Tue. Nov 5th, 2024

STYlenoyYou called my people cowards on a nightly basis for years based on your skewed perception of events in World War II and your willingness to please the Bush administration before and during the Iraq war. [Read Jay’s Anti-French material]

While it is a fact our leadership betrayed us and surrendered us to the enemy in 1940, over 100 000 men in uniform died trying to slow the German advance. Had the French been the cowards you so often joked about, there would have been no battle of Lille and no evacuation of 340 000 British troops from Dunkirk. But historical facts were never your forte.

One last time Jay, let me remind you your mocking of the events of 1940 was – and is – as offensive to the French as 9/11 jokes are to Americans. In a print interview, you also went as far as calling the French Resistance a “mythical joke”, a highly offensive and revisionist comment you have yet to redress.

We will not miss you, save a sincere apology.
Marc from Miquelon.org

More from 112 Gripes About The French. Published in Paris in 1945 by the ‘Information & Education Division’ of the US Occupation Forces.

  • The French fought in Africa, in Sicily, liberated Corsica, fought in Italy, took part in the invasion of Europe and fought through the battles of France and Germany — from Normandy to Munich.
  • Units from the French navy participated in the invasions of Sicily, Italy, Normandy and South France.
  • Units of the French navy and merchant marine took part in convoying operations on the Atlantic and Murmansk routes.
  • On June 5, 1944, the day before D-Day, over 5,000 Frenchmen of the resistance dynamited railroads in more than 500 strategic places.
  • They delayed strategic German troop movements for an average of 48 hours, according to our military experts. Those 48 hours were tactically priceless ; they saved an untold number of American lives.
  • French resistance groups blew up a series of bridges in southern France and delayed one of the Wehrmacht’s crack units (Das Reich Panzer Division) for twelve days in getting from Bordeaux to Normandy.
  • About 30,000 FF1 troups supported the Third Army’s VIII Corps in Brittany: they seized and held key spogs ; they conducted extensive guerrilla operations behind the German lines.
  • 25,000 FFI troops protected the south flank of the Third Army in its daring dash across France: the FFI wiped out German bridgeheads north of the Loire River ; they guarded vital lines of communication; they wiped out pockets of German resistance; they held many towns and cities under orders from our commmand.
  • When our Third Army was approachiung the area between Dijon and Troyes from the west, and while the Seventh Army was approaching this sector from the South, it was the FFI who stubbornly blocked the Germans from making a stand and prevented a mass retirement of German troops.
  • In Paris, as our armies drew close, several hundred thousand French men and women rose up against the Germans. 50,000 armed men of the resistance fought and beat the Nazi garrison, and occupied the main buildings and administrative offices of Paris.

Our comments at the Huffington Post

By admin

118 thoughts on “Adieu Jay”
  1. But thats just it,  pointing out facts is not “bashing”.
    It is rather unfortunate that sometimes when unplesant facts about a particular country is noted, than cries of  “bashing” will follow.

    I think we should be aware that it is only half truths, selective reporting and distortions with the clear aim to smear is actually bashing. Giving  the whole picture and pointing out facts is not bashing.

    I don’t blame the Germans but their media for downplaying & minimizing their country’s deep commercial ties to Saddam’s weapons program. Likewise the same now, the German media rarely talks about German firm’s extensive business ties to Iran . 

    And besides with the economic downturn, it is doubtful they will do anything , their export driven economy needs exports at all cost, the consequences be damned. Besides Germany paid no price internationally for being Saddam’s biggest chemical weapons suppliers. So, they have nothing to fear.

  2. Nick, you make a good point on bashing. I really do believe that people want to respond to diplomatic concern and immediately reject, violently sometimes, bashing of ones’ Nation.  Instead of questioning  who or why, maybe it would be a better intro to just state “is it true and what is Germany going to do about it, if it is”.

  3. Nick, Additionally, you might go back and contact those writers whose writing brought this to your attention. You may well find someone who would want to redig into the issue and they may have contacts in Germany that can get you somewhere. Please do have your German-English Dictionary handy.

