Chirac and Saddam

Gordon B · April-26th-2003, 09:50 PM

Dossier reveals France briefed Iraq on US plans
Matthew Campbell, Baghdad
France gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials, documents unearthed in the wreckage of the Iraqi foreign ministry have revealed

Above is the abstract of one of the lead stories in "The Sunday Times" of London. The article isn't accessible to overseas web users unless they are paid subscribers. Will somebody who can access the article be kind enough to paste it in?

Pete C · April-27th-2003, 09:23 AM

from Arab Times, Kuwait:

France briefed Iraq on US plans: report
LONDON, (AFP) - France gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with US officials, The Sunday Times reported, quoting files it had found in the wreckage of the Iraqi foreign ministry.

The conservative British weekly said the information kept Saddam abreast of every development in US planning and may have helped him to prepare for war.

One report warned of a US "attempt to involve Iraq with terrorism" as "cover for an attack on Iraq", according to The Sunday Times.

Another, dated September 25, 2001, from Naji Sabri, the Iraqi foreign minister, to Saddam's palace, was based on a briefing from the French ambassador in Baghdad and covered talks between presidents Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush.

Chirac was said to have been told that the US was "100 percent certain Osama bin Laden was behind the September 11 attacks and that the answer of the United States would be decisive".

The report also gave a detailed account of American attitudes towards Saddam amid anxiety in Iraq that the country might soon become a target of US reprisals.

"Information available to the French embassy in Washington suggests that there is no intention on the part of the Americans to attack Iraq, but that matters might change quickly," said one document from folders marked "France 2001" found by The Sunday Times.

Bernard Jenkin, defence spokesman for Britain's opposition Conservative Party, told the paper that the briefings went beyond diplomatic courtesies and pointed to French "duplicitousness".

France came in for sustained attack from Britain's tabloid press in the run-up to and during the Iraq war for opposing early military action against Saddam's regime, with the Sun newspaper notably labelling Chirac a "worm".

shrugs · April-27th-2003, 09:32 AM

Wasn't this part of the Oil for Intelligence deal?

Uli · April-27th-2003, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pete C
from Arab Times, Kuwait:

France briefed Iraq on US plans: report
LONDON, (AFP) - France gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with US officials, The Sunday Times reported, quoting files it had found in the wreckage of the Iraqi foreign ministry.

The conservative British weekly said the information kept Saddam abreast of every development in US planning and may have helped him to prepare for war.

One report warned of a US "attempt to involve Iraq with terrorism" as "cover for an attack on Iraq", according to The Sunday Times.

Another, dated September 25, 2001, from Naji Sabri, the Iraqi foreign minister, to Saddam's palace, was based on a briefing from the French ambassador in Baghdad and covered talks between presidents Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush.

Chirac was said to have been told that the US was "100 percent certain Osama bin Laden was behind the September 11 attacks and that the answer of the United States would be decisive".

The report also gave a detailed account of American attitudes towards Saddam amid anxiety in Iraq that the country might soon become a target of US reprisals.

"Information available to the French embassy in Washington suggests that there is no intention on the part of the Americans to attack Iraq, but that matters might change quickly," said one document from folders marked "France 2001" found by The Sunday Times.

Big deal. Saddam alreay knew all that form watching cnn.

mke · April-27th-2003, 10:47 AM

Personally, I never gave Chirac's administration any credit for their stance on Iraq. I hated them before, and in this instance their thinking is probably more linked to TotalFinaElf than to any nobler motive.

If these allegations are true, I find it odd that France would pass on such banal information to Saddam.

"the information kept Saddam abreast of every development in US planning and may have helped him to prepare for war"

Wasn't particularly helpful, now was it?

As for being accused of "duplicitousness", seeing as right-wingers like Scott Dolan have no problem with the US, or anyone else, spying on UN Security Council delegations, no accusations can be taken seriously.

shrugs · April-27th-2003, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mke

If these allegations are true, I find it odd that France would pass on such banal information to Saddam.

Remids me that most spies have given over some rather banal stuff to foreign countries. There have been significant cases like John Walker but a lot of them have involved useless and banal info.

Gordon B · April-27th-2003, 08:39 PM

"the information kept Saddam abreast of every development in US planning and may have helped him to prepare for war"

If true, then GWB can hardly be faulted for not getting the N3 countries to support the tabled Resolution that was almost put forth in March. The N3 countries were never going to authorize the use of force against Iraq under any conditions. There has been documentation uncovered that France, Russia, and Germany all tried to help Saddam against the US. All three likely violated UN sanctions against Iraq as well.

