[lit-ideas] MC Compares Bush and Chirac Part 1

  • From: Eric Yost <NYCEric@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 13:46:35 -0500

E.Y.  By way of learning from each other, I was hoping we could all 
bring each other up to date on this scandal.

M.C. Yeah, right.


E.Y.  Michael, when not immersed in the classics, tends to think as a 
partisan hack, and cannot imagine someone wanting to be informed rather 
than inflamed. If America is the only target on the field, all is well. 
To question his turf, however, is to have a dangerous agenda, and he 
attacks. It’s a waste of his acumen and it validates one’s distrust of 
his fair mindedness.

M.C. So Saddam was not an honest man? How shocking. Corruption in 
private oil companies? Appalling. The UN may have failed to catch this 
corruption? Once again, big hairy deal.

E.Y. The UN “failed to catch it.” Ha-ha! Just as Brutus failed to catch 
Caesar’s assassination. Just as Richelieu failed to catch the Siege of 
La Rochelle. Toning down the crimes of Chirac and the UN bureaucrats 
with such tender language does little to advance your argument, although 
you might be able to earn some holiday money as a humor writer.


M.C. The corruption "propped up" Saddam's regime, that is, enabled it to 
survive. Well, I guess in order for Saddam to be invaded, he had 
actually to be in power.  . . . . Chirac's alleged corruption . . . 
contributed *partially*  . . .  to the *possibility* of an eventual crime.

E.Y. Both France and Russia, in exchange for oil booty, contributed to 
the weakening of the sanctions put in place after Gulf War I. The did 
this by turning a blind eye to daily piracy and smuggling. They 
corrupted the UN process for oil contracts and vouchers, and then hid 
behind the UN process to moralize so as to retain their oil contracts 
and vouchers.

M.C. The corruption "gave Saddam confidence" ........to do what,
precisely? To develop a nuclear weapons program, or any other kind of

E.Y. Saddam did all this in the 1990s according to UNSCOM.

M.C.  Eric sees a foreigner (Didier) attack Bush, which for Eric is
equivalent to an attack on the US. So he attempts to relativize Bush's
crimes, drawing attention to Chirac's financial peccadilloes in order
to imply  that Bush isn't really all that bad, because other world
leaders also are guilty of misdeeds.

E.Y.  Baloney! Attack Bush all you want, and I’ll help. I dedicated my 
original post to Julie, based on her remark that people on Theoria would 
bite her head off if she broached issues that ran counter to the 
prevailing prejudices there. Is lit-ideas more just? Everyone who read 
that dedication can now judge for themselves.

I also hoped to learn something new about the scandal, which Michael 
finally gets around to sharing.

M.C.    Everybody in Paris knows that Chirac is a crook; they knew that 
when they voted for him, which they did because the only alternative was 
the Neanderthal racist Le Pen. Every illiterate ditch-digger in the 
Hexagone knows that Chirac wants to remain president primarily because 
the minute he leaves office he will lose his immunity and be locked up 
forthwith for bribery, evading taxes and God knows what other financial 

E.Y.  Thank you Michael, for at least offering this insight into the 
choices French voters were faced with. It's closer to what I had hoped 
to elicit. In the second reply to your post, it may be possible to 
discuss actual issues rather than trade misconceptions.


To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: