Sarko to Obama: Je T’aime
EmailWe’ll get the official translation in a bit, but the read-out of what President Sarkozy said at his joint press-availability with President Obama was positively gushing.
Mr. Sarkozy, according to the initial and unofficial translation, was effusive in his praise for Mr. Obama and his "open-mindedness," saying Mr. Obama "wants to build a new world," and that at the G-20 economic conference the U.S. President "shouldered the burden."
This endorsement extended to specific issues as well.
President Sarkozy said, "we totally endorse and support the Obama administration’s new strategy on Afghanistan," Sarko said. Referring to 9/11, the diminutive French leader said the terrorist attack "wasn’t just an attack on New York, it was an attack on democracy. So we’re in the fight in Afghanistan."
On Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, and Mideast peace there was "a convergence of views," said the charismatic Frenchman.
Asked about President Obama committing to shut down the detainee center at Guantanamo Bay, President Sarkozy said, "it’s incumbent upon heads of state to speak the truth. Guantanamo didn’t live up to the values of the U.S."
Sarko said France "may need to take one prisoner," an apparent reference to one of two Algerian nationals — Lakhdar Boumediene and Saber Lahmar — who have been held at Guantanamo Bay for the past seven years but last November were cleared for release by a US judge.
"If we are consistent we take that prisoner," said Sarkozy. "In France, our word is our bond."
When Mr. Obama faced a French journalist’s question suggesting he may not value a strong Europe, President Sarkozy brought up his pending June visit to Normandy with President Obama. "we will never forget what American democracy has done for us," Sarkozy said. "I trust him," he said of Obama. "President Obama’s America doesn’t want weak allies, it wants strong allies."
"I feel very good to be with President Obama," Sarkozy said. "It’s a hell of a piece of good news for 2009."
Again — this is not the official translation. I will update with the official one when we get it. (My high school French teacher Monsieur Outler would be disappointed. Je suis désolé, monsieur!!)
– jpt
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Awfully generous of the Europeans to concede they must take some responsibility for terrorist detainees who could as easily be attacking Europe as America.
This attitude that they’re somehow doing America a grand favor by lowering themselves to fight in Afghanistan or help with detainees instead of just whining about Gitmo ridiculous.
Posted by: emjay | April 3, 2009, 9:16 am 9:16 am
In WWII the U.S. invaded Normandy as part of a global effort to defeat the Axis powers, who had attacked us in Pearl Harbor, the Aleutian Islands, and via submarine off the east coast of the U.S. The U.S. understood that if we didn’t fight the Axis where they were, we would be fighting them on U.S. soil.
In the effort against Al Queda, the Europeans would be wise to understand that the fight can be held in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or in Europe. Their choice.
Posted by: Ronster9 | April 3, 2009, 9:53 am 9:53 am
Well emjay, i’ll take all the help I can get from the europeans and shut up about it. If we had listen to them and not get sidetracked to invaded iraq then we would not need their help today.
Posted by: sunny | April 3, 2009, 10:07 am 10:07 am
Bush didn’t start out being seen as arrogant toward Europe. Both Chirac and Schroeder walked right up to the edge of invading Iraq with us, then backed out in an attempt to garner power for themselves (remember the Franco-German axis?) using anti-Americanism.
Remember Chirac telling Eastern Europe they had missed a good opportunity to “shut up”.
I realize Europe may have seen the US as arrogant, but much of that was a convenient excuse to not help where they didn’t want to help.
I suspect things would have been very different if Bush would have had Sarkozy and Merkel to work with from the beginning.
Posted by: MayBee | April 3, 2009, 10:15 am 10:15 am
Thx Jake,
Since I have not been able to watch any of the G20 events in real time, reading the punch throughout the day has been extremely enjoyable. If the report is true, it would be a great coupe.
I am absolutely giddy over the president’s performance thus far. Thx again.
Posted by: tw | April 3, 2009, 10:15 am 10:15 am
“Bush didn’t start out being seen as arrogant toward Europe. Both Chirac and Schroeder walked right up to the edge of invading Iraq with us, then backed out in an attempt to garner power for themselves (remember the Franco-German axis?) using anti-Americanism.”
If I recall correctly, France was getting much of thier oil from Iraq. Their refusal to join the invasion had as much to do with economics as anything else.
