France: “Obama Willing to Concede Too Much Too Soon”


Ten years ago the French were the cheese-eating surrender monkeys. These days, there’s plenty of cheese to go around in Washington.

The BBC’s State Department correspondent Kim Ghattas wrote on Sunday, “French diplomats have told me in recent years they believed the Obama administration was willing to concede too much too soon.”

Navon pointed to Hollande’s willingness to confront Iran’s proxy – the regime of President Bashar Assad in Syria, which was a French Mandate following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire – with military force.

He “gave the orders to shoot” but US President Barack Obama pulled the plug on missile strikes and deferred the dispute to Congress for approval.

Richard Landes, a distinguished historian at Boston University with an expertise in French history, told the Post, “The fact is that his [Hollande] administration has proven to be tougher than [former French president Nicolas] Sarkozy.”

Landes noted that Hollande rapidly made the decision to go into Mali. Commentators “did not anticipate this kind of backbone.”

France was never remotely pacifist. The French are quite trigger happy, especially when it comes to Africa, which made the liberal contention that we needed to be more like them rather debatable.

Differences over Iraq weren’t a philosophical gap between American cowboys and French pacifists. France had its own reasons for opposing the war. And they had nothing to do with pacifism.

France certainly appeases, but it’s ridiculously casual, by American standards, about sending the troops in. And hard nosed about its international interests.

French politics is corrupt and cynical, but in international affairs, it’s savvy in a way completely different from the American liberal ideal. The types of notions dragged out by American foreign policy experts would be laughed at as naive idiocy in Paris. And you can imagine the treatment that Kerry, with his bad French and his knee jerk appeasement approach, receives.

  • Jakareh

    Obama and his gang want Iran to have nukes because they think since America and Israel have them, it’s a matter of “fairness”. Obama is one of those “domestic enemies” we’re supposed to defend the Constitution from.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      The root of all tension in the world is lack of social justice. The only solution is global communism. It’s the only practical way to achieve our Utopian dreams.

      Rob Ford explained that to me one night. Very late. His speech was slurred a little but it made sense.

      • Jakareh

        That’s so cool, dude! I wish I could party with Rob. When I see him on TV, I think, “Whoa, that guy’s, like, pure wisdom!”

  • Veracious_one

    Obama fights for anything that’s anti-American….

    • Notalibfool

      Exactly! Shame on all the morons who voted for him.

  • edlancey

    Actually, as much as it pains me to say so, John Kerry’s French is pretty good.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    It’s quite simple really when you understand that the Islamic world, which consist of both Sunnis and Shias, are waging a perpetual jihad against all religions and all infidels to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world. Thus, the Iranian Shias will never ever compromise on their nuclear weapons program; as to do so would be blasphemous. Instead, they will resort to deception, deceit, and dissimulation to dupe gullible useful idiot infidels. Hence, there is only one solution, eradicate the ruling Mullahs of Iran and their nuclear weapons program, and use that example to coerce the Pakistanis into coughing up their nuclear weapons arsenal and nuclear weapons program as well. Muslims should never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, and the excuse that Pakistan needs them to protect themselves from a nuclear-armed India is totally bogus and utterly absurd, as India poses no threat to anyone and least of all the Pakistanis.