Saddam fears Iraqi torture

[ELVIS]

By Philip Sherwell in Baghdad (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/16/1084646073415.html?from=moreStories)

May 17, 2004

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/meast/12/18/sprj.irq.saddam.photo/story.saddam.chalabi.jpg

CIA interrogators have seized on an admission by Saddam Hussein that he fears torture at the hands of his Iraqi enemies, and are threatening him with a quick handover to the new government in a renewed effort to break his silence.

They are also trying to exploit a new-found obsession of the former dictator with hygiene and careful food preparation to persuade him to begin giving information after five frustrating months of questioning.

Lengthy daily interrogation sessions have been structured around an apparent attempt to prepare Saddam to be handed over to the interim government that takes power after June 30.

The 67-year-old, who admitted that he feared torture soon after he was arrested last December, has been told his transfer will be delayed if he begins to co-operate with his interrogators.

Saddam is due to face trial at a war crimes tribunal in Baghdad after the transfer of sovereignty. Saddam has been held in solitary confinement since his capture.

Advertisement
Advertisement
He has good reason to fear that his Iraqi opponents might seek revenge for his brutal 24-year reign.

Many survivors of his prisons, and relatives of those who were killed by his regime, now hold positions in the interim governing council and a new Iraqi government is certain to introduce the death penalty for war crimes.

Saddam is said to be depressed and prone to angry outbursts during which he insists he is still the Iraqi president.

US officials are insistent that he has not been treated roughly. Washington is determined that he should not be able to claim he has been the victim of any abuse when he faces trial.

The Telegraph, London


:elvis:

[Big Troubles]

I think before he is released to the new Iraqi Gov. The United States should parade him in shackles up and down the New York streets to see what he "co-conspired" to try to destroy, and allow this piece of shit to hang his head in shame. Sounds cruel. But so does the guaranteed punishment he will surely face when handed back to his country. If he makes it there. I am probably in the minority here, but I don't think he should be killed for his crimes. He can be continually used for his insight, his connections and not to mention his historical value for modern history. I say the US should capture Osama and keep both Laden and Saddam in an American Army Bootcamp as shoeshiners and toilet scrubbers. :D More value alive then dead.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Big Troubles
I think before he is released to the new Iraqi Gov. The United States should parade him in shackles up and down the New York streets to see what he "co-conspired" to try to destroy

Please don't help the right wingers perpetuate that lie. Saddam had nothing at all to do with 9-11.

[Big Troubles]

Well, there is no proof either way. So I say he did co-conspire. It makes more sense that he would with long time allies Bin Laden. But you are also correct. Innocent before proven guilty. So I stand corrected. But Im against any death penalty, no matter how severe the crime. Keep the fucker in a 2x2 room if they want to. But I believe there is more to study into all of this before he is handed over.

[Big Troubles]

And Im Canadian, there is no left or right winged up here. We are the whole fucking bird and nothing but the bird. :D

[FORD]

Saddam and Osama were not allies. Bin Laden hated Hussein and called him an "infidel socialist". The only thing the two of them had in common was their ties to the Bush Criminal Empire.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Big Troubles
Well, there is no proof either way. So I say he did co-conspire. It makes more sense that he would with long time allies Bin Laden.

FORD could and has said the same about Bush,

[Roth & Roll]

They should give that fucker Chinese Water Torture while listening to Spammy screech nonstop until he talks.

I find it incredible that this fucker is kept protected in seclusion while the rest of the counrty is being blown up to bits.

Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

[steve]

Originally posted by FORD
Saddam and Osama were not allies. Bin Laden hated Hussein and called him an "infidel socialist". The only thing the two of them had in common was their ties to the Bush Criminal Empire.

RIGHT ON. SADDAM AND OSAMA WERE NOT ALLIES...SADDAM AND CHENEY WERE ALLIES. SADDAM AND RUMSFELD WERE ALLIES. SADDAM AND BUSH WERE ALLIES. SADDAM AND REAGAN WERE ALLIES.

