The news last night reported on a local restaurant that is not selling french fries anymore, but now sells 'freedom fries.'

Does that mean they don't french kiss anymore?
Will they kick out patrons that do?

It's gonna be a real bitch giving back the Statue of Liberty.

As Bill Maher said on his HBO show last week, lay off the French; they're a better opposition to W than the Democrats.

And why is it that the French come under such attack, but the Germans get away scot-free. I mean, I actually think both countries' leaders have valid points, but if the gung-ho Iraq war supporters are going to boycott French products, etc., why not German? In addition, while Blair supports us, all indications are that the British people are not in favor of the war - by large majorities. Shouldn't we be eating Thomas' freedom muffins then?

No german chocolate cake?

damn

The Germans are such easy targets. (Schröder's antics already tied the Bushies' drawers in little Nazis.) Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg don't really count. They don't need our money, they have tiny armies and even if they scream we ignore them. The Eastern European nations basically have their hands out, palms up. So that leaves Germany and France. The French are more pompous and self-asserting these days, so they're the target of our wrath.

I heard some man ranting on the radio the other day about how "we helped them out in two wars and they've never done a damned thing for us except make trouble." The French, as many dumb Americans seem to forget, ensured our defeat (with money, with men, with boats, with guns, with provisions, etc.) of the British in the Revolutionary War. Washington (and many American states and cities) also didn't forget, thus the ubiquity of all those Lafayette streets and squares, etc.

Stupid Americans also better remember that this cuts both ways. Not only France, but much of Europe (other than the craven leaders of countries like Italy and Poland) are fed up with us, and if they start boycotting American goods and telling us to kiss off, our economy, which is in a tailspin right now, could really suffer.

[ February 25, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I think a large part of the animus toward the French stems from the fact that we have been allies in three wars, two in just the last century, and one in which a significant number of Americans either fought or lost a loved one. With Germany, despite a relatively amicable relationship in the last 55 or so years, there has been a history of conflict and warfare. So, rightly or wrongly, the French are getting a lot more heat right now. In addition, Franco-American relations on a societal level have always been somewhat lukewarm, with Americans viewing the French as arrogant and the French viweing Americans as, well, arrivistes (these are all general statements, btw, I fully recognize that they are not universal sentiments among the citizenry in either of these two nations). I've been in London for the past week, where it seems Tony Blair is the only Brit in favor of confronting Iraq. Interestingly, while the British public seems united against a war, they also seem united against the French intransigence on the issue, as do Spain, Italy and other members of the EC. Last week, Poland and several of the other former Eastern Bloc countries slated to join the EC in a few years issued a formal joint proclamation supporting the US position. Jacques Chirac angrily said that those countries were not "well brought up" and that he wanted them to remain silent. He intimated that France would attempt to block their future EC membership if these countries did not muzzle their disagreement with the the French viewpoint. So while those Americans who love nothing better than pointing out American shortcomings are correct in pointing out that the US is currently making a few enemies, it's worth noting that the French are not exactly winning any popularity contests amongst their neighbors, either.

The reason for Chirac's anger toward the eastern European countries has to do with the "Gang of 8" letter that appeared in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago. It was undiplomatic, to say the least, & deliberately undermined any appearance of European unity, much to the delight of Donald Rumsfeld. Chirac's later statements, with regard to "les mal élevés": "ils ont manqué une bonne occasion de se taire", come out of the late realization that the United States actively seeks to undermine European unity, & with it the notion dear to the French that the EU would act as a counterweight to America's global dominance. It is highly upsetting to France that the U.S. intends to use the entry of the vassal states & eager beavers of eastern Europe into NATO & the EU as a means of confronting & isolating any country that dares to stand in the way of U.S. ambitions. Chirac tried to stand up to the U.S. & he is going to lose, & he knows it, but he will try to use the occasion to win the support of the Arab world & the Third World, as well as European public opinion.

Personally, I fear the world order that appears to be emerging, & hope I live long enough to witness the rise of another country powerful enough to challenge American hegemony (but that country will not be France). It's bad for the world, in my opinion, especially with near absolute power in the hands of a gunslinging fundamentalist yahoo who doesn't care if he sets the world on fire.

The French and German political establishments have been the driving force behind an expanding European Union (the French and German people are more ambivalent). Expanding in size and influence. Their motives are not the same. The Germans with their unpleasant historical baggage want to subsume themselves in a larger European community. The French want to build a European entity that will augment their power and influence in the world in part as a counterweight to perceived US hegemony, in part because they just think very highly of themselves and not without some justification I might add.

