New York Post headline: The Bloody Hands of Jacques Chirac
Surely, someone want to pour bombs on Paris more than on Baghdad!
Can anyone guess what type or group of people really are behind this NY post article based on their screaming style? Sounds familiar from SI, too?
------------------------------------------
US press laments 'insufferable' French
France has promised to veto a new UN resolution on Iraq
After weeks of French-bashing in the US media, President Jacques Chirac's announcement that Paris will veto a new UN resolution on Iraq has prompted a relatively restrained response.
While some of Tuesday's editions are apoplectic, others call for caution - and a few even urge their readers to look more kindly on the French.
Unsurprisingly, leading the way in anti-Gallic comment is the New York Post, the tabloid which has already dubbed France and similar-minded nations the "axis of weasel".
The newspaper's main editorial piece - "The bloody hands of Jacques Chirac" - is uncompromising.
Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein must go, it says.
"And Saddam is going to go, notwithstanding the connivance - indeed, the cowardice - of his apologists and protectors in Paris and, maybe, Moscow," it continues, referring to Russia's warning that it, too, may veto a new Security Council resolution.
After a war, "there will be an accounting for unnecessary American and British casualties," the newspaper warns.
"France, for sure, will pay."
Danger of delay
While less belligerent, the Chicago Sun-Times also condemns French-led calls for any invasion of Iraq to be delayed so UN arms inspectors can continue their work.
"We must act because waiting is not the neutral, cautious activity that peace activists and French diplomats would lead the world to believe," it says.
"Waiting is dangerous - for us, for our troops, for the innocent Iraqi people and for our pocketbooks."
The Washington Post, while not dismissing the idea of further UN negotiations, stresses that this "would only delay, not prevent, a conflict".
"That's because the three months of inspections so far have demonstrated what arms control experts have been saying all along: that without a strategic decision by Saddam Hussein to fully co-operate, it is not possible even to locate Iraq's most deadly weapons, much less ensure disarmament."
In contrast, the Baltimore Sun says that giving inspections more time could pay off.
"What if the French and Russians, their fears of American swaggering at least partly assuaged, felt they had to sign on?
"What if the pressure of a truly United Nations got so great that something snapped and war was averted?" its editorial argues.
"Would that be so terrible, even from George Bush's point of view?"
'Insufferable' French
The usually conservative Washington Times even takes the trouble to caution against anti-French feeling such as boycotts of French foodstuffs, with a regular columnist calling it "way over the top".
"I didn't buy Stolichnaya vodka during the Cold War, but I didn't object when people did. And the French are hardly the Evil Empire," says think tank pundit Tod Lindberg.
The Chicago Tribune contents itself with a weary shrug of its shoulders, admitting that Paris's recent diplomatic efforts have been "even more galling than the French obsession with Jerry Lewis".
"Yes, the French are insufferable," it sighs.
"But that's missing the point. They're French. They've always been insufferable.
"They've cultivated a supercilious attitude, particularly toward Americans, for the better part of two centuries."
news.bbc.co.uk |