1980s Saddam is supplied with technology by US military for chemical weapons. Saddam later seeks approval to use such weapons against US's enemy - IRAN, whom Saddam is waging America's war for. Reagan administration APPROVES his request.

1988...Al Gore led Senate votes for sanctions against Saddam Hussein for gassing the Kurds. Reagan administration/Bush Sr./Cheney rebuff this.

SADDAM HUSSEIN WILL NEVER...EVER BE SEEN IN A PUBLIC TRIAL BECAUSE...WHILE HE WILL CONFESS TO HAVING AND USING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, HE WILL REMIND TEH WORLD THAT THE ONLY ONES HE ACTUALLY EVER HAD OR USED WERE GIVEN TO HIM BY BUSH SR., REAGAN, CHENEY, AND RUMSFELD.

FORD...we need your archived Rumsfeld-Saddam photo posted, please.

[ELVIS]

This one ??

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg
Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.


:elvis:

[Angel]

Originally posted by Big Troubles
Well, there is no proof either way. So I say he did co-conspire. It makes more sense that he would with long time allies Bin Laden. But you are also correct. Innocent before proven guilty. So I stand corrected. But Im against any death penalty, no matter how severe the crime. Keep the fucker in a 2x2 room if they want to. But I believe there is more to study into all of this before he is handed over.

BT, please, get your facts straight. FORD is correct, Osama has no use for Saddam. There is no possible way they co-conspired. C'mon, your Canuck, stop watching CNN and get back to Cdn news programs! :D

[FORD]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
FORD could and has said the same about Bush,

Yes, but the Bush and Bin Laden families ARE long time allies.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Roth & Roll
They should give that fucker Chinese Water Torture while listening to Spammy screech nonstop until he talks.

I find it incredible that this fucker is kept protected in seclusion while the rest of the counrty is being blown up to bits.

Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

Yes. If Saddam actually started talking, he might reveal a lot of secrets that could get the BCE in a lot of trouble. Mostly all their arms deals in the 80's.

BTW, the outcry against subjecting Saddam to Van Hagar torture might be even worse than the Abu Ghraib thing, so this might be the wrong time for that.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Angel
BT, please, get your facts straight. FORD is correct, Osama has no use for Saddam. There is no possible way they co-conspired. C'mon, your Canuck, stop watching CNN and get back to Cdn news programs! :D

Has Conrad Black's "Global" network gone to full FAUX mode, maybe? I was noticing they were considerably to the right of CBC last summer.

[Big Troubles]

Originally posted by FORD
Yes, but the Bush and Bin Laden families ARE long time allies.

yup yup. long rich history between bush's and Bin Ladens

[ELVIS]

Yeah yeah yeah...

And Grandpappy Prescott played Cowboys and Terrorists with Grandpappy Osama...

:rolleyes:

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Yeah yeah yeah...

And Grandpappy Prescott played Cowboys and Terrorists with Grandpappy Osama...

:rolleyes:

No, he played "graverobber" with Geronimo's skull and "bankroll the Nazis" with Adolf Hitler.

[diamondD]

But if you bring up Robert Byrd, you're living in the past and need to get over those pesky facts. ;)

[FORD]

Originally posted by diamondD
But if you bring up Robert Byrd, you're living in the past and need to get over those pesky facts. ;)

I doubt Robert Byrd's grandchildren are billionaires from the crosses he burned 60 years ago.

