Speech from Majority Leader Tom DeLay

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
By the letter of the law, iraq was in violation. But by the letter of the law, our actions were NOT justified. There is one ruling body which has jurisdiction, and they decided that our actions were not warranted.

I see it differently. The UN gave that right with previous resolutions. They shouldn't have went along with them if they weren't going to have the backbone to stand by them.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Originally posted by SLClemens
There's absolutely nothing you mention in terms of Iraq's alleged violations that could not have been brought up in 2000. So why were these awful problems not debated in the 2000 elections?

Because the candidates then had more important issues to deal with. Bob Dole was pushing viagra and Clinton was busy proving he didn't need it.

More seriously:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/04/iraq.russia/

It appears I was wrong.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
Because the candidates then had more important issues to deal with. Bob Dole was pushing viagra and Clinton was busy proving he didn't need it.

 

[Aquarian]

legal-schmeagle, the war was legal under current international standards I think. But is it a 'just' war? and were ethical means used to garner support from the american populace? For those espousing that diplomatic means were not working, or working but not well enough, is the speedier resolution (arguably since we don't know how long we'll be over there but for discussion...) worth the number of american soldiers and iraqi dead? The amount of money spent dropping bombs? The amount of money fixing the gaping infrastructure holes left by those bombs and 12 years of sanctions? Very few things are truly black and white in my eyes, circumstances and details impact evaluations of any given situation.

edit: doh, took too long typing and bry said much the same...

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
If they were being destroyed by the U.N. they were clearly
there and clearly in breach. Else why would the U.N. bother?

They weren't being destroyed by the UN, they were being destroyed by Iraq at the request of the UN. Iraq claimed they could only exceed the range limits if they carried no payload. The UN insisted and Iraq destroyed them.

ibid
The argument was that the action of the United States was illegal because it was pre-emptive.It seems to me we've discovered that it was not.

I'm sorry XP, you've lost me on this one. The attack was pre-emptive, Bush stated as much in preparation for the invasion.

ibid
Why not have the UN draft a resolution?Because we preferred a working solution to lip service.The U.N. is an organization which will not enforce its own resolutions. What good is that?

It worked in Iraq for 10 years at 2 billion per year and 0 lives lost. We invade the country and find no evidence Hussein was able to re-arm in any way (and that was what the sanctions were put in place to prevent). Unflattering generalizations about the UN do not detract from the fact that appear to have successfuly dissarmed Iraq prior to our direct military intervention.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bry
Your business contracts may be black and white. Unfortunately (fortunately?) the Iraq war is not in their jurisdiction. When you're talking about going to war, when your talking about thousands of civilian casualties, destabilization, complete annhilation of the infrastructure of a popluation of many millions, and any number of other unforseeable disasters that can come about with a war, I should hope we would think with a bit of philosophy. By the letter of the law, iraq was in violation. But by the letter of the law, our actions were NOT justified. There is one ruling body which has jurisdiction, and they decided that our actions were not warranted.

Feel free to leave out piddling phrases like these. The scope of the real world is not exhausted by your business courts.

Good damn thing that the only ruling body I recognize is the United States. As far as I'm concerned to hell with the other "ruling bodies" out there. I, personally, don't give a rat's you know what about philosophy. You play, you pay. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. He who laughs last...etc. Pick your own trite expression. The fact is that we will win and my people will be safe. GAME OVER.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

It doesn't really matter who was physically destroying them.
What matters is that they were there. Their very existence
was a breach of the agreement.

As I said before, whether Bush's argument for the war was a good one or not is another matter.

Iraq was the nation that struck first by attacking Kuwait.
This is an attack in the war that it began, which is why
I do not think it can truly be classified as a pre-emptive
strike. Yes, it was a strike we used in order to protect
ourselves from future action by Iraq. But it was not
a strike made before Iraq committed its crimes.

We agreed to halt the war if it would abide by rules it did not
abide by. Therefore, we are under no obligation to keep the
peace.

Anyway. Let's not beat a dead horse, we've been through all this already.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand how you think the U.N.'s "solutions" were working.

Clearly, Iraq was not fully disarmed, or the U.N. would not have
had to order it to destroy the missiles that were there at the
time of our attack.

 

[Aquarian]

The fact is that we will win and my people will be safe. GAME OVER.

