Could not help but notice the Arabic writing in one of your links. And thanks for the translation.

Actually, if this turns into a big anti-Bush rally, it would help Bush. France has well, an “image” problem here in the States. A lot of people, for some reason (maybe a bad bottle of wine or some bad cheese at one time?) don’t take kindly to the French. And it seems that Kerry is seen as, well, French (Poor guy, I don’t like him, but that’s a pretty darn bad thing to wish on anyone!).

So, if voters see the French trashing Bush, ESPECIALLY on this weekend of the celebration of D-Day, it will not endure the French to these voters. They, then, will associate Kerry with the French protesters disrespecting their president, and vote for BUSH. Simple, eh?

You're saying it'd be like Osama endorsing Kerry? Not for very many who weren't going to vote Bush anyway, I think. But still, every little bit helps.

But... supports Putin's actions in Chechnya? What unsurprisingly short memories. It was Bush who tried to have international monetary aid to Russia suspended due to Russia's conduct there - and who was villified for having done so.

Last fall, Democrats Abroad in Paris organized a so-called anti-war meeting in a university in Paris. They invited William Rivers Pitt so he could spit on Bush and America in front of French students (though the room was filled most of all with Americans living in Paris).

Well, Democrats Abroad teamed up with this "organization" to organize this meeting. There was a big poster behind the speakers "We support Palestinian and Iraqi Resistance" written in red and black letters alternatively.

The guy from ACG made a hateful speech against America and how the Iraqis were sooooo much worse than when Saddam was there. And he insisted they had to do anything to "support the Palestinian and Iraqi resistance and fight US imperialism". I was waiting for a whisper, at least, from some Americans in the room, indicating they were shocked to hear some kid basically saying he was supporting the killing of US troops. But nothing.

Of course, William Rivers Pitt wasn't disappointing either. He had little dark glasses that made him kind of look like Jaruzelski. I left when he started to say the US administration was fascist and started to imply Cheney (not Bush - Bush is a puppet of course) was behind 9/11.

Scary experience to go to that meeting. An experience that I will not renew.

Andy - Strange that image problem the French are having to deal with... Could it be due to a smear campaign? I wonder who's behind it... We should do our best to stop them, in any case. ;)

Doug - Short memories. Yes, there seems to be a problem with that here in some parts of Europe these days. Perhaps the D-Day commemoration will bring it back to them a little, but somehow I doubt that'll change much of anything.

Carine - Yes, scary! I am gobsmacked, as usual, to hear about Americans who think that such inanities will in some way 'help' their country. Blah!

Ladies, the Democrats don't have to go to Paris to not give a rat's rear-end about their counry or fellow citizens. Happens all the time here too.

Hey, keep marching for the abyss you liberal morons. Guess they think that the islamofacists aren't sharpening up their knives for them too. Nick Berg is how they feel about all Americans. All infidels. Inccludes you too, you Useful Idiots.

I just want to remind you that France is still a democracy and thus people have "freedom of speach" !!! Therefore, you can find people against the coming of Pres W. Bush in Paris. It doesn't mean that everybody agrees ! For your information, this poster was made by a left extremist political group witch doesn't represent the French public opinion at all !
That's all I wanted to say... Thank you.

andrew,

So freedom of speech is being able to call the president of another country a 'terrorist' and 'assassin'? Well, you have the right to your opinion. It doesn't mean you have the right to LIBEL someone.

Of course, in my post, I never said that all French people agree. I was nonetheless offended by the tract and still am.

Why don't you give us your idea of what French political opinion is about President Bush?

And then I'll give you my opinion about Chirac, OK?

Perhaps Andrew disagrees, but while we wait for his response I'll offer my own idea of what the "French" political opinion is about President Bush. Not even the (extremely) few French who supported intervention in Iraq are anything resembling Bush fans. Normally it is useless to make generalizations about an entire population, but the negative perception that a near totality of French people have of President Bush might be an exception to the rule. To put it very kindly, the French people who do not take him for an "international criminal" see him as inarticulate, prone to simplistic thinking, brash, bound to antiquated religious beliefs and unable to see that many long term U.S. goals are best served through international cooperation. As I try to understand American interests, so too it is important to understand the environment within which the French form their opinions. Any population as institutionalized as the French would have difficulty thinking for itself regarding what to think of Bush. The French are weaned on socialist idealism from an early age in their schools and they continue to feed on a steady diet of anti-Americanism in their media--television, radio and press. American goals are represented as being reducible to money and power, both anathema to the socialist; thus creating a cynicism responsible for their opinions of Bush. The few French I have met who are capable of looking beyond the diatribe found in the Le Monde, Liberation, TF1, France 2 and any French radio station are those who have spent some time in the U.S., or have found out the hard way what French style equality actually means: that is in great part, either go to one of the elite schools or accept your fate as a drone for the rest of your life. The policies of the U.S. reflect the requirements of a dynamic economy that allows anyone with creativity and gumption to realise his or her ambitions.

