...is apparently incredibly poor. On ABC's "This Week," George Stephanopoulos interviewed French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin and discovered that U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 really means.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me just ask one final question. If the United States goes forward anyway and in a month, two months, they go into Baghdad, they go into Iraq, and discover thousands of tons of chemical/biological weapons, what would you think then?

DE VILLEPIN: Well I think that we should have gave more time to the inspectors to make sure that this was going to happen. You see if the army is going to find it, don't you think the inspectors are in the position to find it? I think, and that's why we said we are ready to reinforce the inspectors, to give more hundreds of inspectors on the ground. We have the possibility everyday to know more about these programs. We should use this possibility. Every day we know more about these programs. [emphasis added]

Let me answer that question -- hell, NO! Monsewer De Villepin, it is clearly spelled out in 1441 that Iraq has to account for all of their chemical, biological and nuclear programs to the UN. If we go in and find chemical weapons, then that means that Saddam has not been cooperating, despite what you've said several times earlier in your fundamentally faulty defense of a murderous dictator.

The other interesting point of Monsewer De Villepin's presentation was his absolute refusal to consider that, knowing what we know now about Saddam Hussein's Iraq, maybe it was a bad idea to build him a nuclear reactor back in the early '80s.

STEPHANOPOULOS: France and Iraq have a long and complicated history on nuclear cooperation. France provided the original nuclear reactors to Iraq. Given what Saddam Hussein has said in the past, he has said the only mistake he made in 1991 was invading Kuwait before he had nuclear weapons. Do you now believe that Israel was right to bomb the Osaraq(sp?) reactor and France was wrong to help build it?

DE VILLEPIN: I think you cannot remake history. You can take lessons. You can imagine different scenarios. I don't think it's possible today definite answers. I think that the idea of preemptive strike might be a possibility. Have it as a doctrine, as a theory, I don't think it is really useful. Sometimes by using force preemptively we might create more violence and we have to be always thinking to what are the consequences.

The French are in bed with Saddam up to their necks (if I may mix my metaphors). They've got the opportunity to take sides in this conflict. To quote from "Indiana Jones and the Holy Grail": "You've chosen unwisely."