Both Germany and France have been pushing the idea of a common European foreign policy. Chirac's hissy fit reveals that, true to type, the French political elite may simply not have envisioned a European foreign policy that would be anything other than French foreign policy with a European label pasted on it. Now they are forced to face the unpleasant reality that this European foreign policy, if ever achieved, will likely not be to their liking at least not entirely. Few other governments in Europe are keen on the idea of an EU dominated by a Franco-German axis and it's interests. The Germans will yet spend another 50 years living down their 20th century misdeeds and it's not just Americans who find the French arrogant. That is generally their reputation (stereotype, if you prefer) throughout Europe and Chirac will have gone a long way toward reinforcing it. Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Rumania, and the Baltics have all expressed varying degrees of disatisfaction with the Franco-German approach. The eastern Europeans being particularly suspicious since the French have taken the Russians to bed as well. Like the French, the Russians would do anything to bring the US down a peg. There isn't a nation in eastern Europe that hasn't been played by the French to their own ends.

It's important to retain some perspective on this Iraq affair. Iraq, Saddam and weaponsofmassdestruction are really of very little importance in the larger scheme of things. The relative power and influence of the US, Europe, Russia, etc. is what this is all really about. It might be tempting to think that the world would be a better place if an America run by yahoos had less influence but when the yahoos have left the stage you can't just submit a request for "more influence again please." Personally, I still believe the US is generally the best influence on world affairs. We'll live in a world we make or one that's made for us. That's what great powers do and have done from Alexander the Great to Dubbya. The French didn't try to reign in Napoleon when he extended France's influence accross Europe and around the world. Seems like hegemony is OK with them unless it's someone else's. I think American hegemony is largely a myth. Were it not, the war in Iraq would be over by now. America's influence will be eclipsed some day, more likely by the UN than the EU. I don't see why we should hurry the day.

Great points, Torgauer. But American hegemony is real. And if we still had that surplus, we'd have gone into Iraq sooner. Again, the U.S. realizes--or some in the administration realize--that to pay for this thing, especially after the war in Afghanistan, we've got to have some help. I think if 9/11 hadn't happened, or if it had been averted, let's say, and the Taliban were still in power, we'd be in Iraq by now. Of course, the possible outcome of all of it might be much worse, since Osama's training camps for crackpots would still be flourishing on Taliban soil, and we were perfectly willing to let them go on while we worked up towards wiping out Saddam. 9/11 forced our (W.'s) hand.

You're very right that irrespective of the Iraq war the larger issue of the U.S. vs. the EU, Russia, and China remains. Japan is a fading, sad power, though it remains the second richest nation in the world. Mexico, India, and Brazil are populous, but have economic and social problems that must be tackled. Nigeria and Indonesia also are among the most populous nations in the world, but multiple issues bedevil them. In terms of directing how things go in the world, we would rather be in charge than following. I believe, however, that it's possible to do this without being a gross bully. We could marshall support (or compel it) without the kinds of schoolyard, puerile, undignified ranting and namecalling that issues from the mouths of Bush, Rumsfeld, etc. More than once it has caused more damage than it need to. The larger question, then, is it is possible to establish hegemony (rather than equipoise), or a quasi-hegemony, without badgering and creating wars that really aren't necessary? We already have our hands full with Al Qaeda and Axis member number 3, North Korea, which possesses nuclear weapons.

Iraq really does play into this larger scenario because of its oil reserves, its strategic position, and its defiance of the U.S. I strongly believe that one aspect of this war is to send a message to other possible "bad children" that if they get too out of line, we will crush them, with or without--but preferably with--world opinion mustered behind us.

Any way you julienne it though, the freedom fries thing is about the dumbest thing to come out of this entire situation. I'm thinking someone connected to the Jerry Springer show might have come up with it.

Fireworks ban in France!

France announced today that it plans to ban fireworks at Eurodisney, following last night's display that caused soldiers at a nearby French army garrison to surrender.

Is that from The Onion? I thought it must have been, but when I got there I found this instead: "Orange Alert Sirens To Blow 24 Hours A Day In Major Cities"

I survived the Blizzard of '03...by going out and enjoying it!

I got it from someone in e-mail. I don't know where it originated.

Does this mean that we were "asleep at the wheel" during Bill Clinton's eight years? He had the surplus.

