Sarkozy Election Helps Debunk Myths About Bush’s Foreign Policy
For the past 4 years (at least), many on the left (& in the MSM) have accused the President of “cowboy” diplomacy, of going it alone without the participation of our allies. In making that claim, the President’s critics have made much of France’s opposition to his policies. But, with the victory yesterday of Nicolas Sarkozy, we can once again see that the problem was not so much Bush’s decision to “go it alone,” but the duplicity of the French.
In declaring victory yesterday, Sarkozy “embraced” his nation’s friendship with the United States, noting that his “dedication to our relationship with America if well known and has earned me substantial criticism in France.” While noting his disagreements with U.S. foreign policy from time to time, he faulted the attitudes not of the Bush Administration, but of the outgoing French leadership, pointing out that “France’s foreign policy had often suffered from an arrogant and insensitive approach” which, as John Fund put it, was “a clear reference to the haughty attitudes of retiring president Jacques Chirac and his prime minister, Dominique de Villepin.“
It was after all, de Villepin in 2002-03, then as Foreign Minister, who deceived then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell about France’s intention to support the Iraq War in the U.S. Security Council and who lobbied Turkish legislators to vote against allowing U.S. troops to invade Iraq from their soil. It wasn’t so much that the Bush Administration sough to go it alone, it was that France (under Chirac and Villepin) sought to thwart U.S. policy. As the Washington Post‘s Jim Hoagland put it, “Chirac’s foreign policy . . . sought to establish Europe as a counterweight to American influence abroad.” That is, Chirac and Villepin were determined to oppose us merely for the sake of establishing a foreign policy different from that of the United States.
To be sure, Hoagland does not expect Sarkozy to immediately repudiate Chirac’s foreign policy. Still, Sarkozy has not shied away from his affinity for the United States, even braving (if that be the word) a pre-election meeting with the president where he had “his picture taken shaking” the much-maligned Chief Executive’s hand. (As I wrote above, Sarkozy noted himself that his dedication to the Franco-American alliance earned him some criticism in France.)
And the media has noted his pro-American attitudes, with London’s Telegraph calling him “a blunt and uncompromising pro-American conservative” and USA TODAY heading today’s paper, “Pro-US president elected in France.” Sarkozy himself acknowledged as much in his victory speech, saying that the United States can “count on our friendship,” even as he made clear that “friendship means accepting that friends can have different opinions.” Sounds like friendship between nations is like friendship between individuals.
The media (and the left) have made much of the failures of the President’s foreign policy. And from time to time, their criticisms have been on the mark. But, all too often, they have been unwilling to criticize the foreign policies of other nations. That the French president-elect has taken issue with the policies of the incumbent (French) administration, while daring to meet with President Bush (before the election) and reaffirming his support for the United States (during the campaign and after the election) indicates that American foreign policy (under Bush) is not the cowboy diplomacy (as defined by its critics) and that other nations need change their diplomacy as well.
(One wonders why it is the MSM is so eager to criticize the U.S. foreign policy while barely questioning that of our allies — and adversaries on the world stage.)
In the past two years, the three Western nations (Germany, Canada and France) with the most vocal anti-U.S. foreign policy have replaced governments critical of the current American administration and elected leaders eager to work with President Bush and his team — even while acknowledging that they will not always agree.
- B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
UPDATE: Bidding adieu to Jacques Chirac, Anne Applebaum notes, “Chirac constantly searched, in almost all international conflicts, for novel ways of opposing the United States.” (Via Instapundit who, once again displays the picture with the poster calling Chirac a worm.) Chirac kind of sounds like the Democrats, constantly searching for ways to oppose President Bush. Chirac’s quest certainly helped Bush Administration critics. For without France’s vocal opposition to U.S. foreign policy, they would have had a much harder time defining the President as a cowboy with a go-it-alone foreign policy.
29 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“… In the past two years, the three Western nations (Germany, Canada and France) with the most vocal anti-U.S. foreign policy have replaced governments critical of the current American administration and elected leaders eager to work with President Bush and his team …”
… Just as we are about to, possibly, elect a new President that will be nearly the OPPOSITE of Bush. Interesting times.
Comment by DoorHold — May 7, 2007 @ 10:45 pm - May 7, 2007
Last I checked, it was the elections in this country that counted, not the elections in a foriegn nation. You could easily point to Chavez’s election (too say nothing of the clearly stupid move his government made to give him supreme power) as proof how much the world really hates us.
The Republican debate last week was a lot more telling; it was held at the Ronald Reagan library and Reagan’s name was uttered god knows how many times. Also, to say nothing of how early this debate was held. All of it was staged to clearly say “yes, we know you want him out of the White House asap”
There’s a big difference between having close ties with a nation as opposed to close ties with its leaders. Many people around the world say how much they love America and its people, but they aren’t too thrilled with its current leadership.
