I found this story on Drudge and thought it'd be a good conversation piece. I have never liked the french government and always felt they had used some suspicious tactics and reasoning for not supporting the ouster of Saddam Hussein, but now the proof has been found.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20...94014-7323r.htm

Al-Mada claims they have the papers and names. Tsk tsk Chirac.

Letting millions suffer from murder, gassings, rape and torture just so you could subsidize your socialism is atrocious.

My questions to everyone here are:

What are the political ramifications of this mess in terms of American public opinion? How do you feel about the french now?

What should the consequences of the french action be in terms of the American government?

Personally I think they should have to make a public apology, be fined by the UN and have sanctions set on them for in-coming oil.

Why is it, in your opinion, the french people who are so quick to denounce American politics and show up in the millions to protest our President, don't seem to care about their own politics? I haven't seen anyone in france or in Hollywood for that matter (after all, they care so much for the lives of innocents) begin asking that Chirac be removed.

Not good for those who used French opposition as their stalking horse. These revelations, especially if the French don't do a major mea culpa with a lot of French politico's falling on their swords, are going to seriously prolong the current coolness of the American publics attitude towards the French.

Simple: if the hari-kari doesn't start within a week, the French ability to bid on Iraq reconstruction contracts is history. The US government will make a point of their duplicity at every opportunity, ESPECIALLY with our European allies who supported the war, and France's dreams of leading the EU will also be history, and its economic relationship with America will take a nasty long term hit.

I agree with the public apology, not with the UN fines. The UN's behavior has been just as crooked, why should the UN be rewarded? Whatever monetary punishment comes to pass should be awarded to the people of Iraq, they're the one's who were most harmed by this.

This has just hit, French corruption scandals historically take a while to build. If, in two or three weeks, the "French street" gives Chirac's government a pass on this, then it will be a LONGGGG time before the American public considers the French people honorable. That's an important point, because most Americans have been reserving most of their ire for Chirac & Co., giving the French people the benefit of the doubt. This is a crucial point in Franco-American relations, and the ball is completely in France's court.

As for Hollywood, most of them will simply retreat behind the screen that "what the French decide to do about this is their business, not ours." HollyLib's #1 priority will be distancing themselves and NOT drawing attention to it. Indignant anger merely serves to bring attention back to how foolish THEY look having pointed to the French as paragons of virtue for their "principled and moral stand against American oil-lust."

Hard to say what the reaction will be here. After all the story just broke today, and from the link you provided, there is scant information.

Let's see who knew what, before we start demanding Chirac's head. After all, he may have been going with the recommendations of officials that had been bribed, but did not know the bribery was taking place. It's hard to say at this time.

If the story is true, then everyone involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of whatever laws are available.

As far as my feelings towards the French go, it doesn't really change my attitude. There are still plenty of people here who disagreed with the war as well, and I think that we can all agree that it's doubtful that the entire French population was being bribed.

In terms of what the American government should do? Besides a strong condemnation from our government, I'm not sure there is much else we can do. We don't control the courts in France, Austria, Turkey, et.al. Punishment of officials in those countries will depend on their laws, not ours.

Depends on the validity. If true and up to the higher levels of the French government I feel we should take at look at some economic type penalties. I really have no strong feelings for much of old europe. They have done little of anything for the last hundred years except kill each other.

Who cares about the UN. Be a much better world with it disbanded. Or at the very least off our shores. So fines from them are worse than useless. Although probably mighty amusing to see their reaction.

Europeans have always been quich to trash us. Who cares they are history. The EU is going to be a disaster. Socialist country vs. socialist country. Never be successful. any place that has laws against people working voluntary overtime is doomed to fail.

I think that the majority of American people will go on hating the french just because they can, this will only serve to reinforce that hatred. Everyone is always looking for a reason to hate the French.

I personally like the French, and I really enjoyed visiting Paris and Versailles recently. You can't fault the French for being nationalistic because we are just as guilty with the recent spread of patriotism. You also can't fault them for being angry about American tourists... how many people in America get ticked when those darn foreigners don't speak English well?

You can't fault them for greed over oil money when our government is guilty of the same thing.



Why should the French be scolded for their selfish actions behind the scenes in the Iraqi war? Aren't we (Haliburton, etc) profiting far more from this war than the French ever did or could have hoped to? Not only that but we have conveniently installed a Democracy that will be friendly towards the US. That'll probably help in future oil price negotiations and contract work I'm sure.