No one is safe until everyone stops killing for beliefs. Killing in self defense, ok. but beyond that it's just a vicious cycle. You do realize of course that our current activities appear to be swelling the ranks of terrorist groups which are much more of a threat to us than Iraq?

I admit that the UN has some problems, like putting syria on the human rights committee, but in essence it's an expansion of our own ideals of democratic (republic I should say but people still discuss it as spreading democracy, why is that?) rule.

 

[Bry]

Originally posted by Moi
Good damn thing that the only ruling body I recognize is the United States. As far as I'm concerned to hell with the other "ruling bodies" out there. I, personally, don't give a rat's you know what about philosophy. You play, you pay. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. He who laughs last...etc. Pick your own trite expression. The fact is that we will win and my people will be safe. GAME OVER.

I see you don't give a rat's you know what about philosophy. Good for you! And it seems fine and well to not recognize the authority of the UN. But but but we have been discussing the legality of the war, and I don't see how that can be done without reference to the ruling body presiding over international affairs. Without the UN, there is no question of legality. Perhaps this discussion just isn't up your alley.

You won't be surprised if I'm not convinced by your prediction of victory and security. It just doesn't square with the evidence. Game Over... isn't that what Bush said four or five months ago?

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
It doesn't really matter who was physically destroying them.
What matters is that they were there. Their very existence
was a breach of the agreement.

No, not really since Hussein was technicaly correct, with a full warload the range for the type of missiles we're discussing was less than the limits imposed.

ibid
Iraq was the nation that struck first by attacking Kuwait.
This is an attack in the war that it began, which is why
I do not think it can truly be classified as a pre-emptive
strike. Yes, it was a strike we used in order to protect
ourselves from future action by Iraq. But it was not
a strike made before Iraq committed its crimes.

You ever going to produce any evidence of these crimes? The only physical evidence you can point to some missiles the Iraqis were wrecking before the war. Did they constitute a violation? The fact they were being destroyed at the UNs' request pretty much takes them off the table as far as a grounds for war. We didn't need to invade to get rid of them, the Iraqis were doing it for us.

ibid
We agreed to halt the war if it would abide by rules it did not
abide by. Therefore, we are under no obligation to keep the
peace.

These were not grounds we chose for war. In fact they are not available to us as grounds since we never declared war on Iraq.(The UN did).

ibid
I'm afraid I don't quite understand how you think the U.N.'s "solutions" were working.Clearly, Iraq was not fully disarmed, or the U.N. would not have had to order it to destroy the missiles that were there at the time of our attack.

Your now arguing that the missiles that the UN ordered Iraq to destroyed (and Iraq complied)proves that the UN didn't have the power to disarm Iraq without our military assistance. Do you see how that is just flawed logic?

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

First of all, the UN itself declared that Iraq was in breach of that agreement.

http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/res-iraq-07mar03-en-rev.pdf

That should be enough for you, since you so greatly respect the UN.

The breach was there and recognized which invalidates the agreement.

In fact they are not available to us as grounds since we never declared war on Iraq.

I disagree. You need not be the one who declares a war to be
involved in the signing of the agreement. We either agreed
to a cease-fire or we did not. If we did not, we have no reason
to stop fighting. If we did and the agreement has been breached,
we have no reason to recognize it.

But I do believe that Iraq declared war on the United States sometime in 1990 or 1991.

Then there are the no fly zones, the anthrax threats in 1992,
and the assassination attempt on our president.

I said nothing about the U.N. lacking power.
It merely lacked the will to act until we started moving.

I think I'll cut this short, as I'm getting tired and should
be heading toward bed soon.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
First of all, the UN itself declared that Iraq was in breach of that agreement.That should be enough for you, since you so greatly respect the UN.The breach was there and recognized which invalidates the agreement.

The UN wanted inspections. They never agreed to anything else. They promised grave consequences if Iraq did not comply but in retrospect, you can't prove Iraq wasn't allready in compliance.

Ibid
I disagree. You need not be the one who declares a war to be involved in the signing of the agreement. We either agreed to a cease-fire or we did not. If we did not, we have no reasonto stop fighting. If we did and the agreement has been breached,we have no reason to recognize it.

