Highly Respected 'Judicial Watch' Confronts French President Chirac for Trafficking Weapons to Iraq

Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
This is the par I found particularly disturbing:

"Judicial Watch is investigating the financial contacts and dealings between Chirac?s "Rally for the Republic" party, and government officials and corporations from multiple countries including France, Iraq, China and Syria."



Are you not alarmed with the bed fellows of France? It is all starting to become clear now...






French President Jacque Chirac has engaged in a 30-year conspiracy to provide weapons to Saddam Hussein, in direct violation of international law. This according to shocking new complaints filed against Chirac by Judicial Watch.
Specifically, Judicial Watch?s complaints concern the "unlawful proliferation of nuclear technology, the unlawful trafficking of arms and military technology, and the violation of UN trade sanctions imposed after the 1991 Gulf War, as well as additional UN sanctions relating to the so-called ?oil-for-food? program."

Judicial Watch is investigating the financial contacts and dealings between Chirac?s "Rally for the Republic" party, and government officials and corporations from multiple countries including France, Iraq, China and Syria.

The evidence compiled by Judicial Watch against the French President is considerable. Consider the following facts, as articulated in JW?s complaints:

* According to New York Times columnist William Safire, a French company brokered a deal to bring Chinese rocket fuel to Saddam Hussein?s Iraq via Syria in the months leading up to the war in Iraq. Chirac lied to the press denying the illegal transaction took place, despite smoking gun email evidence to the contrary.

* One French company, Protec, furnished Iraq with millions of dollars of equipment to six separate plants for making mustard gas and nerve agents, with a capacity of hundreds of tons of nerve agent per year.

* Chirac arranged for the sale of nuclear reactors to Saddam Hussein. Technical and scientific support for the reactors was included in the sale of the hardware and uranium.

* Chirac provided Hussein a tour of the fast breeder reactor, which makes use of a technology to transform uranium into plutonium.

* According to Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, an unidentified French company has been selling spare parts to Iraq for its fighter jets and military helicopters during the past several months.

* While Mayor of Paris, Chirac concocted illegal schemes concerning the sale of lucrative contracts by the town hall?s building commissioners. A 12-member French judicial commission, whose membership was hand-picked by Chirac, has declared the French President immune from prosecution for these crimes until 2007, when he leaves office.

* Industry analysts contend that an enormous black market of Iraqi oil existed through the 1990s, and was the source of great wealth for Saddam, his Baath Party, and perhaps French "facilitators" who were involved in "running the blockade."

* Recent documents uncovered in Iraq show that France was providing intelligence to Iraq after September 11.

"It is now clear why the French were in such vocal opposition to the U.S. led war in Iraq," explained JW Chairman Larry Klayman. "They know their fingerprints are all over Saddam Hussein¹s weapons programs. We cannot ignore the truth. The French have betrayed our country and the man responsible must pay and he will pay."

Judicial Watch filed its complaints with the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) and the European Police Office (Europol).
 

no0b

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
3,804
1
0
You need to watch Uncle Saddam, an Iraqi defector had an interesting thing to say about the french.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
What is with all your threads demonizing France? Sounds like you ate some rotten Brie!:D
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
I'm just keeping P&N readers abreast of recent developments concerning France; in what ways am I 'bashing' the French? If it is wrong to point out that France acted in their economic interests, as opposed to the interest of the Iraqi people, then I don't want to be right....this is clearly wrong.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I'm just keeping P&N readers abreast of recent developments concerning France; in what ways am I 'bashing' the French? If it is wrong to point out that France acted in their economic interests, as opposed to the interest of the Iraqi people, then I don't want to be right....this is clearly wrong.

LOL, America and her Comp[anies do thjje same thing. Do you actually believe that the common American gives a good God Damn about Iraqis? During the war we were celebrating how easy they were to kill for Christ sakes!
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I'm just keeping P&N readers abreast of recent developments concerning France; in what ways am I 'bashing' the French? If it is wrong to point out that France acted in their economic interests, as opposed to the interest of the Iraqi people, then I don't want to be right....this is clearly wrong.

LOL, America and her Comp[anies do thjje same thing. Do you actually believe that the common American gives a good God Damn about Iraqis? During the war we were celebrating how easy they were to kill for Christ sakes!

Yea, I sure was
rolleye.gif
I guess you've also got a link on the US giving them weapons too?
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I'm just keeping P&N readers abreast of recent developments concerning France; in what ways am I 'bashing' the French? If it is wrong to point out that France acted in their economic interests, as opposed to the interest of the Iraqi people, then I don't want to be right....this is clearly wrong.

LOL, America and her Comp[anies do thjje same thing. Do you actually believe that the common American gives a good God Damn about Iraqis? During the war we were celebrating how easy they were to kill for Christ sakes!