Posted by: silky | April 3, 2009, 10:25 am 10:25 am
hay MayBee, i understand what you’re saying but the french but my point is that the french and germans don’t have to lift a finger to help us simply because they have enough evidence to argue that so far, in europe, only the countries that supported us in the iraq war has been attacked by Al Queda!
Posted by: sunny | April 3, 2009, 10:27 am 10:27 am
It must be so painful for you Bush/Cheney fans to have to admit that the World is actually able to like the U.S. once again, and is willing to help us in our fight against terrorists and fanatical religious extremists who are attempting to destroy the free world. Sometimes “change” is very good for everyone.
Posted by: geecee | April 3, 2009, 10:31 am 10:31 am
only the countries that supported us in the iraq war has been attacked by Al Queda!
========
Not completely true. Indonesia didn’t help with the Iraq war, and Bali and Jakarta have both been attacked. Bali quite brutally. Pakistan has been getting attacked pretty consistently. India just recently.
And remember we were attacked by Al Qaeda before we went to Iraq. Several times.
Posted by: MayBee | April 3, 2009, 10:47 am 10:47 am
well done and thanks for the translations, Jake. I sure hope you lived up to expectations. French teachers were always the readiest to be disappointed so i wish you luck. Of course there is always online translation…
Don’t forget to get us presents!
Posted by: Question | April 3, 2009, 10:48 am 10:48 am
“the World is actually able to like the U.S. once again, and is willing to help us in our fight against terrorists”
What country is now willing to help us that wasn’t willing to help before?
Posted by: Sigmond | April 3, 2009, 10:51 am 10:51 am
Does this new sense of friendship and honesty mean we can stop acting like froi gras is good?
Posted by: silky | April 3, 2009, 11:21 am 11:21 am
Someone said that only countries that supported the US invasion of Iraq or the actions in Afghanistan, have had to deal with terrorist attacks.
Sir, please make the destinction between succesful and unsuccesful attacks.
For instance, president Obama is in Strasbourg right now. That French city is famous for its huge Christmas market in front of the old cathedral, drawing hundreds of thousands of visitors daily.
A terrorist cell had been building highly explosive devices, purposely built to cause a maximum of casualties five years ago. Fortunately, their operation was smashed by German and French police forces. They were all arrested, not long before the succesful terrorist attacks in Madrid.
The same goes for Belgium, where terrorist cells planned attacks, and Germany, and a host of other nations. Again, the attacks were thwarted. But it is simply untrue that only the supporters of the Bush wars were targeted.
Posted by: Kaj | April 3, 2009, 11:39 am 11:39 am
sunny, I wasn’t saying we should reject Europe’s help, for God’s sake, merely pointing out the irony. Their generosity in taking one detainee is nice, seeing as France and Germany are as much AQ targets as America.
As it turned out, we didn’t necessarily need their help in Iraq, and had other allies with us. The Iraqis are getting the hang of these democratic institutions, and we’re slowly extricating ourselves.
We transferred control of the Afghan war to NATO when Iraq began. There was no reason why a solid, capable military alliance could not handle a war that was essentially quiet at that time.
After six years of NATO in control of Afghanistan, things have deteriorated to where we now have have to take the wheel back from NATO in Afghanistan, and Americanize the fight to clean it out again.
Make no mistake, Europe benefits when the U.S. keeps hard-case terrorists behind bars despite paying a political cost for it, and Europe is more secure because of the efforts the U.S. is undertaking in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the mountains in between. The Euros correctly calculate that they can get away with not helping in Afghanistan, knowing the U.S. will do the heavy lifting anyway.
Posted by: emjay | April 3, 2009, 3:38 pm 3:38 pm
sunny, I wasn’t saying we should reject Europe’s help, for God’s sake, merely pointing out the irony. Their generosity in taking one detainee is nice, seeing as France and Germany are as much AQ targets as America.
As it turned out, we didn’t necessarily need their help in Iraq, and had other allies with us. The Iraqis are getting the hang of these democratic institutions, and we’re slowly extricating ourselves.
We transferred control of the Afghan war to NATO when Iraq began. There was no reason why a solid, capable military alliance could not handle a war that was essentially quiet at that time.
