SHOW: CNN CROSSFIRE 19:30

February 17, 2003 MondayFebruary 17, 2003 Monday

Transcript # 021700CN.V20

SECTION: News; International News; Domestic

LENGTH: 6299 words

[...]

CARLSON: Next, they are loud, pompous, and we can't say this enough, they eat horses. In a minute, we'll try to find something good to say about the French. Probably a lost cause. We'll try anyway.

Later, we'll ask how much longer can people stay on a high alert for

terrorism before they become complacent. You're watching CROSSFIRE on CNN, the

most trusted name in news. We'll be right back.

EPSTEIN: French President Jacques Chirac to my amazement and a lot of other

people's amazement today belittled the Eastern European nations seeking

admission into the European Union. President Chirac accused Romania, Bulgaria,

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, among others, of being "infantile" and

acting recklessly and dangerously by supporting the U.S. position on Iraq. And

quoting the French president, "They missed a great opportunity to shut up."

Perhaps the same should be said of the French.

(APPLAUSE)

EPSTEIN: Here to defend his homeland is Justin Vaisse of the Brookings

Institution. Justin, thank you for coming.

CARLSON: Thank you for joining us. Now I don't know how long you've been in

the land of the free, the home of the brave, probably long enough to know what

people are saying about your homeland. (showing "New York Post" covers) This is the "New York Post," "Axis of

Weasel" would be the French. And then my favorite of all "U.N. Meets Weasels to

Hear New Iraq Evidence." And there is the French representative with a weasel face.

Why are people saying this? Let me give you one, among many, examples. You

heard Julian say it. Jacques Chirac threatening essentially to crush the

economies of Eastern Europe: Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, not letting

them into the EU. That is the same as crushing their economies, keeping them

poor forever because they don't agree with France. That's outrageous, isn't it?

JUSTIN VAISSE, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Yes. I think that when you begin to

replace serious arguments with insults like the "New York Post" has done in

recent days, then the debate gets really sloppy. And I think that's where

democracy has to lose.

So I really think that this wave of French bashing is just a way for the Bush

administration and supporters of the war to make their point. And I think it is

very bad, because you know the serious debate we had in the previous segment was

great, and that's exactly the debate that President Chirac is having with

President Bush. Except that when it is France, when it is said with a French

accent, then we say they are weasels, we say -- what did you say, they're like

Jerry Lewis?

All these cliches. And you replace arguments by cliches. And so I think

that's very dangerous.

(APPLAUSE)

EPSTEIN: Justin, let me say, at the risk of agreeing too much with my friend

Tucker, I am one that very much believes in the need to approach this using the

United Nations and our international alliance. But I too am very chagrinned by

what the French have done, because I think it is undermining a solid United

States and United Nations position.

The most important thing I think right now is for the United Nations and for

the international community to speak with one voice that war will come if Saddam

Hussein doesn't do what he's supposed to do by abiding by the U.N. resolution.

And when France gets out there and undermines the position of the United

Nations, I think it makes it more likely that Saddam Hussein is just going to

hunker down. And I think that's been very problematic.

I don't want to necessarily quote the "New York Post," but I do want to quote

somebody else that is more serious, Tom Friedman. France is so caught up with

its need to differentiate itself from America to feel important it's become

silly. Now he's a very serious commentator.

VAISSE: Yes. Sure, he is a very serious commentator, but he has written a

couple of columns in the recent week that really surprised me because they are

so (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that they seem to be, you know, just the exact opposite of

anti-American columns in France.

So let's get to your point. I think you have a very good point. And you know

I don't agree with all of what Chirac says or does, I guess as you don't agree

with all of what the Bush administration has to say and what it does.

EPSTEIN: Sure.

VAISSE: I think the United Nations is a forum where things are debated. And

I think that the U.S. should be happy to have a friend that is ready to say

things that all the nations to which the Bush administration is twisting arms to

say what it really thinks about this war. And making the very arguments that

were in the previous section.

And so I think it is not undermining alliances. Alliances are, you know,

made to discuss things and to make the serious arguments.

CARLSON: Wait a second, Justin. Your thesis here that France is confronting

the U.S. with difficult arguments that need to be heard, they're unpopular, but

it is really doing the world a service, as being the conscience of the world

essentially, not true. France has no serious -- and if I'm wrong, I hope you can

present it -- plan for disarming Saddam Hussein. And beyond that, I would say

there is a deep strain of unreasonableness in the French culture.

In the wake of 9/11, one of the single best sellers in France is a book, as

you know, called "The Big Lie," that claimed that the attacks on the World Trade

Center were all part of a conspiracy by the Bush administration. I mean why

should the United States listen to a nation that would buy a book like that?

VAISSE: Of course. But then why should France listen to a nation that has

newspapers like this? (showing "New York Post") I mean that's outrageous.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Because this is true and that's not.

VAISSE: No, I think that -- I really think that's not a good argument to

make. And you know you mentioned that Tom Friedman's column saying that France

was isolating itself just, you know, to make -- to posture to seem important and

all that. But, you know, let me remind you that President Chirac -- in France,

people are opposed to the war without the second resolution by 74 percent. But

in the rest of the world, it is more like in the 90s -- 90 percent.

And so of course Chirac is isolated. He's somewhat isolated. But you know

he's isolated with billions of people. And so I think -- you know, I think it

is right that somebody is making the point.

(APPLAUSE)

EPSTEIN: Well, you know, I think that it -- again, it's regretful that France

has been so public in its I think undermining of the Bush administration. I

think that Bush, by the same token -- you know Teddy Roosevelt had the adage

walk -- talk softly, carry a big stick. I think Bush has replaced that with a

competing version, which is a diplomatic bull in a china shop.

I think that this notion of being so publicly at war with our friends in this

rhetorical war (ph) is unnecessary. I think if France isn't going to be with

this game then we just ought to ignore France. But the idea here that we get

into this public spat seems to me to have no percentage in it for the United

States.

CARLSON: But just, honestly, just correct the misperception here. This is

not simply an effort by the administration to beat up on France. This is coming

-- there's a deep wellspring of anti-French feeling in this country, and it's

going to have consequences. This is a bottle of French wine. This is a bottom

of American wine.

VAISSE: It is bigger.

CARLSON: And it's bigger. That's exactly right. More forceful. There will

be Americans who boycott French products. This in the end is really going to

hurt France, isn't it?

VAISSE: No, I think it is going hurt wine lovers.

(LAUGHTER)

EPSTEIN: Touch

LOAD-DATE: February 19, 2003