It is,of course, a lie to say that Dubya has broken every treaty and agreement we have entered into. We are still upholding our obligations in respect of NATO and the World Bank, for example. The Kyoto Accords were not ratified, and the ABM treaty has a termination clause, requiring only timely notification.
It is also a lie to say that he does not give a rat's ass about the world environment. The etiology and prognosis for global warming is too controversial to take extreme measures that would hurt our economy. It is simply prudent to wait for better science on the issue.
Finally, it is a lie to say that he is turning the United States into an imperialist nation. We had adequate reason, once the Taliban refused to cooperate, to root out Al- Qaida bases ourselves, and no one disagrees that Iraq constitutes a grave threat, the only disagreement is over when military action becomes the best option. An imperialist nation would not be dickering with the French and Russians to find compromise language for a Security Council resolution.
I do not know enough about Chirac to have a firm opinion of him, and I read the French press regularly. I do not claim to know everything about them. Even less so would that be the case for someone who does not watch French films, read French literature, follow the French press, or who has never visited France, as I have, i.e., the average American. I do not think that a public opinion poll of Americans about Chirac would be worth the paper it was written on. Why should I think that one taken overseas about Bush was more valid? |