Accusing the French of wrong doing is really the pot calling the kettle black. Let's accuse the French of financial motivations while our government is giving Haliburton no-bid contracts for rebuilding the Iraqi oil infrastructure and charging the Army in excess of $2 a gallon when you could literally sink a well next to the base and strike crude oil.



I'd like to remind you that protests were worldwide with several major demonstrations in several US cities (Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, LA, New York, Washington DC, Dallas to name a few) and in many foreign countries as well including the UK, France, Spain, Germany, Australia, et al... not just in France. The denouncement of this war was a fairly worldwide occurrence, including the countries of our allies.

To call for the removal of Chirac over this would be extremely hypocritical. I'll support the removal of Chirac for his greed over oil money as soon as Bush makes a public apology and steps down for his greed.

I wasnt aware that the US exported Oil to France. If not then its highly unlikely that the Worlds other Oil producers are going to impose sanctions because the US tells them to

I didn't say anything about what will happen, nor come remotely close about what was likely to happen. I just stated my opinion.

I'm an American. I don't expect the rest of the world to do what we tell them, nor do I expect the US to do anything that they tell us to do.

The "Top Officials" in the body of the report do not amount to evidence that "Saddam Bribed Chirac" as the headline states.

Plus, wev'e had apparently authentic papers come out of Iraq before, including ones that "proved" Iraq had bought uranium ore from Niger, which, on investigation, proved to be fake.

So rather than just assume this is correct information because it conforms our prejudices, let's wait and see, shall we?

The right gets sniffy enough when opponents take as gospel every new report on the absence of WMDs or the confecting and selectivity of intelligence that was used to justify the US-led Iraqi invasion. Maybe it's time they should begin practising what they preach, and give the French government the benefit of the doubt until their guilt is proven.

Wasnt Iraq still under oil for food sanctions before US invasion?



Hmmn, sort of a non-response to a potentially inflammitory allegation, you would have thought we'd jump all over this.

From reading the article it is uncertain whether the bribes/papers were just 'offered' or were they 'accepted' and carried out. To me there was a small window of time to cary out any potential bribes.

Ill await further details.

For me, I will wait and see what all this will do. But I agree with the Iraqi ruling council, an investigation that they conduct on their own needs to be done and it is wise for the time that the administration does not comment or get involved openly. The last thing the administration needs to do is start pointing a finger over an accusation, better to walk the high road on this one for now.

True. But where there's smoke there's fire.

For instance, there's no evidence of France brokering sales of rocket propellant base to Iraq.... or is there?

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/iraqwar/s...,178490,00.html

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/chinsese.htm

Anyone smell croissants burning?

I say the UN should get their teeth back and level serious punishment on France for such actions. As for what I think of them... nothing has been right since De Gaulle left. I still wanna see Paris though...

THe political ramifacations would be that there will be no trust in the UN seeing as some of those included in the list in the link have voting rights in the Security Council and other committees. As for the French, since this war began and before, i had a negative opinion against France and now i have a hatred towards France because it betrayed the UN Security Council and violated sanctions



Bush should see to it that France get socked with heavy economic penalties plus whatever the consequence is for violating UN sanctions



Because Chirac has obviously encouraged the protests against Bush and the people of France don't seem to pay attention to the fact that something dirty is going on under their noses.

The French are an emasculated people. Seems they don't even believe in God anymore. Their decaying old guard government has nothing new or interesting to offer the world. Their colonial wreckage is strewn all over the world from Vietnam to Algeria. Chirac and his crowd must accept that they are a third rate power, even the newly deomcratic eastern european countries look to the US for examples not France or Germany. I think it is a perfect example of how socialism breeds mediocrity, stagnation, incompetence.

I am not at all surprised by this story. Many of us suspected this form the very beginning and this explains the arrogance of Iraq to UN mandates. Why comply when you have a Security Council country in your pocket.

We should protest at the UN and try to get France tossed from the Security Council permanently. We should BAR France from any and all contracts in Iraq. This is the worst kind of betrayal.

Ditto. The UN has no validity if the country that help make the rules hep break them.

