs themselves, as they have in fact admitted. Far less the UN, and certainly not Jacques Chirac. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
As far as I can tell, while Americans are generally in total ignorance about what goes on beyond their borders, Europeans are generally in total denial about what their own governments do and indulge in a great deal of unwarranted self-congratulation about how their amoral power obsessed and incompetent hacks are no doubt far better than those Yankee swine.
