Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
BTW, The Guardian's editor must have read Wiki when s/he wrote this:

he was one of the rare French politicians who spoke out in favour of military intervention in Iraq in 2003, saying he was against war but also against Saddam Hussein's regime.

Unlike the French version, en.Wikipedia had two contradicting paragraphs, one claiming outright support for military intervention, the other correctly quoting that thing about being neither for war nor for Saddam. I edited the former part.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon May 21st, 2007 at 06:59:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
he was indeed partisan of taking a strong line against Saddam Hussein - in the name of promoting democracy and ending a nasty dictatorship. Like others, he saw the new international attention on Iraq as a way to actually promote democracy. They should have known better with Bush, but at least they have been consistent, as the same intellectuals had been calling for action about Chechnya (i.e. calling Russia to task a lot more seriously than was ever done) and previously against Milosevic.

WMDs were never a big consideration for them, and (sadly) neither was the identity of the party pushing that war. So I would not dumpt him/them in the same bag as the armchair warriors - especially Kouchner who does have credibility as an activist against war.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon May 21st, 2007 at 09:52:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series