Comments on: Will The French Declare The “big Mac” A Mystery Too? http://www.frumforum.com/will-the-french-declare-the-big-mac-a-mystery-too Building a conservatism that can win again Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:50:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: charliefreak http://www.frumforum.com/will-the-french-declare-the-big-mac-a-mystery-too/comment-page-1#comment-49633 charliefreak Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:41:18 +0000 #comment-49633 Le Monde's editorial board uses Occam's Razor as often as those Left Bank ladies use Gillette's Razor. Le Monde’s editorial board uses Occam’s Razor as often as those Left Bank ladies use Gillette’s Razor.

]]> By: JJWFromME http://www.frumforum.com/will-the-french-declare-the-big-mac-a-mystery-too/comment-page-1#comment-51055 JJWFromME Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:59:11 +0000 #comment-51055 " This Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, was quite bipartisan." Yes, and it was a mistake. If only people knew the fruitcakes who were coming to town with the next administration. ” This Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, was quite bipartisan.” Yes, and it was a mistake. If only people knew the fruitcakes who were coming to town with the next administration.

]]> By: Neo http://www.frumforum.com/will-the-french-declare-the-big-mac-a-mystery-too/comment-page-1#comment-42330 Neo Wed, 21 Jan 2009 04:00:26 +0000 #comment-42330 Looking to the Weekly Standard or PNAC for an Iraq strategy predating the Bush Presidency overlooks the elephant in the room .. mainly the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. This Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, was quite bipartisan. Yeas .. Gephardt, Lantos, Schumer, Kucinich, Kennedy (MA), Kennedy (RI), Martinez, Waxman, Wexler, Blagojevich, Bonior, Hoyer, Nadler, Rangel .. obviously all neo-cons. Looking to the Weekly Standard or PNAC for an Iraq strategy predating the Bush Presidency overlooks the elephant in the room .. mainly the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. This Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, was quite bipartisan. Yeas .. Gephardt, Lantos, Schumer, Kucinich, Kennedy (MA), Kennedy (RI), Martinez, Waxman, Wexler, Blagojevich, Bonior, Hoyer, Nadler, Rangel .. obviously all neo-cons.

]]> By: Neo http://www.frumforum.com/will-the-french-declare-the-big-mac-a-mystery-too/comment-page-1#comment-46463 Neo Wed, 21 Jan 2009 03:44:43 +0000 #comment-46463 France does nearly everything based on a Euro. The were in the run up to the 2003 invasion what most Trekies would call the "Ferengi" .. opportunists pure and simple. Further, Chirac had a personal interest, dating back decades, in Iraq. Attributing anything the French did in 2003 to aiding the human condition of anybody other than that of the French is pure hubris. France does nearly everything based on a Euro.
The were in the run up to the 2003 invasion what most Trekies would call the “Ferengi” .. opportunists pure and simple. Further, Chirac had a personal interest, dating back decades, in Iraq. Attributing anything the French did in 2003 to aiding the human condition of anybody other than that of the French is pure hubris.

]]> By: sinz54 http://www.frumforum.com/will-the-french-declare-the-big-mac-a-mystery-too/comment-page-1#comment-49289 sinz54 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:01:01 +0000 #comment-49289 I have a pretty good idea what the mindset of the neo-conservatives was toward Saddam Hussein prior to 9-11. Indeed, even prior to Bush being elected President in November 2000. Back in the 1990s, the neo-conservatives of The Weekly Standard and the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), many of whom either took positions in the Bush Administration or remained outside as its "brain trust," had already formulated two main arguments about Iraq--neither one of which had anything to do with WMD: a) Saddam was one of the world's top supporters of terrorism, and was probably behind several prior terrorist attacks on America. http://tinyurl.com/xfab b) America had been humiliated in Vietnam. We needed to make an example of Saddam, to prove to the whole world that Vietnam had been an aberration, and that we were truly "indomitable." Raoul-Marc Gerecht (The Weekly Standard) had written about that one. http://www.newsweek.com/id/60445 I have a pretty good idea what the mindset of the neo-conservatives was toward Saddam Hussein prior to 9-11. Indeed, even prior to Bush being elected President in November 2000.

Back in the 1990s, the neo-conservatives of The Weekly Standard and the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), many of whom either took positions in the Bush Administration or remained outside as its “brain trust,” had already formulated two main arguments about Iraq–neither one of which had anything to do with WMD:

a) Saddam was one of the world’s top supporters of terrorism, and was probably behind several prior terrorist attacks on America.

http://tinyurl.com/xfab

b) America had been humiliated in Vietnam. We needed to make an example of Saddam, to prove to the whole world that Vietnam had been an aberration, and that we were truly “indomitable.” Raoul-Marc Gerecht (The Weekly Standard) had written about that one.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/60445

]]> By: JJWFromME http://www.frumforum.com/will-the-french-declare-the-big-mac-a-mystery-too/comment-page-1#comment-52908 JJWFromME Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:12:20 +0000 #comment-52908 No preview or HTML. ~Sigh.~ No preview or HTML. ~Sigh.~

]]> By: JJWFromME http://www.frumforum.com/will-the-french-declare-the-big-mac-a-mystery-too/comment-page-1#comment-54222 JJWFromME Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:09:41 +0000 #comment-54222 Kind of a confused piece. What you want to say is FRANCE...WRONG!!! like the Right Brothers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-z2D9lo9-8 But ya can't.? As for "Why did Chirac not just let the United States do what they had to do?"--because the United States did not need to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq with a fig leaf of tepid international support. War costs innocent lives: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/11/deaths_in_iraq_1.php Which is why sane people tend to avoid it. As for why we *did* invade Iraq? That *is* a mystery. What Michael Kinsley said asked during the prewar, we still haven't answered: http://www.slate.com/?id=2073093 And the WMD rationale was definitely ex-post-facto: http://policingwingnutwelfare.blogspot.com/2009/01/lots-of-evidence-no-wmd-and.html Kind of a confused piece. What you want to say is FRANCE…WRONG!!! like the Right Brothers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-z2D9lo9-8 But ya can’t.? As for “Why did Chirac not just let the United States do what they had to do?”–because the United States did not need to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq with a fig leaf of tepid international support. War costs innocent lives: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/11/deaths_in_iraq_1.php Which is why sane people tend to avoid it. As for why we *did* invade Iraq? That *is* a mystery. What Michael Kinsley said asked during the prewar, we still haven’t answered: http://www.slate.com/?id=2073093 And the WMD rationale was definitely ex-post-facto: http://policingwingnutwelfare.blogspot.com/2009/01/lots-of-evidence-no-wmd-and.html

]]>