|
Edited on Tue Jul-15-03 05:42 AM by julka
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.
|