Dan Abrams
URL:http://jewishworldreview.com/0303/abrams.html
Did I misunderstand the French?
newsandopinion.com | I thought I understood their position until now. I thought they were saying, "Yes, we all know Saddam has at least some weapons of mass destruction. Yes, he's used them in the past, but we think the inspections are working, Saddam is disarming, and therefore, war is completely inappropriate." But now I'm not so sure.
Now, the French ambassador to the United States says if Saddam uses chemical or biological weapons against U.S. troops, it would "Change completely the perception and situation for us."
Why? Do they now doubt that Saddam actually has the weapons or that he would use them? Do they now doubt the 1999 U.N. Special Commission report that said Saddam has not accounted for thousands of gallons of anthrax, thousands of chemical warfare weapons, hundred of tons of material to produce VX nerve agents, thousands of shells for use in biological warfare. Do they now doubt that the U.N. resolution, 1441, put the burden on Saddam to prove they were destroyed? And since Saddam has used them against his own people in the past, why wouldn't he use them again?
I think most everyone hopes he doesn't, but still expects him to try, everyone it seems except the French. A spokesman in the foreign minister's Paris office downplayed the comments telling CNN it was a response to a -"strictly hypothetical question", as if it's such a long shot.
Do they really have their heads so deep in the sand or are they just trying to find a position that would allow them to join in reshaping a post-war Iraq? Assuming the French mean what they say, I'm not sure I understand exactly what that is. |
