PDA

View Full Version : Things the media doesn't tell you: French Pres. mocks Obongo



Julie R.
09-28-2009, 01:15 PM
Why am I not surprised? After the fawning adulation given to Obongo's "Apology Tour" abroad where he was so busy kissing muzzie butt, insulting the Queen of England and generally being a major embarrassment, is it any wonder the French are making fun of us as they see right through the emperor's new clothes?

Quote:

For reasons yet to be determined, the National Post appears to have de-linked their own front page story on their website. Mr. Spillius reported a similar (albeit watered-down) version in the UK’s Telegraph.

Obama: “We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.”

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

The rest of Sarkozy’s remarks were, well, remarkable:

“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.

“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.

“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.

The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.

“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.

Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”

No American newspapers seem to have featured Sarkozy’s justifiably derisive remarks about Obama’s naivete regarding the realities of nuclear technology. Still we can be grateful for the freedom of the press, as embodied and celebrated by the Newseum — including the chilling reconstruction of segments of the Berlin Wall. These serve as a reminder that however oppressive or myopic the powers-that-be, news cannot be stifled.


http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/25/sarkozy-mocks-obama-at-un-security-council-hello-big-media/

ducknwork
09-28-2009, 01:24 PM
Who would have thought that Obama had a smaller pair than a French guy?:(
At least someone other than us peasants realize how foolish some of his goals are...
________
UHWH WAREHOUSE (http://uhwh.com/)

Bob Gutermuth
09-28-2009, 01:50 PM
Osama doesn't have a pair, he is a eunuch,

paul young
09-28-2009, 03:03 PM
talk is cheap.

when do the French "man up" and walk the walk? they would much rather sit back and watch others do the dirty work.

they have absolutely NO right to talk about the U. S. not doing the work.-Paul

YardleyLabs
09-28-2009, 03:09 PM
Sometimes disagreements can be created simply by judiciously leaving out portions of remarks. The context of Sakozy's comments was a resolution adopted, with his support, that did not include specific sanctions but did establish some deadlines for Iranian action. For the first time, such a resolution was supported by China and Russia, and for the first time these nations appeared willing to cosider sanctions if Iran remains unresponsive. Sarkozy is seeking to push them in that direction and said, according to the transcript of his remarks released by the French embassy:

"64th United Nations General Assembly
United Nations Security Council Summit on Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Speech by Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the Republic, to the United Nations Security Council New York, 24 September 2009


France fully supports your [Obama's] initiative to organize this meeting and the efforts you undertook with Russia to reduce nuclear arsenals. But let us speak frankly – we are here to guarantee peace.
We are right to speak of the future, but before the future there is the present, and at present we have two nuclear crises.

The people of the entire world are listening to what we’re saying, to our promises, our commitments and our speeches, but we live in a real world, not a virtual world.

We say: reductions must be made. And President Obama has even said, “I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].” Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite.


Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council resolutions. Since 2005, Secretary-General, the international community has called on Iran to engage in dialogue. An offer of dialogue was made in 2005, an offer of dialogue was made in 2006, an offer of dialogue was made in 2007, an offer of dialogue was made in 2008, and another one was made in 2009. President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing. More enriched uranium, more centrifuges, and on top of that, a statement by Iranian leaders proposing to wipe a UN member State off the map.

What are we doing? What conclusions are we drawing? There comes a time when facts are stubborn and decisions must be made. If we want in the end to have a world without nuclear weapons, let us not accept the violation of international rules. I understand perfectly well the various positions of the different parties, but all of us may one day be threatened by a neighbour who has obtained a nuclear weapon.

Second, North Korea. It gets even better: they have violated all Security Council deliberations since 1993, and they disregard everything that the international community says, everything. What’s more, they are continuing their ballistic tests.

How can we accept this? What conclusions can we draw from it? I say that at some point, all of us – regardless of our positions in other respects – will have to work together to adopt sanctions and to ensure that the UN Security Council’s decisions are effective.

Finally, I share the opinion expressed by the President of Uganda and the Chinese President with respect to access to civil nuclear energy. We, the nuclear powers, must agree to technology transfers so that everyone can have access to this clean energy. I would add that this will make it possible to avoid deliberate confusion on the part of those who claim to be carrying out nuclear research for civilian purposes while they’re doing it for military purposes.

So, ladies and gentlemen, my dear colleagues, this is what I believe, in full support of what was decided in the resolution and in full support of President Obama’s initiative. What I believe is that by having the courage to strengthen sanctions, together, against countries that violate Security Council resolutions, we will give credibility to our commitment to a world whose future holds fewer nuclear weapons and perhaps, one day, no nuclear weapons."