Hey J. Locke Well, considering the "conservative" media hasn't picked up on this story very extensively, public opinon will not change very much. I feel more justified in my anti-French sentiment, now that my [and others who have hated the French gov't before hating the French gov't was the thing to do] suspicions have been shown to be correct.I think that we should expose them to the international community, and harshly criticize this action. What else can we do?That, my friend, is because for some unexplainable reason, it can always be justifiable to take swipes at America, but it is unreasonable and childish to do the same to other countries.

CP

CP, I agree one hundred percent with HeatherRob and of course you. Why isn't this getting more coverage from the media???

BTW, what is that in your signature??? Libertarian in odd 4??? That had better be for lower offices! What are you doing voting outside party lines anyway? have you forgotten the doctrine of strength in numbers? Let the libs vote green, but you... tsk tsk.

I don't know if this story has any validity to it - I'll wait and see. But on the surface, the idea is pretty silly.

Anyone care to guess who Iraq's biggest trading partner was in 2001? Anyone? Who was buying 40% of Iraq's oil? It wasn't France. It was the US.

After 9/11/2001, who was the very first country in the world to stand up in the UN and say, today we are all Americans? France.

Heck, who supplied 90% of the gunpowder used in the Revolutionary war? France.

When the British surrendered at Yorktown, what nation's troops outnumbered Continentals in the field? France's.

What dastardry done in slimy bargains with nasty dictators like Hussein has been done with at least the same zeal by the US.

There may be some insight to what's happening here in the quote in my signature. Some people just don't feel safe unless there's someone to hate all the time.

I don't see what the France from over 200 years ago has to do anything with the France of now. It's great that you pointed out how they outnumbered the Continental forces at Yorktown (It only took them until the end of the war). And I won't even go into the fiasco that was WWII. De Gaulle was one of a few great frenchmen in that era.

You know why we bought oil from them? Because if we didn't (in theory), the Iraqi populace wouldn't starve to death. And at the same time, we're keeping our prices down, no thanks to our South American friends in OPEC. (Oil Producing and EXTORTING Countries) And it's not like we were selling them or buying anything from them ILLEGAL. Thats the whole point of this article. A French company was in the middle of a deal to sell Iraq banned missle components. And they are supposed to be one of the responsible ones in the Security Council.

And if you wanna bring 18th Century France into this, im sure the Marquis de Laffyette is turning in his grave as we speak.

Quark,

I can tell you that I don't believe you're taking the allegations serious enough. If this were America that had been bribed, the french and marxo-European factions around the world would be outraged.

That's why I support a full investigation, Don't you think at least that is in order, to say nothing about the french government's behavior in arguing war up until the hours of the war. Also, if I have singled out the french too much forgive me, that's where the focus of the story was. I also believe that the investigation should net in all of the accussed, especially church leaders and world leaders. Also, how come it is that you defend the french who now go against America on these issues because of their past favors to the US, yet you make no mention of the freeing of Iraq (present day) when mentioning how much we supposedly supproted Saddam's regime prior to all this. I think that what people do today is a lot more important than what they did yesterday.

A French company or the French government? There is a difference, you know.



But the claims still have to be investigated. All that the article says is that a governing council member "thinks the list is true". I wouldn't start calling for someone's blood before it's properly proven. You know, like how the War in Iraq happened, and WMDS still aren't found?

This article looks like a pretty weak attempt to discredit French sentiment over the war. Saddam Bribes Chirac? Was Chirac one of the names of the "top officials" on the list? Why not "Saddam bribes Chirac, Zhu Rongji, Thomas Klestil, et al"? Oh, that's right. France is the enemy because they didn't agree with the U.S

What are the political ramifications of this mess in terms of American public opinion?

If this information is valid, it will confirm the beliefs of those who detest the French. Why isn't there more media coverage available other than this article? I haven't seen or heard any follow-ups on this which is curious. Until more media attention is given to this issue, I doubt very many opinions about the French will be changed for the better or the worse.

How do you feel about the french now?

Why hate the French people? IMO, it's the leaders who can sometimes be a royal pain in the derriere. Although I was furious with Chirac (and the leaders of Germany and Russia) and always felt their strong opposition and unwillingness to negotiate an inch in the UN resolution with Iraq had ulterior motives in addition to moral motives. I might add...I wasn't so angry in their opposing the war with Iraq as I was in the ways they chose to deal with their opposition. My first reaction to their opposition was they had some business dealings with Iraq they didn't want exposed or to come to a screeching halt if Saddam were removed from power.