[lucky wilbury]

saddam had plenty of connections with al queda. they go back a long long. even fords hero's clinton and clarke have stated so. but lets look at some connections: here we have a picture of Abdul Rahman Yasin

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2002/05/31/image510807l.jpg

anyone know where or when this pic was taken? may of 2002 in baghdad. why was in baghdad? because thats where he ran to in 1993 after the first al queda hit on the wtc and lived untouched for years in baghdad. he's now currently on the run somewhere still inside iraq.oh yeah did i mention he was an employee of the iraqi government and is himself an iraqi?

then we have nephew of Khalid shiek mohamed,september 11 mastermind, ramzi yousef who was the mastermind of the first wtc attack:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef/yousef.jpg

when he was caught he said he was on his way back to iraq. maybe he was just going to visit the person he made 46 phone calls to in iraq. maybe he was going to visit whoever provided him with his first iraqi pass port or later a passport of a kuwaiti who went missing during the gulf war only after being taken by iraqi intelligence whos body and all his papers where since recovered. all the papers where recovered in the mukbart headquaters in baghdad. everything except his passport. but never the less here's an article from 1996 that talks about thier connections to iraq. this article was written long before we went to war and long before the terms al queda and obl exter everyone's lexicon and before it was confirmed that he worked with al queda. it would be confirmed only a few years later after bubba bombed the same training camps in afghanistan that the first wtc plot was hatched. so here's a link to the article:

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMB: Who is Ramzi Yousef? And Why It Matters (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm)

[lucky wilbury]

forgot to add: the excuse of obl and saddam had no connections because obl thought saddam was an "infidel" is bullshit. hamas,islamic jihad and the iranian backed hebullah ALL called him and infidel but they were more then happy to take his money when he was offering it up to pay them for suicide bombers in israel. why you say? simple: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. we were friends with the russians even though we hated them but we both had a common enemy in hitler. same with saddam. you also should note that if saddam was an "infidel" to obl and obl wanted him done for one would expect a few terror attacks againest saddam by obl. but guess what they never happend.

[lucky wilbury]

one more thing i forgot to add: the us NEVER gave saddam ANY weapons. conventional or non conventional. evertything saddam has ever had has come from the soviet union as well as eastern block states. and for the record you can give anyone chemical weapons. chemical weapons are binary and are made from common chemical use in all sorts of industries like the dairy industries. all the precursor chemicals and the know how again came from russia and eastern block states. as for biological things non weaponized forms of almost bio weapons were availible by mail order until the mid to late 1990's. things like anthrax,plague etc etc. were all availible to whoever wanted to study them. some of the samples i'm sure eventualy were study and weaponized in iraq. they did that stuff on thier on with the teaching of the russians.

[VH LINKS SUCKS]

The Real Story!

[diamondD]

There goes Lucky with those damn pesky facts again!

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
one more thing i forgot to add: the us NEVER gave saddam ANY weapons. conventional or non conventional. evertything saddam has ever had has come from the soviet union as well as eastern block states. and for the record you can give anyone chemical weapons. chemical weapons are binary and are made from common chemical use in all sorts of industries like the dairy industries. all the precursor chemicals and the know how again came from russia and eastern block states. as for biological things non weaponized forms of almost bio weapons were availible by mail order until the mid to late 1990's. things like anthrax,plague etc etc. were all availible to whoever wanted to study them. some of the samples i'm sure eventualy were study and weaponized in iraq. they did that stuff on thier on with the teaching of the russians.

It's true that in legitimate over the counter arm sales it was %50 Russia, %15 France 15% China with a number of countries including the US making up the rest however the US was far from blameless in a number of key areas and many US government figures have expressed how they regretted it.


U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 30, 2002; Page A01

High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.



Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys."

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

Opinions differ among Middle East experts and former government officials about the pre-Iraqi tilt, and whether Washington could have done more to stop the flow to Baghdad of technology for building weapons of mass destruction.

"It was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now," says Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA military analyst and author of "The Threatening Storm," which makes the case for war with Iraq. "My fellow [CIA] analysts and I were warning at the time that Hussein was a very nasty character. We were constantly fighting the State Department."

"Fundamentally, the policy was justified," argues David Newton, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, who runs an anti-Hussein radio station in Prague. "We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible."

