Guest Cerebus Report post Posted October 7, 2004 Scotsman: Saddam and the French Connection FRASER NELSON, FRASER NELSON AND JAMES KIRKUP SADDAM HUSSEIN believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night. Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war. But the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which returned its full report last night, said Saddam was telling the truth when he denied on the eve of war that he had any weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He had not built any since 1992. The ISG, who confirmed last autumn that they had found no WMD, last night presented detailed findings from interviews with Iraqi officials and documents laying out his plans to bribe foreign businessmen and politicians. Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the "guiding theme" of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible." Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one. To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers. Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights. Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," it said, including two of his "counsellors" and spokesman for his re-election campaign. They even assessed the chances for "supporting one of the candidates in an upcoming French presidential election." Chirac is not mentioned by name. A memo sent to Saddam dated in May last year from his intelligence corps said they met with a "French parliamentarian" who "assured Iraq that France would use its veto in the UN Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq." Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, last night said again that he was wrong to suggest Saddam had WMD - but asked the British public to accept that Iraq would probably have acquired such weapons if he had not acted. However, the ISG uncovered millions of pages of documents and, after interviewing scores of captured Iraqis - including Mr Aziz - the report lays out what it says is were plans to end the United Nations sanctions then start to acquire weapons. Saddam, it says, even fooled his own military chiefs into believing that he had WMD. This was designed to deter uprising from rebel Iraqis, on whom he deployed mustard gas in 1988, and aggressors in the Middle East. Speaking during his trip to Ethiopia last night, the Prime Minister referred to his speech last week where he admitted being "wrong" in the main part of his case for war but right to see a gathering threat in Iraq. "Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren’t working," he said. But wait! There's more! Saddam Hussein bribed senior politicians and businessmen around the world to secure an early lifting of sanctions, according to the Iraq Survey Report. Flights & Hotels Focusing his attention in particular on France and Russia, both permanent members of the UN Security Council, Saddam awarded oil exploration contracts and financial inducements to individuals. The bribes were at first funded by the Iraqi government, but later derived from Saddam's illegal misuse of the oil-for-food programme, which was supposed to provide food for the poor and medicine for the sick. Some US estimates have suggested that the Iraqis siphoned off $10 billion (£5.6 billion) from the scheme. ... Among those named were Benon Sevan, the former head of the UN's humanitarian programme; President Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia; the former French interior minister Charles Pasqua; and Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the founder of Russia's Liberal Democratic Party. The CIA's internet list appeared to have been edited to protect the identities of several firms and individuals from the US and other countries that supported the war. France and Russia pressed for the lifting of UN sanctions from the mid-1990s. Gee I wonder why? Oh wait they gave us Lady Liberty 200 years ago. I guess that means I shouldn't question their patriotism. Silly me. Edit: Links via Instapundit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted October 7, 2004 If true, at least the French didn't invade Iraq to get the oil and were prepared to wait and go via the proper channels! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted October 7, 2004 If true, at least the French didn't invade Iraq to get the oil and were prepared to wait and go via the proper channels! Cuz that oil is pumpin' in right now. I paid 50 cents for my Gas recently. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 7, 2004 If true, at least the French didn't invade Iraq to get the oil and were prepared to wait and go via the proper channels! Hmm, oddly enough, oil prices aren't, you know, lower. But, hell, nothing France can do is bad, right? The only thing we've learned is that Nazi collaboration was the rule, not the exception, for the cheese-eating surrender monkeys. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Golgo 13 0 Report post Posted October 7, 2004 If true, at least the French didn't invade Iraq to get the oil and were prepared to wait and go via the proper channels! No, they only accepted bribes and promises of oil in return for voting down war. Such angels those French are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skywarp! 0 Report post Posted October 7, 2004 Can that 1st article be credited to something other than the Scotsman? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 7, 2004 I know -- but at least now I have my WTF moment for the week... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest GreatOne Report post Posted October 7, 2004 If true, at least the French didn't invade Iraq to get the oil and were prepared to wait and go via the proper channels! What is your major malfunction, numbnuts????????? (Starts humming 'Cover you in oil' by AC/DC...................) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted October 7, 2004 If true, at least the French didn't invade Iraq to get the oil and were prepared to wait and go via the proper channels! No, they only sided with an enemy of a member of NATO, of which ironically enough France is a member, for reasons that escape me. Hmm, oddly enough, oil prices aren't, you know, lower. I doubt they'd ever drastically reduce the price at the pumps no matter how cheap it was by the barrel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted October 7, 2004 Can that 1st article be credited to something other than the Scotsman? I also had the Telegraph, but here's the Guardian. Ironically, not much of a mention about the French in the NY Times article. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndrewTS 0 Report post Posted October 7, 2004 Can that 1st article be credited to something other than the Scotsman? I also had the Telegraph, but here's the Guardian. Oooo, the Guardian. There's a credible source. Whether or not this is true, it's quite hilarious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hogan Made Wrestling 0 Report post Posted October 7, 2004 Can that 1st article be credited to something other than the Scotsman? I also had the Telegraph, but here's the Guardian. Oooo, the Guardian. There's a credible source. Whether or not this is true, it's quite hilarious. Uh, it's one of the most credible newspapers in the world. Just because you don't like their editorial page doesn't make their journalism shoddy. There's only three good newspapers in England: the Guardian (liberal), the Times (conservative), and the Independent (who actually live up to their name). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hogan Made Wrestling 0 Report post Posted October 7, 2004 Oh wait they gave us Lady Liberty 200 years ago. I guess that means I shouldn't question their patriotism. Silly me. What the hell does patriotism have to do with it? Or are you just using this as a typical buzzword? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 7, 2004 Oh wait they gave us Lady Liberty 200 years ago. I guess that means I shouldn't question their patriotism. Silly me. What the hell does patriotism have to do with it? Or are you just using this as a typical buzzword? He probably meant to say questioning their being an ally. France is the saddest thing in the world: A wannabe hegemon. If they had power, they'd be conquering countries left and right. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted October 7, 2004 Maybe patriotism was not the right word. But I used it. Sue me. This was taken directly from Duefler's report (which has yet to see distribution via the internet so I havn't got my hands on it yet) so I would assume its easy to verify. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 7, 2004 Maybe patriotism was not the right word. But I used it. Sue me. This was taken directly from Duefler's report (which has yet to see distribution via the internet so I havn't got my hands on it yet) so I would assume its easy to verify. One blog I saw gave Bush a great idea: Get copies of the report and give them out to the audience at the "debate", saying that Kerry won't reveal what the report says and that you should make up your own mind. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted October 7, 2004 It IS 1,500 pages long. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 7, 2004 It IS 1,500 pages long. I'm aware of that. HOWEVER, is the press covering it in even REMOTELY a fair manner? Have Bush pay for it and offer it to anybody in the audience who wants to make up their own mind. If nothing else, it'll show that Bush has nothing to hide. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted October 7, 2004 It IS 1,500 pages long. I'm aware of that. HOWEVER, is the press covering it in even REMOTELY a fair manner? Have Bush pay for it and offer it to anybody in the audience who wants to make up their own mind. If nothing else, it'll show that Bush has nothing to hide. -=Mike Since I havn't read it I can't say. However, there were big differences in the WaPo's treatment of it and the NYTimes treatment (anyone surprised?). The Times didn't even mention the France thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndrewTS 0 Report post Posted October 7, 2004 Can that 1st article be credited to something other than the Scotsman? I also had the Telegraph, but here's the Guardian. Oooo, the Guardian. There's a credible source. Whether or not this is true, it's quite hilarious. Uh, it's one of the most credible newspapers in the world. Just because you don't like their editorial page doesn't make their journalism shoddy. There's only three good newspapers in England: the Guardian (liberal), the Times (conservative), and the Independent (who actually live up to their name). If so, "my bad." I'd gleaned that opinion from the impressions about the British press in general, and one particularly laughable experience with their website. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hogan Made Wrestling 0 Report post Posted October 7, 2004 If so, "my bad." I'd gleaned that opinion from the impressions about the British press in general, and one particularly laughable experience with their website. The Guardian's website sucks. And your point about the British press is well-taken, since every paper other than the three I named is a tabloid piece of crap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