Let's make this easy, cause I'm tired too. Find the declaration of war between the US and Iraq. If you can't find it, will you at least admit we entered Iraq in 91 as part of a UN coalition. The Cease fire was a UN instrument (the US never declared war on Iraq except as a member of the UN). The US cannot revoke it, regardless of what either the UN or Iraq does because the US didn't sign it, we aren't party to it (and as a result you can't use infractions of it, real or imagined, as grounds for a US war on Iraq.)

ibid
But I do believe that Iraq declared war on the United States sometime in 1990 or 1991.

You are entittled to your beleifs, of course, but you'd think if it were true, you could find some proof of it, wouldn't you?

ibid
Then there are the no fly zones, the anthrax threats in 1992,and the assassination attempt on our president.

Whatever we choose to make of these events, they weren't sufficient to spurr the US to war when they happened, they make a weak argument 10 years after the fact.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by dijetlo
The UN wanted inspections. They never agreed to anything else. They promised grave consequences if Iraq did not comply but in retrospect, you can't prove Iraq wasn't allready in compliance.

We didn't need to prove it, that obligation belonged to Iraq and Iraq alone as per the resolutions. And the UN DID IN FACT agree that Iraq was in material breach of it's obligations.

Dated Mar 7,2003
"Recalling that its reolution 1441 (2002), while deciding that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions"

"Noting, in that context, that in its resolution 1441(2002), The Council recalled that it repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"

"Noting that Iraq has submitted a declaration pursuant to its resolution 1441 containing false statements and omissions and has failed to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, that resolution."

They further went on to say that they had until March 17,2003 to cooperate fully and unconditionally or face serious consequences.

You can now continue debating whether their cooperation was "unconditional" and "full", but that's like saying Charles Manson cooperates fully with the parole board every few years. Sure, the murdering stops, at least until the facade is over and he isn't in front of them being inspected.

They never fully complied, which is why they started digging in and making preparations for war immediately after this UN declaration, because they had no intention of fully complying. What little they did do was part of their cat and mouse games. How many years were we supposed to play their games before expecting them to fully cooperate?

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
We didn't need to prove it, that obligation belonged to Iraq and Iraq alone as per the resolutions. And the UN DID IN FACT agree that Iraq was in material breach of it's obligations.

Jim, the UN never sanctioned an invasion of Iraq. As for the material breech, it resulted more from poor record keeping than a hidden weapons program. Iraq couldn't verify the destruction of all the materials it claimed to have destroyed. We turned that into our cause for war. You are incorrect when you claim we had no obligation to prove these chemicals still existed, since there posession was the stated reason for war.

ibid
Dated Mar 7,2003
"Recalling that its reolution 1441 (2002), while deciding that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions"...

Blix wanted to re-enter Iraq to verify this, and he got permssion from the UN and Iraq to do it, but the US blocked his return claiming the inspectors could become hostages when the US invaded. To bad your material breach turned out to be verification error and not an attempt to make WMDs' on the sly. The UN, to its credit, listened to its' inspectors instead of hysterical politicians, and never sanctioned an invasion. They only produced this UNSCR under extreme US pressure. The US had to twist some arms to get the line "serious consequences" in there, originaly we wanted a sanction for the use of force but the UN wouldn't it give it to us.
One of the problems engendered by this little adventure, jim, is that now Iran is going to build a nuke and the UN will do little to stop them. If they report Iran to the UNSC they fear the US will make Iran the next target for invasion.The member nations feel we used them as cover for our imperial ambitions in Iraq, and they are right. Now the bill for this kind of behavior is coming due, and part of the cost is loss of cooperation from the non-aligned block on our "global war on terror". Think we can win without them? Think again...

 

[jimnyc]

Jim, the UN never sanctioned an invasion of Iraq. As for the material breech, it resulted more from poor record keeping than a hidden weapons program. Iraq couldn't verify the destruction of all the materials it claimed to have destroyed. We turned that into our cause for war. You are incorrect when you claim we had no obligation to prove these chemicals still existed, since there posession was the stated reason for war.