What should the consequences of the french action be in terms of the American government?

Publicly, our government is noncommittal and I agree with their decision. What degree of communications is being exchanged between our leaders and France and their reactions pertaining to this information is enough to make me wish I was a fly on the wall during some of those conversations. If the information in the subject article is true...I think there will be more behind the scenes dealings with Chirac than public. Time will tell.

It's a French company, but in the same wasy the that it's our government's responsibility to make sure that private companies aren't selling banned items like components for weapons, the same should be said for the French government. So either the right hand didn't know what the left was up to, which would make them inept, or they turned a blind eye, which would make them hippocrites. Either way, they are both liable.

What are the political ramifications of this mess in terms of American public opinion?

None whatsoever- the Americans that are looking for a scapegoat for thier guilt will continue to single out the french for thier opposition to the war. It would be nice if we held Haliburton and GW to the same standards though....


How do you feel about the french now?

I see this entire episode of French hating as the same thing the Nazis did with the jews around 1935- Blame them for something that so far we have no proof of- just a rumour at this time, casitigate them for somehow opposing us, and in this case, being morally superior (in this case, of opposing the Iraq war) and when someone else has been proven right, you want them to fall even harder. We are currently not holding GW or Haliburton to the same morals- I have never had a problem with a frenchman (well, not quite true, I once had a heated argument with a Tahitian that was technically french)- and most I have talked to find the American vehemence to thier opposition of GOVERMENT policy somewhat silly.

If this turns out to be true, then the company involved should be investigated and punished. I don't like corrupt French companies any more than I like corrupt American companies. What I don't trust without other sources verifying it, is Reverend Moon's Washington Times newspaper.

When and if this story is corroborated, I will happily contribute more.

Hmm...

Anti-war nations 'took bribes' before war began



Both articles are from January 28th. If you look at the WT article, it mentions chirac taking bribes in the title[what most people see] and has no evidence to back up those allegations. It could very well be true, but to say that was their only motive in opposing the war is laughable. Maybe they acted like a true democracy, and did what the French citizens wanted them to do?

And because of that wonderful record of help and coexistance between America and France, France is now off the hook...immune completely from public criticism for committing the same crimes that we are being accused and ridiculed for...I see how that works.

CP

I'm with niteguy on this one. When it comes to Iraq and any sort of paper-give it time, it will usually come out to be forged or contrived somehow. I remember that we had something like a four page thread with over 100 responses about the Danish finding weapons...only to find out that it wasn't true. I will reserve my judgement for when more critical sources are able to get their hands on these papers.

This whole nonsense of being anti-French begins when Wilson sold out the American Republic to become the lapdog of the British Empire (and there are many poor fools in the British Establishment who still think they're fighting the battle of Trafalgar - and indeed - still think that we Americans are yet there lapdogs - Bush was Blair's poodle NOT vice versa.)


For those utterly unfamilar with world history (And I know there are many Americans who think that the glory of Athens took place in Georgia) hating the French has always been a code for hating the Catholics......

Where does one begin???

Well despite all the chest-beating yoodles about boycotting French goods it has succeeded on a par with the Southern Baptist boycott of Disney. In fact, sales of luxury French goods went up in 2003.

It's interesting that you latch onto this bribery scandal --- I seem to remember that when Saddam first released his 12,000 page report to the UN security council about it's dealings in WMD the US sequestered it and censored it - for several 1000 pages --- before even allowing the non-permanent members of the Council to view it. Oddly enough, all the other permanent members (save John Bull) stood against
the Anglo-American imperative.

Weirdly enough we don't gone on about how much we hate the Germans, or the Russians or the Chinese??? Or the Mexicans (at least not in this thread) or the Chileans or the citizens of Cameroon - all of which were other security council nations that would have voted against that second resolution that our Great Leader had sworn to undertake (but then sulked away from)

If we're going to talk about the corrupting influence of bribery what about that interesting Halliburton case - the one in which they recently came clean and admitted that a $6mil+ bribe had gone down with some members of the Kuwati royals to guarantee some post invasion contracts.

