Zut! The Wash Times reports that relations between the U.S. and France are tighter than, er Diane Lane and Christopher Lambert in years gone by:
Jean-David Levitte, who took over the French Embassy in December 2002 at a time of strained ties just before the Iraq war began, said he is a "happy ambassador" these days because the two countries have similar positions on most key issues.
"Today, our relationship is back on the right track," Mr. Levitte told editors and reporters at The Washington Times. "These are not only words; these are deeds."
His comments on Lebanon's political crisis, Syria's behavior, Iran's nuclear program and its larger role in the Middle East were almost identical to the Bush administration's positions.
"We share the frustration of the United States, and for the time being, we have decided not to maintain a high-level dialogue with Syria," he said, citing Damascus' continued interference in Lebanon.
"There is not much difference between Washington and Paris," he said.
But is Lebanon and/or the Middle East simply playing the role of Catherine in this high-stakes, geopolitical version of Jules et Jim? If that's the case, don't get in the car, man, whatever you do!
In Sunday's NY Post, I reviewed The Story of French and predicted a long slow death to the language of Rabelais, Moliere, Balzac, etc.
Back in 2003, Matt Welch banged the gong for France's new "Liberty Belle," libertarian youth leader Sabine Herrold.
And in 1998, Tyler Cowen explained "how protectionism has hurt French films."