First, via Andrew Sullivan, check out the VERY DETAILED account of "what happened behind the curtains" for the last 2 weeks between US / UK / France in the UN.  This is from a speech Tony Blair gave to the UK House of Commons shortly after Bush's ultimatum

...We then worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and drew up five tests based on the document they published on 7 March. Tests like interviews with 30 scientists outside of Iraq; production of the anthrax or documentation showing its destruction. The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis to cooperate with them. So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time to fulfill all six tests to show full cooperation; that if he did so the inspectors could then set out a forward work programme and that if he failed to do so, action would follow.

So clear benchmarks; plus a clear ultimatum. I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable position.

...There were debates about the length of the ultimatum. But the basic construct was gathering support.

Then, on Monday night, France said it would veto a second resolution whatever the circumstances. Then France denounced the six tests. Later that day, Iraq rejected them. Still, we continued to negotiate.  [VV -- note that France rejected it before Iraq did!]

Last Friday, France said they could not accept any ultimatum. On Monday, we made final efforts to secure agreement. But they remain utterly opposed to anything which lays down an ultimatum authorising action in the event of non-compliance by Saddam.

Just consider the position we are asked to adopt. Those on the security council opposed to us say they want Saddam to disarm but will not countenance any new resolution that authorises force in the event of non-compliance.

That is their position. No to any ultimatum; no to any resolution that stipulates that failure to comply will lead to military action.

What fuque-ing bastards.   We gave them EVERY possible opportunity to play the diplomatic game and we're the ones accused of unilateralism.  Chirac and his cronies had absolutely no intention to affirm any resolution with teeth.   It wasn't the goal they objected to, it's their fantasy ideology that somehow teeth -- or at least the credible threat of them -- aren't necessary for dealing with a guy like Saddam.  

In fact, not only is threatening to use teeth unnecessary, even accepting it as a tool in the international theater constitutes a gravely immoral thought.  Dictator-coddlers like themselves are only successful if they keep that kind of vocabuarly out of the hallowed, Kantian halls of the UN

And they were going to use every trick in their diplomatic pouch to ensure that their ideology was rammed through.   And they wonder why we're so angry?    And they wonder why Bush simply chose not to play their game?

But, luckily for them, the French have latent sympathizers here in the American media.   Here's how NBC's Tim Russert rationalizes the 65% support rating for going after the bastards (I'm talking about Iraq here) in American polls:

Asked if the United States should take more time to try to resolve the conflict diplomatically, 61 percent favored military action now. Thirty-three percent favored more diplomacy.
       Russert said the strong support for a strike now reflects the Bush administration’s success in portraying France as being “obstructionist” at the United Nations, where the United States failed to win backing for military action from key members of the Security Council.

PUH-LEEZE.   Tim, please tell me that you give the American people more credit than that.  For Tim, it isn't that the French actually were obstructionist but rather that they were portrayed as such.   (The subliminal message is loud and clear -- "don't fall for the trap of thinking of the French as obstructionist -- you're reacting exactly how Bush wants you to react!")

Bush, Ari Fleischer, and the whole cast have been exceptionally courteous towards the French given their behavior -- they could have played this up FAR more than they did but they simply haven't.    What's actually going on is that Joe American actually watches & pays attention to what erstwhile allies are doing and they've made up their own minds.   

Tim Russert & crew think we're just pawns in the hands of a go-to-war-at-all-costs administration.   Taking a page from Bias, could you possibly imagine this kind of rationalization being proffered up by NBC back in the good 'ole Clinton days?  

I guess I'm in a testy mood.

---