No, they sanctioned "serious consequences". Saying poor record keeping implies that all chemicals were destroyed is a fact, which was never verified prior to the invasion - even though they were asked time and time again. It wasn't that they couldn't verify, it's that they refused to answer at all to those requests. THE OBLIGATION OF PROOF WAS ALL ON IRAQ, PERIOD. They refused to answer to the requests, so we took over that obligation for them. I'll admit nothing substantial has been found and that makes hindsight look bad, but the duty to prevent war by complying fully and unconditionally was all up to Iraq.

Blix wanted to re-enter Iraq to verify this, and he got permssion from the UN and Iraq to do it, but the US blocked his return claiming the inspectors could become hostages when the US invaded.

Sounds reasonable to me. I find it hard to believe with the threat of war on his mind for 11 years and he couldn't play nice that he wouldn't try drastic measures when war was imminent.

To bad your material breach turned out to be verification error and not an attempt to make WMDs' on the sly.

Sorry, we just don't know that to be fact. Not having found anything to date doesn't all of a sudden make it a verification error.

The UN, to its credit, listened to its' inspectors instead of hysterical politicians, and never sanctioned an invasion.

Because countries with alternate interests in Iraq (France, Russia) saw too it that the latest resolutions weren't going pass regardless of what they stated. Shoot, France stated they would veto any resolution brought forth by the US, and stated so before anything was even finalized.

They only produced this UNSCR under extreme US pressure. The US had to twist some arms to get the line "serious consequences" in there, originaly we wanted a sanction for the use of force but the UN wouldn't it give it to us.

How many countries were involved? And we twisted all their arms? I don't buy it.

One of the problems engendered by this little adventure, jim, is that now Iran is going to build a nuke and the UN will do little to stop them. If they report Iran to the UNSC they fear the US will make Iran the next target for invasion.The member nations feel we used them as cover for our imperial ambitions in Iraq, and they are right. Now the bill for this kind of behavior is coming due, and part of the cost is loss of cooperation from the non-aligned block on our "global war on terror". Think we can win without them? Think again...

So the UN won't intervene when it comes to nuclear build up? Sounds like the type of international authority that isn't clear in it's mission. Stopping one country from trying to prevent nukes while allowing the rest of the world to be in danger is irresponsible at best.

And sorry, we wouldn't need the backing of the UN if we were verifiably threatened by a country possessing nukes. Plenty of countries would back us in a heart beat if there was undeniable danger.

Does France have a stake in Iran?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bry
I see you don't give a rat's you know what about philosophy. Good for you! And it seems fine and well to not recognize the authority of the UN. But but but we have been discussing the legality of the war, and I don't see how that can be done without reference to the ruling body presiding over international affairs. Without the UN, there is no question of legality. Perhaps this discussion just isn't up your alley.

You won't be surprised if I'm not convinced by your prediction of victory and security. It just doesn't square with the evidence. Game Over... isn't that what Bush said four or five months ago?

By saying Game Over I wasn't implying our work in Iraq was over. I am simply saying that by striking the first blow in violence (and yes, they struck the first blow) they entered into a game that they will not win. The game is already decided, we will win and the Middle East will succumb to the will of the democratic forces of the world or they will cease to exist. There is no question that the people who are tyring to force the United States, violently, to submit will not prevail. I did not say that people will no longer die in this cause....people on both sides. I'm not going to sit around "boo hooing" their deaths. Freedom costs lives, no way around it. But lives will continue to be lost all over the world every day for various reasons. I'm not losing sleep over it.

I'm not sure where the belief originated that just because the way to win will be bloody somehow mitigates the fact that the battle needs to be waged. Should we just have let the terrorists continue to kill us in our beds and work places? Should we have stood by and let terrorists continue to arm themselves? I, for one, would rather die trying to right the wrongs than sit back and start having to wear a headdress and succumb to the will of a bunch of religious zealots who believe women should capitulate to the will of men.

Up until September 11th, President Bush and Congress did not intend to declare war on anyone. If I'm not mistaken, he also did not cause Iraq to disobey the very agency that you are claiming has a higher power than our country. I don't think Americans, particularly, ever forbade Saddam Hussein or any other Middle Eastern country from becoming democratic or focusing their energies on the benefit of their own people. Seems to me that both houses of congress and both democrats and republicans believed war was the way to go- the majority voted for it. Now they are saying that perhaps President Bush's motives were not pure. Well no f'ing kidding. No one's motives are entirely 100% pure. But they voted too and I'm sure each one had a smattering of reasons for doing so.

