HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Exclusive: CIA Files Prov...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Aug 25, 2013, 11:49 PM

Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

Source: Foreign Policy

The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.

U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.

Read more: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

82 replies, 12042 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 82 replies Author Time Post
Reply Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran (Original post)
Newsjock Aug 2013 OP
Arctic Dave Aug 2013 #1
warrant46 Aug 2013 #26
cosmicone Aug 2013 #29
warrant46 Aug 2013 #37
bemildred Aug 2013 #31
warrant46 Aug 2013 #35
bemildred Aug 2013 #36
warrant46 Aug 2013 #39
bemildred Aug 2013 #41
cosmicone Aug 2013 #54
bemildred Aug 2013 #55
Octafish Aug 2013 #42
bananas Aug 2013 #60
Octafish Aug 2013 #61
Arctic Dave Aug 2013 #45
kelliekat44 Aug 2013 #48
Botany Aug 2013 #2
Supersedeas Aug 2013 #43
Botany Aug 2013 #52
MannyGoldstein Aug 2013 #3
AverageJoe90 Aug 2013 #11
MADem Aug 2013 #30
Peace Patriot Aug 2013 #4
Berlum Aug 2013 #21
tblue Aug 2013 #5
leveymg Aug 2013 #6
tblue Aug 2013 #16
bananas Aug 2013 #22
delrem Aug 2013 #7
ConcernedCanuk Aug 2013 #17
Ghost Dog Aug 2013 #64
DirtyDawg Aug 2013 #8
NealK Aug 2013 #12
hedda_foil Aug 2013 #50
truebluegreen Aug 2013 #58
NealK Aug 2013 #65
delrem Aug 2013 #13
progree Aug 2013 #9
progree Aug 2013 #10
Festivito Aug 2013 #20
reusrename Aug 2013 #25
MADem Aug 2013 #32
Kelvin Mace Aug 2013 #14
nolabels Aug 2013 #24
Kelvin Mace Aug 2013 #38
nolabels Aug 2013 #70
Kelvin Mace Aug 2013 #74
dawn frenzy adams Aug 2013 #72
Spitfire of ATJ Aug 2013 #15
Scootaloo Aug 2013 #18
iamthebandfanman Aug 2013 #19
ck4829 Aug 2013 #23
cantbeserious Aug 2013 #27
Warren Stupidity Aug 2013 #28
JustAnotherGen Aug 2013 #33
freshwest Aug 2013 #73
JustAnotherGen Aug 2013 #75
freshwest Aug 2013 #77
marble falls Aug 2013 #34
Octafish Aug 2013 #40
City Lights Aug 2013 #44
Javaman Aug 2013 #46
Progressive dog Aug 2013 #66
Javaman Aug 2013 #78
Progressive dog Aug 2013 #81
kelliekat44 Aug 2013 #47
Hissyspit Aug 2013 #49
get the red out Aug 2013 #51
Benton D Struckcheon Aug 2013 #53
HumansAndResources Aug 2013 #80
formercia Aug 2013 #56
daleo Aug 2013 #59
formercia Aug 2013 #68
daleo Aug 2013 #82
truebluegreen Aug 2013 #57
ConcernedCanuk Aug 2013 #62
harun Aug 2013 #63
truebluegreen Aug 2013 #69
DhhD Aug 2013 #67
dawn frenzy adams Aug 2013 #71
gopiscrap Aug 2013 #76
HooptieWagon Aug 2013 #79

Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sun Aug 25, 2013, 11:52 PM

1. The real reason they let the Iraqis kill Saddam.

 

Too many secrets to let him live.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 07:35 AM

26. Saddam needed to be eliminated

His execution however was very amateurish and certainly will go down in History as "fumbled without class"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrant46 (Reply #26)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 08:33 AM

29. He would have died naturally -- he was already old

There was no reason to "eliminate" Saddam.