Chirac severely miscalculated.

Tom Storer · April-28th-2003, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gordon B
"the information kept Saddam abreast of every development in US planning and may have helped him to prepare for war"

If true, then GWB can hardly be faulted for not getting the N3 countries to support the tabled Resolution that was almost put forth in March. The N3 countries were never going to authorize the use of force against Iraq under any conditions. There has been documentation uncovered that France, Russia, and Germany all tried to help Saddam against the US. All three likely violated UN sanctions against Iraq as well.

Chirac severely miscalculated.

Who are the "N3 countries"?

What's the documentation about France, Russia and Germany "trying to help Saddam"?

How do we know they "likely violated UN sanctions against Iraq"? (Apart from the columns of William Safire, who likely snaps to attention and salutes when POTUS GWB comes on the tube...)

My point of view is that the countries opposing the war - France, at the very least - acted in favor of their own economic/political interests, and were no doubt, and unsurprisingly, cynical, underhanded cheaters. However, in my opinion, their position happened opportunistically to coincide with what I believe was the most reasonable, prudent and orderly one, i.e. reliance on international institutions rather than unilaterally decided pre-emptive warmaking.

I don't think it means much to say that the N3 countries, whichever ones those are, were "not going to authorize force against Iraq under any conditions" since the existing circumstances were widely known. In fact they were not going to authorize force against Iraq under the conditions that were current. If, say, to everyone's surprise Iraq had used a weapon of mass destruction against Israel or Kuwait, I hardly think even the N3 countries, whichever ones they are, would have objected to the use of force. Meanwhile, America was determined to use force under any circumstances, even the failure of UN inspectors to find any WMDs. One side stubbornly refused to give its stamp of approval to an unnecessary war, and the other waged an unnecessary war. I know which one of those courses of action I think is most blameworthy.

jesus marion joseph · April-28th-2003, 08:13 PM

Like you, Tom, I found myself supporting my position on the Iraqi war more becasue of an opportunistic crossing of paths than for a wholehearted belief in the stated rationale; it's just that I didn't see the war as unnecessary, since Saddam simply *had* to go, and it was clear that he wasn't going to exit gracefully, or even of his own accord.

shrugs · April-28th-2003, 08:38 PM

Elie Wiesel said something similar at the CT Forum a month ago. Normally he would not be for war, but he also is not for indifference.

April-28th-2003, 10:40 PM

"seeing as right-wingers like Scott Dolan have no problem with the US, or anyone else, spying on UN Security Council delegations, no accusations can be taken seriously." - MKE

No, of course not, only what the left wingers say..............

And of course the U.S. are the ONLY ones who employ spies........

If this article hadn't cast France in such an unfavorable light, everybody here would be cheering...........

walto · April-28th-2003, 10:52 PM

"...since Saddam simply *had* to go"

One man's "He simply *HAD* to" is another man's "I think it would be a really good thing if he would."

Gordon B · April-28th-2003, 10:56 PM

Tom, N3 stands for "Non", "Nyet" and "Nein."

Tom and JMJ, I would say that the typical war supporter, like the typical anti-war person, had more than one reason for his position.

The legal justification used by US and Britain was Saddam's refusal to comply with numerous UN SC resolutions.

Elie Weisel and Nat Hentoff supported the war solely to alleviate the human suffering caused by the police state run by Iraq.

Ken Pollack, in his influential "The Threatening Storm" supported the war because he thought that containment wasn't working anymore, detterence was too risky to practice with Saddam and that Saddam would acquire nuclear weapons within a few years. At that point he felt that Saddam would wipe out the Kurds and march back into Kuwait and bring about a much more costly war.

Some of the neo-cons were pro-war because they believe it's part of winning the war on terrorism. I am sure they are pleased by the recent evidence out of Iraq of strong Iraq-Al Qaeda links.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...aq_binladen_dc

Most pro-war people weren't 100% for any one reason . I'll let somebody else carry out this exercise for the anti-war side.

Contrary to Uli's opinion, France aiding and abetting a Stalinist regime by revealing confidential conversations with the US government and Russia providing arms and training for the same regime is more than 'no big deal.'

The report about France aiding Saddam was the subject of the thread. I still haven't seen the actual article.