  4. “”But thats just it,  pointing out facts is not “bashing”.””

    But why did you choose an anti French-bashing blog of all places to point out those “facts” ?

  5. @Nick
    “I don’t blame the Germans but their media for downplaying & minimizing their country’s deep commercial ties to Saddam’s weapons program. Likewise the same now, the German media rarely talks about German firm’s extensive business ties to Iran . ”

    I don’ think you read German papers. I do read them, and I can remember quite well that this topic was widely covered by many German newspapers. I still remember cruel cartoons in Die Zeit about the “Deutsches Giftgas AG”. And as far as Iran is concerned, commercial ties between German (and French) companies and Iran have nothing to do with weapons, contrary to what you are suggesting. True:  Germany and France sold weapons to Saddam among others because he was at war with Iran and was widely viewed between 79 and 90 as a rempart against islamist Iran, but the US supplied chemical waepons too for the same reason.   Donald Rumsfeld  paid a visit to Saddam as an envoy from Reagan and told him that he had nothing to fear from the US if he should use chemical weapons (as he did against Kurds and against Iranians).

  6. @Jean Paul

    I did not say the German media did not cover it. I said they minized and downplayed Germany’s immense and and largest contribution to Saddam’s WMD arsenal.  Sure they covered it AFTER  foreign media outlets such as the NewYork times gave it wide coverage .

    The German media tends to by and large make it sound as if Germany’s contribution to Saddam’s WMD was no better or worse than USA sales when the facts show Germany’s immense 52% contribution to Saddam’s WMD arsenal was by far the biggest and far outstripped USA single digit figure.  Most Germans are not even aware that Germany contributed 52% – if you can provide links to German media showing this high percentage than I will stand happily corrected.

    Germany = 52%
    France = 21%
    UK, Italy, Brazil, USA = 27%

    As the figures above show, some countries had deep extensive commercial ties to Saddam’s Iraq while other countries such as UK, Italy, Brazil & USA had minimal business to ties to Saddam. To put these countries in the same category as Germany is absurd but that is exactly what the German media tends to do in regards to USA.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

    As for your claim that Germany only sold weapons to Saddam during the Iran war, than you must have missed this in the Tageszeitung . In fact the New York times and other newspapers have written on how German companies continued to sell WMD capability to Saddam AFTER the Iran war.

    German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein’s Al Fao Supercannon project.An article in the German daily Tageszeitung reported that of the more than 80 German companies that have done business with Baghdad since around 1975 and have continued to do so up until 2001, many have supplied whole systems or components for weapons of mass destruction.”

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/wm217.cfm

    As for your claim about Rumsfeld they are absurd and again an attempt to smear the USA through false allegations.  This is what is called “bashing”.  But if you have some credible source verifying this story I wll be open but until than I prefer to stick with facts,  facts such as Chirac visited Saddam several times in order to sell nuclear technology and other weapons to Saddam. How come Germans know so much about Rumsfeld’s ONE trip to Saddam but not so much about Chirac numerous trips to Saddam?

  7. In French we have a proverb. It says : The worst deaf is the one who doesn’t want to hear. Rumsfeld made TWO trips to Saddam. Check the article in “The Guardian”. Of course you would not find it in the “heritage Foundation”.
    There is no German newspaper simply called the “Tageszeitung”, you must have missed the first half of the name.

  8. saddam was allié with usa, france ,royaume unis etc this is turth but koweit = oil ….

  9. @Jean- Paul

    I don’t dispute Rumsfeld made two trips, what I find objectionable is your false accusations about what Rumsfeld told Saddam.  Likewise you wouldn’t find anything about Chirac’s numerous visits s to saddam in the Guardian.

    I believe Andre has already answered you about “Tageszeitung”. That  is a German newspaper but then again you already knew that .