After six years of NATO in control of Afghanistan, things have deteriorated to where we now have have to take the wheel back from NATO in Afghanistan, and Americanize the fight to clean it out again.
Make no mistake, Europe benefits when the U.S. keeps hard-case terrorists behind bars despite paying a political cost for it, and Europe is more secure because of the efforts the U.S. is undertaking in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the mountains in between. The Euros correctly calculate that they can get away with not helping in Afghanistan, knowing the U.S. will do the heavy lifting anyway.
Posted by: emjay | April 3, 2009, 3:38 pm 3:38 pm
If these guys hadn’t saved us from the British.. would be mad.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | April 3, 2009, 3:55 pm 3:55 pm
The countries that ‘backed out” (Chirac) realized the war was based on a lie. Could you blame them! They all left once the full story was told. No WMD’s. No wonder that they had no respect for U.S., after a “Crook” was elected by it’s people.
Posted by: sngeorgia | April 3, 2009, 9:01 pm 9:01 pm
“The countries that ‘backed out” (Chirac) realized the war was based on a lie.”
Yeah, sure. They backed out before we went to war. So how did they know there were no WMD. They stood in to do business with Iraq, though, didn’t they?
So why are they not sending combat troops to help in Afghanistan? No WMDs found?
Posted by: Sigmond | April 3, 2009, 9:38 pm 9:38 pm
FOR SALE – One (1) French rifle. Never been fired. Dropped only Once. CALL EU549 and ask for Msr. Villepin.
Posted by: socialism101 | April 3, 2009, 11:35 pm 11:35 pm
Wow..taking one Gimto guy..that’s international cooperation!
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | April 4, 2009, 7:12 am 7:12 am
Jake, can you tell your fellow journalists that Sarkozy is not pronounced sarkoZY but rather sarKOzy.
All American journalists do this. It’s unnerving!
Posted by: cincyr | April 4, 2009, 11:11 am 11:11 am
“Yeah, sure. They backed out before we went to war. So how did they know there were no WMD. They stood in to do business with Iraq…”
Sigmond, Jamaica doesn’t do business with Iraq, we knew it was a lie. Despite being a poor nation, our mammas “didn’t raise no fools”, as the saying goes.
Only in America would 350 million people with thinking brains decide to think the wrong thing. Don’t blame Europeans for your folly. The entire rest of the WORLD saw it…Oh, exept for Britain, but, same DNA, what the heck.
Posted by: fiona | April 4, 2009, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
Understand the principle of sanity:
You fight your enemy on THEIR doorsteps and lands, not your own lands and doorsteps with the enemy in your face.
Such includes the unfortunate residential bases and troops on the Marches and Counties of these foreign lands seeing that the native population is protected (disarmed or at least pro-agenda armed).
If the majority of these refugee population would acclimate to their host populations (Europe and New World), then there would be great world political and religious peace. But, we have such hybrid foreign cultures demanding undue rights and priviledges based on counter culture, fifth echelono, and potential religious/political insurgency. Such should not be allowed to happen. It puts the enemy in one’s own nation, and on one’s own doorstep.
Moderates comes and see how Europe and the New World have gotten over all the luddite issues and have peace. All radicals/politicals/insurgents go home and continue your cavemen mentality with abuse, wars, and death.
Posted by: Prince John | April 4, 2009, 9:51 pm 9:51 pm
Pathetically, every single time that France is mentioned within the US press we get the same kind of ignorant jerks repeating the same ridiculous nonsense against it. See socialism101, which seems to ignore that the french army is one of the most glorious army over the last two thousand years (just study a bit), that it took Yorktown for us and that we are an independent nation thank to the french. But usually ungrateful people as the same as the ignorant ones.
Posted by: Me | April 6, 2009, 7:09 am 7:09 am
“how did they know there were no WMD.”
Hmm, maybe because the UN inspectors just told that? You know before being ousted by the Bush administration for being a serious problem against its propaganda, on its way toward this illegal and deceptive war.
Posted by: Me | April 6, 2009, 7:14 am 7:14 am
Yes, we want our allies strong! We want equals!
No need to play, threaten or bully as the “republican overlords/drug lords” did under Bush. When you have real ballz, you don’t need to fake it.
Posted by: Common Sense | April 6, 2009, 9:50 pm 9:50 pm