Frédéric Desagneaux, consul general of France for San Francisco, is not happy with the light being shown on his country’s involvement with U.N. corruption in Iraq. Poor thing.

Yesterday, the independent committee investigating corruption in the U.N.’s “oil-for-food” program for Iraq made public the names of 3,545 companies that sold goods to Saddam. Also published were the names of 248 companies which received Iraqi oil under the program. Through oil-for-food, Saddam stole “$10.1 billion through oil smuggling and kickbacks from suppliers.”

Leave it to the U.N. to pull off one of the biggest scandals in world history. Evidence is emerging from the oil-for-food investigation of Saddam/al-Qaeda connections, Saddam’s illegal purchase of weapons, and how common Iraqis suffered under a plan meant to help them – suffered more than they did before this great humanitarian effort was begun.

Want a good laugh (or cry)? Responding to yesterday’s release of oil-for-food company names, our French friend Frédéric Desagneaux wrote a very politically correct essay published in the San Francisco Chronicle. With expert old-world finesse, Mr. Desagneaux tries to lull readers into believing he really respects the U.S., but he's incapable of pulling it off:

The United States of America is a great democracy. It is also an example for the world in terms of free press. And it's important to maintain the highest standards in terms of presentation of very sensitive issues.

Notice the implication of the second sentence that France has been found guilty before a trial – even though we’ve all seen enough evidence already. Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman and head of the committee investigating oil-for-food, Paul Volcker, “said his probe had met some resistance in France and in Iraq,” according to the AP. Volcker spoke thusly about BNP Paribas, the French bank which handled oil-for-food’s creative accounting and dollars:

…they have been cooperative up to a point…

We're entitled to have the information, and I think we're going to get it, but it hasn't been volunteered quite as rapidly as we might have wished.

It is common knowledge that French President Chirac and Saddam had a “deep and tight” relationship. We know "Russia, France and China accounted for 82% of all weapons sales to Saddam Hussein's regime between 1973 and 2002." With so much easy money to be made selling weapons to Saddam and getting cheap oil, just why would the French support the Iraq war? – forget the minor moral details. Saddam's rule meant torture chambers, dropping poison gas on civilians, starting an 8-year war with Iran which claimed a million lives, etc. An estimated 300,000 dead Iraqis lay in some 260 mass graves, 40 of which have been confirmed to date. And the left says that America is motivated only by corporate greed? Poor French. Poor Saddam.

Never mind the morality, Monsieur Desagneaux has the audacity and mendacity to conclude his “essay” by accusing America of lying:

Lastly, I cannot accept innuendo implying that France's vote in the Security Council was "bought off." The reasons for my country's opposition to the invasion of Iraq are well known: France was against this war because this war was not necessary. We said it at the time: There were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction threatening the United States or Europe; there were no links between Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks. This is now clearly established, and this is why we were against this war. To that extent, the other conclusions of Duelfer's report support France's position.

Oh, excusez-moi! God forbid us lowly American, SUV-driving, fat-asses accuse France of the obvious. No WMD’s in Iraq? Some were found. The rest are probably in Syria, France’s traditional ally. Iraq weapons inspector David Kay found all sorts of evidence that Saddam was violating U.N. restrictions on WMD development. Kay's team found organic precursors for biological weapons. They found "suspected mobile biological agent laboratories." Kay's team found evidence that Saddam's goons were working on ballistic missile systems with ranges far in excess of the U.N.-mandated limits.

The French said they believed Saddam had WMDs before the war. The UN Security Council, including France, voted unanimously on 08/11/2002 to hold “Iraq in ‘material breach’ of its obligations under previous resolutions.” The same resolution “recall[ed] [a] repeated warning of ‘serious consequences’ for continued violations” by Iraq.

No links between Saddam and al-Qaeda? Au contraire, Monsieur Desagneaux; click here or here to see plenty of evidence of Iraq/al-Qaeda ties -- even related to 9/11.

Nothing is “clearly established” except France’s role in propping up Saddam. As far as I’m concerned, netWMD’s “Proclamation of Concern and Intent: Boycott of German, French, & Belgian Goods” still stands.