What makes present-day Hussein different from the Hussein of the 1980s, say Middle East experts, is the mellowing of the Iranian revolution and the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait that transformed the Iraqi dictator, almost overnight, from awkward ally into mortal enemy. In addition, the United States itself has changed. As a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, U.S. policymakers take a much more alarmist view of the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. Shifts in Iran-Iraq War

When the Iran-Iraq war began in September 1980, with an Iraqi attack across the Shatt al Arab waterway that leads to the Persian Gulf, the United States was a bystander. The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either Baghdad or Tehran. U.S. officials had almost as little sympathy for Hussein's dictatorial brand of Arab nationalism as for the Islamic fundamentalism espoused by Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. As long as the two countries fought their way to a stalemate, nobody in Washington was disposed to intervene.

By the summer of 1982, however, the strategic picture had changed dramatically. After its initial gains, Iraq was on the defensive, and Iranian troops had advanced to within a few miles of Basra, Iraq's second largest city. U.S. intelligence information suggested the Iranians might achieve a breakthrough on the Basra front, destabilizing Kuwait, the Gulf states, and even Saudi Arabia, thereby threatening U.S. oil supplies.

"You have to understand the geostrategic context, which was very different from where we are now," said Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, who worked on Iraqi policy during the Reagan administration. "Realpolitik dictated that we act to prevent the situation from getting worse."

To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified. According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.

The presidential directive was issued amid a flurry of reports that Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons in their attempts to hold back the Iranians. In principle, Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare, a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory.

Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians. But the Reagan administration had already committed itself to a large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in several visits by the president's recently appointed special envoy to the Middle East, Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Secret talking points prepared for the first Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad enshrined some of the language from NSDD 114, including the statement that the United States would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West." When Rumsfeld finally met with Hussein on Dec. 20, he told the Iraqi leader that Washington was ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a State Department report of the conversation. Iraqi leaders later described themselves as "extremely pleased" with the Rumsfeld visit, which had "elevated U.S.-Iraqi relations to a new level."

In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq.

Rumsfeld has also said he had "nothing to do" with helping Iraq in its war against Iran. Although former U.S. officials agree that Rumsfeld was not one of the architects of the Reagan administration's tilt toward Iraq -- he was a private citizen when he was appointed Middle East envoy -- the documents show that his visits to Baghdad led to closer U.S.-Iraqi cooperation on a wide variety of fronts. Washington was willing to resume diplomatic relations immediately, but Hussein insisted on delaying such a step until the following year.

As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in February 1982, despite heated objections from Congress. Without such a move, Teicher says, it would have been "impossible to take even the modest steps we were contemplating" to channel assistance to Baghdad. Iraq -- along with Syria, Libya and South Yemen -- was one of four original countries on the list, which was first drawn up in 1979.

Some former U.S. officials say that removing Iraq from the terrorism list provided an incentive to Hussein to expel the Palestinian guerrilla leader Abu Nidal from Baghdad in 1983. On the other hand, Iraq continued to play host to alleged terrorists throughout the '80s. The most notable was Abu Abbas, leader of the Palestine Liberation Front, who found refuge in Baghdad after being expelled from Tunis for masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, which resulted in the killing of an elderly American tourist.

Iraq Lobbies for Arms

While Rumsfeld was talking to Hussein and Aziz in Baghdad, Iraqi diplomats and weapons merchants were fanning out across Western capitals for a diplomatic charm offensive-cum-arms buying spree. In Washington, the key figure was the Iraqi chargé d'affaires, Nizar Hamdoon, a fluent English speaker who impressed Reagan administration officials as one of the most skillful lobbyists in town.

"He arrived with a blue shirt and a white tie, straight out of the mafia," recalled Geoffrey Kemp, a Middle East specialist in the Reagan White House. "Within six months, he was hosting suave dinner parties at his residence, which he parlayed into a formidable lobbying effort. He was particularly effective with the American Jewish community."