Oh, yes, Halliburton was "honest" about it --- the only interesting thing was the deal and the bribe had taken place over two years ago - a full year before our Great Leader was forced (having exhausted all peaceful options) to invade.

I re-iterate - our leadership are pawns of the greater programme to bring the Frankenstein monster of the British Empire back to life - pawns may be an overstatement since many of them (all the Bushes included) are very flattered by the association)

To hate the French is to hate Catholics (hence the reason why every other obstructionist nation is "off the hook"

Bibles and Bullets, The White Man's Burden, The Great Game.......hmmmmm - pity no one ever reads Kipling - or even the half-American Winston Churchill anymore.........(This is not crazy - look at the history of the Ottoman Empre and the creation of the modern Middle East)


The past is never dead - it ain't even past - William Faulkner


"The Fools, The Fools, They've Left Us Our Fenian Dead" - Padraig Pearse

To hate the French is to hate Catholics

And yet we all like Poland - which is very catholic.

Odd that

maybe religion isn't that important anymore.


I admit that Britain and France have never been best of friends but to to suppose that determines American policy (and especially to imply an anti-Catholic agenda) seems unlikely.

Ya know, the odd part about that is...I'M A CATHOLIC...Blows that theory out of the water, I suppose. The reason that I hate the French gov't and those that buy into their crap [not ALL FRENCH PEOPLE] is justified. Which is made clear by the links that J. Locke supplied us with.

I'm glad you went on to add, at least not in this thread, because, I, for one, have voiced my dislike for Germany and Russia in other threads quite enthusiastically.

CP

46 indivduals, from 13 different places, Just how many corrupt Frenchmen are we talking about? 1? 3? 5?

It seems to me that you could probably find half a dozen such corrupt people in every nation on the security council.

And what evidence is there to show, or even suggest that this hand full of Frenchmen would be able to actually influence French government policy?

What are you talkin about Padraig? Catholicsm has nothing to do with this. You know why we hate France? Because they've gone behind our back and screwed us on more than one occasion, that's why. This is unlike, as Nikachu pointed out, the Poles who, have always come through when they've been called on, as they have in this war. Now if the Poles choose to disagree with us in the future, then more power to 'em. They've paid their dues and haven't resigned themselves to be the thorn in our side, mainly because France has taken up that spot already.

Wow, I thought I was a conspiracy theorist beacuse I think LBJ, the CIA, and the FBI were in on the Kennedy assassination and I listen to Coast to Coast AM with George Noory, but the idea that the USA is the lapdog of the British who are trying to re-establish the British Empire? That's nonsense. Bush made a judgement call on the intel he was given. So did Blair. Somehow I don't think any caotaoing was involved in the discussion of going to war between either of them.



Wow, that was the most suttle insult to Americans I've ever seen. But since I caught it, I guess it wasn't suttle enough. But it appears you need to practice what you preach.

First of all, the British had dozens of colonies all around the world. And by the 1960's they were reduced to a handful. If you honestly think that the people of any nation on this planet will subject themselves to the British Empire again or ever, all you need do is look at America first, then India, Yemen, and all the other countries who gained their independence from Britain one way or another. Also look at the French in Vietnam and Algiers.

Now as for the US history of hating Catholics.... the state of Maryland.... founded by CATHOLICS.... Boston, Massachusets. A major city comprising of an Irish CATHOLIC population. Los Angeles, California. A city with a large Hispanic CATHOLIC population. Westminster/Gargen Grove, California. An area with a large Vietnamese CATHOLIC population. Oh, where did they get that from? The French maybe? Oh, and a lot of folks like you seem to liken Bush to Vicente Fox the president of Mexico. A country which is primarily CATHOLIC. Never mind one of our nation's most respected (for his policies) presidents, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was CATHOLIC. So before you keep on with this theory on how the UK is waiting to regain its lost empire, and how Catholics will be burnt at the stake by us WAPS out here in the states, sit back and think for minute. If the war against Saddam was nearly impossible to sell and even harder to garner support for after the fact, what makes you think the re-conquest of the British Empire in the midst of a pandemic of anti-Catholicism will be any harder to accomplish?

Long story short. We dislike the French for their policy much in the way many other people from other countries hate our 'policy' and not us. Their policy of screwing us time after time.

What are the political ramifications of this mess in terms of American public opinion?