Also who are we to decide who needs to be "eliminated" and who lives? Would you like the new Chinese masters deciding that GWBush needed to be eliminated and execute on that decision?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #29)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 09:14 AM

37. I don't care for the "Chinese Masters"

The whole country is NOW ruled by a "New Corporate Fascist Dictatorship"

The old communists and their dreary wardrobes have been relegated to the dusty closet of ancient history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrant46 (Reply #26)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 08:40 AM

31. The Pentagon needs to be eliminated.

It's execution is always very amateurish and certainly will go down in History as "fumbled without class".

Anybody associated with the Pentagon talking about anything to do with "class" is ludicrous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #31)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 09:10 AM

35. Noted

The Pentagon and its Generals most of whom were trained at asylums such as West Point New York, love to use Chain Saws as implements to do nail manicures.

And B-52 carpet bombing as "Winning Hearts and Minds"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrant46 (Reply #35)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 09:13 AM

36. Can you say something coherent? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #36)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 09:15 AM

39. Not this morning

I haven't had my medication yet </sarcasm>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrant46 (Reply #39)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 09:17 AM

41. That's why I asked.

All I see is projection so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #36)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 12:21 PM

54. Low post count and RW talking points

go figure ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #54)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 12:34 PM

55. I was just looking for something to respond to, something that made sense

if you tried to figure out what it meant. No such luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrant46 (Reply #26)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 09:19 AM

42. Dead men tell no tales. POPPY BUSH GIFTED US TAX DOLLARS to support Saddam's War...



William Safire was almost alone tying George Herbert Walker Bush to the illegal arming of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
In fact, very few liberal and almost zero conservative voices have dared oppose the Bush bandwagon, let alone the War Party. The story, read by the late Representative Tom Lantos (D-California), into the Congressional Record (public domain, emphasis by Octafish):



THE ADMINISTRATION'S IRAQ GATE SCANDAL

BY WILLIAM SAFIRE
Congressional Record
Extension of Remarks - May 19, 1992
Washington

Americans now know that the war in the Persian Gulf was brought about by a colossal foreign-policy blunder: George Bush's decision, after the Iran-Iraq war ended, to entrust regional security to Saddam Hussein.

What is not yet widely understood is how that benighted policy led to the Bush Administration's fraudulent use of public funds, its sustained deception of Congress and its obstruction of justice.

As the Saudi Ambassador, Prince Bandar, was urging Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker to buy the friendship of the Iraqi dictator in August 1989, the F.B.I. uncovered a huge scam at the Atlanta branch of the Lavoro Bank to finance the buildup of Iraq's war machine by diverting U.S.-guaranteed grain loans.

Instead of pressing the investigation or curbing the appeasement, the President turned a blind eye to lawbreaking and directed another billion dollars to Iraq. Our State and Agriculture Department's complicity in Iraq's duplicity transformed what could have been dealt with as `Saddam's Lavoro scandal' into George Bush's Iraqgate.

The first element of corruption is the wrongful application of U.S. credit guarantees. Neither the Commodity Credit Corporation nor the Export-Import Bank runs a foreign-aid program; their purpose is to stimulate U.S. exports. High-risk loan guarantees to achieve foreign-policy goals unlawful endanger that purpose.

Yet we now know that George Bush personally leaned on Ex-Im to subvert its charter--not to promote our exports but to promote relations with the dictator. And we have evidence that James Baker overrode worries in Agriculture and O.M.B. that the law was being perverted: Mr. Baker's closest aid, Robert Kimmett, wrote triumphantly, `your call to . . . Yeutter . . . paid off.' Former Agriculture Secretary Clayton Yeutter is now under White House protection.

Second element of corruption is the misleading of Congress. When the charge was made two years ago in this space that State was improperly intervening in this case, Mr. Baker's top Middle East aide denied it to Senate Foreign Relations; meanwhile, Yeutter aides deceived Senator Leahy's Agriculture Committee about the real foreign-policy purpose of the C.C.C. guarantees. To carry out Mr. Bush's infamous National Security Directive 26, lawful oversight was systematically blinded.

Third area of Iraqgate corruption is the obstruction of justice. Atlanta's assistant U.S. Attorney Gail McKenzie, long blamed here for foot-dragging, would not withhold from a grand jury what she has already told friends: that indictment of Lavoro officials was held up for nearly a year by the Bush Criminal Division. The long delay in prosecution enabled James Baker to shake credits for Saddam out of malfeasant Agriculture appointees.

