Article copyI sincerely hope that somebody, somewhere is watching them and is ready to take action:
(Original declaration in French.)
Plenary sessions, verbatim report of proceedings/Debates:
Debates of the European ParliamentNo matter the "we", I'll set aside the fact that this degenerate EUrocrat is openly deploring that Saddam Hussein's regime was destroyed. He can only cry a river and wet his diapers out of frustration here, thank to the Coalition.
SITTING OF WEDNESDAY, 16 MAY 2001
Situation in the Middle East
Coûteaux (EDD). (FR) Madam President, the most surprising thing about our debate is our surprise, for Israel's expansionist policy is the inevitable and predictable result of the growing imbalance in the region, the stability for which we bear much of the responsibility. Firstly that is because since 1967 most of our states, with the notable exception of France, have continued to give the State of Israel ֖ a state that is growing increasingly self-assured and domineering the impression that it can violate international law and UN resolutions with impunity.
In reality, here as elsewhere we have followed Washington and persist in closing our eyes to the theocratic excesses of this religious state whose governments are under the thumb of fanatical parties and minorities that are just as bad as the other groups of religious fanatics in the region. That is why we should envisage imposing sanctions on Israel.
There is, however, another serious imbalance for which we are in part responsible, namely the imbalance of forces. I have no hesitation in saying that we must consider giving the Arab side a large enough force, including a large enough nuclear force, to persuade Israel that it cannot simply do whatever it wants. That is the policy my country (DF: i.e. France) pursued in the 1970s when it gave Iraq a nuclear force. We have now destroyed it. So we will carry on with our policy of imbalance and what is happening today is merely the annoying but inevitable result of our collective blindness and cowardice.
Yet the worse is of course that he is advocating "balancing" the force by handing in nuclear weapons (again) to the remaining tyrants in the Middle East.
He is advocating that idea today, [UPDATE: Well, not really, or at least, not as voicely. See the update #2 at the end of this post. Yeah, yeah, bad Frogman] in the current wartime context, while we know exactly what Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia are up to. And while we're closing to the 60th anniversary of D-Day... and the third of 9/11.
If that doesn't make him a declared enemy of the free world, I wonder what will.
Besides, he is doing it in a public debate at the European Parliament, no less. He's a French "sovereignist", which is to say a right wing Socialist, however you should make no mistake: if most of the others, whatever their side, may not be at the point where they would say that as clearly - not yet -, you'll be hard pressed to hear them disagree anyway. He is simply expressing what they more or less secretly think, hope or even work to.
France, her "sovereignists" and just about all her different kind of Socialists is at war too. Against America and the ideals she stands for.
What is America waiting for to fight back?
(Thank to E.B. for the information)
First, my remark about the timing of the sovereignist sordidness is wrong indeed, as some more alert commentators noticed. The transcript is pre-9/11, not post. Yet does it make less sense? I'm afraid I don't think so.
For more recent "material", visit his website where you will find other transcripts of his intervention at the European Parliament (and enjoy his rhetoric, notably on Iraq, in the line of "the goal is to massively destroy Iraq to achieve the ideological industrial meccano of the little gang of wallet holding zealots that reign in Washington"). I couldn't find any "let's give 'em nukes again", but many that would really be over the top in our day and age - which is actually the reason why I've been so outraged when I received the link.
Profuse apologies, I'll have more wine next time.
Having said that:
BJL from Revue Politique writes to tell me that they are the busy bees who found the information on the European Parliament site and wrote an extensive article on the inspired right wing socialist, on May the 19 (yeah, this year): "When villiéristes want nuclear weapons for the Arab countries" ("villiéristes" being one of the flavor of the sovereignist's... let's "gang" shall we? You know, the Grandeur de la France® and all that). Many thanks to Revue Politique for that.
Somebody asked if, considering that this declaration was indeed preceding 9/11, the position of this Equitable European MP could have changed. Revue Politique thinks that it's very unlikely, and I'm inclined to agree with them:
Not only is there no reason to believe that September 11 changed anything, but looking at the slip in the French political debate, it is certain that this kind of stance came out bolstered by the rampant anti-Zionism and ant-AmericanismSo there you go. Make up your own mind, at the light of, say, France's fervid activity in the Iraqi crisis.
Now, what really scares me is that there were enough morons in the electoral districts to elect such a blokeIndeed, contrarily to the members of the European Commission, the members of the Parliament are elected.
Having said that, and when it comes to that EUropean monstrosity, I can't make any distinction between co-opted autocrats and mediocrats elected by abstention, really.
Yet the real question now is: will the sinister Coûteaux run again in the upcoming 13 June elections? And in the affirmative, will he be reelected despite - or thank to - his genocidal proposals?