    PS  Sorry for missing the accent on your name Andre, don’t have French keyboard :  )

  10. I checked the facts. Chirac paid only ONE (two week) visit to Bagdad in november 1974, when he was PM. Saddam Hussein came to France the year after and stayed 2 weeks too, Chirac being still PM. Maybe Chirac made private visits after he quitted, but I don’t think so. When he became PM in 1986-88, he never flied back to Iraq. The “numerous visits” made by Chirac exist only in your imagination. French PM Raymond Barre went three times to Iraq, but no French president ever did. This is a chronology in French
    http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/chronologie_496841.html 

  11. Jean-Paul (63), Thank you so very much for researching this. I believe that this information is useful in many conversations with bashers  that we even have now days.

  12. Here are some interesting news items about Chirac’s relationship with Saddam,  such a close relationship between a western leader and a brutal dictator like Saddam was rather strange to say the leaset.

    "Judicial Watch, Inc. (hereinafter, “Judicial Watch”) is a non-profit, non-partisan, public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse.  

    "Based on our preliminary investigation, as well as recent press reports, there is sufficient evidence to implicate senior French political and governmental officials including, but not limited to, Mr. Jacques Chirac.  These unlawful activities involve private persons, corporations and government officials from: France, Iraq, the Peoples’

    Mr. Chirac has engaged in a decades-long illicit campaign to violate and subvert international law, European Union (E.U.) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conventions, as well as U.N. resolutions and sanctions.  According to recent press reports, as well as the 1991 book, The Death Lobby; How the West Armed Iraq , by Kenneth R. Timmerman, and the 1992 book, Notre Allie Saddam by French journalists Claude Angeli and Stephanie Mesnier, Mr. Chirac has been engaged in a nearly thirty (30) year conspiratorial relationship with the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein – trafficking in arms, military equipment and nuclear technology.  Over the last thirty years Mr. Chirac has facilitated, both in and out of government office, the sale and/or transfer to Iraq of:


    In return for supplying Saddam Hussein with arms and nuclear technology, Mr. Chirac and others have personally benefited through financial support for their political party(ies) and campaigns. [2]
     
                French corporate and governmental corruption was well documented in mid-March 2003, by New York Times columnist William Safire, whose work (cited at length below) details the unlawful sale and fraudulent trans-shipment of Chinese rocket fuel to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq via Syria.  Mr. Safire has published the contents of e-mails from a French firm that knowingly brokered and facilitated the criminal act.  Mr. Chirac, when confronted by the media concerning the details of the transaction, lied and claimed it had not occurred."

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/95/chirac.htm

    "NRO: How close was the relationship between Saddam and Chirac?
    K enneth Timmerman, a New York Times best-selling author, lived and worked as an investigative reporter in France for 18 years

    Timmerman: Like lips and teeth. One of my favorite stories is the bullfight Chirac hosted for Saddam in the southern France resort town les Baux-de-Provence in September 1975, where Saddam bet $600,000 on the bulls. During that first trip Saddam made to France, Chirac stuck to him like glue . He also arranged to sell Saddam a nuclear-research reactor, which Saddam himself called a nuclear-bomb plant."

    http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/timmerman200403220851.asp

  13. Why censor what I wrote about Chirac and Rumsfeld?
    This information can be easily found in the Wiki and Judical watch which is a liberal organization.
    OK, I get it you can’t stand the facts but making false accusations about Rumsfeld and be extension USA, is ok?
    I guess the standard for your blog is : Lies about USA = okay.
    Truth about France = not okay and must be censored right away
    To censor Wiki and Judical watch? That tells us all we need to know about your blog. I think word will get around very fast that you censor Wiki when it is not to your liking.
     

  14. Please don’t accuse people of censorship when your message is stuck in the spam / moderation queue.

  15. On an unrelated note:

    If you have not already, check out this (new) video game for Wii.  I was going buy it, but when I saw that they retained and further ridiculed it’s easiest contender, Glass Joe, (French), I decided against getting this game.  It’s really immature that they kept this character and emphasized his “Frenchness” (i.e. weak and easy to beat up). 
    Terrible!