One of Hamdoon's favorite props, says Kemp, was a green Islamic scarf allegedly found on the body of an Iranian soldier. The scarf was decorated with a map of the Middle East showing a series of arrows pointing toward Jerusalem. Hamdoon used to "parade the scarf" to conferences and congressional hearings as proof that an Iranian victory over Iraq would result in "Israel becoming a victim along with the Arabs."

According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit.

At the same time the Reagan administration was facilitating the supply of weapons and military components to Baghdad, it was attempting to cut off supplies to Iran under "Operation Staunch." Those efforts were largely successful, despite the glaring anomaly of the 1986 Iran-contra scandal when the White House publicly admitted trading arms for hostages, in violation of the policy that the United States was trying to impose on the rest of the world.

Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide."

Chemicals Kill Kurds

In late 1987, the Iraqi air force began using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq that had formed a loose alliance with Iran, according to State Department reports. The attacks, which were part of a "scorched earth" strategy to eliminate rebel-controlled villages, provoked outrage on Capitol Hill and renewed demands for sanctions against Iraq. The State Department and White House were also outraged -- but not to the point of doing anything that might seriously damage relations with Baghdad.

"The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political and economic objectives," Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote in a September 1988 memorandum that addressed the chemical weapons question. "We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis."

Bush administration spokesmen have cited Hussein's use of chemical weapons "against his own people" -- and particularly the March 1988 attack on the Kurdish village of Halabjah -- to bolster their argument that his regime presents a "grave and gathering danger" to the United States.

The Iraqis continued to use chemical weapons against the Iranians until the end of the Iran-Iraq war. A U.S. air force intelligence officer, Rick Francona, reported finding widespread use of Iraqi nerve gas when he toured the Al Faw peninsula in southern Iraq in the summer of 1988, after its recapture by the Iraqi army. The battlefield was littered with atropine injectors used by panicky Iranian troops as an antidote against Iraqi nerve gas attacks.

Far from declining, the supply of U.S. military intelligence to Iraq actually expanded in 1988, according to a 1999 book by Francona, "Ally to Adversary: an Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace." Informed sources said much of the battlefield intelligence was channeled to the Iraqis by the CIA office in Baghdad.

Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation."

The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein as a moderate and reasonable Arab leader continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, documents show. When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she assured him that Bush "wanted better and deeper relations," according to an Iraqi transcript of the conversation. "President Bush is an intelligent man," the ambassador told Hussein, referring to the father of the current president. "He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq."

"Everybody was wrong in their assessment of Saddam," said Joe Wilson, Glaspie's former deputy at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the last U.S. official to meet with Hussein. "Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior. History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation."

[FORD]

There goes Sesh with those damn pesky facts again ;)

[Mr Grimsdale]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
simple: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. we were friends with the russians even though we hated them but we both had a common enemy in hitler

Actually during the second world war the US became increasingly friendly with the Russians.

Winston Churchill tried pointing out what he thought Stalin had planned when the war was over but the US government ignored his views and gave into the Russians over their claim to Eastern Europe.

Stalin was very keen on isolating Churchill during the final Big 3 conferences of the war. If you're interested buy a copy of "Berlin The Downfall 1945" by Anthony Beevor or "Churchill" by Roy Jenkins.

[lucky wilbury]

sesh if you read your article it is exactly what i said saddam was never given any chemical or bioloical weapons. anthrax and the precrusers chemicals aka insecticide were sold legally thats why it's the commerece department involved in it. iraq has farm land and the got to keep bugs off of it so they bought insecticide and then they changed to to whatever they wanted. the only thing that can be said that the us gave iraq was intel and thats about it.

[Mr Grimsdale]

Lucky Wilbury is half right. As I recall the Arms For Iraq scandal after the Gulf War in 1991 revealed that the US and UK had sold kit such as (in the case of the UK) Landrovers and computer controlled lathes and other machine tools. Neither of which are necessarily weapons. What is debatable is how much the politicians/officials knew as to their intended use.

[Seshmeister]

Who puts Anthrax on their lawn?