I don't think anyone was celebrating about it Red. The choices were American killed or Iraqi killed. With some noted exceptions on this board most Americans would prefer it were non-Americans. Hardly any death is cause for celebration but given the choices most Americans responded predictably.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I'm just keeping P&N readers abreast of recent developments concerning France; in what ways am I 'bashing' the French? If it is wrong to point out that France acted in their economic interests, as opposed to the interest of the Iraqi people, then I don't want to be right....this is clearly wrong.

LOL, America and her Comp[anies do thjje same thing. Do you actually believe that the common American gives a good God Damn about Iraqis? During the war we were celebrating how easy they were to kill for Christ sakes!

Yea, I sure was
rolleye.gif
I guess you've also got a link on the US giving them weapons too?
No links, sorry.

 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I'm just keeping P&N readers abreast of recent developments concerning France; in what ways am I 'bashing' the French? If it is wrong to point out that France acted in their economic interests, as opposed to the interest of the Iraqi people, then I don't want to be right....this is clearly wrong.

LOL, America and her Comp[anies do thjje same thing. Do you actually believe that the common American gives a good God Damn about Iraqis? During the war we were celebrating how easy they were to kill for Christ sakes!

Exactly, including lots of people in this forum too (celebrating how easy Iraqi were to kill), and now it's all about Iraqi freedom. What a bunch of Horse $hit.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
I am sure they celebrated 'how easily the soldiers' were killed, not civilians. Given our technology, strategic targeting, war planning, etc, we have reduced collateral damage down to the bare minimum, so quit your whining, Saddam apologists.

If you had your way, Saddam would still be in power and the Iraqi people who still be living under a oppressive regime with absolutely no freedoms; and the college-aged kids wouldn't have anything to do on the weekends.
 

Kntx

Platinum Member
Dec 11, 2000
2,270
0
71
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I'm just keeping P&N readers abreast of recent developments concerning France; in what ways am I 'bashing' the French? If it is wrong to point out that France acted in their economic interests, as opposed to the interest of the Iraqi people, then I don't want to be right....this is clearly wrong.

LOL, America and her Comp[anies do thjje same thing. Do you actually believe that the common American gives a good God Damn about Iraqis? During the war we were celebrating how easy they were to kill for Christ sakes!

Yea, I sure was
rolleye.gif
I guess you've also got a link on the US giving them weapons too?



link

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. (9)

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. (16)

December 20, 1983 Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support.

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I am sure they celebrated 'how easily the soldiers' were killed, not civilians. Given our technology, strategic targeting, war planning, etc, we have reduced collateral damage down to the bare minimum, so quit your whining, Saddam apologists.

If you had your way, Saddam would still be in power and the Iraqi people who still be living under a oppressive regime with absolutely no freedoms; and the college-aged kids wouldn't have anything to do on the weekends.
If I had it my way we wouldn't have turned our backs on the Iraqi's (Shiites and Kurds)after the first Gulf War . If I had it my way I would have taken out Saddam back then when we had support for it from Western Europe (yes including the French and Germans). Then it would have been in the UN's hands with it's members paying for the rebuilding of Iraq with Money and their soldiers instead of America and a handful of nations under our umbrella having to suffer the costs monetarily and with the lives of our soldiers.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I am sure they celebrated 'how easily the soldiers' were killed, not civilians. Given our technology, strategic targeting, war planning, etc, we have reduced collateral damage down to the bare minimum, so quit your whining, Saddam apologists.

If you had your way, Saddam would still be in power and the Iraqi people who still be living under a oppressive regime with absolutely no freedoms; and the college-aged kids wouldn't have anything to do on the weekends.
If I had it my way we wouldn't have turned our backs on the Iraqi's (Shiites and Kurds)after the first Gulf War . If I had it my way I would have taken out Saddam back then when we had support for it from Western Europe (yes including the French and Germans). Then it would have been in the UN's hands with it's members paying for the rebuilding of Iraq with Money and their soldiers instead of America and a handful of nations under our umbrella having to suffer the costs monetarily and with the lives of our soldiers.


We didn't have any support for doing it in 1991 either.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
I concur, red....I felt a little cheated not seeing downtown B-Town in '91....troops were there, ready, willing, more than able....lessons learned, I guess.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I am sure they celebrated 'how easily the soldiers' were killed, not civilians. Given our technology, strategic targeting, war planning, etc, we have reduced collateral damage down to the bare minimum, so quit your whining, Saddam apologists.

If you had your way, Saddam would still be in power and the Iraqi people who still be living under a oppressive regime with absolutely no freedoms; and the college-aged kids wouldn't have anything to do on the weekends.
If I had it my way we wouldn't have turned our backs on the Iraqi's (Shiites and Kurds)after the first Gulf War . If I had it my way I would have taken out Saddam back then when we had support for it from Western Europe (yes including the French and Germans). Then it would have been in the UN's hands with it's members paying for the rebuilding of Iraq with Money and their soldiers instead of America and a handful of nations under our umbrella having to suffer the costs monetarily and with the lives of our soldiers.


