Read about it here. Here's the gist (Hat tip: E-Nough!):

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.

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."

And here's one of those Chirac buddies:

The report named former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, Indonesian president Megawati Sukarnoputri and the Russian radical political figure Vladimir Zhirinovsky as voucher recipients and implicated foreign governments, including Namibia and Yemen.

Pasqua's office said the former interior minister, who recently won a Senate seat and the parliamentary immunity that it confers, was not immediately available for comment.

Official French reaction? Easy-does-it:

"It is important to assure oneself very precisely on the veracity of this information," [French Foreign Ministry spokesman Herve Ladsous] said. "We understand that these accusations against companies and individuals were not verified either with the people themselves or with the authorities of the countries concerned."

Let's "verify" those claims against M. Pasqua:

M. Ladsous: Monsieur, these allegations are very serious. Did you accept vouchers or personally benefit in any way from your dealings with Saddam ?

M. Pasqua: Oh no, Monsieur!

M. Ladsous: France pronounces this report is baseless.

You forget USA entreprise were corrupted too by saddam!, and what about Cheney's one?

Anyway more serious thinks happen in YOUR contry, here it is:

Think Again: Bush’s Foreign Policy

Not since Richard Nixon’s conduct of the war in Vietnam has a U.S. president’s foreign policy so polarized the country—and the world. Yet as controversial as George W. Bush’s policies have been, they are not as radical ... Following at

This web site: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/files/story2671.php

Here's just a part of it to be more clear:
a departure from his predecessors as both critics and supporters proclaim. Instead, the real weaknesses of the president’s foreign policy lie in its contradictions: Blinded by moral clarity and hamstrung by its enormous military strength, the United States needs to rebalance means with ends if it wants to forge a truly effective grand strategy.

“George W. Bush’s Foreign Policy Is Revolutionary”
No. Bush’s goals of sustaining a democratic peace and disseminating America’s core values resonate with the most traditional themes in U.S. history. They hearken back to Puritan rhetoric of a city upon a hill. They rekindle Thomas Jefferson’s vision of an empire of liberty. They were integral to Woodrow Wilson’s missive that “the world must be made safe for democracy.” They flow from Franklin Roosevelt’s four freedoms. They echo the noble rhetoric of John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address, to “oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.”

Nor is unilateralism new. From America’s inception as a republic, the Founding Fathers forswore entangling alliances that might embroil the fragile country in dangerous Old World controversies and tarnish the United States’ identity as an exceptionalist nation. Acting unilaterally, the United States could prudently pursue its own interests, nurture its fundamental ideals, and define itself in opposition to its European forbears. This tradition is the one to which Bush returns.

The above correspondent can be reached at:

dsfvogojotrghjothjbotrhjtrohujotrhjorsjhorsjhotrhj@ldfoewfhfhrwfhorwfhoiwfh

Oh, except that he can't because that's a junk address. A junk address to match his junk post.

DGB

At least, mine made a point!! It doesn't seem to be your case!

Now our correspondent can be reached at:

fdsglegjgjgjjgejgapgjelagjreaogljreoghohreg@frgkjhregiheighreighreuighreugi

No, make that:

fhjgfs@fdg.co.uk

Our correspondent seems to think he is making a point. What could it be? He claims: "Anyway more serious thinks [sic] happen in YOUR contry [sic]", but the article he quotes does not enumerate these "more serious thinks". Nor does it give evidence of corruption of "USA enterprise". It appears that the writer has cherry-picked his article to try to deform it to the hysterical urgency he feels about something that he can't himself comprehend.

The only point our post made was that the correspondent was a phony.

DGB

I am amazed at the U.S. press' use of weak defensive language on behalf of the UN. Are we sure they didn't get any oil as well?

fkljwebhruipagjdghqiwuefklas -

No, you really didn't get around to having a point. Damian lanced your lack of one efficiently. Stick around though - Zoomer could teach you a lot.

I guess that alphabet soup is right. The policy of maintaining strongmen in the Middle East, and abetting them in their corruption and petty wars was the right one. Bush should have continued this policy, even after Sept 11th gave the lie to its primary motivation; keeping a lid on the Arab world.

How could Bush come to the conclusion that these effective policies needed to be changed? I just don't know. What an idiot.

here is the only article published by Le Monde on the subject.

Le rapport pointe le rôle de la France et de la Russie

so it's not impossible to find some information about this scandal in our press. just hard to find it between the numerous articles commenting the rest of the report.

no reaction yet on pavefrance about the explosion in front of the indonesian ambassy in paris?

Here is my reaction:

I don't give a shit if the terrosist set off a nuclear bomb in france (it would be one less targeted at the USA)or any other problems they may cause for the frogs. You made your bed, go lay in it, whores!

Goldsoundz -

Confusion. I've considered that we were counting down to an attack of some sort somewhere in France. Thankfully, it wasn't very lethal, but I would have thought that a bombing within Paris itself would have been significant enough to capture some attention. I haven't seen a single frame of video on it yet - I only heard of it becase I happened to glance at the ticker on Fox or CNN. It's as if they said "This happened. Now let's pretend it didn't"

The attack was not unexpected, but so far I have to say the response was.

We also know now that several US companies were unscrupulously doing business with Irak. Fortunately for the US administration, their names have been removed from the supposed list under the US, ahem... "privacy laws". Of course, all of this couldn't come at a better time for the US administration, now that Mr. Bush has a lot of explaining to do regarding the WMD issue.