[Mr Grimsdale]

It was (perhaps still is) relatively easy to obtain Anthrax, Bubonic plague etc spores and cultures anywhere - all anyone had to do was claim it was for medical research and provide some certificates (which could probably be faked by anyone with a modicum of talent).

[Roth & Roll]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Who puts Anthrax on their lawn?
:D

[steve]

Nice article find Sesh. The Washington Post is a great reporting asset to this country, and as history shows...to the free world.

To really understand the Reagan and Bush administrations' support of Saddam though one has to put oneself in the context of the times.

Much of the Middle East foreign policy of the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations (which I think history is now viewing as DISATEROUS POLICIES) which were even continued to some degree in the Clinton administration's policy towards Iran...dealt with the average American's feelings regarding the hostage taking and the oil embargos in the late 70s.

On one hand, the American constituency supporting Reagan and wearing their Homer Simpson "Ayatollah Assahola" tee shirts wanted to "Bomb Iran", as the Beach Boys parody song of the time went.

On the other hand, many of the same folks did not want to get involved in the Middle East - let em rot, being the operatve philosophy. Ironic.

...and conveniently sitting next to Iran was Mr Hussein, with great ambitions for power...a secular man who was threatened in his own country by the same forces that had taken over Iran (fundementalist Shia Islam).

So Saddam ran our covert war against Iran for us. Average Americans viewed Hussein and Iraq as the good guys. The media reported the war as one of agression against Iraq.

More and more, I see Cheney, Wolfwitz, and Rumsfeld Tri-fecta's ambitions towards Iraq as one of re-writing history. Those three dudes were neck deed in responsibility for Saddam having chemical weapons in the first place, developing the technology to build his arsonal, and teh policy towards condoning his use of WMDs in the 80s against Iran, and against his own people. And those three FEARED Saddam would supply terorists with chemical weapons...I think they honestly did.

But their FEARS were driven more by the threat of such a chemical attack coming back to THEM than protecting the American people or making the world a safer place.

Saddam was ALWAYS a loose cannon, an evil bastard....tehy always knew this. You don't think the CIA didn't have the videotape of Saddam murdering the old Iraqi senate back in the 70s when he first came into power?

Saddam was their Frankenstein and they bet they could control him - they bet wrong.

Their push towards war with Iraq was an effort to clean the slate for their guilty consciences.

Anyone who votes for these MANIPULATIVE LOSERS running the executive branch right now is just a blind fool.

[lucky wilbury]

hate to break the news to you but the iran-iraq war started in 1980 before reagan was elected. if anyone is to blame it would be carter for pushing saddam to war. oh yes our hatred to iran was unfounded :rolleyes: tell me again what happend to our embassy in terhan?

[steve]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
hate to break the news to you but the iran-iraq war started in 1980 before reagan was elected. if anyone is to blame it would be carter for pushing saddam to war. oh yes our hatred to iran was unfounded :rolleyes: tell me again what happend to our embassy in terhan?

It's irrelevant. The point is, the folks in the Reagan and Bush Sr. administration... Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolkowitz, advocated and were knee deep in supplying Saddam with intel. and tech. (chemical weapons) to fight iran.

Argue it as a supporting of a lesser of 2 evils if you may, but don't burry your head in the sand about what went on - it's all well documented.

Do you REALLY support the Bush (Jr.) administration right now, or are you just being sceptical about this?

I can totally understand being Republican or not liking taxes much or big government, but I cannot understand supporting these incompetent and manipulative people.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by steve
It's irrelevant. The point is, the folks in the Reagan and Bush Sr. administration... Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolkowitz, advocated and were knee deep in supplying Saddam with intel. and tech. (chemical weapons) to fight iran .

we just went over this: saddam was NEVER given chem weapons.NEVER. so his gov bought pesticides. everyone buys pesticides. would you hold home depot responsible if someone turned what they bought there into chemical weapons? you can do it and i can do it. read up on what wolfowitz did during the 80's. things like talking reagen OUT of supporting marcos in the philipines amoung others.