When House Banking Chairman Henry Gonzalez gathered documents marked `secret' showing this pattern of corruption, he put them in the Congressional Record. Two months later, as the media awakened, Mr. Bush gave the familiar `gate' order; stonewall.

`Public disclosure of classified information harms the national security,' Attorney General William Barr instructed the House Banking Committee last week. `. . . in light of your recent disclosures, the executive branch will not provide any more classified information'--unless the wrongdoing is kept secret.

`Your threat to withhold documents,' responded Chairman Gonzalez, `has all the earmarks of a classic effort to obstruct a proper and legitimate investigation . . . none of the documents compromise, in any fashion whatsoever, the national security or intelligence sources and methods.'

Mr. Barr, in personal jeopardy, has flung down the gauntlet. Chairman Gonzalez tells me he plans to present his obstruction case this week to House Judiciary Chairman Jack Brooks, probably flanked by Representatives Charles Schumer and Barney Frank, members of both committees.

`I will recommend that Judiciary consider requiring the appointment of an independent counsel,' says Mr. Gonzalez, who has been given reason to believe that Judiciary--capable of triggering the Ethics in Government Act--will be persuaded to act.

Policy blunders are not crimes. But perverting the purpose of appropriated funds is a crime; lying to Congress compounds that crime; and obstructing justice to cover up the original crime is a criminal conspiracy.

SOURCE: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920519l.htm



Amazing stuff. Still...not much else worth remembering, besides how few Democrats stood with Gonzalez.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #42)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 01:46 PM

60. Henry Gonzalez - entered a Resolution to Impeach George Bush

We should have a national holiday honoring Henry Gonzalez.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RfIoPGB.html

The Gonzalez Resolution to Impeach George Bush

Congressional Record, Jan. 16, 1991, at H520-21.

<snip>

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness, and yet with equally great, if not greater, conviction, that I introduce today a resolution of impeachment of President Bush. It is known as House Resolution 34, and I will provide this resolution as introduced to be appended at the end of my remarks today.

At a time when our Nation is deeply divided over the question of war, we find ourselves on the brink of a world war of such magnitude that our minds cannot fully comprehend the destruction that is about to be leveled. The position we are in is a direct result of the actions of one man and the reactions of another. The Iraqi people are as opposed to war as are the American people. The difference is that the Iraqi people have no choice but to support their country's leader, but the American people not only have the right to oppose and speak out in disagreement with the President, but they have the responsibility to do so if our democracy is to be preserved. Today I exercise this constitutional right and responsibility to speak out in opposition to war in the Middle East and in support of removal of our Nation's Chief Executive.

<snip>


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Reply #60)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 02:46 PM

61. Henry Gonzalez: A Great American...was ready to fight E Howard Hunt, mano a mano.

From the Congressional Record:



ARTICLE ARCHIVE

From 1992: On the floor of the House, an exasperated Henry Gonzalez exposes the first Bush administration's longstanding support for Saddam Hussein, and the insanity of imperial war.

THE BANCA NAZIONALE DEL LAVORO SCANDAL:

HIGH-LEVEL POLITICS TRY TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE


Henry B. Gonzalez, (TX-20)

(House of Representatives - September 14, 1992)


The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dooley). Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas is recognized for 60 minutes.

SNIP...

You had E. Howard Hunt. The only thing I know about E. Howard Hunt was 2 years ago in July, in fact July 14, I go back to my district every weekend, and I came in that Saturday morning. I arrived at the San Antonio Airport, and there was a couple there that used to be in my district and moved to a small town up in what we call the hill country.

They recognized me and said, `Oh, Congressman. How are you? We are so glad to see you.'
I saluted them and addressed them. I was leaving when this individual comes up. I had never met him before, but from his pictures and all I could tell that what he said was true.

He said, `You are Congressman Gonzalez?'

