America rejects Chirac's claim that Saddam is no threat

The Daily Telegraph ^ | February 17, 2003 | Toby Harnden

[MadIvan]

The United States rejected last night claims by President Jacques Chirac of France that Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the world and that war with Iraq would provoke a terrorist backlash.

As America and Britain prepared for an intense week of diplomacy to try to push through a second, stronger United Nations resolution M Chirac showed no sign of wanting to back down easily.

In an attempt to soothe American anger over his country's refusal to back military force, M Chirac suggested that "if we go through with the inspections the Americans will have won, since it would essentially be thanks to the pressure they exercised that Iraq was disarmed".

But there was no need to act swiftly. "Are there other weapons of mass destruction? That's probable. We have to find and destroy them. In its current situation, does Iraq - controlled and inspected as it is - pose a clear and present danger to the region? I don't believe so."

Condoleezza Rice, President George W Bush's national security adviser, said M Chirac's words in an interview with Time magazine played into the hands of Saddam and would not be tolerated by America and Britain.

"Continuing to talk about more time and more time and more time is simply going to relieve pressure on the Iraqis to do what they must do."

British and American diplomats spent the weekend drafting a second resolution to be considered by the Security Council and indicated that they might be prepared to wait for another report by Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, in a fortnight before forcing a vote.

But Bush administration sources said Friday's report by Mr Blix, which was a setback to the White House's case for war, would not delay the start of the now virtually inevitable conflict.

United States military sources said the moonless nights of early March represented the optimum start date. Miss Rice said neither last week's events at the UN nor the huge anti-war rallies across the world would affect American policy.

Senator John McCain, a strong supporter of Mr Bush's stance on Iraq, said the United States and Britain would propose a resolution this week that called for "definitive progress" on the "disarmament of Saddam".

He added: "If that's rejected, then I think the United States of America is going to have to make some difficult decisions."

M Chirac's suggestion of another report by Mr Blix in a month's time was brushed aside by Miss Rice. "March 14 is not a date from our point of view," she said. "This is the date the French have put out."

Again stating that war would take place within "weeks not months" if Saddam did not disarm voluntarily, she said in an interview with NBC television that delaying was not an option because "the uncertainty is unfair to states in the region". She added: "This will have to come to an end pretty soon."

M Chirac said conflict with Saddam would boost support for the likes of Osama bin Laden. "A war of this kind cannot help giving a big lift to terrorism. It would create a large number of little bin Ladens. Muslims and Christians have a lot to say to one another, but war isn't going to facilitate that dialogue."

Miss Rice was contemptuous of this argument. "It did not take potential conflict with Iraq for al-Qa'eda to carry out 9/11," she said.

[Happy2BMe]

Viva La France - French Military History in a Nutshell (Including *WAR ON TERRORISM*)

[RecentConvert]

"French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin boasted of a triumph in France's efforts to brake Washington's push for war after the French foreign minister won applause for his call for at least another month of inspections."

"France is giving peace a chance. France is giving hope to the world and all over the world people are looking to France ...," Raffarin told parliament."

The frogs are very delusional and fear their non-European enemy within.

[Kevin Curry]

Maybe Chirac and the French government are fighting this so hard because there are secrets to be uncovered in Iraq that they really don't want uncovered, something along the lines, say, of evidence of French assistance in a covert nuclear materials program. As long as the incompetent UN inspectors are in charge, the French know they have nothing to worry about. But let American forces take over the country, and all the ugly secrets will be laid bare for the whole world to see.

[daviddennis]

Perhaps best of all, it's the French state oil company that's the biggest recipient of the Iraqi largesse, so it's the French state, not private industry, that will suffer the most.

The French-Iraqi game works like this: The Iraqis have given France a contract that is incredibly lopsided towards the French. It has clauses allowing the Iraqis to change the terms if France doesn't support them in the UN.

Thus, the ultimate bribe, going straight to their pocketbook. I think the effect is pretty close to half-price oil for France, but only as long as they play ball.

(Dog Gone, if you have specific knowledge of the terms, let us know, since I just read a general account).

D

[section9]

Condi delivered a rather painful blow to the collective yarbles of the Frogs and the Hun.

She was wearing her pumps, too. Must have hurt.

Seriously, they've been told that the game is up. Today's American victory at NATO is the handwriting on the wall for the Frog insurgency.

As to the Hun? Who cares. That's a nation in search of a housepainter to follow.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[WOSG]

How about another Congressional Resolution declaring War? ... If Saddam is not fully totally disarmed by March 1, we declare war, UN or no.

or option B, just declare war and get it on.

Very simple.