Julie R.
09-28-2009, 04:38 PM
Nice spin Jeff, but Sarkozy has been openly critical of Obongo's no nukes rhetoric and not just in that particular speech. I'm of the opinion that the French are always there when they need us, but unlike you and the rest of Dear Leader's loyal subjects, Sarkozy's well aware that this moron is not the answer to nuclear disarmament & world peace. You might also recall that on his apology tour the Obongos were testy and distant with the Sarkozys, not all clubby and kissy feely like they were with the Queen of England. Mrs. Obongo was frosty toward her French equivalent, who actually IS attractive and really was a model. Not just a pretend one dressed in the female equivalent of the emperor's new clothes like Mrs. Obongo is by the U.S. media.

YardleyLabs
09-28-2009, 05:58 PM
Nice spin Jeff, but Sarkozy has been openly critical of Obongo's no nukes rhetoric and not just in that particular speech. I'm of the opinion that the French are always there when they need us, but unlike you and the rest of Dear Leader's loyal subjects, Sarkozy's well aware that this moron is not the answer to nuclear disarmament & world peace. You might also recall that on his apology tour the Obongos were testy and distant with the Sarkozys, not all clubby and kissy feely like they were with the Queen of England. Mrs. Obongo was frosty toward her French equivalent, who actually IS attractive and really was a model. Not just a pretend one dressed in the female equivalent of the emperor's new clothes like Mrs. Obongo is by the U.S. media.
What spin? Every conservative blog has published an identical edited version of the Sarkozy's remarks, leaving out all the comments that make it clear that he was supporting Obama's actions in the security council and urging members (including the US) to be prepared to act if Iran ignores them. All I did was to include the sections they edited out. The spin came from the conservative editors. By the way, nothing Sarkozy has ever said suggests a willingness to enter into military action against Iran or even to support any sanctions that would be expected to have a severe impact on the civilian population. The issue from the beginning is that there will be no meaningful sanctions unless Russia is supportive and China at least remains neutral. In the same manner, no sanctions against Korea will have any value whatsoever unless they are actively supported by China.

Henry V
09-28-2009, 09:45 PM
What spin? Every conservative blog has published an identical edited version of the Sarkozy's remarks, leaving out all the comments that make it clear that he was supporting Obama's actions in the security council and urging members (including the US) to be prepared to act if Iran ignores them. All I did was to include the sections they edited out.The spin came from the conservative editors. By the way, nothing Sarkozy has ever said suggests a willingness to enter into military action against Iran or even to support any sanctions that would be expected to have a severe impact on the civilian population. The issue from the beginning is that there will be no meaningful sanctions unless Russia is supportive and China at least remains neutral. In the same manner, no sanctions against Korea will have any value whatsoever unless they are actively supported by China.
Jeff, you just don't get it.;)
Publishing the remarks in their entirety is "spin" to those tuned into the right wing echo chamber. The edited version is what Sarkozy was really saying. Now repeat, repeat, repeat........... and maybe you will get it.

Hew
09-28-2009, 10:47 PM
Jeff, you just don't get it.;)
Publishing the remarks in their entirety is "spin" to those tuned into the right wing echo chamber. The edited version is what Sarkozy was really saying. Now repeat, repeat, repeat........... and maybe you will get it.
Why it's Yardley's very on Tony Blair. :o

I wonder if either Yardley or Henry can take a stab and explaining the vast contextual differences between the entire speech and the excerpted version w/ comments that Julie posted?

Other than to an Obama sycophant, the entire version of the speech, although couched in diplomatic nicieties (like a tepid statement of agreement, followed by a huge BUT, YET, etc. that negates the statement of agreement), was certainly a shot across Obama's bow...just as it was portrayed in Julie's post. Here's the speech...I took the liberty of highlighting the eviscerations of Obama's fantasies:



"64th United Nations General Assembly
United Nations Security Council Summit on Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Speech by Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the Republic, to the United Nations Security Council New York, 24 September 2009

France fully supports your [Obama's] initiative to organize this meeting and the efforts you undertook with Russia to reduce nuclear arsenals. But let us speak frankly – we are here to guarantee peace.
We are right to speak of the future, but before the future there is the present, and at present we have two nuclear crises.

The people of the entire world are listening to what we’re saying, to our promises, our commitments and our speeches, but we live in a real world, not a virtual world.

We say: reductions must be made. And President Obama has even said, “I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].” Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite.

Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council resolutions. Since 2005, Secretary-General, the international community has called on Iran to engage in dialogue. An offer of dialogue was made in 2005, an offer of dialogue was made in 2006, an offer of dialogue was made in 2007, an offer of dialogue was made in 2008, and another one was made in 2009. President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing. More enriched uranium, more centrifuges, and on top of that, a statement by Iranian leaders proposing to wipe a UN member State off the map.

What are we doing? What conclusions are we drawing? There comes a time when facts are stubborn and decisions must be made. If we want in the end to have a world without nuclear weapons, let us not accept the violation of international rules. I understand perfectly well the various positions of the different parties, but all of us may one day be threatened by a neighbour who has obtained a nuclear weapon.