Originally posted by steve
Argue it as a supporting of a lesser of 2 evils if you may, but don't burry your head in the sand about what went on - it's all well documented.


the only thing that is documented is that intel was provided to saddam and thats it. all that was was the iranians are over here or their over their and thats all.


Originally posted by steve
Do you REALLY support the Bush (Jr.) administration right now, or are you just being sceptical about this?

long term a reformed middle east is good for the us and it's good for the world. right now you have pro democracy groups taking hold in places like saudi arabia and iran. now that they see we will openly back them their stepping out of the shadows and into public. every country in the middle east is now starting to reform. weather it's allowing women to vote or run for office like in bahrain or saudi arabia holding open elections at the end of this year or the start of next year. 5-10-15 years from now the middle east will be a totally different place and all for the better.


Originally posted by steve
I can totally understand being Republican or not liking taxes much or big government, but I cannot understand supporting these incompetent and manipulative people.

see the answer above

[Mr Grimsdale]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
we just went over this: saddam was NEVER given chem weapons.NEVER. so his gov bought pesticides. everyone buys pesticides. would you hold home depot responsible if someone turned what they bought there into chemical weapons? you can do it and i can do it.

I think the point is that officials should have put two and two together and worked out what the chemical precursors might be used for before supplying them. Certainly it's a difficult task to determine someones motives but a little thought may have prevented future actions. Of course it's easy to say in hindsight but government officials are employed for their supposed intelligence and understanding of their specialist area.

[Big Troubles]

Anyone have a clue what happened to the Iraqi Info Officer? I was kinda hoping to see him on Jerry Springer or at the very least Larry King. :D Dimplomatic Immunity has run its course for him I suppose. But Im not sure what, if any war crimes he had committed. But he is one of the cards on the infamous deck right?

Or am I missing something?

[Big Troubles]

Im also trying to remember if the officials that fled to Saudi to seek refuge, were ever discharged to the UN or US/Allied Commanders?

[lucky wilbury]

baghdad bob wasen't in the deck of cards and he is frequently on al arabyah and al jeezra. last i heard he was living in the UAE.

[Big Troubles]

he certainly was the highlight on tv during the attacks. what is his position now?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Big Troubles
he certainly was the highlight on tv during the attacks. what is his position now?

FAUX News will give him his own show as soon as his English improves.

[tobinentinc]

Originally posted by steve
RIGHT ON. SADDAM AND OSAMA WERE NOT ALLIES...SADDAM AND CHENEY WERE ALLIES. SADDAM AND RUMSFELD WERE ALLIES. SADDAM AND BUSH WERE ALLIES. SADDAM AND REAGAN WERE ALLIES.

1980s Saddam is supplied with technology by US military for chemical weapons. Saddam later seeks approval to use such weapons against US's enemy - IRAN, whom Saddam is waging America's war for. Reagan administration APPROVES his request.

1988...Al Gore led Senate votes for sanctions against Saddam Hussein for gassing the Kurds. Reagan administration/Bush Sr./Cheney rebuff this.

SADDAM HUSSEIN WILL NEVER...EVER BE SEEN IN A PUBLIC TRIAL BECAUSE...WHILE HE WILL CONFESS TO HAVING AND USING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, HE WILL REMIND TEH WORLD THAT THE ONLY ONES HE ACTUALLY EVER HAD OR USED WERE GIVEN TO HIM BY BUSH SR., REAGAN, CHENEY, AND RUMSFELD.

FORD...we need your archived Rumsfeld-Saddam photo posted, please.


