i really don't get why american conservatives are so in love with nicolas sarkozy. the reason they originally became so anti-french in 2002 and 2003 is because the french government under jacques chirac opposed the war in iraq. well, the french government under sarkozy still opposes the war in iraq, still thinks it was a bad idea to invade and still won't provide any troops to the conflict. in fact, sarkozy was a member of chirac's government from 2002 to 2004, the "freedom fries" era, the darkest days of american bone-headed anti-french posturing.
i guess the real problem is that i never understood the basis for the depths of anti-french sentiment back in those dark days. that's because it never really made any sense. much of the world was opposed to the war in iraq. for the most part even the countries that supported the invasion, countries like britain, spain and italy, did so over the overwhelming objection of their own populace. france was simply acting like a representative democracy should, responding to the will of its people and pointing out that america's case for war was, in fact, quite weak.
on top of that they turned out to be completely right. which is why sarkozy himself still holds the same position on iraq that his country held in 2002 and 2003. but the reaction to him is completely different than chirac. perhaps because sarkozy has decided that improving relations with the u.s. is a priority. then again, chirac also tried to improve relations with the u.s., but that didn't get him anywhere with american conservatives.
maybe the difference is that the conservatives made the issue so personal back in the lead up to the iraq war. instead of addressing france's arguments against the proposed invasion, many conservatives dismissed those objections out of hand by branding chirac as anti-american. the charge made little sense, especially considering france's leading role after 9-11 to support the u.s. in its fight against al qaeda and the fact that in 2002 and 2003 french soldiers continued to fight and die in afghanistan in the our war there. but i guess the personal nature of the charge appealed to people. i don't understand why, but getting personal seems to be an effective tactic, even when it is devoid of real substance. so the "surrender monkey" moniker stuck, and that gave conservatives license to ignore the substantive objections that the french government was making.
these days we're seeing essentially the same phenomenon. conservatives have branded sarkozy as "good", just as they once branded chirac as "bad." and apparently that gives them license to ignore the fact that sarkozy still stands for the very same things that got them to demonize chirac in the first place.