  16. Nick the article you quote doesn’t content “facts”, but judgements of value. When you write “Mr. Chirac has been engaged in a nearly thirty (30) year conspiratorial relationship with the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein” this is not exactly what i will call a “fact”. By the way there is nothing “unlawful” in trading with Iraq. You may find morally objectionable of course, but it is not illegal. And don’t forget  that Iraq had signed the NPT. There is no “conspiracy”, it is only business and (shortseeing) Realpolitik.
    Now I found out that Chirac made actually a second private trip to Bagdad, with Raymond Barre (who was then PM) on his way back from India in 1976. But two visits are not “numerous”. And Saddam made also a first official visit in France in 1972, he was received by President Pompidou.  He came twice to France. You may see the TV-films of Saddam’s arrival in 72 and 75 at the Elysée Palace on internet.

  17. L L,

    thanks for drawing our attention to this game. I’ve made some superficial research and found several websites which were delighted with the portrayal of Glass Joe as a “cowardly and effete Frenchman”.

    It’s offensive, ridiculous and intolerable that ignorant bashers should wield such tremendous amounts of power and be able to operate with such impunity.

    At this rate, they’re worsening the scenario faster than any Miquelons can improve it… It’s depressing.

  18. What does Chirac’s supposed close ties with Saddam have to do with Jay Leno and his show leaving its current time slot ?

    “”OK, I get it you can’t stand the facts but making false accusations about Rumsfeld and be extension USA, is ok?
    I guess the standard for your blog is : Lies about USA = okay.
    Truth about France = not okay and must be censored right away””

    Miquelon is being extremely polite by letting you hijack this thread with your “facts” on his anti French-bashing blog of all places.
    If you get my drift…
    So at least show some respect.

  19. Kenneth Timmerman is a yellow journalist who is a registered republican as well as a former candidate for the US Senate from Maryland. In fact he is listed here on Miquelon.org as a notorious French Basher and was the focus of an editorial in 2004.  Oh and his website looks like shite.

  20. @Barney

    This thread was already hijacked when someone made a remark about Rumsfeld’s meeting with Saddam which has nothing to do with this topic.
    Strange you didn’t notice the “hijacking” when it was Rumsfeld……if you catch my drift.

  21. Still waiting for an apology over censoring my posts on what Wiki says about Rumsfelld’s meeting with Saddam.  On last count , censored 3 times, but never mind it has already been read by millions of people in Wiki. The truth always gets out no matter how hard people try to create myths.

  22. @Jean-Paul

    I have only come across one Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam, he may have visited Iraq more than once but he certainly didn’t meet Saddam twice.

    Also as for your claim that Rumsfeld gave Saddam the green light to use chemical weapons, the Wiki says the opposite, that according to declassified state department records  of his meetings in Iraq, Rumsfeld communicated the USA’s unease over use of chemical weapons and made it clear that it “inhibited” US efforts to help Iraq in its war with Iran.

    I am sure Fred would be delighted with this research which is readily available in Wiki to combat bashers (in this case bashers of USA).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld
    According to declassified U.S. State Department documents, Rumsfeld also informed Tariq Aziz (Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister) that: “Our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us … citing the use of chemical weapons”

  23. “censoring my posts” – It’s called a moderation queue. It happens when there is either a lot of text or more than two links. It’s A U T O M A T I C. Sometimes my own posts are held in the queue.

    Care to apologize now?

  24. Oh boy! I just wrote a beautiful narative and I forgot to put down my address and it was erased.
    Summary: 1. I watched Bush when he was governor of Texas and I knew that he was going to be a disaster. He hates government and wanted it to be broke, minimal and ineffective.
    2. Rumsfeld was a tool of Cheney and the neo-cons. They were far too interested in Empire and cared less about the rest of us.
    3. The Republicans have a lot of very talented and smart people, but, they are crushed by the far right. For ten years the Party has been getting smaller and smaller. We (the Republican Party) needs to change and be more than a white, regional party.
    4. Don’t worry about bashing of Rumsfeld. For his warpped idea of running a war, he should be bashed.

  25. @ Fred,

    I thought you were very keen on correcting misinformation based on your post #64 . So naturally I am now surprised you are not so keen when misinformation about US policy is corrected. It is a very serious nefarious propaganda to smear the US by saying it gave the green light to Saddam to use chemical weapons when the facts show as Wiki noted the opposite was true. 

