France briefed Iraq on war: report
April 27, 2003

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 US President George W Bush.

Chirac was said to have been told that the US was "100 per cent
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".

Agence France-Presse

FranceExposed wrote:

    > 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.


Frankly, no court would accept as proof "files found in the wreckage"
whose history and the way they get to the courtroom are not properly
documented.

--
Luca Logi - Firenze - Italy e-mail: [email protected]

In article ,
[email protected] (Luca Logi) wrote:

    > FranceExposed wrote:
    >
    > > 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.
    >
    >
    > Frankly, no court would accept as proof "files found in the wreckage"
    > whose history and the way they get to the courtroom are not properly
    > documented.

OK, How bout if the former Iraq Foreign Minister testifies to it?

Withstanding that, this is not going to go over well at all in the court
of public opinion.

jay
Sun, Apr 27, 2003
mailto:[email protected]

--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 14:41:35 +0200, [email protected] (Luca Logi) wrote:

    >FranceExposed wrote:
    >> 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.
    >Frankly, no court would accept as proof "files found in the wreckage"
    >whose history and the way they get to the courtroom are not properly
    >documented.

Of course not...

But this is really just starting to show the real reason France
didn't want America to topple Saddam.

France is not a friend of the United States.

Looks like one more thread to add to my killfile.

"Go Fig" a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...

    > Withstanding that, this is not going to go
    > over well at all in the court of public opinion.

That's why we have courts of law.

"FranceExposed" a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...

    > But this is really just starting to show the
    > real reason France didn't want America to topple Saddam.

Now if only we could discover the real reason why President Bush wanted to
topple him.

nothing more interessant to do today?
flowers, birds, kids, pets, bicycle, love, etc etc etc

ceci dit j'aime les USA malgré tout

na!

In article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

    > "FranceExposed" a écrit dans le message de news:
    > [email protected]...
    >
    > > But this is really just starting to show the
    > > real reason France didn't want America to topple Saddam.
    >
    > Now if only we could discover the real reason why President Bush wanted to
    > topple him.
    >
    >

or as Jon Stewart noted, we know that Saddam existed at some point
because we have those pictures of him shaking Rumsfeld's hand

In article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

    > "Go Fig" a écrit dans le message de news:
    > [email protected]...
    >
    > > Withstanding that, this is not going to go
    > > over well at all in the court of public opinion.
    >
    > That's why we have courts of law.
    >
    >

the US court of public opinion gives lie to the old saw 'you can't fool
all of the people all of the time' -- they don't need any stinking
evidence for believing whatever nonsense the administration spins out

[not it is -- well we didn't really think their were WMD -- we just
needed a reason to invade -- but we weren't LYING -- it was just a
matter of EMPHASIS]

In article ,
Jenn wrote:

    > In article ,
    > "Mxsmanic" wrote:
    >
    > > "Go Fig" a écrit dans le message de news:
    > > [email protected]...
    > >
    > > > Withstanding that, this is not going to go
    > > > over well at all in the court of public opinion.
    > >
    > > That's why we have courts of law.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > the US court of public opinion gives lie to the old saw 'you can't fool
    > all of the people all of the time' -- they don't need any stinking
    > evidence for believing whatever nonsense the administration spins out

Clearly this does not apply to the case in point; it is not the
administration on this one, it is the UK media; The Telegraph. They
also physically have evidence in hand... but don't let that 'fool' you.

jay
Sun, Apr 27, 2003
mailto:[email protected]



    >
    > [not it is -- well we didn't really think their were WMD -- we just
    > needed a reason to invade -- but we weren't LYING -- it was just a
    > matter of EMPHASIS]

--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 14:52:38 +0000, Jenn wrote:

    > In article ,
    > "Mxsmanic" wrote:
    >
    >> "Go Fig" a écrit dans le message de news:
    >> [email protected]...
    >>
    >> > Withstanding that, this is not going to go
    >> > over well at all in the court of public opinion.
    >>
    >> That's why we have courts of law.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > the US court of public opinion gives lie to the old saw 'you can't fool
    > all of the people all of the time' -- they don't need any stinking
    > evidence for believing whatever nonsense the administration spins out

Don't be so negative. Current scenario still belong in the realm of "some
of the time."


    > [not it is -- well we didn't really think their were WMD -- we just
    > needed a reason to invade -- but we weren't LYING -- it was just a
    > matter of EMPHASIS]

Go Fig wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > In article ,
    > Jenn wrote:
    > > In article ,
    > > "Mxsmanic" wrote:
    > >
    > > > "Go Fig" a écrit dans le message de news:
    > > > [email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > > Withstanding that, this is not going to go
    > > > > over well at all in the court of public opinion.
    > > >
    > > > That's why we have courts of law.
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > > the US court of public opinion gives lie to the old saw 'you can't fool
    > > all of the people all of the time' -- they don't need any stinking
    > > evidence for believing whatever nonsense the administration spins out
    > Clearly this does not apply to the case in point; it is not the
    > administration on this one, it is the UK media; The Telegraph. They
    > also physically have evidence in hand... but don't let that 'fool' you.

Jay, when will you learn that one newspaper report does not instantly make
it a fact? You have been wrong before, remember.
---
DFM

In article ,
"Deep Floyd Mars" wrote:

    > Go Fig wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > In article ,
    > > Jenn wrote:
    > >
    > > > In article ,
    > > > "Mxsmanic" wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > "Go Fig" a écrit dans le message de news:
    > > > > [email protected]...
    > > > >
    > > > > > Withstanding that, this is not going to go
    > > > > > over well at all in the court of public opinion.
    > > > >
    > > > > That's why we have courts of law.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > the US court of public opinion gives lie to the old saw 'you can't fool
    > > > all of the people all of the time' -- they don't need any stinking
    > > > evidence for believing whatever nonsense the administration spins out
    > >
    > > Clearly this does not apply to the case in point; it is not the
    > > administration on this one, it is the UK media; The Telegraph. They
    > > also physically have evidence in hand... but don't let that 'fool' you.
    > >
    >
    > Jay, when will you learn that one newspaper report does not instantly make
    > it a fact?


I didn't represent it as a fact, but perception may very well be reality.

    > You have been wrong before, remember.

No, I don't. Please show me the article or source that proves your point.

jay
Sun, Apr 27, 2003
mailto:[email protected]


    > ---
    > DFM
    >

--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

Go Fig wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > In article ,
    > "Deep Floyd Mars" wrote:
    > > Go Fig wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > In article ,
    > > > Jenn wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > In article ,
    > > > > "Mxsmanic" wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > "Go Fig" a écrit dans le message de news:
    > > > > > [email protected]...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > Withstanding that, this is not going to go
    > > > > > > over well at all in the court of public opinion.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > That's why we have courts of law.
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > the US court of public opinion gives lie to the old saw 'you can't
fool
    > > > > all of the people all of the time' -- they don't need any stinking
    > > > > evidence for believing whatever nonsense the administration spins
out
    > > >
    > > > Clearly this does not apply to the case in point; it is not the
    > > > administration on this one, it is the UK media; The Telegraph. They
    > > > also physically have evidence in hand... but don't let that 'fool'
you.
    > > >
    > >
    > > Jay, when will you learn that one newspaper report does not instantly
make
    > > it a fact?
    > I didn't represent it as a fact, but perception may very well be reality.
    > > You have been wrong before, remember.
    > No, I don't. Please show me the article or source that proves your point.

My pleasure:
http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Mi...tcher++group:r
ec.travel.europe+author:Go+author:Fig

Feel free to read the rest of the thread to remind yourself. Also note all
your awkward squirming that follows.
---
DFM