Dissent vs. Propaganda Minster:Ari Fleisher

!!!!!!!! FINALLY !!!!!!!

Q One more question about France, if I may. Is the U.S. contemplating some reduction in the consultations the U.S. has with France, some smaller role in talking things over with the French, and working around the French in international bodies? What is it that the U.S. is contemplating?


MR. FLEISCHER: I think when it comes to Iraq you've heard this expressed very directly. There's a coalition that is involved, that has been involved, that shed blood and lost lives to help provide for the freedom of Iraq. And that coalition is on the ground and is taking the actions to help the Iraqi people to a better future. Our focus is on our mission, and that's what we're doing.


Q But, I mean, in general with relations with France, over any number of issues? I mean, obviously, this has been a difficult moment in U.S.-French relations. How should we anticipate this will be reflected in U.S.-French relations?


MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's been the history of U.S. relations with France, on some issues we agree, on other issues we disagree. Typically, there are, indeed, more that we agree on than we disagree. The disagreements can sometimes become pointed.


I noted with interest France's statement about sanctions and whether the sanctions should be lifted in the United Nations. It's important to note that France has recognized the Iraqi situation has changed as a result of Saddam Hussein's regime now being gone. With it being gone, the President believes that economic sanctions on Iraq are no longer needed. They shouldn't be merely suspended, they should be out-and-out lifted. And that's a difference of opinion between the United States and France on how to get the job done. We're pleased that France has made some moves in this direction; they've got a little more to go.


Q You're saying they've turned the corner, they just haven't gone quite far enough?


MR. FLEISCHER: I'll leave it as I put it.


Q Why won't you answer the question about --


MR. FLEISCHER: Greg.


Q Hold on. We're entitled to follow up, Ari -- this isn't homeroom.


MR. FLEISCHER: Greg.


Q Why won't you answer the question about whether or not -- he said there are going to be consequences --


MR. FLEISCHER: David, there are other qualified reporters in here, too, who can follow-up.


Q I didn't say they were not qualified, Ari. I'm saying you're running it like it's homeroom, like we can't follow-up when you're refusing to answer a question that's been posed twice to you, directly. The Secretary of State said that there would be consequences. Why won't you say what they might be?


MR. FLEISCHER: Greg.


Q Do you want to elaborate on what those consequences would be?


MR. FLEISCHER: I addressed it earlier. You heard what I said about consequences.


Q You didn't address it, which is the point. But you can't tolerate that kind of dissent.

www.whitehouse.gov...

I've just read the link.

France is refered to time and again by different reporters.

This sort of thing just isn't being reported in the UK.We are not getting any impression of continued problems between France and the USA.

Can someone from the USA fill me in on the General mood between France and the USA in the media,on the street,in Government at the present time.

Is there an effort to patch up differences or does it look as though it is getting worse?

An impression not an opinion please.

I smell fish.

Someone else is running our foreign policy. Judging by the lastest actions of the US Military I would have to say that our government is being run by the Saudi's. Or maybe even Bin Laden himself. Why else would we leave Saudi Arabia??? This is an external threat and we are going to treat it like one.

Ever since Syria came into the picture we have seen a massive effort to side with either side among all parties. It is like playground fueds. Childish behavior in the form of international politics. The Syrian Plan for a Nuclear Free Mideast is not a plan the Syrians came up with. Why would they do that??? Well one reason they would want a nuclear free Mideast is because Israel is a threat to Mideast peace in Syrian perspective, and in most Muslim and Arab perspectives. So if the Syrians actually did devise the plan then their intentions were firestarter tactics. If the plan isn't their's then this is more complex. I tend to think that it isn't their plan. Here is why:

If the Syrians proposed this Nuclear Free Mideast Plan, then they would have to know that they would be threatening the the plans of at least three different countries. Those countries are all huge Syrian influences. Those countries are Iraq, Israel and Iran. Now Iraq is no where near a Nuclear Program but it was in the past. The Israeli's stole Nuclear technology illegally from the United States and got away with it. It was Israel who in 1981 destroyed two of Iraq's Nuclear stations and effectively ended the Nuclear Program the Iraqi's had started. Israel maybe the only Mideast nation with Nuclear missiles but two other states have fought to get them. Those being Iraq and Iran. Iraq won't have a Nuclear Program for at least 5 years, looking at the current situation. Iran has had a program for over 20 years now. Israel didn't aquire her weaponry and technology like everyone else did throught the black market, Israel used more then that, they used their might as well.

Israel has also used it's might to destroy the weapons of their potential enemies to keep it's face. Now considering that Iran is only years away from a diffusion system to process rods, Israel should be on the move. Well guess what..............they have already taken care of it. Remember the Syrian Plan??? Well there you go. That is all they need. They can prove that there enemies have sought and obtained illegal technology, while Israel's enemies couldn't utter a word. For Israel was careful about getting what they got. They won't ever let the secret slip through the cracks, even though it is well known. Yet that is the point. It is well known that Israel has Nuclear weapons, and that is considered okay by most Americans. Yet no Arab thinks that is justified especially when Arabs are discouraged from gaining that technology. If any Arab happens to speak up and cause trouble for the Israeli's then he/she is going to be a dead Arab. If any other race of people try to stop the Israeli's then they will die too.

[Edited on 6-5-2003 by Abraham Virtue]

Originally posted by John bull 1
I've just read the link.

France is refered to time and again by different reporters.

This sort of thing just isn't being reported in the UK.We are not getting any impression of continued problems between France and the USA.

Can someone from the USA fill me in on the General mood between France and the USA in the media,on the street,in Government at the present time.

Is there an effort to patch up differences or does it look as though it is getting worse?

An impression not an opinion please.

i'm in tampa, and i do not personally know one single american who give's a rat's assssss about france.

i personally feel like france made a decision that was in THEIR best interest, and i cannot hate them for that. but i don't like them for it either.

Originally posted by John bull 1
I've just read the link.

France is refered to time and again by different reporters.

This sort of thing just isn't being reported in the UK.We are not getting any impression of continued problems between France and the USA.

Can someone from the USA fill me in on the General mood between France and the USA in the media,on the street,in Government at the present time.

Is there an effort to patch up differences or does it look as though it is getting worse?

An impression not an opinion please.

Look to Weimar Germany for everything that needs to be answered: the style of fascism employed in the US today doesn't work without an external agitator; actually, that's true with any form - you can't protect the people or make their patriotic blood boil against a boogeyman until you create a boogeyman. So France is not viewed as the sober friend trying to stop his drunk mate from starting a scrum. They are viewed as an obstacle to the protection of the Fatherland.

Oh, come now, B-T, unless its bleeding pink and carrying a protest sign you don't trust it! I think Bob was looking for a non-partisan point of view.

Someone like me!

Originally posted by kramtronix

Originally posted by John bull 1
I've just read the link.

France is refered to time and again by different reporters.

This sort of thing just isn't being reported in the UK.We are not getting any impression of continued problems between France and the USA.

Can someone from the USA fill me in on the General mood between France and the USA in the media,on the street,in Government at the present time.

Is there an effort to patch up differences or does it look as though it is getting worse?

An impression not an opinion please.

i'm in tampa, and i do not personally know one single american who give's a rat's assssss about france.

i personally feel like france made a decision that was in THEIR best interest, and i cannot hate them for that. but i don't like them for it either.

Exactly, I get the same feeling here in Louisville. A few people gripe a little but overall there are more important things to focus on. Either way I think people are overall indifferent to the France issue.