People who were in favor of the Civil War (when it was fought, not now) also had various reasons for entering the conflict. Under the philosophy that you seem to be espousing, the war should not have been fought because the reasons for it varied greatly among the people responsible for it. What difference does it make that not all the participants agreed 100% on the reasons for the war? You can't continue ignoring the fact that it had to be fought, ultimately, for the strength of the union.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by Moi
By saying Game Over I wasn't implying our work in Iraq was over. I am simply saying that by striking the first blow in violence (and yes, they struck the first blow) they entered into a game that they will not win. The game is already decided, we will win and the Middle East will succumb to the will of the democratic forces of the world or they will cease to exist. There is no question that the people who are tyring to force the United States, violently, to submit will not prevail. I did not say that people will no longer die in this cause....people on both sides. I'm not going to sit around "boo hooing" their deaths. Freedom costs lives, no way around it. But lives will continue to be lost all over the world every day for various reasons. I'm not losing sleep over it.

I'm not sure where the belief originated that just because the way to win will be bloody somehow mitigates the fact that the battle needs to be waged. Should we just have let the terrorists continue to kill us in our beds and work places? Should we have stood by and let terrorists continue to arm themselves? I, for one, would rather die trying to right the wrongs than sit back and start having to wear a headdress and succumb to the will of a bunch of religious zealots who believe women should capitulate to the will of men.

Up until September 11th, President Bush and Congress did not intend to declare war on anyone. If I'm not mistaken, he also did not cause Iraq to disobey the very agency that you are claiming has a higher power than our country. I don't think Americans, particularly, ever forbade Saddam Hussein or any other Middle Eastern country from becoming democratic or focusing their energies on the benefit of their own people. Seems to me that both houses of congress and both democrats and republicans believed war was the way to go- the majority voted for it. Now they are saying that perhaps President Bush's motives were not pure. Well no f'ing kidding. No one's motives are entirely 100% pure. But they voted too and I'm sure each one had a smattering of reasons for doing so.

People who were in favor of the Civil War (when it was fought, not now) also had various reasons for entering the conflict. Under the philosophy that you seem to be espousing, the war should not have been fought because the reasons for it varied greatly among the people responsible for it. What difference does it make that not all the participants agreed 100% on the reasons for the war? You can't continue ignoring the fact that it had to be fought, ultimately, for the strength of the union.

First, who are the "they" to whom you refer in your first paragraph? Second, could you tell me how your statement "I don't think Americans, particularly, ever forbade Saddam Hussein or any other Middle Eastern country from becoming democratic or focusing their energies on the benefit of their own people" holds true in light of what happened to President Mossadegh?

 

[dijetlo]

jimnyc
No, they sanctioned "serious consequences". Saying poor record keeping implies that all chemicals were destroyed is a fact, which was never verified prior to the invasion - even though they were asked time and time again...

They weren't able to. According to the intelligence we're getting, the chemicals were driven into the desert and dumped once the Hussein ordered the bio/chem infrastructure desimantled in the mid '90s'.

How many countries were involved? And we twisted all their arms? I don't buy it.

12 countries on the UNSC, if I'm not mistaken. Buy it or not, we did it. I'll try to dig up some links to validate this point but I remember during this period several countries complaining that we were using "bribery and extortion" to get our way on the UNSC.
Your reffs to France and Russia, let me point out that as far as we have been able to find in Iraq...they were right, Iraq was no threat to the US and the sanctions were an effective check against Husseins aggressive tendancies. You seem to think they had a deeper darker purpose but as long as Frances counsel appears to have been accurate and correct (not to mention in our own best interest), I find it difficult to damn them....

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by dijetlo
Your reffs to France and Russia, let me point out that as far as we have been able to find in Iraq...they were right, Iraq was no threat to the US and the sanctions were an effective check against Husseins aggressive tendancies. You seem to think they had a deeper darker purpose but as long as Frances counsel appears to have been accurate and correct (not to mention in our own best interest), I find it difficult to damn them....