I only disagree with one point - I think that the people who take him for an "international criminal" also see him as inarticulate, prone to simplistic thinking, brash, bound to antiquated religious beliefs and unable to see that many long term U.S. goals are best served through international cooperation. I'd only add that I have dubious suspicions as to what they think that long terms US goals actually are. Your analysis sounds spot on to me.

Firstly, we should try to remember that the allegations of Bush of rigging the votes in Forida to become President seem highly likely. Secondly, Bush is merely a figure of representation, or moreover, mis-respresentation. It is his stooges behing the curtain who plot these unacceptable plans, planned to make a lot of money for a few people, whilst at the same time fuelling a bi-polar hatred between East and West.
Thirdly, I understand that everyone is out for their own interests - surely this is why there is so much choice of foods in our supermarkets. This is widely thanks to Globalisation and better, diplomatic communications between nation states.
To conclude, as this website clearly spells out: "BUSH, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!" Let us try to pick up where we left off in the promotion of friendly borders across the world. This is impossible with right-winged religious fanatics controlling our destinies...

David,

You know you're not supposed to blindly believe and repeat everything you read, hear or see in the French media. Especially in Colombani's editorials.

Really, your tirade was ridiculous. And it sounded like you're just out of one of those daddy-paid-for-it Grande Ecole with your "firstly... secondly... thirdly... to conclude..." What you forgot is to put arguments and facts - not fantasies and journalistic "seem very likely" hypothetic bs - in your anti-Bush tirade. But hey, one can't do the impossible!

Enough is enough with your leftist anti-Bush hatred. You should consider seeing a doctor now, or you may experience a serious breakdown in November.

David, Paris -

'stooges'?... You are in serious denial. The advisors that GWB has gathered around him are made of stuff that you don't see in France. For all the French fuss about 'quality' in wine and food, they repeatedly vote for and adore a group of self-interested, low-life politicians. So, frankly, the French judgement of American politicians is worth nada. Zilch. Rien. Why do YOU believe what they say?

As for your 'money' plot stupidity... How facile it is to believe that. You can see how the USA has sucked the economies of France, Germany and Japan dry, can't you? Can't you? OPEN YOUR EYES!

And you know what? I would much rather live in a country of 'right-wing religious fanatics' (your words, not mine) than one run by Islamic fanatics anyday.

david r spencer -

you obviously only come here to insult and whine, so you are no longer welcome.

By preventing you from coming here and spewing your vast knowledge so articulately, I am doing you a favor, believe me.

Goodbye.

As a French citizen, I must say I do not see any meaningful difference between GWB and the presidents who have preceded him since 1945, with the lone exception of Jimmy Carter.

Too much is made of the fact that GWB is not as articulate as his predecessors. It is probably true: the main point, however, is that, whether with Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton or the GWBs, a growing body of world opinion, not only in France, is concluding that the US has become (in the same way that one grows fat: without noticing) a self-centered, superstitious, constantly bragging and outrageously overarmed hegemony-seeking power, at the same time more and more dependent on foreign natural resources and money to support an unrealistic level of consumption. This is seen as an extremely dangerous cocktail, all the more because the American people itself remains largely ignorant of, or indifferent to, that state of affairs - as evidenced by the fact that half of it or more does not bother to participate in the political process.

A cogent and detailed expression of that viewpoint can be found in Emmanuel Todd's "After the Empire" (published last year in English translation by MacMillan if I am not wrong): whether you agree or not, it is sure to make you ponder.

JRoman:

Man, if you think that the American people don't ever hear any criticism about their president, you are incredibly ignorant of American media bias as it currently stands in the USA.

You throw out all the same French MEDIA stereotypes of the president and Americans, and you don't seem particularly interested in whether or not they are true, so I won't waste much time responding to that. Read the site. Read other sites on our blogroll, you will catch on.

As for Emmanuel Todd... Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha............ I can't stop.....ha, ha, ha, ha...laughing. If you believe what HE writes, well...Ha, ha, ha, ha ,ha....

http://www.france-amerique.com/infos/dossier/Anti-americanisme/AntiUS1.htm

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/05/to_feel_good_ab.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8975

You can't be SERIOUS.

I think Pierre Lellouche found the right word to describe Emmanuel Todd: "Minable".

Now to quote him as being serious is, to quote you, remaining "largely ignorant of [the] state of affairs".

Ce sont des gens comme Emmanuel Todd qui me donnent honte d'être française. Son ignorance n'est d'ailleurs surpassée que par son ridicule.