Back-Stabbing Surrender Monkeys

I haven't wanted, or needed, to interrupt you since your return JK (welcome back!) but here's a topic that MUST be raised. (And if there's no discussion on it then I'll be convinced of the apathy of our audience.)

Remember the pre-war U.N. negotiations aimed at holding Saddam accountable to U.N. resolutions? Of course you do, since anti-administration voices continue to cite the failure to assemble a "legitimate" international coalition, and the "lies" that Bush and Powell told the U.N. and the world about Iraqi WMD. Well, here is (some of) the REST of the story.

Kenneth Timmerman reports (this entire interview is a very interesting read) in his new book 'The French Betrayal of America,' that France's Chirac personally assured the President that if and when it came time for military action, France "would be with" us in the U.N. and in Iraq, even going to the trouble of sending a top French General to CENTCOM in Tampa to coordinate France's role in the coalition. The problem is that Chirac never had any intention of following through.

NRO: Did Chirac actually lie to President Bush before the Iraq war?

Timmerman: Yes, and this is why the president and Secretary of State Powell were so taken aback when foreign minister Dominique de Villepin pulled the rug out from under United Nations negotiations on January 20, 2003, by announcing, apparently out of the blue, that France would never ever agree to using force against Saddam Hussein.

Bush tried to hold France accountable for this stab in the back by denying France any chance at U.S. taxpayer financed rebuilding contracts. The carping was loud and shameless. No wonder France would prefer Kerry over Bush - they need someone NEW to lie to, and Kerry has the added bonus of being unlikely to hold France accountable at ALL for their treachery.

ADDITIONALLY- In my original post I neglected to mention the REASON for Chirac's lie. Namely, that the economic existence of France's corrupt, second-hand socialist government was at stake.

NRO: How close was the relationship between Saddam and Chirac?

Timmerman: Like lips and teeth.

NRO: You say in your new book that the Iraq war was, in fact, all about oil.

Timmerman: The war in Iraq was indeed a war for oil — waged by the French, not the United States. The Chirac government was desperate to maintain its exclusive — and outrageously exploitative — oil contracts with Saddam's regime, which would have earned the French an estimated $100 billion during the first seven years of operations, according to experts I interviewed for my book.

NRO: What are French motivations when dealing with these regimes — purely economic?

Timmerman: Contracts are certainly very important. Americans need to remember that France is not a free-market economy, as we still are (despite the efforts of Hillary Rodham Clinton to nationalize the U.S. health-care industry!). When French businessmen go abroad, they often travel in delegations led by the prime minister, or the foreign minister, or some other top official. The French government gets involved not just in opening doors, but in negotiating contracts. Often, these contracts have involved substantial kickbacks to French political parties. Even today, French companies can declare as an expense on their income-tax declaration the bribes and commissions they pay to foreign agents. This was banned in the United States in the 1970s under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This is one of the reasons the French like to do business with dictators. In a free and fair market, their companies can't always compete.

"Blood for oil." "Corporate welfare." "Close ties between the President and 'Big Oil.'" These are the very accusations the ABB crowd makes against America's president, yet they ignore actual proof of those very things in the government of France that they hold so dear. Does everybody still want America to be more like Europe?

Posted by JohnGalt at April 19, 2004 06:09 PM