French far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen said Friday U.S. President Donald Trump had apparently changed his mind on the U.S.’s role as the world’s policeman, adding he may have been swayed by his administration.
During an interview on France Info radio, National Front leader Le Pen — whom opinion polls say would win the first round of the election on April 23, but lose the runoff to any rival on May 7 — was played a recording of the U.S. president’s remarks on Wednesday in which he said the NATO military alliance was “no longer obsolete” in fighting terrorism.
Trump made the comments at a White House press conference after meeting with Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Trump had said in January that NATO was “obsolete.”
“Undeniably he is in contradiction with the commitments he had made,” Le Pen said. Among her key proposals, the French far-right candidate wants France to quit NATO.
“I am coherent, I don’t change my mind in a few days. He had said he would not be the policeman of the world, that he would be the president of the United States and would not be the policeman of the world, but it seems today that he has changed his mind,” she said.
“Will he persist, or is it a political coup which facilitates his domestic policy, I have absolutely no idea. But I am coherent in my analyzes, when something favors France I say so, when it doesn’t I say so too,” Le Pen said.
Asked whether she would also contradict herself if she won power, Le Pen replied: “That the American administration bears a part in the decisions of Mr Trump may also be an explanation, but I am the candidate who defends the superiority of politics over the administration, the bureaucracy, the economic, and so I think it is politics which must decide.”
But Le Pen, who has made terrorism and immigration key platforms of her campaign, invoked a U.S. role as she reiterated her appeal for what she called “a big coalition of countries which fight Muslim fundamentalism in which there will be of course the U.S., Russia, countries like Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Chad.”
Le Pen also said she had no regret for having met Russian President Vladimir Putin, who hasn’t reneged on his support of Syria’s leader Bashar al-Assad after a chemical weapon attack on a Syrian village on Apr.4.
“Why, when I want to be president of the French republic, should I have the least regret for meeting the president of that great country which is Russia, which is a heavyweight in the world,” she said.
Pressed to say if she believed whether the chemical attack, denied by Assad, actually occurred, Le Pen said: “I don’t believe anyone. I think we have to wait for the results of the international investigation.”
Quoting the article, ““I am coherent, I don’t change my mind in a few days. He had said he would not be the policeman of the world, that he would be the president of the United States and would not be the policeman of the world, but it seems today that he has changed his mind,”……..“Will he persist, or is it a political coup which facilitates his domestic policy, I have absolutely no idea. But I am coherent in my analyzes, when something favors France I say so, when it doesn’t I say so too,” Le Pen said. “Undeniably he is in contradiction with the commitments he had made,” Also added in the article was that among her key proposals, Le Pen wants France to quit NATO.
Why did Le Pen opine to the media? She said this in response to President Donald Trump’s comment that NATO was “no longer obsolete” in fighting terrorism. I’m not sure what her meaning of “change my mind in a few days” was taking into consideration the French-to English translation and the ability of the news organizations to succumb to bias in their reporting, but changing one’s mind is anything but incoherent! It comes about by a reassessing of one’s views in light of new information, a change in circumstances or the actions of another country or person or whatever the case may be. She forgot to mention, and not reported in the article, that Trump finished his statement with “We must not be trapped by the tired thinking…but apply new solutions to face new circumstances”.
PDT’s “no longer obsolete” response was made after NATO Secretary Stoltenberg stated “We agreed that NATO can do more in the fight against international terrorism..” pledging “cash, capabilities and contributions..” and that “Together we represent more than half of the world’s economic and military power. No other superpower has ever had such a strategic advantage.” I would say that was a change in circumstances. And Trump’s assessment of the whole meeting, “Things went pretty well. Maybe better than anticipated”.
Trump’s comment about NATO being obsolete seemed, at the time, overboard but it was typical of the negotiation skills that he has been known for. Set your aim high when your opponent’s is low and settle for the middle. NATO, at the time that he made the comment, maybe wasn’t obsolete but they definitely were missing a couple of spheroids. The former president’s decision not to uphold his line in the sand metaphor was a dangerous message to foreign governments that don’t “favor” America’s best interests, Russia, Iran, China and North Korea. NATO’s failure to do anything when Assad used the chemical weapons the first time was a crime and who could expect anything less after the latest attack. NATO’s vote, which included France, not to allow Israel to protect from Palestinians’ aggression was a farce and potentially murderous, given time. NATO’s failure to do anything when Assad used the chemical weapons the first time was a crime and who could expect anything less after the latest attack. The list goes on and on! What kind of message do you think the evil quad was getting from NATO and how different would Europe have been if the League of Nations had stood up to Hitler’s Germany?
No, me thinks that Marine Le Pen could learn something from PDT’s latest political homerun. Maybe she can keep from losing the French election to one of her socialist/progressive opponents and end up being a great leader of her beloved France.
(Disclosure: All of my ancestors, except for my full blooded native Iroquois great-grandparents were of French decent, via Canada, so I am not anti-France. I just think that they’ve become, how can I say this, snowflake-ish. I am, however, anti-bully and feel that the only way to deal with them, after 1 stern warning, is an aggressive, message filled ass-kicking, regardless of the outcome. FEAR: better out than in I always say!)
Larry, you notice to whom this article is referring, and there are lots more of these types of articles – DJT and MLP. The trend is in place for the 99% to express their outrage for the old way of doing government. And that is so important going forward, and unfortunately it’s something we have to go thru to get “change”. Of course, we don’t know what the change will look like, but it’s on the way. The general point here is this is super bullish for gold. This is the type of (fundamental) thing which gives me confidence in a secular gold bull market. All that other crap like QE, Chinese SDR, Islamic gold – that’s all hype and all noise. Virtually no one is bringing this up for gold, which is another reason I believe in it.
And you have quite an ethnic background there.
We have another argumentum ad passiones in office.
Good term David.
Scott,
I agree with you 100% that the change is a comin’ and it will be positive for gold. How good it will be for us, remains to be seen. My feeling is it won’t be. Whether Trump is the one to get us through to the other side, intact, remains to be seen. History is filled with “lesser men” or “failures” “or “outsiders” who have delivered big when called on (William T. Sherman). All I know is that I feel that we have a better chance with the unproven newby, that by some miracle has become President, than we did with the proven liar, thief and p.o.s. political whore we’ve come to know and despise. Sometimes, the fear of the unknown can be a welcome relief and invigorating!