Read the article you
posted Bill, nowhere does it mention Chirac being "bribed" outside of the sensationalist title. The reason for this is because there's not a single shred of evidence to support the claim.
Charles Pasqua is named in the Iraqi documents I have read but he has been estranged from Chirac since endorsing Chirac's opponent in a 1995 election so even if that were true the connection to Chirac is still nowehere to be found.
Here's a pro-Bush blog criticizing the misleading headline:
Furthermore, the rest of the "evidence" is based on documents whose veracity has not been established and several similar "revelations" have been found to be outright forgeries.
The "evidence" also indicts liberals such as Jimmy Carter. You do realize that if proven true, there would be charges of treason? Or at least violation of US laws since Iraqi trade was forbidden by sanctions?
What you posted is that someone found a list of names. And said list both did not include Chirac and its veracity is not established. The implication that the bribery occured is simply that, an unproven implication.
This is similar to the story about the Roland missles. The initial release of unverified allegations is released and people start parroting it all over the web, but don't bother to note that verification of the claim is still absent.
Note the threats to "prosecute". Where is the prosecution? Probably in the same place where the verification of these claims is.