[swaimh]

what about what france owes us? liberation in WWII? hundreds of thousands of troops and weapons in WWI?

maybe we shouldn't have liberated france in WWII, or pushed the Austro-German forces out in WWI. france has become a thorn in our sides.

but i have never heard more BS. iraq IS a threat. maybe not a direct threat to the United States, but a threat nonetheless. he can try to smuggle his current cache of chemical and/or biological weapons into our country. right now saddam's missiles can deliver a payload out into the mediterranean sea, around greece and crete. you also do not want to have him launching missiles agains israel. the US Navy's 5th fleet hq is in bahrain, well within his maximum striking distance. and at last count, hundreds of tons of rocket fuel were missing, along with several warheads modified to carry chemical and biological agents.

and the rest of the world says the United States is only doing this for oil?

[daviddennis]

If we wanted cheap oil, we would just support Saddam against his enemies in the region. He'd sell us all the cheap oil we wanted, just as he's doing for the French.

When we win the war, the price of Iraqi oil will go up because there won't be any favoritism-based oil deals anymore. So going to war with Iraq is the wrong thing to do entirely if cheap oil is a true aim.

Besides, oil is historically cheap now anyway, because the Saudis and Kuwaitis don't want us to speed development of alternatives. If oil prices increase substantially and stay up, our car makers and oil companies will dump zillions into fuel cells and the like.

The left seems to have a tough time with a pricipled stand.

D

[swaimh]

and another thing:

how come it's ok for the United States to flex it's military muscle when it benefits other countries, but not when it benefits our own?

the United States is always the first country on the scene in the event of a natural disaster. we're always in the line of fire for someone else's cause. and even then, after all is said and done, we get blamed for every screw up? why do we put up with this crap?

we were attacked maliciously and without provocation on September 11th, and we have a right to defend ourselves from any enemy or any threat to our own security.

[dfwgator]

Oh, yes, France has a huge Algerian problem. That's the source of much of the anti-Semitism in France.

There is enough anti-Semitism among the native French people, even before adding in the Algerians.

[AmishDude]

There is plenty of anti-Semitism among the native French, it's true, but if you're looking for suspects in a synagogue attack in Paris chances are that Arabic is their first language.

[George W. Bush]

And why are we risking the safety of our troups while putting up with this UN charade.

Patience, patience. We're not really waiting for the U.N. anyway. But if it makes the deal easier for Blair and our other allies who face stiff domestic opposition, it would be better to have a U.N. resolution. If nothing else, just to jab it in France's eye again, a lesson worth repeating publicly every so many years.

We're actually not quite ready for action yet anyway. The 101^st is just getting there and getting set up. British SAS and our special forces are still reconnoitering inside Iraq. We have to organize resistance, keep flying our propaganda radio station planes, wait a few more days to see if Saddam will flee in the face of certain invasion and let the message sink in to his conscripts that all they need to do is surrender to us. We really don't want to kill his poor conscripts and, if Saddam is driven out, the domestic population will probably take care of killing off what remains of the Republican Guard unless they flee. We want Saddam gone or dead and the country as intact as possible so we don't have to pay to rebuild it. So a little patience is needed. But not because of the U.N.'s opinions about anything but because it's in our interest to proceed smoothly and only when the stage is fully set. It's not like we're going to lose the element of surprise here.

[timestax]

bttt

[dennisw]

bttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

[George W. Bush]

The French-Iraqi game works like this: The Iraqis have given France a contract that is incredibly lopsided towards the French. It has clauses allowing the Iraqis to change the terms if France doesn't support them in the UN.

I'd like to see more info on this clause. It would make France in Saddam's U.N. handpuppet. I'd definitely like to read more about it.

[Bonaparte]

"France thinks they can back him down..."

The France is evens stupider than I thought. George Bush himself couldn't back Blair down on Iraq. The man is actually willing to be voted out of office over this. His committment to bringing Saddam down is absolute and non-negotiable. Anybody who can't see this is blind. The man has already burnt quite a few bridges with his own Labour party.

[George W. Bush]

"...France is giving hope to the world and all over the world people are looking to France ...,"

Stop it, you're killing me with this stuff. What a laugh riot to read their pathetic little statements after their "triumph" at the U.N. They sound like teenage girls at a slumber party.

[ggekko]

Christopher Hitchens has strongly implied that bribes have been flowing back to the Quai D'Orsay from Baghdad. Given the recent French oil company scandals it would not be surprising.

[Bonaparte]

"...to see if Saddam will flee in the face of certain invasion..."

IMO, Saddam can't flee. He has to stay in power or he's dead. There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who would gladly give up their lives to take him down hard. I wish I could find the quote, but I've actually heard him admit this.

[Bonaparte]

"...in search of a housepainter..."

LOL!

(But I think he was a paper-hanger.)