"So, I guess it's just a matter of time before the francophile left apologizes to the rest of the country for undermining the war effort. Right?"

er, no.

R J,

Let me try to figure out how it works.

The U.S. sends chemical weapons components, other weapons and critical military intelligence to Saddam Hussein, and that's good.

France sends information about the "attitude" toward Iraq in the U.S. following Sept. 11, 2001, and that's bad.

I would expect the "francophile left" to apologize about France's shocking transfer of attitudinal intelligence the moment President Bush formally apologizes to the world, on behalf of the U.S., for creating Saddam Hussein.

Brian,

You might want to look at the figures from theis site

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atirq_data.html

Let's get apologies in the order of importance as suppliers to Iraq.

Richard,

Sounds good to me. Apologies/explanations are long overdue. I wasn't giving France a pass, just pointing out the hypocrisy of jumping on this nearly benign bit of new information about France to condemn that country, when the current U.S. Secretary of Defense has practically fellated Saddam in comparison.

For some reason, the shipments of chemical weapons precursors authorized by the U.S. weren't on that list you provided, though.

How would they figure in "importance"?

Neither was there a comparison of military intelligence, which also has value.

If the French communicated messages relating the perceived "attitude" of D.C. diplomats toward Iraq, but the U.S. gave Iraq specific intelligence about Iran's troop locations in the Iran-Iraq war, and Iraq used those coordinates to launch chemical weapons attacks, and the U.S. knew it...which is more "important"?

These "briefings" by the French, if they even occurred, look like the sort of information anybody could derive by reading The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, or just conclude by using common sense. The U.S. was planning to take military action after 9/11, the French are reputed to have told Saddam? Shocking! What a security breach!

Many of such "recently uncovered" documents are turning out to be frauds. The Iraqi Foreign Ministry was thoroughly looted, and a file labeled "France 2001" just happened to turn up in the wreckage? Hmmmmmm.............

As for the weapons of mass destruction, give it up. Every one of these "discoveries" has not panned out, and this one talks about "traces" of un-weaponized agents, which even hawks admit is not the "smoking gun" evidence they desire. Notice that the only source here is the U.S. military. Happy coincidence!

The Saddam/911 link? Give this up as well. These "recently uncovered" documents, again assuming they are genuine, simply confirm what everyone knows: there were contacts between bin laden and Saddam in '98; they didn't go anywhere because the ideological differences between them were so great. As bin laden said, Saddam is the "socialist infidel." Hussein is unlikely to have pooled resources with an Islamist who despised the Baath philosophy and who volunteered in 1991 to attack Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait. If Hussein were to have given WMDs to bin laden, it would be only a matter of time before bin laden would have used them on Iraq.

The website you refer to on arms transfers discusses CONVENTIONAL weapon sales to Iraq. The U.S. sold Saddam the precursors, and worse, for WMDs, helped Saddam liquidate hundreds of Communists in the 1960s, and encouraged him in his aggression against Iran.

It's also ironic that you criticize the "francophile left." Chirac is a conservative who wants to project unilateral French power to offset U.S. military dominance; as more and more Third World countries become disillusioned with the U.S., the French will be there to "help" them, and also coincidentally to purchase their oil and other natural resources. Sound familiar?

What the French/U.S. smackdown proves is the folly of unilateral military adventurism. Collective security arrangements are the only effective ways to guarantee global stability and peace.

mike,

Well said. Your thoughtful analysis will no doubt be lost on those who prefer rumors and name-calling, but well-put nonetheless.

Hey Mike,
You state, "The United States.... helped Saddam liquidate hundreds of Communists in the 1960s.." I would love to see that reference, because I think at best he might have been in his teens then. Hardly a "world leader".
Just wondering,
Mark

Actually, the sweet thing was in his twenties, and while not yet a world leader, was apparently mature enough for the CIA:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2003/0314history.htm

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%2edb&command=viewone&op=t&id=10&rnd=521.4802154751648