As for Colin Powell, well it looks like it wasn’t just the French who deceived him…seems that was going on right behind his back.
Comment by Kevin — May 7, 2007 @ 10:51 pm - May 7, 2007
So how many Canadian troops are there in Iraq now?
How many German troops are in Iraq now?
And how many French troops do you think Sarkozy will send?
Comment by vaara — May 7, 2007 @ 10:59 pm - May 7, 2007
It is quite obvious that Hillary and company’s line on how much we are hated in the world will hopefully explode in their faces, and the American People will see that it is Jihad Islamists that are the problem.
Comment by Tom in Dallas — May 8, 2007 @ 12:22 am - May 8, 2007
Most of us remember it from the get go (even though we’re not supposed to). A lot of us forgot it during the liberal blitzkrieg in the War on Truth.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 8, 2007 @ 12:39 am - May 8, 2007
Oddly enough, vaara, it’s only since these non anti-American governments were elected that the NATO troops in Afghanistan — which includes Canadians and Germans — were allowed to go into combat without restrictions in the first place.
What good are allies who won’t fight?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 8, 2007 @ 12:51 am - May 8, 2007
#5
Kindly inform Major Heyward that he has little to fear from this General Marquis de Montcalm in the first place; and scant need of a colonial militia in the second because the French haven’t the nature for war. Their Gallic laziness combines with their Latinate voluptuousness with the result that they would rather eat and make love with their faces than fight.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 8, 2007 @ 6:37 am - May 8, 2007
All that aside, Dan, France needs somebody like Sakorsky right now. Any country that dismisses over 700 cars being torched in riots as no big deal (why, just like an average New Year’s Eve!), is in serious trouble.
Comment by John — May 8, 2007 @ 10:10 am - May 8, 2007
And John, as usual, it’s the “enlightened” and “tolerant” ones who torch the cars, not to mention those who practice or embrace the “religion of peace.”
Orwell must be turning over in his grave.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 8, 2007 @ 10:46 am - May 8, 2007
Web Reconnaissance for 05/08/2007…
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention….
Trackback by The Thunder Run — May 8, 2007 @ 11:16 am - May 8, 2007
How typical, the only was a country can show support to the United States is if they send soldiers to a war zone. One thing that would be much more effective, is if the French will now be on the same page about Iran. If we could get some support about real economic sanctions, and real world pressure on Iran – we actually may see results.
Up until now, France has been very happy to keep on making money from the Iranians Boots on the ground are not the only way to show support.
Comment by Leah — May 8, 2007 @ 11:17 am - May 8, 2007
(OT) Meanwhile, back in the cleanest most ethical congress in history,” Air Pelosi slips an earmark into a Federal Water Bill to benefit her own business interests.
But that’s okay because she’s a Democrat, right, you guys?
Comment by V the K — May 8, 2007 @ 11:24 am - May 8, 2007
John, 700 cars burning is no big deal. In Detroit, on the Annual HellNight, that is a pre-event warm-up party to torching 1,500 buildings, 10-20 police cars and sniping at the firefighters who risk much to put out the flames.
Paris is sissyland compared to Detroit.
Come to think of it, to Hell with the Marines, we need to send in the innercity Detroit youth to the next big battle in the Middle East.
With or without Sarkosy, France will still surrender whenever the first punch is thrown.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 8, 2007 @ 11:34 am - May 8, 2007
Matt:
Impossible. Detroit has been a Democrat stronghold for what seem like centuries. They have a minority-dominated City Council and loathe Bush.
How can there possibly be violence and unrest?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 8, 2007 @ 1:44 pm - May 8, 2007
But of course. Perhaps the French will now compensate for their lack of military prowess by simply starting a bunch of pro-Bush blogs.
Comment by vaara — May 8, 2007 @ 11:02 pm - May 8, 2007
You know, you suck at this.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 9, 2007 @ 12:42 am - May 9, 2007
I admit it… I’m no Jules Crittenden (who, if you can’t be bothered to follow the link, proposes that France should send troops to Iraq immediately as penance for the perceived misdeeds of Sarkozy’s crony, Jacques Chirac).
Comment by vaara — May 9, 2007 @ 3:24 am - May 9, 2007
Holly: Jean-Paul Sartre said, “Hell was being locked forever in a room with your friends.”
Lister: Holly, all of his mates were French.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 9, 2007 @ 6:38 am - May 9, 2007
Interesting fact – Sarkozy is a Catholic, and has considerable Jewish ancestry. Hmm, that combo wouldn’t make him Satan in the eyes of the Muslim-allied Left, now would it?
After reading Wiki on him, I’m almost starting to have fond feelings for the guy:
Coming from Chirac, that is a compliment!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 9, 2007 @ 4:06 pm - May 9, 2007
The French election was only a referendum on France’s relationship to the US. That’s all they were thinking about when they were voting. Everything that happens in the world centers on the US. Everything.