Or maybe there was more to France's veto before the resolution was even introduced:
**
The Chirac-Hussein Connection
Feb 19, 2003

Summary

French President Jacques Chirac is a pivotal figure on the international scene, whose views on Iraq are of vital concern. Those views are not driven simply by geopolitics, however. The factors that shape his thinking include a long, complex and sometimes mysterious relationship with Saddam Hussein. The relationship is not secret, but it is no longer as well known as it once was -- nor is it well known outside of France. It is not insignificant in understanding Chirac's view of Iraq.

Analysis

In attempting to understand France’s behavior over the issue of war with Iraq, there is little question but that strategic, economic and geopolitical considerations are dominant drivers. However, in order to understand the details of French behavior, it is also important to understand a not really unknown but oddly neglected aspect of French policy: the personal relationship between French President Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein.

The relationship dates back to late 1974, when then-French Premier Chirac traveled to Baghdad and met the No. 2 man in the Iraqi government, Vice President Saddam Hussein. During that visit, Chirac and Hussein conducted negotiations on a range of issues, the most important of these being Iraq’s purchase of nuclear reactors.

In September 1975, Hussein traveled to Paris, where Chirac personally gave him a tour of a French nuclear plant. During that visit, Chirac said, “Iraq is in the process of beginning a coherent nuclear program and France wants to associate herself with that effort in the field of reactors.” France sold two reactors to Iraq, with the agreement signed during Hussein’s visit. The Iraqis purchased a 70-megawatt reactor, along with six charges of 26 points of uranium enriched to 93 percent -- in other words, enough weapons-grade uranium to produce three to four nuclear devices. Baghdad also purchased a one-megawatt research reactor, and France agreed to train 600 Iraqi nuclear technicians and scientists -- the core of Iraq’s nuclear capability today.

Other dimensions of the relationship were decided on during this visit and implemented in the months afterward. France agreed to sell Iraq $1.5 billion worth of weapons -- including the integrated air defense system that was destroyed by the United States in 1991, about 60 Mirage F1 fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles and advanced electronics. The Iraqis, for their part, agreed to sell France $70 million worth of oil.

During this period, Chirac and Hussein formed what Chirac called a close personal relationship. As the New York Times put it in a 1986 report about Chirac’s attempt to return to the premiership, the French official “has said many times that he is a personal friend of Saddam Hussein of Iraq.” In 1987, the Manchester Guardian Weekly quoted Chirac as saying that he was “truly fascinated by Saddam Hussein since 1974.” Whatever personal chemistry there might have been between the two leaders obviously remained in place a decade later, and clearly was not simply linked to the deals of 1974-75. Politicians and businessmen move on; they don’t linger the way Chirac did.

Partly because of the breadth of the relationship Chirac and Hussein had created in a relatively short period of time and the obvious warmth of their personal ties, there was intense speculation about the less visible aspects of the relationship. For example, one unsubstantiated rumor that still can be heard in places like Beirut was that Hussein helped to finance Chirac’s run for mayor of Paris in 1977, after he lost the French premiership. Another, equally unsubstantiated rumor was that Hussein had skimmed funds from the huge amounts of money that were being moved around, and that he did so with Chirac’s full knowledge. There are endless rumors, all unproven and perhaps all scurrilous, about the relationship. Some of these might have been moved by malice, but they also are powered by the unfathomability of the relationship and by Chirac’s willingness to publicly affirm it. It reached the point that Iranians referred to Chirac as “Shah-Iraq” and Israelis spoke of the Osirak reactor as “O-Chirac.”

Indeed, as recently as last week, a Stratfor source in Lebanon reasserted these claims as if they were incontestable. Innuendo has become reality.

Former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, who held office at the time of the negotiations with Iraq, said in 1984 that the deal “came out of an agreement that was not negotiated in Paris and therefore did not originate with the president of the republic.” Under the odd French constitution, it is conceivable that the president of the republic wouldn’t know what the premier of France had negotiated -- but on a deal of this scale, this would be unlikely, unless the deal in fact had been negotiated between Chirac and Hussein in the dark and presented as a fait accompli.

There is some evidence for this notion. Earlier, when Giscard d’Estaing found out about the deal -- and particularly about the sale of 93 percent uranium -- he had ordered the French nuclear research facility at Saclay to develop an alternative that would take care of Iraq’s legitimate needs, but without supplying weapons-grade uranium. The product, called “caramel,” was only 3 percent enriched but entirely suitable to non-weapons needs. The French made the offer, which Iraq declined.