Second, North Korea. It gets even better: they have violated all Security Council deliberations since 1993, and they disregard everything that the international community says, everything. What’s more, they are continuing their ballistic tests.

How can we accept this? What conclusions can we draw from it? I say that at some point, all of us – regardless of our positions in other respects – will have to work together to adopt sanctions and to ensure that the UN Security Council’s decisions are effective.

Finally, I share the opinion expressed by the President of Uganda and the Chinese President with respect to access to civil nuclear energy. We, the nuclear powers, must agree to technology transfers so that everyone can have access to this clean energy. I would add that this will make it possible to avoid deliberate confusion on the part of those who claim to be carrying out nuclear research for civilian purposes while they’re doing it for military purposes.

So, ladies and gentlemen, my dear colleagues, this is what I believe, in full support of what was decided in the resolution and in full support of President Obama’s initiative. What I believe is that by having the courage to strengthen sanctions, together, against countries that violate Security Council resolutions, we will give credibility to our commitment to a world whose future holds fewer nuclear weapons and perhaps, one day, no nuclear weapons."

Gerry Clinchy
09-28-2009, 11:21 PM
Truthfully, Hew, I was thinking the same thing. Even without editing, the message wasn't much different.

The Brits, Russians, & French were definitely not happy with the new plant in Iran. The Brits and French were not too happy with the change in missile defense, which did please the Russians. So, Sarkozy was taking an opportunity to put in a few jibes.

Probably nobody can get too excited about Sarkozy's comments, since the French seem never to be real happy with whatever the US does :-)

Hew
09-28-2009, 11:33 PM
Probably nobody can get too excited about Sarkozy's comments, since the French seem never to be real happy with whatever the US does :-)
Touche. ;-)

Bruce MacPherson
09-29-2009, 12:15 AM
Leave it to the French. Sarkozy knows a wimp when he sees one.

paul young
09-29-2009, 04:16 AM
i can't tell you how much more secure i feel now that the mighty French have flexed their muscles. really. wow.

how many troops have they deployed in S. Korea? afghanistan? iraq?

they certainly talk tough, though-and it's SUCH a beautiful language!

Sarkozy is a posturing blowhard, at best.-Paul

YardleyLabs
09-29-2009, 05:49 AM
I think the difference in the comments is the difference between a headline reading something like "Sarkozy Chides Obama For Being Childish" as opposed to "Sarkozy Supports US Security Council Resolution; Warns Sanctions May Be Needed". The second is accurate; the first is the right wing wet dream. Missed in both is a serious effort by the administration to achieve what we have failed to achieve until now: Russian and Chinese support. I don't know if the effort will be successful. If it is, that would be the first concrete achievement with respect to Iran since Reagan.

dback
09-29-2009, 08:14 AM
Missed in both is a serious effort by the administration to achieve what we have failed to achieve until now: Russian and Chinese support.

And not just tepid support but something that has some 'bite' to it. Good luck with that....I'd love to see it but I for one, will not be holding my breath for that one.

TXduckdog
09-29-2009, 10:17 AM
[QUOTE=YardleyLabs;505701]Sometimes disagreements can be created simply by judiciously leaving out portions of remarks. The context of Sakozy's comments was a resolution adopted, with his support, that did not include specific sanctions but did establish some deadlines for Iranian action. For the first time, such a resolution was supported by China and Russia, and for the first time these nations appeared willing to cosider sanctions if Iran remains unresponsive. Sarkozy is seeking to push them in that direction and said, according to the transcript of his remarks released by the French embassy:

Uh, Jeff....here is what was really bgoing on behind the public rhetoric.

President Obama wants a unified front against Iran, and to that end he stood together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh on Friday morning to reveal the news about Tehran's secret facility to build bomb-grade fuel. But now we hear that the French and British leaders were quietly seething on stage, annoyed by America's handling of the announcement.

Both countries wanted to confront Iran a day earlier at the United Nations. Mr. Obama was, after all, chairing a Security Council session devoted to nonproliferation. The latest evidence of Iran's illegal moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was in hand. With the world's leaders gathered in New York, the timing and venue would be a dramatic way to rally international opinion.

President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been "frustrated" for months about Mr. Obama's reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn't want to "spoil the image of success" for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde. So the Iran bombshell was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy.

Le Monde's diplomatic correspondent, Natalie Nougayrède, reports that a draft of Mr. Sarkozy's speech to the Security Council Thursday included a section on Iran's latest deception. Forced to scrap that bit, the French President let his frustration show with undiplomatic gusto in his formal remarks, laying into what he called the "dream" of disarmament. The address takes on added meaning now that we know the backroom discussions.

We thought we'd never see the day when the President of France shows more resolve than America's Commander in Chief for confronting one of the gravest challenges to global security. But here we are.

Obama is CLUELESS when it comes to foreign policy.