Everyone's two favorite "allies" are at it again. CBC tells us what America's mohawk thinks about the motivation for the 9/11 terrorist attacks:

A majority of Canadians believe U.S. foreign policy was one of the root causes that led to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and Quebecers are quicker to criticize the U.S. administration for its international actions than other Canadians, a recent poll suggests.

The poll suggests that 77 per cent of Quebecers polled primarily blame American foreign policy for the Sept. 11 attacks. The results suggest 57 per cent in Ontario hold a similar view.

And of course, Canada's uncle France weighs in with this, via Reuters:

France issued an implicit criticism of U.S. foreign policy on Thursday, rejecting talk of a "war on terror".

"Let us not forget that these crises play into the hands of all extremists," the prime minister said in a debate on the Middle East. "We can see this with terrorism, whether it tries to strike inside or outside our frontiers," he added.

Don't read the next part with any liquids in your mouth, I can't afford to buy you a new keyboard:

"Against terrorism, what's needed is not a war. It is, as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners.

"But we will only end this curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises," he said.

Yeah, let's model ourselves after France. That way we can rapidly be invaded by Muslims and within decades, have a Muslim majority. Of course we can start by having tens of thousands of rioting Muslims, most of whom are unemployed, causing chaos in our streets torching the cars of thousands of innocent people. Thanks for the tips Dumbinique.

"It is the duty of France and Europe to show that the clash of civilizations is not inevitable," he said. "No one retains this wisdom, inherited from our history, as we, French and Europeans, do," he said.

You would think so wouldn't you Dom? You may be claiming to retain that wisdom, but clearly you haven't. Don't worry, no American president could politically let France burn. So in the near future when al-France is totally screwed, Uncle Sam will bail you out once again. Sleep tight.

 

Remember back in 2003 when the ladies man, French President Jacques Chirac tried to put the moves on the First Lady of the United States, and Laura shot the camera look of what can only be described as sheer terror? Well ol' Jacques tried to be all smooth again, this time with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

I guess it wouldn't have been very diplomatic if either woman had slapped this idiot... So I suppose we should make Rep. Cynthia McKinney our next Ambassador to France, to get the job done.

And who could forget these odd Chirac moments, where (in these stills anyway) he appeared to be prancing around and dancing with Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker (these were from Yahoo! News photos, but the links reveal the images are no longer posted where they were, sorry)

 

cross-posted at Expose the Left

Russia is only looking worse as the story of their pre-war involvement in Iraq continues to unfold. Today, The Washington Times goes beyond the basic reporting we've over the past couple days, regarding Russian spies tipping of Iraq about our military plans.

The Washington Times discusses further findings in the report everyone is citing as the source for all this "new" information, like the Russian and Turkish scientists inside Iraq, having to hide from UN inspectors and Saddam's belief that we'd never take Baghdad. Some of The Times' piece is repetitive, but here's what's different than the rest of the coverage most of us have seen:

In other report findings:

• ?The regime planned to restart production of weapons of mass destruction. It continued to hide scientists from U.N. inspectors right up to the time U.N. inspectors left and the war began.

A seized Dec. 15, 2002, memo, written by an Iraqi intelligence agent posing as a U.N. escort, states, "Inside Bader WMD inspection site, there are Russian and Turkish scientists. When we visited the site, they were forced to hide from inspectors' eyes."

And, Saddam continued to tell his commanders he still had such weapons. "For him, there were real dividends to be gained by letting his enemies believe he possessed WMD, whether it was true or not," the report said.

• The quickly assembled air strike on one of Saddam's residences, Dora Farms, in pre-dawn March 19, 2003, never had a chance of succeeding. Saddam had not stayed there since 1995.

• There was no evidence that Saddam or his top aides planned the insurgency, now in its fourth year; in fact, Saddam was sure the Americans would never advance on Baghdad.

"There were no national plans to transition to a guerrilla war in the event of military defeat," the report states.

This fact helps explain why commanders did not predict, nor plan for, the robust insurgency and al Qaeda terrorists now spreading violence.

Saddam's misguided belief that he would stay in power in 2003 was fed by the support he got from France and Russia, his top aide, Tariq Aziz, told U.S. investigators.

"France and Russia each secure millions of dollars worth of trade and service contracts in Iraq, with the implied understanding that their political posture with regard to sanctions on Iraq would be pro-Iraqi," Mr. Aziz said. "In addition, the French wanted sanctions lifted to safeguard their trade and service contracts in Iraq."

(sarcasm)Shocking, right?(/sarcasm)

Again, hmmm, I wonder why Russia was working against us at the UN? As for those who claim Saddam didn't have WMDs because "he would have used them", this article confirms what I've long said, which is that Saddam never thought we'd actually follow through and that he'd be ousted. His buddies and our "allies" in the UN were reassuring him that there wouldn't be a war, and even when there was he still didn't believe we'd really remove him.

Putin's peeps are predictably denying the entire thing (via AP):

"Similar, baseless accusations concerning Russia's intelligence have been made more than once," Foreign Intelligence Service spokesman Boris Labusov said, according to a duty officer in his department. "We don't consider it necessary to comment on such fabrications."

"To my mind, from my understanding it's absolutely nonsense and it's ridiculous," she said, adding that the U.S. government had not shown Russia the evidence cited in the report. "Somebody wants to say something, and did - and there is no evidence to prove it."

Doesn't the quote in that second excerpt sound like someone saying "too bad you can't prove it!"? Maybe it's just me, but that's the way it comes off.