By 1986, Chirac clearly had decided to change his image. In preparation for the 1988 presidential elections, Chirac let it be known that he never had anything to do with the sale of the Osirak reactor. In an interview with an Israeli newspaper, he said, “It wasn’t me who negotiated the construction of Osirak with Baghdad. The negotiation was led by my minister of industry in very close collaboration with Giscard d’Estaing.” He went on to say, “I never took part in these negotiations. I never discussed the subject with Saddam Hussein. The fact is that I did not find out about the affair until very late.”

Obviously, Chirac was contradicting what he had said publicly in 1975. More to the point, he also was not making a great deal of sense in claiming that his minister of industry – who at that time was Michel d’Ornano -- had negotiated a deal as large as this one. That is true even if one assumes the absurd, which was that the nuclear deal was a stand-alone and not linked to the arms and oil deals or to a broader strategic relationship. In fact, d’Ornano claimed that he didn’t even make the trip to Iraq with Chirac in 1974, let alone act as the prime negotiator. Everything he did was in conjunction with Chirac.

In 1981, the Israelis destroyed the Iraqi reactor in an air attack. There were rumors – which were denied -- that the French government was offering to rebuild the reactor. In August 1987, French satirical and muckraking magazine, “Le Canard Enchaine” published excerpts of a letter from Chirac to Hussein -- dated June 24, 1987, and hand-delivered by Trade Minister Michel Noir -- which the magazine claimed indicated that he was negotiating to rebuild the Iraqi reactor. The letter says nothing about nuclear reactors, but it does say that Chirac hopes for an agreement “on the negotiation which you know about,” and it speaks of the “cooperation launched more than 12 years ago under our personal joint initiative, in this capital district for the sovereignty, independence and security of your country.” In the letter, Chirac also, once again, referred to Hussein as “my dear friend.”

Chirac and the government confirmed that the letter was genuine. They denied that it referred to rebuilding a nuclear reactor. The letter speaks merely of the agreements relating to “an essential chapter in Franco-Iraqi relations, both in the present circumstances and in the future.” Chirac claimed that any attempt to link the letter to the reconstruction of the nuclear facility was a “ridiculous invention.” Assuming Chirac’s sincerity, this leaves open the question of what the “essential chapter” refers to and why, instead of specifying the subject, Chirac resorted to a circumlocution like “negotiation which you know about.”

Only two possible conclusions can be drawn from this letter: Chirac either was trying, in the midst of the Iran-Iraq war and after his denial of involvement in the first place, to rebuild Iraq’s nuclear capability, or he wasn’t. And if he wasn’t, what was he doing that required such complex language, clearly intended for deniability if revealed? No ordinary state-to-state relationship would require a combination of affection, recollection of long history and promise for the future without mentioning the subject. If we concede to Chirac that it had nothing to do with nuclear reactors, then the mystery actually deepens.

It is unfair to tag Chirac with the rumors that have trailed him in his relations with Hussein. It is fair to say, however, that Chirac has created a circumstance for breeding rumors. The issues raised here were all well known at one time and place. When they are laid end-to-end, a mystery arises. What affair was being discussed in the letter delivered by Michel Noir? If not nuclear reactors, then what was referenced but never mentioned specifically in Chirac’s letter to his “dear friend” Hussein?

Whatever the answer, it is clear that the relationship between Chirac and Hussein is long and complex, and not altogether easy to understand. That relationship does not, by itself, explain all of France's policies toward Iraq or its stance toward a war between the United States and Iraq. But at the same time, it is inconceivable that this relationship has no effect on Chirac's personal decision-making process. There is an intensity to Chirac's Iraq policy that simply may signify the remnants of an old, warm friendship gone bad, or that may have a different origin. In any case, it is a reality that cannot be ignored and that must be taken into account in understanding the French leader’s behavior.
**
This article has been floating around for quite some time, too many sources to list. Just type "france hussein connection" in any search engine.

Here's another one worthy of scrutiny:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/decision_makers_and_diplomacy/58568.stm

 

[jimnyc]

And lets not forget Russia, who has (had) oil contracts with Baghdad and 8 billion owed to Moscow by Saddam.