Repubs Attack Kerry as "French." Mon Dieu! On Iraq French Were Right!

[WiseMen]

After Kerry raised his voice against Bush’s “Rush to War,” and called for “Regime change” in Washington as it became obvious that the Administration was trying to undermine the UN inspections process, the Repub’s launched a coordinated attack on Kerry calling him “French.”

Like Kerry, the French foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, was a hawk on UN 1441 but strongly opposed war except under some extreme eventuality.

At least 9 Members of the United Nations Security Council voted for UN 1441, which was similar to the IWR, but were firmly against war.

De Villepin’s speech at the U.N. was an eloquent call for an enlightened approach to the Iraqi crisis. I parallels Kerry’s approach and is well worth another read.

Some excerpts (emphases added):

Speech by Dominique de Villepin at the U.N.Security Council

http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/actu/articletxt.gb.asp?ART=32390


The question today is simple: Do we consider in good conscience that disarmament via inspections is now leading us to a dead-end? Or do we consider that the possibilities regarding inspections presented in resolution 1441 have still not been fully explored?

………………………………

In response to this question, France has two convictions:

-The first is that the option of inspections has not been taken to the end and that it can provide an effective response to the imperative of disarming Iraq;
-The second is that the use of force would be so fraught with risks for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned as a last resort.

….

……………
France naturally expects these commitments to be durably verified. Beyond that, we must maintain strong pressure on Iraq so that it goes further in its cooperation.

. . . . .
There are two options:

- The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest. But let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace. Let us not delude ourselves; this will be long and difficult because it will be necessary to preserve Iraq's unity and restore stability in a lasting way in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force.

……………………
Given this context, the use of force is not justified at this time.

There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq via inspections.
Furthermore, premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with risks:
- The authority of our action is based today on the unity of the international community. Premature military intervention would bring this unity into question, and that would detract from its legitimacy and, in the long run, its effectiveness.

- Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region. It would compound the sense of injustice, increase tensions and risk paving the way to other conflicts.

- We all share the same priority—that of fighting terrorism mercilessly.
This fight requires total determination. Since the tragedy of September 11 this has been one of the highest priorities facing our peoples. And France, which was struck hard by this terrible scourge several times, is wholly mobilized in this fight which concerns us all and which we must pursue together.
That was the sense of the Security Council meeting held on January 20, at France's initiative.

………………………………..

Mr. President, to those who are wondering in anguish when and how we are going to cede to war, I would like to tell them that nothing, at any time, in this Security Council, will be done in haste, misunderstanding, suspicion or fear.

In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and immense honor we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament in peace.

This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. A country that does not forget and knows everything it owes to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere. And yet has never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. Faithful to its values, it wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international community. It believes in our ability to build together a better world.

Thank you.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

1. Very strange

They were calling Kerry "French-looking" a few months ago. I have no idea what the hell they're talking about. Does he go around in a beret and a vertically-striped shirt or something?

[sangh0]

2. I think "french-looking"

is the Republicana form of the word "intelligent"

[BOHICA06]

3. It was little fun ...

a the WH. Kerry was having an identity crisis: Was he Jewish?, Was he Irish? Was he.....?

The WH Press Sec. said hmmm, he looks French!

It was one of those cuts you have to admire even if it is your ox being gored.

[stopbush]

5. Kerry was having an identity crisis? What bizarro world was that

from? Sort of like saying an unarmed victim of a drive-by shooting was having a "bullet crisis," n'est-ce pas?

Oh wait, you meant the repugs attempted to CREATE an identity crisis for the guy they viewed as the front runner...and gave up on it when Dean emerged as the front runner. Now that Kerry is doing so well, they'll try to resurrect it. Maybe it will gain traction this time.

Now I get it.

[BOHICA06]

7. Early on ...

way back in 2003 Kerry and another contender were looking at their ethnic lineages and JK was jumping around a bit - it appears he's a mutt like alot of us - and the WH took the swipe.

[seaglass]

8. No, the Boston Globe did an investigative report on Kerry's

heritage and discovered that his grandfather was Jewish. Kerry didn't know, he wasn't looking at his ethnic lineage, the Boston Globe was.

[WiseMen]

9. Be Sure. Repubs will launch insiduous "image" attacks on Kerry

They will do everything to sully his war-hero image.

[corporatewhore]

4. ha ha those stupid idiots are too stupid to come up with a real attack

he looks french...dont vote for him :eyes:

[zbdent]

6. Well, when a Kerry-basher says that he "looks French", remind them

that Bush has yet to prove the French wrong!

That would be great if Kerry would acknowledge that concept. "A lot of people bash me for 'looking French'. Well, to that I say, 'George Bush has yet to prove the French wrong!'"

[spooky3]

10. what's bizarre is that he DOESN'T "look French."

Most French people are smaller than Americans, and many have dark hair and dark eyes. Most are thin, and fine-featured.

Honestly, where do they get this stuff?

[HFishbine]

11. "On Iraq French Were Right!"

And Kerry was wrong.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. In what way?

Do you think he was wrong when he said:

Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out. If we do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community. The Administration has come to recognize this as has our closet ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain. The Administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do - and it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

Or when he said:

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

Now, I'm sure you think Kerry should have voted against the IWR. But here are his actual positions: is he saying anything that you disagree with? Or is it only about the vote?