    So, I am  trying to get this straight.
    Correcting misinformation about France = important
    Correcting misinformation about USA = Not important ?

  26. Nick, Sorry, my addressed issue was Rumsfeld himself. I am not qualified to address his visits to Iraq under the pre 2002 regime. I am simply disgusted with what the man and the Bush Administration put an understaffed and underarmed military go through and his utter contempt for the military of all non-english speaking militaries. There is no doubt that what visits Rumsfeld did make to Iraq were not of his interests but for the purpose of doing the bidding of the White House under Reagan and the first Bush. He was a different man back then, or so it seems.

  27. @Fred,

    My post was about Rumsfeld’s visit to Iraq during the Reagan years and I have given the Wiki link for it so it would make anyone who read my posts (with the link for Wiki) qualified to answer the question of whether there was misinformation spread about the US giving the green light to Saddam to use chemical weapons. If you choose to avoid this issue, fine but at least  you should have the same standards of praise for correcting misinformation about the USA as you do for correcting misinformation about France.

    There was in nothing in my posts about Rumsfeld in the Bush administration so don’t know why you are answering my posts with issues I did not raise.

    The issue I addressed was very specific, someone here made an assertion that the US gave the green light to Saddam to use chemical weapons. I answered with the link from Wiki which clearly showed that was incorrect.  So based on your posts praising others for correcting misinformation about France, naturally I am puzzled why you don’t have the same praise for correcting misinformation about USA.

    This issue got nothing to do with Rumsfeld in the Bush adminstration, so let me ask you again.

    Correcting misinformation about France = important
    Correcting misinformation about USA = NOT important, don’t give a damn?

  28. Nick,
    I  am certain of what I read, but I must make investigations to check the facts and find the source (I think a theatre play was performed in London on this topic, a direct performance of the official report). Short after Rumsfeld’s first visit to Bagdad, the US State departement issued a declaration condemning the use of chemical weapons   by Saddam. On Rumsfeld’s second visit Saddam expressed concern about this. And Rumsfeld told him that he had nothing to fear from the president. When asked about this in 2004 he told journalists that he did not remember.   

  29. This thread was already hijacked when someone made a remark about Rumsfeld’s meeting with Saddam which has nothing to do with this topic.
    Strange you didn’t notice the “hijacking” when it was Rumsfeld……if you catch my drift.

     
     
    How stupid do we think we are ? Since page 2, there’s 8 pages worth of your “facts” about Saddam and the French.
    And besides, Nick, you are lying. You’re the first one who brought up Saddam for some reason.
    Post #10
    10
    Nick Says:
    May 16th, 2009 at 3:56 am
    So Jay is evil now? But not Saddam.
     
    Now could you please go back to freerepublic, no pasaran, drudge or whatever ultra right wing blog you came crawling out of ?
    Thanx.

  30. @Barney,

    Let me get this straight, bringing up saddam is a big no no.
    But bringing up Bush is okay? Strange you didn’t notice the “hijacking” of the thread when Bush was mentioned …if you catch my drift.

    According to your fundamentalist mindset, bringing up Bush, Iraq war, US weapons sales to Saddam, Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam are all fine and dandy but no one should ever ever mention French weapons sales to Saddam, Chirac’s long term relationship with Saddam starting in the 1970’s etc. And if anybody dares to do so they will met with name calling and insults.  In other words you want a one sided view to suit your biases.

  31. @Jean paul
    You make serious allegations based on what you saw on the theatre?

    As I mentioned once before I can only find one case of Rumsfeld meeting Saddam personally.  So, I will  presume  this so called second meeting with Saddam was all in the imagination of the theatre production.
     

  32. Not at all, the play I mention was the litteral transcription of the interview between Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein as accessible in the archive papers (of the Pentagon I think).

