Chirac wavers in assailing a nuclear Iran

[kitty1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01france.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=world&pagewanted=print

Jacques Chirac has stated that the following in a released statement. At the time he thought he was off the record. It shows his true sentiments regarding Iran and it's nuclear capability.

snip

PARIS, Jan. 31 — President Jacques Chirac said this week that if Iran had one or two nuclear weapons, it would not pose a big danger, and that if Iran were to launch a nuclear weapon against a country like Israel, it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran.

The remarks, made in an interview on Monday with The New York Times, The International Herald Tribune and Le Nouvel Observateur, a weekly magazine, were vastly different from stated French policy and what Mr. Chirac has often said.
“But what is very dangerous is proliferation. This means that if Iran continues in the direction it has taken and totally masters nuclear-generated electricity, the danger does not lie in the bomb it will have, and which will be of no use to it.”

Mr. Chirac said it would be an act of self-destruction for Iran to use a nuclear weapon against another country.

“Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel?” Mr. Chirac asked. “It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed.”

[Greeby]

1. Well, at least one world leader states the obvious

Anyone know what Sarkozy or Royal have said on the subject?

[Psephos]

2. Read the whole article - Chirac's "neurological incident" last year seems to be worse than reported

Apparently, some days he's off in lala land.

[roamer65]

3. Its called MAD, Mahmoud and Ehud, and it kept us and the Soviets from nuking each other...

for 50 years. At least Chirac is being truthful. The Iranians understand it fully, as well as the Israelis.

[PFunk]

4. I was about to say the same.

Think of it if Iran did had the bomb then Isreal will have to curve it's saberateling not only against it but other ME nations as will. Which-hopefully in a sick way will give the area a chance to settle things out amonst themselves.

Do or Die does wonders don't it.

[Miss Chybil]

5. I agree. The only one who doesn't seem to understand is Bush.

Imagine that.

[keopeli]

6. Friends, this is sadly and simply early dimentia

The president had a different demeanor during the two encounters.

In the first interview, which took place in the late morning, he appeared distracted at times, grasping for names and dates and relying on advisers to fill in the blanks. His hands shook slightly. When he spoke about climate change, he read from prepared talking points printed in large letters and highlighted in yellow and pink.

By contrast, in the second interview, which came just after lunch, he appeared both confident and comfortable with the subject matter.

--

I recall when Reagan began to fade, he was still in the public eye.

I truly believe that the minds of the elderly are of no less value than our own. Their sometimes indiscernible messages often have quite discernible moments.

Chirac, you calmly tried to explain reality to Americans on 60 minutes back just 4 years ago. You are a true conservative avec elegance. I'm sorry to see our press still pounding on your image with headlines like "Chirac wavers".

Peace.

Edit: Headline later reads "Chirac Unfazed by Nuclear Iran"

[The Stranger]

8. You forgot the "sarcasm" tag.

[keopeli]

9. No, I didn't forget it. I'm not being sarcastic. I care deeply for the elderly.

Peace

[ohio2007]

7. His comments were "off the record" ?

I think he is trying to push more arms sales to the Sunni Arab nation for 'accidentally' stating the genie is out of the bottle.