Rating: 
Summary: French-bashing again...
Review: Totally biaised. If France was so guilty, and Chirac had give secret information to Saddam, why doesn't Bush say it loudly?
French-bashing is best-selling, why don't take advantage of it...
Rating: 
Summary: The French Betrayal of America
Review: Timmerman is right on in writing this book and what he has to say will shock you, or maybe you already knew that the French were more than French Toast. Undermining America and sleeping in the same bed with the enemy thats the French. The book is a must read. Larry Hobson- Author- "The Day Of The Rose"
Rating:
Summary: Read below
Review: In my humble opinion America may have gone to war for oil. At the end of the year 2000 Iraq was successfully demanding Euros be paid for their oil exports. This of course, in a world dependent on fossil feuls, can obviously severly disrupt the american economy. Although we know that Saddam had been openly anti-american long before that. (By the way, Omar Khadafi, a man who has done more good for his people than any "democrate" ever has in this region is also "openly" anti-american. His government now seems to be the target of these inspections) As to anti americanism in France, what the common american fails to realize is that after "Saving" France from the German agression America proceeded to relentlesly encroach and subvert France's economy. This is (one of) the true motivations behind anti-americanism in France. As to France's denounciation of American colonialism, I think France's record in Africa and South Asia is more indicative of France's collective consciousness towrds this issue then Frances denounciation of Amercan colonialism. America has been far more sophisticated in their colonialization practices (i.e. "Selling" democracy to a people in order to buy out said peoples industry) -to think the poor French wanted to employ force and keep unpopular, costly military popsts in her colonies. Neither is acceptable or justifiable !!! As someone who is neither French nor Amercain (nor English for that matter) may I be afforded to say that the French along with the English have more in common with America than any other country in the world. So stop bickering Frenchies and Yankees, I hate to see two retarded cousins fighting.
Rating: 
Summary: Not as incendiary as it's title
Review: The reviewer below didn't read the book. Timmerman presents a fairly balanced account. The crux of his argument is that the "French" betrayal is in many ways more of a "Chirac" betrayal, and Chirac really does seem like a cad. I found the narrative about the U.S./Mitterand (a Socialist) relationship to be saddening; how even when our two countries were deeply at odds the bond created by our shared values held fast. The "balance" in this book comes out during these parts. Germany, France, and to a much lesser degree, the US, were guilty of hardcore realpolitik in their support of Iraq over Iran. The French were frustrated by our lack of "sophistication" in our approach to the Arab world, but at the end of the day France, especially Mitterand would come out on the side of "freedom"(their words). Chirac's personal corruption and disturbingly close, personal relationship with Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz, the French Arm's industry's utter dependence on Iraqi purchases (which amounted to more than Frances own military), and abundant "oil" bribery left France under Chirac no choice but to betray its old friend in the US. It was pleasing to read that though many of the French have been completely steeped in anti-Americanism to justify this betrayal, ther are still many Frenchmen who find this knife in the back to be appalling. This book could have used a bit more in the way of personal interviews and quotes (this is when it is best) and a little less in the way of historic footnotes, but in the end its an important read.
Rating:
Summary: Non, je ne regrette rien
Review: Like another writer, I have to wonder whether all the reviewers who gave this book a single star actually bothered to read the thing. Few of those reviews sounded at all like they were talking about the same book I read. If you're willing to set aside knee-jerk assumptions -- if you have them -- about the meretriciousness of the Bush Administration, and also ignore the unfortunate and loaded word "betrayal" in the title (a point I'll get back to in a moment), there's actually quite a bit of important reporting going on here. Kenneth Timmerman should be thanked for uncovering it and bringing it to our attention.One area where this book could have been stronger is in explaining more thoroughly how French actions in the run-up to the Iraq war were consistent with that nation's political culture. I think this is a critical point ... and while I was glad to see it mentioned finally in the author's discussion of Dominique de Villepin and his devotion to Napoleon Bonaparte, hero of megalomaniacs everywhere ... I wish this point had been given more prominence. Here, a title like Nadeau and Barlow's "Sixty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong" is a very useful companion. The general context of Timmerman's insights -- for example, his flat statement that the French "have consistently favored authoritarian regimes over democracy, not just in the third world but also in Europe" (p. 253) -- would have been harder to understand without having already read that other book. Even without that grounding, however, Timmerman lays out a strong case for why the French -- and especially President Jacques Chirac -- were so adamant in opposing attempts to put the screws on Saddam Hussein. He charts the long and tortuous history of French investment in Iraq, as well as Chirac's personal, decades-long friendship with Saddam. Chirac, whom Timmerman tags as "the head of the unofficial 'Iraq Lobby' in France" since the mid-1970s (p. 43), comes across as absolutely the worst -- from Bush's standpoint (or best, from Saddam's) -- person to be running France at this time. His motivations are complex, ranging from his desire to keep France separate from the U.S. and a key player in world events ... to his oft-repeated conviction that he speaks for "eighty percent" of the world's population ... to the simple and mercenary fact that he has long received kickbacks from corporations doing business in Iraq. "Chirac knew that France would never get the same kinds of deals from a free Iraqi government" (p. 242), and so he was willing to sink France and America's centuries-long partnership in order to protect and defend a savage dictator. In sum, Timmerman makes a pretty ironclad case that French opposition to military action against Saddam was based less on high-minded rejection of war (though, of course, the French are hardly capable of waging war any more [p. 24]) than on a self-interested devotion to commercial advantage and geo-political positioning. And while we may find this outrageous, I'm not convinced "Betrayal" is really the right word. It implies France has some sort of obligation to the U.S., or that the French "sold us out" somehow. And despite Timmerman's frequent use of "marriage" as a metaphor for the long partnership between the two nations, I don't think either implication really applies. As Lord Palmerston noted, nations have no permanent friends, only permanent interests. If French and American interests diverged over Iraq, it may be regrettable but it probably doesn't constitute "betrayal." But even if you don't agree with that element of Timmerman's conclusions, the facts he uncovers and the details he lays out are the important, and timely, part of this book. Rather than raging about "freedom fries" and how many Frenchmen it takes to defend Paris, people seeking to understand the why and the how of this episode in diplomacy could do a lot worse than to look deeply into the picture Kenneth Timmerman has painted.