Do you suggest we should have done nothing after 9/11 and have waited for another terror attack from our friends amongst the Taliban?

We have allot of young men and women out there right now looking out for our interests here at home- we need to be supportive and hope we get out of this mess as quickly as possible.

Josh

What are you talking about??? No, I never suggested that we not do anything after 9/11. Where in my comments do you get this? I've said in POST AFTER POST that we should be rooting out AL QAEDA and other Islamic terrorists wherever they are. Go back and look at my post on this topic. I also supported the war in Afghanistan, and I support rebuilding there.

My statement was that if Bush didn't have to rely on the other rich nations of the world to pay for the Iraq war, he'd have launched it sooner. The war in Afghanistan wasn't a freebie, though it went quickly; it has cost billions of dollars. But now he wants another war while our soldiers are still in Afghanistan, and committed elsewhere (like Bosnia), so he's had to make some gestures towards building a coalition, in part to help fund this damn thing. People can say what the want about the "new European" partnership, but the militaries of those countries together couldn't defeat Iraq, let alone the Taliban. Russia, France, and Germany together have the manpower, the arms, and the cash to help things run smoothly. Britain is our stalwart friend, but they can only do so much--and Blair is facing revolt within his own party.

One thing that's never discussed is that oil is priced by the dollar, but Iraq in August wanted to convert to pricing by the euro. Yet more sauciness from Saddam. If more oil countries did this (thereby moving from the 1944 Bretton Woods standard), it would have a devastating effect on our economy, because we'd lose a massive amount of foreign investment, we'd lose one our most powerful international means of leverage, AND we'd have to pay more for oil. Unlike Japan or Europe, we are no longer moving in the right direction in terms of conservation. So a victory in Iraq would mean the U.S. could also force the hand of any countries who wanted to convert to the euro standard, and it would allow us access to a vast oil network that we would control not only in terms of pumping and distribution, but also in terms of pricing.

Speaking of the young men and women, they don't need to be over there. Let's look out for them in the best way we can by sending the war hawks in Congress, most of whom never saw a military draft they didn't run from, over there to fight first.

Finally, Bush's comments tonight about democracy and solving the Middle East standoff between the Palestinians and Israel were IDIOTIC. He knows it and anyone with any sense does too. Has the defeat of the Taliban led to a domino effect of democracy in southern Asia? No. Will it? No. In fact, Iran has been moving towards a more democratic system for a while, as have nations like Kuwait and Jordan. Our walloping Saddam is not going to make the Palestinians agree to whatever is handed to them by Israel, NOR is it going to persuade Israel to disband the settlements. Are we going to threaten to blow them both up because we're occuping Basra? It's just such a farce, really, but I guess people--well, Americans, because no one else in the world is--are buying it.

[ February 28, 2003, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Also, Clinton's policies CREATED the surplus. Bush II started out with a SURPLUS. Do not forget this. He started out with a surplus that had been created during the late 1990s, under Clinton.

But he BLEW IT. He lost it. He dynamited it right off the budget sheets. If we stick with his reckless fiscal and budgetary policies we'll be in deficit for years to come. IN DEFICIT FOR YEARS TO COME.

If Americans are gonna boycott something shouldn't it be all things Catholic? -- the Pope has been far more out front against the war than even the Frogs

So I suppose you are suggesting just "kicking back", let the dollars roll into Fort Knox and we do nothing to protect ourselves or our interests abroad? Hello! What we are doing now cost money and as far as I am concerned it is well spent if it keeps another 9/11 from happening.

My freedom is worth a defecit.

Josh

[ February 28, 2003, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Unfortunately the Government does not create jobs, create surpluses or anything else. The Governement spends money- business creates jobs.

The prosperity the 90's was tied to incredible growth in technology, the internet, and a move from industrial to a service type economy. We can thank our free enterprise system and higher worker productivity for the prosperity of the 90's and with this, the Government collected more tax revenue building a huge surplus. Unfortunately, the demise of the internet bubble and onset of recession during the last year of Clinton's 8th year has depressed business and reduced tax revenue overall. It will be our free enterprise economy that will rebound us from the current malais- this is a great country and I do not share your pessimism for our future.

Josh

[ February 28, 2003, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Oh how I miss the Clinton boom years -- peace and prosperity. Bush and the Repugs have run the economy, and the nation, into a ditch. I can't believe almost half the voters actually voted for this.