Comment by jimmy — May 10, 2007 @ 3:32 pm - May 10, 2007
No, little jimmy, it was much more than that. It was a repudiation of those leftist ideals as envisoned by Socialist Segolene Royal – bad economic policies, generous spending pledges and little indication of how to fund them. She didn’t exactly exude confidence in anyone’s estimation.
Sarkozy, on the other hand, seemed to tap into the burgeoning French rightward shift. He outraged French Socialists and journalists by coming to America during his campaign to meet with our president. He has praised America’s dynamism, freedoms and prosperity, and he promises to work for reforms that will make France more like the U.S.
So yes, you actually got part of your comment right – for a change. This election was about who would work best with the USA. And the French just happened to pick a winner.
Now go back in your hole and stay there until we call on you again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 10, 2007 @ 6:41 pm - May 10, 2007
Hey I’d be satisfied if the French prosecute those who profited from OIL FOR FOOD, and sent those millions back to the Iraqi people.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — May 10, 2007 @ 9:02 pm - May 10, 2007
In case you didn’t notice, in the final debate between Sarkozy and Royal, the subject of Iraq wasn’t mentioned even once. There was also very little discussed regarding foreign policy. So, to frame their election as some sort of victory for Bush’s Iraq policy is completely misguided. The election in France was about domestic issues pertaining to France.
In a previous post, someone else also tried to spin Angela Merkel’s election in Germany in the same light. They forget that Gerhard Schröder won re-election in September 2002 largely because of his opposition to the pending Iraq invasion. He was expected to lose that election too, but pulled out a victory when he went anti-Bush. By 2005, Iraq had faded as an issue in Germany, due to Germany’s lack of involvement. Even still, despite trailing by 15 percentage points a week from the election, the SPD pulled to within a virtual tie, leaving neither party with the ability to form a governing majority. That is why the CDU and SPD have a coalition government, with Merkel as chancellor.
So really, spinning these elections as pro-Bush is really grasping at straws.
Comment by Chase — May 11, 2007 @ 1:05 am - May 11, 2007
Sorry, Chase, but it looks like you are the one who is spinning. This is the future of geopolitics as we know it.
Those foreign leaders so admired by Dhimmicrats for hating George Bush and loving Saddam Hussein are being replaced by rulers who pledge their friendship to the United States. Merkel and Sarkozy are just two of many.
What about Stephen Harper of Canada, who based his campaign on closer ties with the USA? And don’t forget Australia’s John Howard, who won a historic third term and has been perfectly blunt with the Muslims in his country – if you want shari’a law, move back to Pakistan.
Even Tony Blair, who stood side-by-side with the president, honestly felt he’d done the right thing at the time. What is so ironic is that if his successor (Brown) loses in the general elections, it would be to a candidate from the more pro-American Tory Party (Thatcher’s old crowd).
I just find it amazing how the conventional wisdom that holds sway among many libtards is often so completely divorced from reality.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 11, 2007 @ 10:23 am - May 11, 2007
Peter,
The United States does not equal George W. Bush and/or the Republican Party. Friendship with the United States does not equate to support for George Bush’s Iraq policy.
Foreign nations, indeed many foreign leaders, are adept enough to make that distinction.
Comment by Chase — May 11, 2007 @ 12:49 pm - May 11, 2007
Oh, so countries that voted in leaders who disagreed with Bill Clinton in the 1990s were not adept enough to distinguish between the leader of the free world and lack of support for his policies? You know, like Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel?
Please stop spinning, Chase, you’re making us all dizzy.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 11, 2007 @ 1:44 pm - May 11, 2007
Puppet Chase is just desperately trying to explain why Hillary Clinton Segolene Royal wasn’t voted into office, despite her promises to punish business, increase welfare and benefits entitlements and spending, raise taxes on the rich, and prevent any form of immigration reform whatsoever.
What he’s worried about is the fact that a candidate who supported crackdowns on Islamic terror, constraints on immigration, cutbacks on welfare, tax cuts, and making life easier for businesses and investors won in France.
That doesn’t bode well for the Socialist Democrat Party in the United States.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2007 @ 4:52 pm - May 11, 2007
If two candidates get the same number of votes what happens?
Comment by Chris Hutcherson — October 3, 2008 @ 3:27 pm - October 3, 2008
A tie in the Electoral College?
If that’s the case, the lame duck House of Representatives will caucus by State Delegations.
Each State gets one vote. The Reps of a state will choose a candidate, the majority of Reps in each State determines who gets that State’s vote.
Whoever gets the majority of States’ votes, wins. The Senate does the same thing to choose the VP
Comment by Vince P — October 3, 2008 @ 4:46 pm - October 3, 2008