Jumping To Conclusions

Here's news that will come as a shock to many Amish people: France Opposes New British Proposal on Iraq. This is of course the compromise proposal being pushed by the British, in which Iraq would have to meet certain conditions by a certain deadline. But it's still not good enough for the cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

France said it does not support the idea of an ultimatum. It wants to "set out a framework for inspections with a work program and a precise calendar," de Villepin said.

What the hell are they talking about? They already issued the ultimatum. That's what 1441 was. Why did those bastards vote for the thing, anyway? Was it really just to stall, to give Saddam Hussein more time in power? More time to shred documents showing the French collaboration with the Iraqi government?

Perhaps the problem is that the French believed George H. W. Bush a decade ago when he compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler. ("Hitler? Mon dieu! We must hand over Paris right away!") Or perhaps the problem is that the French, like the New York Times, don't understand the agenda here. The Times calls for another attempt at negotiating a compromise solution, saying:

The ultimate goal should not be a symbolic Security Council majority of nine, but passage of a resolution without a disabling veto. That might still be possible. Washington will find out only if it makes the new British proposal the basis for serious negotiations.

No, you French-wannabes; the ultimate goal is total disarmament (which will almost certainly require regime change) of Iraq. A resolution is just a means to that end. Does the Times really not understand that there's no value to yet another ambiguous Security Council resolution which will just be ignored? Do they not realize that the French will never agree to any resolution that has any teeth in it? Or do they just not care?