None whatsoever seeing as how no one seems to have heard the news, i think the American people would also need so verification before blindly excepting this as true (although there are many americans that are blinded by religion, political party, and of course hate).

How do you feel about the French now?

The same as i always have. this wont change how i feel about the french people even if it is true, if the French Government did take bribes its not like every Frenchmen got a cut of it.

What should the consequences of the french action be in terms of the American government?

We should try start an investigation and if this information turns out to be real then we should punish those responsible, if not then all of those here who spoke so negatively of the French will have a rough time building back their ego.

As we're elsewhere discussing the nature and purpose of debating rumor and innuendo at an otherwise reasonably credible political discussion board, I thought it might be a good time to revisit this fun little thread. I, too, was initially baffled that this story was not picked up elsewhere - until I did a bit of simple research.

I tend to read the Washington Times the way I would read the Weekly World News: until I see the love-child of Bat Boy and Jenna Bush reported in the pages of a reputable paper, I'm going to treat such stories as mildly entertaining fiction. If a Washington Times story is headlined in the Drudge Report, it's usually not only fiction, but slanderous fiction. This one is, apparently, no different.

Let's parse this whole thing:
Then, clearly, it would be happier in the Casual Conversation forum - at least, until we introduce a Rumor and Innuendo forum.


Uh, just as a reminder here:

proof, n.

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

2. a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions. b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.

3. a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability. b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.

5. Law. The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.

And here johnlocke links to his "proof": a Washington Times story! Okay, let's look at that story. It's headlined Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Chirac. Damning stuff - maybe even worthy of "a good conversation piece". Were there, of course, any proof. Is there? Well, let's see what the Weekly World - er, Washington Times has to say. In essence:
In eight paragraphs, that is the only mention of Chirac - well, apart from the headline. As to undermining the French position before the war, that would very much depend on exactly who these "top French officials" were, would it not? And does the good ol' Washington Times tell us? Yeah, right. They do tell us that the "independent" Baghdad newspaper al-Mada produced a list from Saddam Hussein's oil ministry which "cites a total of 46 individuals, companies and organizations" who were allegedly earmarked for bribes. Um, "individuals, companies and organizations" become "top French officials" how? By pure invention. And they are tied to Jacques Chirac how? Oh - well, it seems the Washington Times just made that part up, too.

Further, these "46 individuals, companies and organizations" include "officials in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Sudan, China, Austria and France, as well as the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian Communist Party, India's Congress Party and the Palestine Liberation Organization". That rather detracts a bit from the sensational headline, so it only appears in the final paragraph of the article. The rest of the article is devoted to "a senior Bush administration official [unnamed]" and "some European diplomats [unnamed]" and "one former ambassador [unnamed]" making various comments, none of which have anything to do with Chirac. The anonymous ex-ambassador, though, is quoted as saying "Oil runs thicker than blood". The Washington Times would, at least, know a lot about that.

johnlocke then goes on to insert his own editorializing on the innuendoes:
Interestingly, the article does not name any of these officials, French or otherwise - though such names were already available to the western press (see below). That doesn't stop jl from somehow implicating Chirac himself. Oh, right - he has his "proof".


Yes, well, I suppose it is a bit more admirable to send one's own sons and daughters off to be butchered while slaughtering thousands more of the victims of Hussein - in order to subsidize one's campaign contributors.

Anyway, let's look at the real story. In the interest of balance, I'll use another source of which I'm sure johnlocke would approve: Free Republic. Someone at that worthy organ actually published a translation of the al-Mada report.*

First, there are not only the nine countries (including France) which they decided to list, there are fifty-one countries listed - including Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Panama, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, and the Ukraine. If some of those names sound familiar, it's because they're all members of the "coalition of the willing". Oh, yeah - the United Kingdom is also on the list. And the United States of America. So, uh, the Washington Times could just as easily have headlined their article Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Blair or, gee, Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Bush. And I could be posting something like:
Of course, those headlines - like the headline they did go with - would be a lie. And my statement would be idiotic.