We didn't have any support for doing it in 1991 either.
Well we did have the support of the Shiites and the Kurds not to mention Coalition Troops already in place. It would have been a volitile situation but not as nearly as bad as it is now (talking about the diplomatic situation)

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
..but the objectives were accomplished, and we were not there to assassinate a leader of a sovereign nation.
Like we are now?
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
..but the objectives were accomplished, and we were not there to assassinate a leader of a sovereign nation.
Like we are now?

Everyone knows, and it has been explicitly said, the war was about WMD's, and there can be no getting out of it, and Blair has reiterated that the war was about WMD's.

Thus, the current aim should be to rebuild Iraq, and let Saddam be, since he is no longer in power, and thus cannot continue Iraq's supposed development of WMD's, and the war was not about killing him, there is no need to kill him.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I'm just keeping P&N readers abreast of recent developments concerning France; in what ways am I 'bashing' the French? If it is wrong to point out that France acted in their economic interests, as opposed to the interest of the Iraqi people, then I don't want to be right....this is clearly wrong.

LOL, America and her Comp[anies do thjje same thing. Do you actually believe that the common American gives a good God Damn about Iraqis? During the war we were celebrating how easy they were to kill for Christ sakes!

I don't think anyone was celebrating about it Red. The choices were American killed or Iraqi killed. With some noted exceptions on this board most Americans would prefer it were non-Americans. Hardly any death is cause for celebration but given the choices most Americans responded predictably.

It could have been that neither Iraqi's or US/British soldiers were killed, but Bush and Blair didn't want it that way.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: Lonyo



Thus, the current aim should be to rebuild Iraq, and let Saddam be...



Ahhh, the Queen-loving Saddam appoligist has spoken...LET SADDAM BE! Are you 'bloody well' stupid? An x-brutal dictator with what is thought to be a $1B in currency in his backpack? :) Leave your ideas in the Lou, as that is where this chit belongs. Now if you don't mind, I am heading out to watch some American football, mate....long live the queen.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,211
5,791
126
Many of those charges are well known and were long before the Iraq/Kuwait War. Makes me wonder why the US isn't implicated?
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: Kntx
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I'm just keeping P&N readers abreast of recent developments concerning France; in what ways am I 'bashing' the French? If it is wrong to point out that France acted in their economic interests, as opposed to the interest of the Iraqi people, then I don't want to be right....this is clearly wrong.

LOL, America and her Comp[anies do thjje same thing. Do you actually believe that the common American gives a good God Damn about Iraqis? During the war we were celebrating how easy they were to kill for Christ sakes!

Yea, I sure was
rolleye.gif
I guess you've also got a link on the US giving them weapons too?



link

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. (9)

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. (16)

December 20, 1983 Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support.

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.

Did you look at the date? :p
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
It's amazing how much John Galt hates the French. I don't think I have read one thread of his that wasn't French bashing. Did a Frenchmen touch you in a naughty place when you were a little boy John?
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I'm just keeping P&N readers abreast of recent developments concerning France; in what ways am I 'bashing' the French? If it is wrong to point out that France acted in their economic interests, as opposed to the interest of the Iraqi people, then I don't want to be right....this is clearly wrong.

LOL, America and her Comp[anies do thjje same thing. Do you actually believe that the common American gives a good God Damn about Iraqis? During the war we were celebrating how easy they were to kill for Christ sakes!

I don't think anyone was celebrating about it Red. The choices were American killed or Iraqi killed. With some noted exceptions on this board most Americans would prefer it were non-Americans. Hardly any death is cause for celebration but given the choices most Americans responded predictably.

I agree with UQ on this, but to honestly insinuate that America went to war with Iraq because we cared about the Iraqi people is the bigest load of crap ever. EVERYONE acts in their own best interest and we are no exception, so John Galt pointing out that the French didn't act in the interest of the Iraqi people is hipocracy.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
O.K. - What I see on the link is that a kid did a classroom assignment on his perception of U.S. involvement,
then proceeded to list his internet link reference documents at the end.

Gradewise he gets a C.

Content average, he worked on geting the time line in order month, year, that gets a C+, assuming he didn't have the computer set the order.
Footnote references indicate that he started a thought line and began assigning numeration as he expanded his data gathering.
It does not follow either a numerical sequencing in the copy body, nor is the refference material aranged in Alphabetical order.
That gets a D.

Had he taken the time while doing his project, he could have hyperlinked both the Footnote marker on the subject line,
or linked the reference index to it's homesite.

Yeah, about a C.