Really? The Federal government has no employees? And those employees don't spend and invest money like everybody else? I always love how right-wingers have this curious notion that government spending just magically vanishes from the economy (this is only true of spending on our foreign debt). Surpluses are definitely created by government policy--they are generated by taxes that exceed expenditures. You can't have a budget surplus without taxes. And while economic growth certainly contributes to increased tax revenue, did you miss the '80's entirely? The economy grew plenty, and so did the deficit. Part of Clinton's success in collecting revenue was due to the 10% surcharge on taxes collected from high income people--which, incidentally, somehow failed to destroy the economy.

Finally, take a good hard look at where all that increased military spending went and see how much of it is actually going to measures that will help us defend ourselves from terrorists.

I'll agree that the "government doesn't create surpluses" comment was nuts. Why do you think we have a government? In part to set policy matters which create pretty much everything, from the economic climate to criminal inforcement to international policies, etc. Technology advancements or not, bad governmental policies, had they been in place during the Clinton years, could have squelched the economy despite the internet bubble and left us in far worse shape now than Bush has managed to help get us into, though I don't think it's all his fault.

I would also agree that his comments about war in Iraq bringing peace to the Middle East was almost like a Saturday Night Live sketch. It was insane. Sort of funny, but more just like one of those surreal and not-so-funny skits that go on and on. It has no basis in reality or fact and if that's the sort of logic he's going with, we're in more trouble than I ever thought.

When people try to just put all bad things together in one big lump, Iraq, Al Quieda, middle east violence and whatever else, just because they are in the same part of the world or whatever, I can't tell if they just think it's easier, they actually believe it, don't know any better or what. But it doesn't work that way I don't think. All our enemies aren't necessarily friends with each other just because they are our enemies.

Geeze- you are kidding right? I hope you aren't suggesting the government create more jobs so that they can pay out more in salaries and have more taxes to collect. I suppose you think that the Canadian system where almost everybody works for the government is a better model?

Josh

[ February 28, 2003, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Who said anything about the "Canadian" system? No matter how much you, Josh, and other conservatives throw up excuses to deny Clinton credit for the economic successes of 1992-2000, the fact remains that his economic policies, fiscally, monetarily, tax-wise, and in conjunction with the Fed, helped to create the longest sustained period of growth in our nation's history. Also, the Internet was funded by the government; the move to a service economy was underwritten by the government; and many government tax and employment policies helped to foster the rise in productivity. You can't cut the government out of it completely. Instead of excuses and blame-gaming, Bush needs to BE A MAN, get his ass in gear, and take responsibility for his disastrous policies.

(Consumer confidence still ebbing; new housing sales falling by 15.4%; the dollar falling against the euro; oil prices rising; new jobless claims increasing; crime creeping up in most major cities and many suburbs except New York City...)

But back to DUMBya, how on EARTH is defeating Iraq going to create a Palestinian state? Would someone please explain this to me? What are envisioned causal or associational steps that will occur to make this happen? This was so inane I laughed out loud! Why don't people CHALLENGE this man on such inanities?

Four (4) words: a Michael Jackson-esque employer (i.e., one who doesn't accept criticism).

If you've got a cushy job, sending your one kid to a posh private school and the other to Dartmouth, and vacationing in Cozumel and Vail every year, how many would speak up and go against the tide?

[ March 01, 2003, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

--------
You seem to think that the governement is like a speed boat, it turns on a dime. As much as you would like to credit Bush for everything now, this was building up and foundation built during Clinton's second term. If you think that our current state is a disaster and that seems to be your frame of reference, the course was plotted prior to Bush being elected- kind of like the Titanic on course to hit an ice berg. The government does not turn on a dime, nor the economy, or the recovery of business. To blame one man, overnite, is ridiculous. I personally do not share your pessimism and I am bullish that this Country will continue to prosper long into the future.

I brought up Canada earlier because it seems that this Country would offer you more of what you are looking for- extremely high taxes and no leadership or risk taking in the world.

Josh

josh said the course was plotted before Bush was elected . No, it wasn't. First of all Bush was selected, not elected, need we remind you, second of all Bush and his all on the same page black and white only minions are doing nothing but undoing all the good that was done in the prior two term administration. As far as Canada is concerned, I can tell you this, knowing the country quite well, yes they may have high taxes, but I would submit to you that their infrastructure is in a hell of alot better shape than it is down here in the U.S.A., and second of all, how many times do you hear in the media stories about busloads, and busloads of Canadians trying to come into our country for their health care??? Anyone??? Anyone??? Bush and his policies are an absolute disaster than generations will be paying for for many, many years to come.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by puckman1:
No, it wasn't[/QB

-----


Yes it was- a recession is always preceeded 6-12 months by the beginning of an economic downturn. The history of business cycles is quite clear on that.

