Londres accuse Paris

[whirlygigspin]

Paris tells Blair to drop dead, more or less. Heavy with sarcasm, this Figaro article paints Blair as out of touch and wacked out.

La France, «of course» ! C'est «la France», en effet, qui aurait fourni au gouvernement britannique des informations «exclusives» – à ne partager sous aucun prétexte avec Washington – sur les tentatives de Saddam...

http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/20030715.FIG0196.html

[julka]

1. I love this........machine translations!

France, "of race"! It is "France", indeed, which would have provided to the British government "exclusive" information – to divide under no pretext with Washington – on the attempts at Saddam Hussein to acquire uranium, in Niger. Ministerial "sources" anonymities made of it the confidence in Financial Times which, yesterday, was made the echo of it.

France and, perhaps, Italy.?????????

The two interested ones in any case contradicted. If Washington laid out only of one file "can" on the Iraqi interest for uranium native of Niger, the United Kingdom, affirms to him by the voice of Jack Straw, the secretary in Foreign Office, that it could profit "from credible information" coming from various agencies of safety. Mr. Straw refuses to explain why this information was not revealed near the large American ally.

Rush Limbaugh? Larry Eagleburger?

He nevertheless lit the commission of the Foreign Affairs of the House of Commons in a "private" letter.

Integral and essential part of the network of listening Level with the United States, the Kingdom divides without parsimony, however, great and small secrecies with America. In fact, the chiefs from MID the 6 – service of external information – would have respected with the letter the French requirement that information is not communicated to the CIA or the NSA. Why France would, thus, have been opposed to the information disclosure sensitive to the United States?

"American sources" quoted by The Daily Telegraph stress that "France was, véhémentement, opposed to the war". Consequently and "instinctively", the newspaper, the idea to bring arguments to the warmongering of Donald Rumsfeld underlines, the American Minister for Defense, would have appeared absurd to him.


I can just about understand that last paragraph.

[Paschall]

6. Last paragraph

A verb got dropped, another got misplaced. The idea is that American sources reminded the Daily Telegraph that France was vehemently opposed to the war. (As if anybody needed reminding!) The Telegraph emphasized that France "instinctively" chose to withhold the information because it would have fueled Rumsfeld's warmongering, to have done otherwise would have been absurd.

Of course, we're overlooking the fact that if the French had this so-called information in their possession, they would likely have supported the war. Paris is closer than London to Baghdad. At least a few minutes nearer for a nuclear strike, right? And we're yet to hear from Blix, Annan, Schroeder, and a few other characters with whom France would have probably also shared this information. Why not? Can any of you gentlemen confirm?

[scsifreak]

2. Isn't...

... Le Figaro partially owned by Carlyle?

[julka]

3. sacre bleu de mon pip!

http://www.carlyle.com/eng/geo/casestudy-755.html

[robbedvoter]

4. "Un dossier bidon" - what a delicious name for a fake!

Also, Le Figaro considers Tony cooked in the next election because 35% of his electorate is against him. Uhmm, aren't W's negatives about there by now? (I remember a time when they were 45%)

[fshrink]

5. Let's remember, to complicate things a little,

that the "Figaro" is a right-wing paper, voice of the local equivalents of bushistas.