The biggest contradiction in the US Foreign Policy is the funding of the United Nations. US Tax dollars fund 22% of the overall operating budget for the UN. If we have to remain a member of the UN, we should at least move it to Haiti. The Vatican has Vatican City, the UN should get Haiti – a nice place for a failed organization like the UN. We should also not provide a single dollar more than any of the other Security Council Members. If the UN wants equality across the board for its members, lets start with UN funding.

The only reason the world is polarized is because countries on the take, like France, Germany, Russia, and China did their best to keep lining their pockets with Iraqi Citizens' money. George W. Bush put a stop to it causing the Axis of Weasels to get mad.

It must be sad to be a Frog these days. They look like chickens, They act like chickens, and I've heard their legs even taste like chickens.

Zoomeridiot please list the US companies doing business with Saddam's IraQ (if you are freaking going to post on an English language website then freaking use the proper English spelling) after August 1990 when the UNSC applied sancitions. Since *WE* (tell ya what zoomeridiot I know frogistan mental health care isn't all that great, but they should be able to help you recognize that those voices in your head aren't real) all know about these US companies it shouldn't be that hard for you to produce a list.

We also know now that several US companies were unscrupulously doing business with Irak

We do? I'm sure, zoomer, you have proof of this, no? Or are you AGAIN defending the action of your sorry country by trying to point out other bad behavior, if in fact, there is any?

No, sorry, zoomer, your post does not cut the mustard.

Please be patient with our liberal European brothers. They have been living on a steady diet of Anti Americanism for a long time. There is bound to be a few tummy aches and indigestion.

I have faith that given the basic truth, logic will overcome paranoia. We have known the truth of matters far longer then they have. But fortune has raised a nexus of events (French hostages taken, diplomats laughed at by muslim allies, investigations showing futile backin of tyrrants, UN powers for sale to highest bidder).

This might be enough (wink wink, Carine) to lift the blinders from the Europeans.
You have been living in the matrix.
Welcome to the real world.

stunning and beautiful graphic Damian. Superb.

Excellent post paptertiger. You have really nailed what the real problem is: The question is will the Europeans wake up, or keep sleeping until it is too late. I don't have much faith in their alarm clock, however....

Oh come on andy, it's getting really tiring to compare the US to Saint Mother Theresa, when greed and profit at other people's expense, is certainly no stranger to the US either. If you think this double-standard is being un-noticed around the world (including the Arab world), you must also beleive in Santa Claus. Double-standards in US foreign policy are legendary.

(UK Financial Times)

Since then, only two of the 3,058 contracts for oil industry parts that have been submitted to the UN have officially come from US companies. But the facts behind these figures tell a very different story.

US companies have in fact submitted contracts worth at least $100m to the UN for approval to supply Iraq with oil industry spare parts, through their foreign subsidiaries. Some informed estimates put that value as high as $170m.

They have used, or allowed, associated companies, mainly in France, but also in Belgium, Germany, India, Switzerland, Bahrain, Egypt and the Netherlands, to put the contracts through.

"It is a wonderful example of how ludicrous sanctions have become," says Raad Alkadiri, analyst at the Petroleum Finance Company, a Washington-based consulting firm.

"On the one hand you have the Americans, who do not want to be seen trading with Iraq, despite the fact that it is above board and legitimate, because that would contradict their image of being tough towards Iraq. On the other hand you have the Iraqis, who on the technocratic level would like to buy the best stuff on the market - in many cases that comes from the US - but politically have to be able to say they are refusing to deal with US companies," he said.

Halliburton, the largest US oil services company, is among a significant number of US companies that have sold oil industry equipment to Iraq since the UN relaxed sanctions two years ago.

From 1995 until August this year Halliburton's chief executive officer was Dick Cheney, US secretary of defence during the Gulf war and now Republican vice-presidential running mate of George W. Bush.

zoomer, in one post you say: We also know now that several US companies were unscrupulously doing business with Irak

then in another you post from an article that says:

trading with Iraq, despite the fact that it is above board and legitimate

So, what is it? Were they unscrupuloulsy ligitimate?
Are you related to John Kerry?

The info you may have been looking for was reported today in the Washington Post. "Two large American oil companies that received profitable vouchers to buy Iraqi oil under the United Nations'oil-for-food program said that the purchases complied with US law."

Also, the individuals (who you said above were not named because of the privacy laws) were mentioned yesterday)

Go to bugmenot.com and get a password for washington times and read the article. You may find it interesting.

Oh, and another thing: We are Mother Theresa.

password for washington times

Zoot Allures! I meant to say Washington Post.

You might want to ask the Financial Times where they copped the notion that US companies give a rat's ass about 'looking tough on Iraq'. Their only concern with US policy is hot it hits their bottom line, and they'll trade with just about anyone they can make a buck with. If they were doing business through French middlemen, it had nothing to do with hiding anything from anyone but Saddam - he had choice over who sold to Iraq through the program, and to no one's surprise he didn't elect to do much business with US companies.

Oh, and another thing: We are Mother Theresa.

Only in your mind, andy.

Only in your mind, andy.

In my mind I'm married to Pamela Anderson.

don't forget to put a condom on your mind to avoid hepatite.

Zoomer, you're BUSTED! I know who you are! I just heard you spouting all of this almost verbatim on FNC - you're Jean-David Levitte.

Yes it's me!

p.s. Could you refer to me as "His Excellency" from now on?

Not if you paid me.