The French worked the whole process. They *wanted* war with Iraq. They wanted no responsibility for it, though. And they got everything they wanted. Click "read more" to read how I came to this conclusion. I began to wonder, "what on Earth would make the French announce they'd veto any new proposal, before they'd heard one?" Sure, they might expect nothing beneficial. But if they wanted to prevent a war (or delay one), they could have just vetoed the proposal when it was put up for a vote.

But they didn't.

They announced that nothing could pass, because they were going to veto it. And in doing so, they got the war they wanted, as soon as possible. And they don't need to contribute any money to the fighting. Nor any troops.

(Another, more sinister outlook has the U.S. paying France to make the "veto" announcement---surely paying France off is cheaper than paying off a whole lot of countries. But I don't think that's the case, here.)

Pathetically, French companies are upset that they're being left out of the post-war rebuilding plans.

(I want to be clear. I'm still no fan of half-baked war without a strong case. I'm still no fan of the Cancer in Chief. But I thought it an interesting question of strategy---why would a negotiator give up the right to veto something by pre-announcing?)