>Have you read the actual interview? try http://abcnews.go.com/sections/ThisWeek/World/villepin_transcript030302.html

I hadn't read the interview but now I have. The amount of double-speak is quite amazing. I laughed when I came across this article:

http://www.info-france-usa.org/news/statmnts/2002/iraq121202.asp

where de Villepin says:

The onus, we mustn't forget, is primarily on Iraq; Iraq must fully and immediately implement the entire resolution – that is the firm message we are sending her.

That statement was made in Paris on December 12, 2002. Since Hans Blix is the one saying that Iraq is not fully complying with the resolution, I wonder exactly what de Villepon means when he says immediately.

It's very clear from reading the transcript of the interview with Stephanopolous that the de Villepin is saying "I know what we agreed to in 1441, but that's not really what we meant."

>As for "answering" what Mr Wills said: how does one respond to ad hominem slogans?Look at this:
>
>Wills: "Speaking, as we are, primarily of the French government, its oleaginous foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, addressed the Security Council after Powell. Following some initial circumlocutions, the opacity of which could not conceal their offensiveness, de Villepin may have begun exercising the skill France has often honed since 1870 -- that of retreating, this time into incoherence. " and so on...
>
>Fact: de Villepin's address was sufficiently clear to earn a spontaneous eruption of applause from the chamber. Nobody applauded Powell.

Spontaneous eruption of applause from the U.N. means the message was clear? I have to seriously disagree with that. The U.N. seems to thrive on double-speak. de Villepin's interview with Stephanopolous is clear about that.

>Then this:
>
>Wills: "People committed to a particular conclusion will get to it and will stay there. So the facts that Powell deployed, and the pattern they form, will not persuade people determined to be unpersuaded. But Powell's presentation, its power enhanced by his avoidance of histrionics, will change all minds open to evidence. Thus it will justify disregarding the presumptively close-minded people who persist in denying ... what? "
>
>IOW those who are committed to Mr Wills viewpoint are clever and observant; those who disagree are closed-minded fools who should be disregarded. What a sophisticated, intellectual proof that Mr Wills must be right.

1. France votes for 1441, calling for complete and immediate disarmament by Iraq
2. de Villepin says on December 12 that Iraq must fully and immediately implement the entire resolution
3. Hans Blix says that Iraq has not shown a commitment to disarm

What is comes down to is this: the U.N. is good at passing resolutions. Implementing them is an entirely different thing.

>You insist that others provide "credible" sources. Review the actual UN speech and actual interview and tell me how Wills' version stacks up.

I was unable to find the U.N. speech. I went to the U.N. site and was unable to find it with google. Can you provide me with a link?