Saddam bribed Chirac???

[HQ6]

Originally posted by HQ6
Such evidence would undermine the French position before the war when President Jacques Chirac sought to couch his opposition to the invasion on a moral high ground.

Originally posted by HQ6
Although, it would be accurate to say that the headline for the article was intentionally inflammatory against Chirac specifically, wouldn't you say the message behind the story is fairly well accurate? That the professed moral outrage heard loudest from Chirac at the on set of Iraqi Freedom was nothing more than a farce and the real reason for not wanting the US to take action against Saddam was in fact financially based?

Yes I remeber those episodes... And you are assuming that I am condeming the French for reasons I am not.

The moral issue vs. financial issue was the original question.

Take care.

HQ6

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by HQ6
The moral issue vs. financial issue was the original question.

Take care.

HQ6

The whole point is that your original question is based on a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of bifurcation, in this case a disjunctive syllogism (the "either/or" fallacy):

Either p or q.
Not-p.
Therefore, q.

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer

Yeah, you would think a responsible American media (an oxymoron, I know) would be more concerned with finding out what Americans were on that list. The French media is certainly going after Pasqua and the others (all of whom naturally deny everything). The one UK name I know of on the list was pro-Saddam former Labour MP George Galloway, whose alleged bribe-taking became public last April.

The two Americans on the list are Iraqi-American businessman Samir Vincent and pro-Saddam Iraqi expatriate Shakir al-Khafaji.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Vincent had been able to insinuate himself among various political and religious groups favoring lifting sanctions, and he got close to luminaries such as Jack Kemp.

As for al-Khafaji, a pro-Saddam website carried this report a year and a half ago about him:

Saddam receives cable of solidarity from Iraqi expatriates
Story Filed: Monday, September 30, 2002 9:57 AM EST
Sep 30, 2002 (Al-Bawaba via COMTEX) -- President Saddam Hussein has received a telegram of pledge from Iraqi expatriates, INA news agency reported Sunday.

The telegram was sent by chairman of the 17th conference of Iraqi expatriates Shaker Al-Khafaji who pledged, on behalf of the Iraqi expatriates gathering in Sofia, to defend Baghdad's positions in international forums and confront all aggressive policies, INA added. "We express our full solidarity with the wise and brave leadership of Iraq and hail President Hussein's brave and honorable stances in /confronting/ the evil policies that aim at harming Iraq's sovereignty," Al-Khafaji said. (Albawaba.com) By Al-Bawaba Reporters

An opinion piece from a conservative online journal in September 2002 says that al-Khafaji financed (to the tune of $400,000) former weapons inspector and alleged pedophile Scott Ritter's documentary "In Shifting Sands," but I am still looking for other corroboration for that.

Regards,
Dave

PS, complete list of alleged bribe-takers is here: http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/show...threadid=33732

[Roguish Lawyer]

I guess I should know this, but help me out here:

Either p or q.

Doesn't "either" essentially mean, "one of p and q is true, but not both"? If not, what is the purpose of including the word "either" in this expression? I follow the logic for "p or q," since "or" just means that one or the other (or both) could be true. But your comments suggest to me that "either" has no meaning, which should not be the case.

[HQ6]

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
The whole point is that your original question is based on a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of bifurcation, in this case a disjunctive syllogism (the "either/or" fallacy):

Either p or q.
Not-p.
Therefore, q.

Bifurcation

Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy and "false dichotomy", bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. For example:

"Either man was created, as the Bible tells us, or he evolved from inanimate chemicals by pure random chance, as scientists tell us. The latter is incredibly unlikely, so..."

I think you, once again, missed my point.

Originally posted by HQ
That the professed moral outrage heard loudest from Chirac at the on set of Iraqi Freedom was nothing more than a farce and the real reason for not wanting the US to take action against Saddam was in fact financially based?

Mine was not a question of absolutes. I was not saying that France had to be opposed to US involvement either because it as a county was morally outraged OR because of financial reason. Mine was a question, more over a statement, regarding France, Chirac specifically, taking the moral high ground and repeatedly stating that opposition was NOT a financial based, but an issue of moral right and wrong. They may very well have been morally outraged, but that is not the primary motivator.

I realize the moral vs. financial may have lead you to believe that was my suggestion. That was my fault for over simplifying when posting in a hurry. However, if you go back and read the initial question, you will see that it was not an either or proposition.

Once again...

Take care.

HQ6

[Airbornelawyer]

More on al-Khafaji: apparently he financed the trip of Congressmen "Baghdad Jim" McDermott, Mike Thompson and David Bonior to Iraq in the Fall of 2002. See http://theweeklystandard.com/Content...2/605fgcob.asp

And another story on he and his friend Scott Ritter: http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/iraqiSRs.htm

Dave