France and Iraq were collaborating back in 2000 according to today's Telegraph article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../28/wfra28.xml

jesus marion joseph · April-29th-2003, 08:38 AM

One man's "He simply *HAD* to" is another man's "I think it would be a really good thing if he would."
[/B][/QUOTE]

Perhaps, but while some were wistfully standing by hoping he would decide to leave, Saddam was ignoring prior agreements, starving his own population, pocketing the money and food that were meant to be distributed to his subjects and, apparently, forging ties with terrorist groups whose agendae were decidedly not healthy for the US. I wish he had done the right thing, too, but it was becoming more and more apparent that he simply wasn't willing to and he could not be trusted. The handling may have been ham-fisted, but the result was (IMHO) the proper one.

mke · April-29th-2003, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
"seeing as right-wingers like Scott Dolan have no problem with the US, or anyone else, spying on UN Security Council delegations, no accusations can be taken seriously." - MKE

No, of course not, only what the left wingers say..............

And of course the U.S. are the ONLY ones who employ spies........

If this article hadn't cast France in such an unfavorable light, everybody here would be cheering...........

Are you reading Jazz Corner with your eyes closed in an exploding room? Please re-read the quote and compare it with your reply.

Gordon B says:
"Contrary to Uli's opinion, France aiding and abetting a Stalinist regime by revealing confidential conversations with the US government and Russia providing arms and training for the same regime is more than 'no big deal.'"

If the information in post #2 is sensitive and confidential, then so is my shoe size.

Thankfully, the US has never aided, abetted, supplied or trained a dictatorial regime! I hope that the US continues its campaign of cleaning up the world's problems and getting rid of evil dictators, as they have been doing so successfully for the last 50 years. If we're lucky, they'll be bombing the Elysée soon!

Re: N3
Why is Belgium not included in that list? Then it could be the N4.5: Non, Nein, Nyet, Non/Nee

Tom Storer · April-29th-2003, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph
Like you, Tom, I found myself supporting my position on the Iraqi war more becasue of an opportunistic crossing of paths than for a wholehearted belief in the stated rationale; it's just that I didn't see the war as unnecessary, since Saddam simply *had* to go, and it was clear that he wasn't going to exit gracefully, or even of his own accord.

JMJ, do you think the regimes of Syria, Myanmar, Cuba or Turkmenistan simply *have* to go? If so, do you support immediate US action to depose them by military force? If not, why not?

P.S. My own opposition to the war on Iraq was not based on an opportunistic crossing of paths; I believed in the rationale given by France for opposing the war. It's France whose use of that rationale was, I believe, opportunistic.

April-29th-2003, 06:18 PM

You know, now that I've given up my full time job of badgering libs, I've been looking for something to do. So I decided to check out the rest of this fine site, and to my pleasant surprise I've found out that some people actually talk about Jazz here. Is that amazing or what?! Does anybody else know about this? Dammitt, I'm always the last one to find out about these things.........

Hey Tom, whats wrong with Willie Safire? I thought his article the other day about Chirac and Putin using their little 'sanctions now!' game against the U.S. to be quite telling. Do you think he was lying?

Tom Storer · April-29th-2003, 06:55 PM

Scott, I gave up on Safire a good while ago. I concluded that, like many pundits of both right and left, he's got his line all traced out and no longer thinks about things very much, apart from spinning the facts one way or the other to support his bias. I dipped into a couple of his columns on France and Russia several months ago but couldn't take it. This is the same thing that had me fleeing the blogosphere soon after some of Gordon's posts led me to discover it: on both of the rather artificial "sides" of left and right, everybody was just spinning like mad, furiously trying to win points for their team rather than doing any honest soul- or mind-searching.

Safire has long been a real stickler on the right to privacy. He's written many columns about it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think he's dropped that theme, or at the very least sees no problem supporting the Bush administration despite the Patriot Act, which, if he were consistent, would have him apoplectic. Has he dropped that theme? Has he said anything against the Patriot Act or Ashcroft's assault on the Bill of Rights?

jesus marion joseph · April-29th-2003, 07:44 PM

Tom, I'm not aware of those countries you mentioned having flouted prior disarmament agreements they made with the US and/or the UN, or diverting funds from UN-sponsored sanctions programs to their own use, so I do not, at the present time, see that they *need* to go, but it sure would be nice if some of them went on their own (that's for you, Walter!) I seriously doubt that any of those nations, having seen the swift destruction of Iraq, would dare make themselves into the sort of instigator that Saddam was.

mke · April-30th-2003, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
You know, now that I've given up my full time job of badgering libs, I've been looking for something to do. So I decided to check out the rest of this fine site, and to my pleasant surprise I've found out that some people actually talk about Jazz here. Is that amazing or what?! Does anybody else know about this? Dammitt, I'm always the last one to find out about these things.........

Does that mean you'll be bringing back your Hamid avatar?