  33. According to your fundamentalist mindset, bringing up Bush, Iraq war, US weapons sales to Saddam, Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam are all fine and dandy but no one should ever ever mention French weapons sales to Saddam……


    Stop trolling. You’re the one who first mentioned Saddam, completely out of the blue on a thread dedicated to the Jay Leno show.
    And as a well trained troll, you have successfully managed to steer the conversation, originally denouncing Jay Leno’s French-bashing,  toward denouncing supposed French misdeeds….for 9 pages. Congrats, mission accomplished.

    On a blog dedicated to fighting French-bashing. A complete coincidence of course since I’m sure French-bashing is an issue you care deeply about…if you catch my further drift.

    How ‘d you wind up on miquelon.org, by the way ?

  34. @Jean-paul.

    You once again avoided the issue…what second meeting with Saddam?
    How could there have been a literal transcription of Saddam’s second meeting with Rumsfeld when there was NO second meeting?

    Rumsfeld had one meeting with Saddam and the declassified statement department records as noted by Wiki indicate Rumsfeld voiced the US disapproval of Saddam’s use of chemical weapons . I have provided the Wiki link for this already.

  35. @ Jean paul
    By the way, I saw a play which was about Chirac’s meeting with Saddam where Chirac told Saddam it was okay to use chemical weapons.  It was a literal transcription of archives in the french foreign ministry.  So sorry I can’t provide any proof and I have forgotten the name of the play now.

  36. I really can’t imagine even Rusmsfled advocating the use of chemical weapons. I know that Iraq was under extreme stress in its’ war with Iran. After all, Iraq was often outnumbered on the battlefield ten to one! If better equipment wasn’t enough, I can see a lot of people, who knew better, looking the other way. There really is no need for bashing on anyone as everyone seems to have looked the other way. I also believe that,  today, Western Governments know better than to “trust” a dictator. Just how long they go before they conviently “forget”, I don’t know.

  37. @mike
    I am no Rumsfeld fan and think he is an arrogant bastard but I object to misinformation and especially about such a serious matter as giving the green light to use chemical weapons.

    @Fred,
    The USA did not look away but voiced its disapproval to Saddam about his use of chemical weapons during the war with Iran. I have already posted the link from Wiki for this. Since the USA had very minimal business ties with Saddam’s Iraq it felt no need to stay silent as other countries which had very deep commercial ties with Saddam’s Iraq did.  Like I mentioned before, to put countries like UK, Italy, Brazil and USA which had minimal commercial ties with Saddam in the same category as Germany and France which combined together gave over 73% of Saddam’s WMD capability is absurd. I have already given the link from Wiki for these figures. And Germany’s contribution to Saddam’s arsenal was far more substantial than France ,  however the Germans show no indication of changing their laws to prevent German companies from arming ruthless dictators again.

  38. Nick, Well, I’ve been going all over the net for hours and hours, over days and I must conclude that there is so much “stuff” going both ways.  It’s a lot like the WIKI on April Glaspire – every which way but loose. Also, do you know who is behind “globalsecurity.org”? They throw out alot of information that I wonder how they verified their “facts”. Anyway, Nick, I do appreciate the focus that you have brought forth. Hard to believe, but, I think a lot of “facts” may have vanished or got redefined. This is going to take a reporter with a ton of time and patience to weigh through. Nick, I volunteer you to stir up someone at the Economist or NYT.  You might also check out an Iraqi news reporter for one of their new, independent papers. They would probably be interested in researching the local records.

  39. @Fred,

    I have a feeling when the facts are not to your liking,  you will dismiss them.  It is not only Wiki but the New York times and other major newspapers,   and and also even some German & French media that have reported on Germany and France’s deep commercial ties with Saddam’s Iraq . They can’t ALL  be wrong.  But if you  need to believe they are all wrong for your emotional health, be my guest.

  40. Nick, I am rather offended by your #97 reply. Here I am, being polite and supportive, and you attack my assertion that I am reading conflicting messages on the Net.  If you are going to attack everyone that seeks to support your point, you will be very lonely indeed.

  41. @ Nick I think USA as way much more experience than any other state when it’s about armining ruthless dictator ; just watch recent history of latin america ….tsss

Comments are closed.