Rating:
Summary: Oddly predisposed to favor authoritarism over Democracy
Review: "Not a day goes by that I don't inhale the perfume of the discreet violet." French Foreign Minister de Villepin's words herein---written about his authoritarian hero---are clearer once he informs us that such is the "symbol of loyalty to Napoleon." But it goes back even further than that; for---to paraphrase David Horowitz---the struggle that has shaped our age can be traced to the 2 very different paradigms of the European enlightenment that took root, respectively, in America and France. Hence Mr. de Villepin's continued interest in trying "to revive the 'French model' of government from the top down, as opposed to the American model of government from the bottom up." That's the point of this book by Kenneth Timmerman. Yes, the USA & France are historic & cultural allies, and share many beliefs, but an unadulterated faith in the state as the focal point for society is not one of them. This has been particularly apparent under the "virtual monarchy that the 5th Republic has become," beginning with de Gaulle in 1958. Jacques Chirac is but the latest incarnation of such; especially since his "crowning" reelection in 2002 with 82.21% of the vote (thanks to the fluke of him having to face the fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen in a runoff; Chirac having won only a pathetic 19.8% in the 1st round!). Mr. Timmerman doesn't have much to say about the future of Franco-American relations, but I'd hazard that Chirac is likely set to bookend with de Gaulle this latest chapter of French exceptionalism; for weakness is more apparent here than vitality and strenth---2 battlefield shellackings, for instance, seemed only to increase de Gualle's haughtiness. And Chirac has certainly been good at ignoring reality & being imperious as well. For instance: With Saddam Hussein still in material breach of (French supported) UN Resolutions---imposing a trade embargo on Iraq & worldwide ban on sale of Iraqi oil---he nevertheless began pressing for the relaxation of such sanctions, once Hussein began to dangle the prospect of his resuming his historic largess on French industry. Hence the 1994 deal by State-owned French oil giant Total SA to a 75% share of production rights to a huge Iraqi undeveloped oil field (worth an estimated $40-60 billion over 7 years) contingent on the lifting of UN sanctions on Iraq. When the head of UNSCOM (UN Commission for Iraqi Disarmament), Rolf Ekeus, voiced his objection to this deal, the French responded that such agreements were "not inconsistant" with the outstanding embargo on Iraq. More duplicitious double-talk was evident little more than 2 months after France championed UN Resoluton #1441---threatening Saddam & offering him one last chance---when Chirac's foreign minister announced that France would never support a U.S.-led military intervention against Saddam. (Reagan's request for overflight rights to retaliate against Libya in 1986 was treated similarly; President Mitterand telling Chirac (his PM at the time) that "it is out of the question for France to hitch its wagon behind an American action.") The struggle in the world is not between freedom & tyranny, in other words, but (in French opinion) between 2 rival democratic state systems of government---with the all-powerful monarchical-like France on one side, versus the Anglo-American variant of transparent checks & balances. That the French are becoming cognizant of their failure herein is apparent from their reactionary behavior: France fears globalization; fears not having the artificial influence that strategic stakes in its industrial giants affords them; fears a non-centralized EU where their influence will diminish. In short, France has been effecting a rearguard action at least since 1958 & their power play in Iraq has been but one gambit of such; a gambit to guarantee them oil, demand for their non-competitive industries, & permit military R&D economies of scale. Yes, this book is a substancial one---full of indictments, but backed up with details. Cheers!
Rating:
Summary: DIFFICULT TO WRITE A WORSE BOOK
Review: It would be difficult to write a worse book than this one. This is an overt attempt to do a hatchet job on France and on Europeans in general.
