Saving Private Bush - LeFigaro

[baby_bear]

http://www.lefigaro.fr/debats/20030909.FIGEDIT.html

Even if you don't read French, the title of this editorial by LeFigaro is good.

I can read it well enough to get the gist. It says that Iraq and Israel/Palestine represent double failures on the part of Bush.

It acknowledges that an international effort will be needed in Iraq, but notes that Bush, in his speech, didn't even suggest what price he was willing to pay (politically, I presume) to get the cooperation he is asking for.

From a conservative paper, it's pretty good, I think. Maybe someone with better command of the language can interpret better.

s_m

[markbark]

1. Babelfish did a pretty good job on it

head on over to http://babelfish.altavista.com and run it thru



--MAB

[scottxyz]

2. Here's my attempt (a loose translation)

"Saving Private Bush"

All around the world, government administrations are doing their calculations: should they save Private George W. Bush or not? On the two main fronts of foreign policy, Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the US president is in serious trouble. Right when America is heading into the pre-electoral campaign period, he needs all the help he can get. Anywhere he can get it.

On the Iraq side, it's clear that Bush has been reduced to asking for UN intervention in order to get out of the hornet's nest he got himself into back when he claimed he didn't need any UN help. In the Mideast, the resignation of Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas puts Yasser Arafat back in the saddle, destroying the strategy of a president who had fully committed to the Mideast mess. This looks like a double failure for a man who aimed to "overhaul" the region in order to make democracy take root there.

In the US, the various Democratic candidates are starting to speak up. The public is becoming alarmed over the constantly growing number of deaths in Iraq, while Congress is being called upon to foot the bill for the occupation. Without broader military, financial and political support at the international level, there is no light at the end of the tunnel for the Americans. In order to bounce back, George W. Bush really needs to find some new overseas friends for the first time.

Those who were in favor of a peaceful solution are tempted to say: "We told you so." "No way are we paying for the broken dishes from a war we warned you against getting into." Some of them are calculating the odds: "Why help an American president who might not get re-elected?"

That's not the point. The important thing is for George W. Bush to come back to face the UN. For all those who worked hard for the UN and for the principles of collective safety, this is already a great satisfaction. What we need to do now is keep America on-course so it won't be tempted to break loose again - but most of all we should avoid getting locked into a blanket opposition which would only end up playing into the hands of Rumsfeld and the other "unilateralists".

In Iraq, the Mideast and in the struggle against Islamist terror, Europeans and Americans share them same values and the same goals, although they may diverge in their analyses and in their means of pursuing them. In the Mideast, the peace effort should be truly international. In Baghdad, power should be returned to the Iraqis, a concrete schedule should be established for doing so, and the UN should be fully involved. Otherwise, the Americans will not be able to get even what they wanted out of it.

The discussion has only just begun. George W. Bush has said that he is ready to put aside "past differences". Let's take him at his word: he has yet to show just how far he is willing to go to pay the price for the support he's asking for. We should join in the dialog and get him to play his hand.

[baby_bear]

3. wow, thanks, scottxyz

I am impressed and grateful!!

s_m