With friends like these, who needs an uninhabited bomb testing range?

The French planted the Niger Uranium forged documents, used as part of the administration's case for war. Apparently they did it so that we'd make the case for war, then discover the documents were fake, thereby undermining the case for war.

In true French fashion, when we didn't discover it in time, they promptly and honorably disclosed the fact that they forged the documents and thereby saved us from invading Iraq, which could have been a disaster.

Oh, wait...

Why do we pretend as if these cowardly, lying, back-stabbing people are our allies? They plant these documents in order to stop the war, and then when we don't go along with their brilliant Cluseau-ian plan, they turn their heads and pretend they didn't do it, and let us tromp into Baghdad. I guess they were only opposed to the war in as much as it could make us look silly, not so much concerned about the thousands of people that would die.

So far, the French have not acknowledged this story sent to me by my news-junkie uncle. I will be interested to see how they attempt to turn this into another opportunity for self-righteousness.

On a serious note, the French are helping on Syria, but of course the murdered Hariri was a close personal friend of Jacque Chirac. They have single handedly scuppered the Doha round of world trade talks by refusing the U.S. proposal to lower farm subsidies (agreed for negotiations by the British presidency of the EU) thereby keeping the poorest people in the world safely in starvation so that they can continue to bilk the EU for farm subsidies.

Hyperbole aside, how is it that America has such an awful reputation, while people by and large admire the French? Superior diplomacy. Culture which smiles at niceities, and does not require strength or machismo. There is something to be learned here. This is the same reason why Clinton was so popular: feel-good rhetoric. Republicans are very bad at it, as are conservatives in general.

Look to the race for Tory leadership in the U.K. The conservatives have learned from the Blair dominance, see Gordon Brown as weak in the charm department, and just may pick David Cameron to be their leader. Very smart. He is sharp enough, but completely untested. His advantage? Charisma. He knows how to say nice things that people will believe.

The truth is that if you can merely convince people that you can turn the air into cotton candy, they will like you. If the sugar puffs don't appear, convince them that it is someone else's fault. This is diplomacy French style. This is the secret to leftist populism (as opposed to doom and xenophobia of rightist populism).

The American right could use some French lessons.

//

Withdraw Miers

I hesitantly post this, not because I'm wishy washy on the Miers nomination, but because it has been so heavily covered, I have little to add.

She is the wrong candidate, obviously. It's not that she couldn't do the job, or that she is an intellectual weakling. I'm willing to grant that she can probably do the job, and she is probably a smart woman... The problem is that nobody except GWB knows the actual answer to those questions. An untested commodity ought not be put on the Supreme Court.

The Democrats share blame for this nomination. The prcedent they set with Bork and almost every Republican nominee since, has caused Republican Presidents to nominate people who can hide behind the Ginsberg shield. If we know nothing about these people, and they can honorably refuse to answer questions, then they stand a chance of passing through the process. Anyone with a significant paper trail will be raked over hot coals.

Chief Justice Roberts, about whom even Democrats are now waxing nostaligic, got 22 Democrats to vote against him. Ginsberg, who said she favors abortion during her confimation hearings, got 2 Republicans to vote against her.

Hate Bush all you want, but the Democrats are to blame for allowing this appointment to even be taken semi-seriously. A generation ago, this nomination would NEVER have been made by ANY President.

With that said, she should withdraw. Leading Democrats are accusing Republicans of sexism. That is stupid. Most conservatives who are complaining are citing several women who they would have loved to be nominated. There are plenty of things to complain about, this isn't one of them, but if sexism is your thing, how about the fact that male candidates weren't even considered. There ya go.

Conservatives want someone of whom they can be proud. Hate Scalia all you want, he is a genius, and you know it. He makes us proud because he is serious, thoughtful, and insiteful. Despise Rehnquist if you feel the need, but he is already considered one of the great Chief Justices because he promoted good argument, and ensured that the strongest opinion in majority and dissent were published, and distributed writing assignments accordingly, without glorifying himself (except for the three gold bands around his shoulder, which Roberts has removed). These are people we're proud to have as team leaders. Bush and Miers are the equivalent of Howard Dean and James Carville or Donna Brazile. Are you proud to have them as your representatives? If so, you are the person that everyone hates except for ignorant socialists. Best that someone tells you.

We want more John McCains, we want more John Roberts, we want more Colin Powells, Alan Greenspans and Rudy Giulianis (jerk? Yes, but effective jerk).

This nomination is also rediculous from a political perspective. GWB's job approval ratings are at 38%. The last thing he should be doing is emphasizing his cronyistic leanings. The best thing he could do is provoke a fight of ideas and values with the left. GWB is losing his base. He should have motivated them with an honest brawl, but he failed his party again.

Withdraw this nominee and let's have a fight about ideas, not bad charater traits.

Why I hope Iraq votes no...

Iraqis voted on their constitution today. High turnout. Good. I hope the constitution fails. If Sunnis realize that they can actually affect the political future of their country in ways other than killing babies of people that mildly disagree with them (in the Arab tradition), then perhaps the insurgency will die down a bit, and Sunni civil society may flourish through political organization.

If the constitution passes, the Sunnis will feel as if they've been steamrolled (in a more mild form than they've been steamrolling everyone else for 30 years), and the insurgency will continue.