***Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey President Says They Will Object to 2nd Resloution***

Fox News | Stardate: 0302.17

[The Wizard]

Just announced that jackass Charac will object to 2nd resolution, what they didn't say was because they are trying to damage Tony Blair

[Inspectorette]

Did you hear what Brit Hume called this guy yesterday? "Well-groomed pretty boy"!

[PhiKapMom]

David Asman on Fox just hit the ball out of the park! He stated that France and Germany are in favor of keeping Saddam in power because of the all the money they get from him.

Going to find the French and German fingerprints all over the Iraqi WMD's I would bet!

[max_rpf]

No -- The UN should be more like the Olympics. When they elect a "President", they should move to his home country.

[evad]

Did you hear what Brit Hume called this guy yesterday? "Well-groomed pretty boy"!

Hehe..Brit's my favorite.

Bye the bye, I hear there was a french "resistance movement" back during the war. WHAT were they resisting?

Also, is there any way we can go back and retroactively give the frogs to the hun?

[tomahawk]

Jacques Chirac can go F**k himself. Then he can go to Hell.

[ConservativeMan55]

Rush just called the French mopheads! LOL!

[dennisw]

John McCain had the best line about France:

JOHN McCAIN:
You know the French remind me a little bit of an ageing actress of the 1940s, who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it.

[Petronski]

Can I suggest we print his name as chIRAQ?

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Actually, this may be helpful. The U.S. and Britain have been harmed by the difference between their rhetoric and their willingness to dance with the U.N. This has given an opening for the left to come storming back into the political picture by joining forces with France/Germany (and truly at the end of the line, Sadaam).

France has been allowed to drive the issue (by the desire of the U.S. and Britain to "eventually" get them on-board and get UN backing). Now if France draws the line in the sand, the U.S. and Britain finally must arrive at decision point -- back down or go without the U.N. This means that, finally, this ridiculous and credibility-damaging game might truly "be over".

The French, in their hubris of "victory" might finally push it to the point that it's fish-or-cut-bait time for the U.S. and Britain. This ludicrous delusion of bring the John and Yoko pacifists on-board into some kind unanimous consensus may finally be killed.

So the U.S. and Britain are forced to either back-down (devastating from every standpoint) or give the finger to France, the U.N. and the leftists and go ahead while they scream and yell and create disruption and chaos on the sidelines.

France may finally have pushed us to the point of having to break completely with them. None too soon, I'd say.

[Redleg Duke]

Are you trying to get Slick elected SecGen?

A pox on you, Sirra!

[buffyt]

I just heard on RUSH that if we do go to war France will be there, if that is the last resort, and we have to go. They are sending out mixed signals, they are SO busy eating cheese and drinking wine....... or is that WHINE.....

[kesg]

The diplomatic solution presents itself. Introduce the resolution anyway, make sure it spells out in detail the facts showing Iraq to be in further material breach, specify that serious consequences will follow (everyone knows what that means), attempt to line up majority support in the UN counsel, and then dare the French to veto it.

Of course, the problem here is the next to last item -- getting majority support. If we cannot do it, then declare that all reasonable diplomatic efforts have been exhausted.

[menotyu]

Absolutemon, french have $60,000,000,000 worth of oil contracts and Germany sold many "dual use" components to Iraq in the last few years. We've exhausted the U.N. thing; it's time to move on. Now we have wait for Turkey to remove their head from their arses, they keep trying to play it both ways. As Machiavelli said, (paraphrasing of course) it's better to pick a side even if it's the losing one. If you don't, the victor (in this case us of course) will remember you weren't there for them, and he will never be able to count on you. Thus by your inaction or lack of conviction you inherit a position as a new enemy. If you pick the losing side the victor may show mercy on you and let you continue breathing.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

a little rant:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/845248/posts

[Republican Red]

I was under the assumption that the next resolution would not have the super veto. I thought each of the 15 countries on the Security Council would have a vote - Yes, No or Abstain.

We need nine votes in the Security Council for a new resolution. The US, UK, Spain and Bulgaria are definite yes. China, Russia and France are thought to abstain. Germany and Syria are no's. If the below article is correct then we will get Chile, Angola, Cameroon and Guinea. No way Pakistan will vote yes. So that leaves Mexico. I would like to think Mexico would vote with the US


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/14/wirq214.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/02/14/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=144968

[AntiDemocrat]

The French coverup is ongoing. I cannot wait to find documents in Iraq that collaborate the Vichey Chirac French with the dictator...Saddamy.

[JDGreen123]

This whole situation should prove once and for all why we cannot and must not seek the permission of other countries before we do what is in our best interest. This whole UN (League of Nations) movement is the pipedream of pacifists and socialists like Wilson & Roosevelt.

This desire to get the approval of the world is one thing for which I will fault the Bush family. I remember 1991 and going through the same crap for a couple of months trying to get the permission of the UN and the likes of Gorbachev. We NEVER must let our very survival be subject to the approval of the likes of France.

[katana]

Seems strange that they want no say or input whatsoever into the business contracts the next Iraqi government signs. Most un-froglike.

[Stultis]

Fine. The U.S. will submit one (or let Blair do so) but then pull it and move on if the frogs haven't changed their croak.

The frogs' two main goals in all this are:

1) Bring down Blair. He will be replaced, they're hoping, either with a compliant Labor leader who'll acquiese (or even aid and abet) in the extension of Franco-German (mostly Franco) hegenomy over the E.U., or by a Conservative leader who will draw back from E.U. participation and leave the frogs without opposition from a major state.

2) Sell themselves, by opposing the "Great Satan," as the world champion of Arab interests. They hope, thereby, to make themselves a primary importer and exploiter of Arab oil, make the Euro a reserve currency of choice by denominating oil contracts in Euros, and return to the good old days of selling nuke plants and weapons to dictators at the kind of bloated profit margins one can never get from a free people or a responsible government.

Aside, possibly, from seeking to make the Euro a successful currency, there is not a single major motivation of the French that is not objectively despicable, and destructive of other peoples and nations. Every free government must strive to wreck and overturn their odious schemes.

[alancarp]

I was under the assumption that the next resolution would not have the super veto.

Nope - it's a Security Council action, which provides veto authority to any/each of the five permanent members (the original Nuclear Club) for every vote.