On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:33:58 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Well, maybe not in some of them, but many did mention the actual
contents of the report itself, which *does* hold quite a lot of damning
evidence.

There's evidence of French weapons in Iraq in Kay's report? Hell,
there's not even evidence of WMD in there... despite the desperate
straining in what was suppposed to be a bought-'n-paid-for validation
of George IIs policies. It's been really pathetic watching this go on
over the last few months, from the hoopla when Kay was gonna come in
and save the administration's collective ass to this sorry little
squib that resulted.

I'd suggest that before doing any more France-bashing, you read that
article.

I'd suggest you do the same. Typical quote:

"Officials said they believed that the two San Diego businessmen, both
of Iraqi descent, delivered and helped to assemble three 85-foot-long
patrol boats,

Sorry, but I did. _Thirty_ companies, remember? The article goes into
some detail on one of them... or did you think they were all owned by
those two guys in San Diego?

Or, like Chirac, sell them nuclear power plants that are basically
designed to make material for bombs (thank goodness the Israelis took
that one out).

Oh, dearie me, but that was back when Iraq was an _ally_, remember?
And not merely of France, but also of the USA. Back _then_, even
American arms sales to Iraq -- all those helicopters, for example --
were approved by the administration of the time. And Donald Rumsfeld
was making kissy-face with Saddam himself: you do remember the
pictures? If you're making claims about French weapons in Iraq in
contravention of international embargoes, don't mix that up with
anybody's weapons in Iraq when Saddam was the Last Best Hope against
the Shi'a hordes.

Scott