The al-Mada report also lists the names of the individuals cited. In fact there are not forty-six, but 261. There are 46 Russians on the list - perhaps some neo-con at the Washington Times, stuck in the Cold War, leaped on that figure. Or perhaps their reporter simply couldn't add. In any event, the half dozen Frenchmen named, people like Charles Pasqua and Michel Grima, are all associated with organizations like the Arab-French Friendship Society - and not a one of them could be construed as a "top official" having anything at all to do with Jacques Chirac. For what it's worth, the Americans mentioned don't seem to have anything to do with the Bush administration - and both are of Iraqi descent. The UK names, though, include Labour MP George Galloway who opposed the Iraqi invasion and has previously been accused of accepting bribes from Iraq - over which he sued the Daily Telegraph for libel (and won). That could be the real story here - if there is one. There has already been doubt cast on the authenticity of these papers...

All of the above took some middle-aged guy in Orlando about half an hour to research. What does the Washington Times pay their reporters to do? Oh, right: invent Francophobic propaganda - at least when they're not worshipping at the altar of Bush the Splendiferous. Anyway, back to Fantasyland. johnlocke's unbiased questions (and comments):

What are the political ramifications of this mess in terms of American public opinion?

None.

How do you feel about the french now?

The same as I did before I read this tripe. Though I feel considerably more contempt for the writers and editors of the Washington Times - and a bit more pity for its readers.

What should the consequences of the french action be in terms of the American government?

None.

Personally I think they should have to make a public apology, be fined by the UN and have sanctions set on them for in-coming oil.

Good for you. Dream on.

Why is it, in your opinion, the french people who are so quick to denounce American politics and show up in the millions to protest our President, don't seem to care about their own politics?

I don't know. Why is it, in your opinion, that American people are so quick to denounce others on the basis of the flimsiest slanders while ignoring the volumes of damning, factual data about their own leadership? Why, to coin a phrase, beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own?

I haven't seen anyone in france or in Hollywood for that matter (after all, they care so much for the lives of innocents) begin asking that Chirac be removed.

Curious, that. Maybe they read the news rather than the Drudge Report.

_________________________

*At least, I'm assuming it's the same report. It was from the January 25 edition of al-Mada - the Washington Times item, referring to the report, is from January 28. It is entitled "Presidents, Journalists, and Parties Received Millions of Oil Barrels From Saddam" and mentions lists from the Oil Marketing Company, "a public firm affiliated to the Ministry of Oil" which "include the names of individuals, companies, parties, groups, and organizations for which the former regime allocated quantities of crude oil" - including "the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Communist Party". Maybe they published two such reports within a matter of days, but it strikes me as being the same one. The Washington Times, typically, is short on details, so it's hard to say that this is absolutely the same story - especially as the Washington Times, typically, gets so much of it wrong.

I agree that hating the French has little to do with hating Catholicism. I believe that the main reason for this hatred though is the fact that America can't get her own way with France. America expects the whole world to bow to its influence and when a country decides to have its own opinion on matters America throws a tantrum. In my opinion, France and America (and yes even my beloved United Kingdom) have committed wrongs and both should be introspective instead of criticising other governments... all three should now be trying to find a way of getting rid of their present corrupt governments (Chirac, Bush and Blair respectively) and ushering in a new government that concerns itself with internal affairs and stengthening its bond with its (supposed) allies, instead of trying its hardest to offend the Muslims. (Well i think Britain is alright on that one).


I have never like the Bush regime and have always known that they have used suspicious tactics and reasoning to justify the invasion of Iraq whilst convincing the British government to follow them, but I'm beginning to change that opinion now that a ton of evidence for weapons of mass destruction have finally been found and... oh sorry they haven't been found have they!? That means that either the American media has been lying to the american citizens or you are so blinded by american patriotism and propaganda that you think that every decision that its government make is unquestionably the right one... You are so annoyed that the French might be right that you've gone into overdrive inventing facts to support your prejudice against them. To me, the American government is looking more and more like 1930s Nazi Germany everyday...

They should take their blooming Statue of Liberty back... (Sorry, I'm just a bit peeved off with you Americans at the moment! I'll be alright tomorrow)

Thats a pretty inflamatory opinion. Maybe you would like to open up a thread on the issue and we can debate it there. I would love to see the proof you have to back it up.

Nationalistic jingoism "we hate the french" (our counterpart of the Jew in this country now)- minority elected president under at the very least, controversial means, accusing those that do not lock step with the current regime "traitors and unpatriotic"- really, it is all there! Notice the distinction though between 1930s Nazism and 1940s in thier actions however. Death camps hadn't been set up yet