All Comments

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.

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.

In America, the disdane for our ex vice-president (Dick Cheney) is probably something even you guys are aware of. I saw this opinion poll the other day and noticed something I thought that might interest you. It rated his popularity against those of several countries. You will be pleased to find out that France rated highest in this poll. Twice as many Americains look at France in a positive light than Dick Cheney. I know it’s not anything to get and cheer about, but I just thought you might enjoy the results. One thing you should realize is about 21% of our poulations hates everything (we call ’em republicans). So don’t be offended by the amount of negative votes. They would have something bad to say anything and anybody.

Twice as many Americains look at France in a positive light than Dick Cheney.

I nearly fell off my chair laughing. Well, it’s a start, I guess!

@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.

Still waiting for an apology.

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.

@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”

“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?

Nick

1. Get one egg
2. Crack egg
3. Spread contents over face

Thanks.

Starting to feel like a twitter-sniper. Every day I reply to all those who mock the French defeat of 1940.

On average, there are between 1 and 4 tweets a day that mock the 1940 defeat of France. Most are from the USA. Thanks trickle-down hatred.

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.

@ 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 ?

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.

@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?

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.   

That troll is still here ?

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.

@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.

@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.
 

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).

Nick, still no apology for falsely accusing me of censorship? Stop being a Hannity (new synonym for coward).

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 ?

@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.

@ 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.

Hi, nice posts there 🙂 thank’s for the interesting information

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.

One to four really isn’t all that bad. I would imagine that the UK and Germany get that many, per day,  bashing them for WWII. We’re never going to totally eliminate ignorance but your efforts should minimize them. Good for you.

@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.

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.

@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.

Nick, an apology or you’re barred from here.

I dont normally post comments to blogs but I have to say this is a great post and a big thanks for this blog post.

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.

 
 
Yes, we were badly prepared, expecting a war like the previous one. And badly led – the shortcomings of the French and British high commands and their strategic thinking have been well documented.
 
The Germans unleashed a new kind of warfare: Blitzkrieg. Neither we nor our British allies knew how to face it.
 
Any analysis, even a superficial one, of the situation in June 1940 shows that we had lost. Further fightng would have been futile. Our British allies knew this too, and went home (wisely) to continue the struggle.
 
They had an advantage over us: the Channel, which made a massive land assault against them impossible. They had to face an air war, and they did so magnificently.
 
But without the Channel, if Britain had face a land invasion, it is highly probable that it, too, would have fallen.
 
It took nearly five years for the British, then the Soviets (June 41), then the Americans (December 41), not to mention the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders etc, to defeat nazi Germany.
 
Is it surprising if  France fell so quickly?
 
To continue with the cheap, despicable “surrender” jokes is an insult to all those who fought and died in that war.
 
A war in which many Americans also gave their lives. And for this, France will forever be grateful.

@ 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

@ Nick

Reagan sent Rumsfeld to salute saddam during the Iraq/Iran war….just to ask him to not use chimical weapons??????

So he is a hero!? Why did he wait this meeting to be made public by the media instead of trying to hide it?

In the same serie, Chirac met Saddam in the 70s in order to ask him to not be a dicator.
And Rumsfeld was on the board of a company providing nuclear technology to North Korea in order to send them fake data so they explode themselves….

Communist Colmes,
Alan Colmes debuts new show in ‘Hannity’ time slot:
http://www.foxnews.com/hannity/
With the participation of Pepe le Pew…

And they probably laugh about that…They’re desperate…
How can it be more ridiculous ?

Try this link instead…:
Communist Colmes,

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=4121065

Alan was the first to air a one hour radio show on French Bashing in 2003. He invited me and Christopher Ruddy of Newsmax. I am surprised he would use such imagery, but at the same time the commercial is supposed to be over the top and plays with anti-left prejudice…

At the same time, that Disney WB character was designed to stereotype the French in the post-war era. Sent Alan a twitter…

Alan was the first to air a one hour radio show on French Bashing in 2003. He invited me and Christopher Ruddy of Newsmax. I am surprised he would use such imagery, but at the same time the commercial is supposed to be over the top and plays with anti-left prejudice…

At the same time, that Disney character was designed to stereotype the French in the post-war era. Sent Alan a twitter…

Miquelon, thank you for catching this. Keep us informed.

Thank Browmf (re previous discussion)

So, if I am to understand this correctly, was Colmes ad in fact a satire intended to poke fun at conservatives by over playing stereotypes? 

Alan Colme’s response : AlanColmes@miquelon well, I didn’t write it, but it was pure silliness.

Yes poilu, the whole bit was actually quite amusing. Is the use of Pepé offensive? Surely, what do you think?

And now for something completely different …

Adorable.

I thought that these lies  over our supposed arms supply to Saddam were over, I guess some still have the donkey style, “têtu comme un mulet” ; no averred news-papers would dare to print them today, just a few biased idiots  showmen that want to make laugh an audience, or biased colomnists… umm, I got quite a few of them brooched through my sword