As for Canadian healthcare, the system is full of flaws and for good reason we have not adopted it. The health care in this country is superior and those Canadians that can afford to visit the US to obtain it, do it on a frequent basis. I think anywhere where people are taxed 50 % of their income is oppressive, no matter how nice the quality of life north of the border may appear.

Josh

[ March 01, 2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Josh ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by puckman1:
First of all Bush was selected, not elected, need we remind youBush and his policies are an absolute disaster than generations will be paying for for many, many years to come. [/QB]
------
Lol. We don't have a dictatorship last I looked- President's are elected in this Country. Second, what disaster are you talking about! Once this Clinton induced recession, that had it's roots in Corporate misconduct, internet bubbles, and stained dresses in the white house is over, and American's start spending again, because they aren't worried about their personal safety, buildings being blown up, and an insane dictator plotting chemical attacks against this County, you will see people spend again, and that is how we are going to get out of this recession.

Anyone who lives in the greatest free democracy on the planet should count their blessings- there is no place I would rather live.

Josh

Josh, no argument in so far as the greatest country on the planet, BUT, you obviously view the world and the U.S. through rose colored glasses, if you suddenly think we are going to spend our way out of the depression we are currently in...so why is it we didn't magically pop out of this depression, during the first Shrub tax cut ( for the wealthy), I might add.??
What happened???

[QUOTE]Originally posted by puckman1:
Josh, no argument in so far as the greatest country on the planet, BUT, you obviously view the world and the U.S. through rose colored glasses

----

We will spend our way out of the recession as the economy recovers from the bottom of this business cycle- no magic involved. Unfortunately 9/11 dampened things and the benefits of the tax cut were not realized. By the way, everyone has seen a the tax cut- ie, if I make more than you, then my cut was greater, proportionately, quite frankly, as it should be.

Yah, I am proud of this great country and proud to be an American and very appreciative that I was born here and live here- so yah, if my glasses are rose colored, fine, I think they are more red, white and blue than they are rose.

Josh

I agree Puckman, the polocies of Bush are driving this country into the dumps. His economic policies just make no sense at all.
i love the country also but the best thing that can happen to us in my opinion will be the defeat of bush in 04.

-----

And so be it, he will be held accountable in the election for sure. In the meantime, we need to stand united- it is unproductive to continue to "bash".

Josh

Returning to the subject, if I may:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...1-2003Mar1.html

>>
First It Was the French Fries; Will It Escalate to French Toast?

Good thing french fries don't have feelings. If they did, they surely would have one heck of a complex.

First, the nutritionists made them the poster children of bad eating habits -- all that doomsday talk of fat and cholesterol. As if that weren't enough to soften the ego, now french fries have become politically incorrect in some places.

A precocious restaurateur is behind the latest assault on the french fry. Neal Rowland, who at age 26 has already owned a Cubbie's burger franchise in Beaufort, N.C., for 31/2 years, put little stickers over the word "French" on his menu to protest France's opposition to a U.S.-led war against Iraq. Mindful of the troops who pass through town from nearby bases, Rowland renamed his french fries, dubbing them "Freedom Fries."

Rowland's act of defiance is catching on. A county commissioner in Palm Beach, Fla., is introducing a resolution that would urge all restaurants in the county that made "butterfly ballots" famous to rename their fries to snub the French.

"They are being smug and pompous and obstructionist," commissioner Burt Aaronson said.

But the name switches can't change one thing: the heritage of the guy who started it all. Five generations ago, one of his ancestors was a French Huguenot. She apparently didn't think much of the French government either. She fled France to escape persecution.

-- Manuel Roig-Franzia
<<

It's not "bashing," it's called criticism. (Some of) our ancestors fought a British King, and later a Japanese Emperor-God, an Italian monomaniac, and the Nazi mass murderer and nation-destroyer among others, to ensure that we, and others in the world, have the right to dissent criticize our government and its leaders when they're wrong. They are elected and responsible to the American people FIRST AND FOREMOST, not the other way around.

Because the other way around, along with self-censorship and silence in the face of visible horrors, are what we call fascism.