It is filled with ideologically oversimplified and twisted facts (American economic interests in the Middle East are legitimate and the stealing of Iraqi oil by force is O.K., but the French and European economic interests in a country which is closer to Europe than to the United States must curiously be denounced!), with simplistic and biased analysis (anybody who disagrees with the Holy Bush junta is guilty of treachery and is betraying the United States!), incomplete research [no mention whatsoever of the corrosive influence of AIPAC (American Israel Political Action Committee) and of the pro-Israel neocon lobby behind the war against Iraq] ...etc.
The fact that U.S. foreign policy fits perfectly with Israeli foreign policy seems to have completely escaped the author's attention. This is probably simply an oversight!
The author is also disingenous to the extreme when he insinuates that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a pretext that Bush II used to launch his illegal war against Iraq.-The Bush administration itself has confessed that there were no WMDs in Iraq and the invasion was undertaken for other nebulous reasons, like "oil" for example.
In short, this a book which is way off the mark. -It reads like a pro-domo book written by Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith!
Definitely to be avoided, unless one relishes disinformation and propaganda.
Rating:
Summary: A balanced assessment of American relations with France
Review: While it may not have seemed all that surprising to some of us when France refused to go along with the United States and Great Britain in our opposition to Saddam Hussein in 2003, it was surprising to many people in our government. And Timmerman shows why. First, France had been very supportive of us in the 1980s, when the fight was against Soviet power. Second, there had been some very strong private assurances from the French President to the United States a few months earlier that France would go along with us on the Iraq issue: these were clear and somewhat surprising lies. Third, although France was not part of NATO's unified military command, there was plenty of French cooperation with the United States, both military and commercial. A failure to support the United States against Iraq might risk losing plenty of money and support from our side. And going beyond that to do what France actually did, rallying world leaders against the United States, was even riskier.
As a matter of fact, France went beyond even that when ten former Soviet-bloc nations warned Iraq that it was risking war by failing to cooperate with UN disarmament inspectors. The French President informed those nations that they "missed a great opportunity to shut up," and informed them that their stand on Iraq would not be forgotten when they tried to apply for membership in the European Union!
This book gives plenty of background information about French relations with both the United States and Iraq. It shows how French support of Saddam Hussein made it more difficult for the United States to formulate a coherent policy regarding Iraq: it appeared to many of us that France and Iraq were teammates in trying to hide weapons from inspectors. And it asks why France was willing "to cast aside the 225-year old alliance with America in favor of a tinpot dictator" (Saddam Hussein). The answers include money, oil, and a search for prestige. France was a major supplier of weaponry to Saddam Hussein, and the extent of this support became clearer after Baghdad fell.
Timmerman believes that France and the United States can patch up their differences. But I think it is worth reading this book to discover how frayed the relations between America and France have become.
Rating:
Summary: Those crooked French Frogs!
Review: It is tragic the days when supposed "allies" turn against us, when, despite obeying their own word, undermine us and force conflict where none is needed.
I am speaking about Iraq of course.
Timmerman, while keeping an honest journalistic approach to the subject, glazes over (and often forgets) to mention many historical occurrences that bring more rhyme and reason to the French foreign policy, a policy that from Timmerman's perspective labels the French as backstabbers.
For example: when reading this book it came as little surprise to me that the French helped Saddam build long-range missiles and finances for weapons, and gave the go-for-it for Saddam to attack the Marsh Arabs. The United States had similar policies when delivering weapons worth billions to Iraq to attack Iran and massacre thousands of civilian Iranians (note: the Iranians were just as bad with Soviet backed weaponry to massacre thousands of civilian Iraqis). On a similar note, and the reason for my introduction: the US also gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait, saying that there would be no US military intervention if Saddam were to annex the country: the act that started it all.
Overall, I was unimpressed with Timmerman's arguments and found them to be biased and incomplete (Chirac only agreed to help the US with a war in Iraq if there was reason to believe that Iraq was a direct threat to the US; a threat that Bush has now admitted to being nonexistent). The subject of American-French ties needs more complete coverage, something I unfortunately have yet to see from any author on either side of the political spectrum.
Rating:
Summary: French betrayal of France
Review: I wanted to read this book after I viewed a debate on French television where the author was almost muted by an aggressive presentator. The few words he managed to utter echoed to my feeling that French media (and French-speaking media here in Belgium) carry on such one-sided campaigns that there must be an explanation for it.
The book confirms this and explains it very well. It is remarkably argued, and besides that written in a thrilling style.
I am just afraid that this book could incite American readers who would only skip through it to hate French (I read dreadful comments on these pages!) or French-speaking people. But of course it would not be the book's fault...
It is certainly hard for American readers to imagine to which degree the large majority of media over here carry brain-washing campaigns (but this is understandable seeing who are the ones controlling the media). It takes a lot of solidity and acuity of mind to resist that.
French "elites" not only betray Americans but also their own people and expose them to very earnest consequences in the future.
|