At the time Saddam was considered an ally because of our own safety. You forgot to mention the hostages in Iran for 444 days. Our friend Carter fucked that up royally. Giving weapons to Saddam to fight Iran (supported by USSR) and communism protected our country. That was Reagan's goal: destroy communism our biggest threat at the time. If he would have know the repercussions, Reagan wouldn't have given any WMD's to Saddam. After the Gulf War Saddam was supposed to have destroyed the WMD's he had. During the Clinton admin. U.S. and U.N. officials were "delayed" into searching for Iraq weapons. Clinton didn't think this was a big deal so didn't even bother to send anyone or thing into Iraq to enforce these searches. So don't blame this on Reagan or his admin. because there was a bigger enemy, actually 2: Iran and Communism. This isn't Clinton's fault either surpiseingly, it's Saddam's Period.

[steve]

Keep on burrying your heads in the sand kneejerk Republicans.

Hopefully, that religious nutcase ignoramous chimp in the White House will not "stay the course" into a new administration.

If he does, have fun fighting Christianity vs. Islam WWIII - no matter how much he talks of repecting other cultures, that's where we're headed if he wins.

the invasion of Syria may very well happen if bush wins, as might a war with North Korea.

God help us.

[steve]

Originally posted by tobinentinc
At the time Saddam was considered an ally because of our own safety. You forgot to mention the hostages in Iran for 444 days. Our friend Carter fucked that up royally. Giving weapons to Saddam to fight Iran (supported by USSR) and communism protected our country. That was Reagan's goal: destroy communism our biggest threat at the time. If he would have know the repercussions, Reagan wouldn't have given any WMD's to Saddam. After the Gulf War Saddam was supposed to have destroyed the WMD's he had. During the Clinton admin. U.S. and U.N. officials were "delayed" into searching for Iraq weapons. Clinton didn't think this was a big deal so didn't even bother to send anyone or thing into Iraq to enforce these searches. So don't blame this on Reagan or his admin. because there was a bigger enemy, actually 2: Iran and Communism. This isn't Clinton's fault either surpiseingly, it's Saddam's Period.

I see you didn't read my other posts above where I said Americans' feelings towards IRAN was the lynchpin of our whole policy, Homer J. Here's what I think...

To really understand the Reagan and Bush administrations' support of Saddam though one has to put oneself in the context of the times.

Much of the Middle East foreign policy of the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations (which I think history is now viewing as DISATEROUS POLICIES) which were even continued to some degree in the Clinton administration's policy towards Iran...dealt with the average American's feelings regarding the hostage taking and the oil embargos in the late 70s.

On one hand, the American constituency supporting Reagan and wearing their Homer Simpson "Ayatollah Assahola" tee shirts wanted to "Bomb Iran", as the Beach Boys parody song of the time went.

On the other hand, many of the same folks did not want to get involved in the Middle East - let em rot, being the operatve philosophy. Ironic.

...and conveniently sitting next to Iran was Mr Hussein, with great ambitions for power...a secular man who was threatened in his own country by the same forces that had taken over Iran (fundementalist Shia Islam).

So Saddam ran our covert war against Iran for us. Average Americans viewed Hussein and Iraq as the good guys. The media reported the war as one of agression against Iraq (when in reality, it was pretty clear that Saddam launched the war).

More and more, I see Cheney, Wolfwitz, and Rumsfeld Tri-fecta's ambitions towards Iraq as one of re-writing history. Those three dudes were neck deed in responsibility for Saddam having chemical weapons in the first place, developing the technology to build his arsonal, and the policy towards condoning his use of WMDs in the 80s against Iran, and against his own people. And those three FEARED Saddam would supply terorists with chemical weapons...I think they honestly did.

But their FEARS were driven more by the threat of such a chemical attack coming back to THEM than protecting the American people or making the world a safer place.

Saddam was ALWAYS a loose cannon, an evil bastard....they always knew this. You don't think the CIA didn't have the videotape of Saddam murdering the old Iraqi senate back in the 70s when he first came into power?

Saddam was their Frankenstein and they bet they could control him - they bet wrong.

Their push towards war with Iraq was an effort to clean the slate for their guilty consciences.

;)

[Big Troubles]

Originally posted by FORD
FAUX News will give him his own show as soon as his English improves.

LOL nice one!