First it was Freedom Fries which was ludicrous enough, but last night on TV there were pictures of Americans dumping bottles of French red wine into the streets. At least they said it was French wine, perhaps it was only coloured water (why waste a good product? ) But on a more serious level, it reminded me of the first chapter of 'A Tale of Two Cities', when a cask of wine was spilling into the streets of Paris (a metaphor for the blood that was to be spilled during the Reign of Terror...not unlike the blood that will soon be spilled in Iraq).

At first, I admit I sort of admired the French for refusing to be bullied by the US on the Security Council. But as time goes on, I find myself losing patience with France's complete intransigence, and am reluctantly coming around to the American view. I certainly don't relish the prospect of war in Iraq, but if it quickly results in the removal of Saddam Hussein, I think the Iraqi people will be better off in the long run. Weapons inspections alone won't get rid of this brutal dictator.

[quote]fantomas:
[/qb][/quote]It's not \"bashing,\" it's called criticism..... [/QUOTE]


I think reasoned criticism is a fine thing, but a significant portion of what is on this forum falls far short of that description, and is indeed simple "bashing." I would submit that filling posts with name-calling, ie. "Shrub," "Chimp," and "Dumbya" hardly qualifies as anything approaching "criticism," nor does the fact that one writes "STOP LYING" in bold and all caps confer any greater weight on one's contribution than it did when we all wrote similar words and used similar flourishes in grade school. Of course, because this country is so great, it is completely one's right to submit intellectual mulch, but under no circumstances is it worthy of being called anything more noble than bashing.

We would do well to remember as we order our freedom fries that the era of liberty steaks and liberty cabbage (W.W. I) was also the time of the most serious infringement of civil liberties in this country's existence. I don't know that history will repeat itself, but signs are ominous--Ashcroft, the Patriot Act, the anger being expressed at anti-war writers & protesters, the general climate of unrestrained jingoism. I for one will refuse to shut up & "rally around" an illegitimate president waging an illegal war to feed his own ego, hubris, vanity, messianism &, ultimately, his re-election campaign. As for France, I am glad that they aren't backing down. At least one country is willing to stand up to American arrogance and bullying.

[quote]Munson Man:
[quote]fantomas:
[/quote]It's not \"bashing,\" it's called criticism..... [/quote]I would submit that filling posts with name-calling, ie. \"Shrub,\" \"Chimp,\" and \"Dumbya\" hardly qualifies as anything approaching \"criticism,\"[/QB][/QUOTE]

Hey Munson Man - I dont know if you know this about Chimp but he loves to make up nicknames for his friends - he calls his good buddy Ken Lay "Kenny Boy", I could go on and on, he is kinda infamous for this. These are just nicknames, lighten up.

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." - Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003 President FreedomFries

Well, more than one country is standing up. Germany has already declared that it won't support this war. Russia has threatened a veto as well. China also is motivated to veto any new resolutions. Pakistan will abstain. Mexico is uncertain, but is being threatened and bullied by the current administration. The African nations are unsure but given that they're getting far more money from the EU, they know where their butter is coming from. The Turkish government balked at our pressure and the mass of Turkish citizens are strongly against the war. So where does that leave us in terms of allies and "coalition" partners? Should we drive Blair from office by forcing his hand, we'll be fighting this war, and possibly one in North Korea, all by ourselves.

Britain--which Donald Rumsfeld insulted just a day ago--whose prime minister increasingly walks a precarious line between governing and being out of a job. And Spain, whose army couldn't trump the far poorer and less well armed Morocco in Ceuta. Oh, and Bulgaria. Ari Fleischer, like Rumsfeld, touted a coalition. Who else is in it? Hungary? Poland? Equatorial Guinea?

Now, am I bashing Bush? No. Am I criticizing what is an obvious failure of diplomacy? Yes. Do I think the current administration's actions will have long-term, very negative effects on this country? Yes. Would I like to see either more capable Republicans--yes, Republicans--or Democrats replace them? Yes.

Pass the freedom fries, s'il vous plait.

Batter-Coated Frozen French Fries Called Fresh Vegetable

And they think this won't be? Please!

Up next - pretzels as vegetables.

French fries protester regrets war jibe

AWESOME for this guy to finally come to terms that he was wrong.

After 1647 dead bodies, better late than never.

Not counting the 100,000+ innocent Iraqi dead bodies.

Exactly.

Perhaps he realized that his french fries position was french toast. wink

I'd love to go to the public cafeterias in the D.C. federal buildings and see Freedom Fries on the menu and when they ask my order, the first thing I would order would be FRENCH fries.