stolen from the wall street journal's

online opinion journal for 11/15, i quote the following:

Weasel Watch
Jacques Chirac, the president of France, missed another good opportunity to shut up, the Times of London reports:

Chirac dealt a blow to Tony Blair's attempt to heal the wounds between the US and Europe last night by saying that the Prime Minister had won nothing for supporting the war against Iraq. . . .

M Chirac, speaking to British journalists, including The Times, soon after General Powell's announcement, revealed that he had urged Mr Blair to demand the relaunch of the Middle East peace process in return for backing the war.

"Well, Britain gave its support but I did not see anything in return. I'm not sure it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favours systematically."

Unlike the French, who of course got loads of money in exchange for supporting Saddam Hussein. Whereas Chirac appears to see other countries only in terms of what they can do for him, Blair in his speech stressed common values:

I know one thing. If we were under direct threat, America would be our ally. I know that its people enjoy, as we have seen, a vibrant competitive democracy; and that in America, Hispanics, blacks, Asians and former Europeans live together, worship in their different ways and can rise from the bottom to the top in a manner we could do well to emulate. I didn't agree with Michael Moore's film. But in America he was able to make it and be praised for it. This is called freedom.

Chirac no doubt would respond that the French are free to praise Michael Moore too. Ah well, c'est la vie. We'd just like to point out these numbers (hat tip: blogger Patrick Ruffini):
Bush voters 60,515,255
Total population of France 59,900,268

Oh well, at least Frenchmen (and -women and -children) outnumber Kerry voters by a couple of million or so.

i was kind of amazed at the numbers. i keep forgetting just how big this country is.

and this little tidbit. i'm chuckling a bit under my breath.

National Journal's Charlie Cook argues that the 2004 election was far from "transformative" and hints that John Kerry might even have won if only he'd been someone else:

I still question whether Kerry got any votes that just about any other Democrat challenging Bush under these circumstances wouldn't have also gotten. Some of his defeated rivals for the Democratic nomination might have done a better job of communicating a compelling economic message in Ohio and Iowa.

Of course, if they'd done a better job of communicating a compelling economic message in Iowa, Kerry might not have won the Iowa caucuses! Anyway, didn't the Democrats overwhelmingly vote for Kerry because he was "electable"? We suspect the truth is closer to what Winston Churchill said about democracy: Kerry was the worst available candidate--except for all the others.

and finally

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union announces that it has intimidated the Pentagon into agreeing "to end direct sponsorship of hundreds of Boy Scout units, which require members to swear religious oaths, on military facilities across the United States and overseas."

The ACLU press release quotes the group's Adam Schwartz: "If our Constitution's promise of religious liberty is to be a reality, the government should not be administering religious oaths or discriminating based upon religious beliefs." But of course, the government was doing no such thing; the Boy Scouts are a private group. If you don't like what they stand for, don't join them.

The ACLU used to be so committed to free expression that it would even represent Nazis and Klansmen seeking to express their views. But apparently they draw the line at the Boy Scouts.

this one really makes me sad. need an example of why we as a society are heading for the trashcan of history? this is a good example.

edit: back again
now i wonder why the president had such a difficult time dealing with the UN and it's weapons inspection teams prior to our going into iraq. perhaps the following quote

Mr. Annan then flew to Baghdad for a private powwow with Saddam and returned to declare that this was a man he could do business with. The weapons inspectors returned to Iraq for a short spell, but by the end of 1998, Saddam had evicted them for the next four years. Mr. Annan, however, went right on doing business. And big business it was, however humanitarian in name. Under the Oil for Food deal, Mr. Annan's Secretariat pulled in a 2.2% commission on Saddam's oil sales, totaling a whopping $1.4 billion over the life of the program, to cover the costs of supervising Saddam. Yet somehow the Secretariat never found the funding to fully meter oil shipments, ensure full inspections of all goods entering Iraq, or catch the pricing scams that by the new estimates of Senate investigators let Saddam rake in $4.4 billion in kickbacks on relief contracts.

from a WSJ editorial can shed some light.