I said, `Well, I am E. Howard Hunt, and you are nothing but a--' and then he used a bad word.
Well, I had two little bags I was carrying, very small, so I just dropped them. I noticed he had a shoulder holster with a pistol. It was obvious.

So I said, `Mister, since you want to use sailors' language, here is what I think of you.' And then I used some choice words.

I said, `Let me tell you something else. You take one step forward closer to me or you make a move for the gun in your shoulder holster, and I will swear to you I will take it from you and in self defense I will kill you with it.'

He looked at me startled, turned around, and walked away. I picked up my bags and walked out of the airport.

That is all I know. Now, was he E. Howard Hunt? Well, he sure looked like him. What was his beef? I do not know. What was he doing in San Antonio? I do not know. Why does he still have a shoulder holster and pistol? I do not know. He is ex-CIA. They say ex, but there ain't no such thing.

(Page: H8353)

SOURCE: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/1992_cr/h920914g.htm



Mr. Gonzalez was a man, a patriot, and one brave fellow. He was a real American.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrant46 (Reply #26)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 09:57 AM

45. Needed?

 

For what reasons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrant46 (Reply #26)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 10:18 AM

48. No he didn't. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sun Aug 25, 2013, 11:58 PM

2. Rummy and Saddam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #2)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 09:20 AM

43. Lest we forget?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Supersedeas (Reply #43)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 11:17 AM

52. But what about Benghazi?

Reagan & H.W. Bush came into power cutting deals with the Ayatollah to rig the 1980
Presidential Election, then we had the Iran Contra scam(s), then Reagan and company
helping to get the materials for chemical weapons to Saddam, then H.W.'s ambassador
to Iraq telling Saddam that if he invaded Kuwait it wouldn't be a problem, and then onto
W's Iraq war the whole thing is example after example of what should not have been done.

And the whole time "they" waved American flags and talked about patriotism and liberty
as the bodies, lies, and wasted money piled up and up. If we had a real press some of these
bastards should still be in jail for all this crap.


BTW Look @ Benghazi!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sun Aug 25, 2013, 11:58 PM

3. I knew that this was the case when Bush totally played down

the chemical weapons that were found after we attacked Iraq. The only actual WMD found, and they said almost nothing about it.

I figured his daddy and his cabinet members were up to their eyeballs in the ch emical weapons, so he just wanted to make that go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #3)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 01:44 AM

11. And I suspect the BushCo guys may very well have been laundering these same kinds of weapons........

to the AQ/Salafi/MB factions of the rebels, not because they'd like to see Assad gone, necessarily, but as a means to an end, to keep their status quo going as long as they can, and not only that, but also, possibly as an attempt to try to screw over the Obama administration as well; remember, they also tried to turn Benghazi into a big "scandal", and it didn't stick.....so now they're likely cooking up another scenario......seems legit to me, at least(and probably is to an extent).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #11)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 08:40 AM

30. Laundering? You don't mean old US weapons, surely? They have a shelf life...

From those "right wingers" at ALTERNET, who are, in essence, calling Powell out for being a lying sack of crap:

http://www.alternet.org/story/15854/lies_about_iraq%26%23146%3Bs_weapons_are_past_expiration_date

The larger point is this--the weapons used in Syria were of more recent manufacture. They weren't old "laundered" US ones. Only a few people make those things, and it won't be impossible to figure out whose 'formula' was used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 12:07 AM

4. Too bad Reagan is dead and can't face American...uh...justice. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #4)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 05:55 AM

21. Undoubtedly Darrell Issa (R) would stage a series of Congressional hearings

on Reagan (R) and RepubliCronies (R) facilitation of poison gas.

NOT.

Freaking evil Republican "Family values."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 12:12 AM

5. Is this country anything it's purported to be?

In any way, shape, or form? Or is it all of it hogwash?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #5)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 12:18 AM

6. Not entirely all of it, but we are still the world's largest producer.

Something we can be proud that we're still #1 at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #6)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 03:08 AM

16. Producer of what? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #16)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 06:49 AM

22. Hogwash, of course. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #5)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 01:11 AM

7. It's all hogwash.

The US exists to start and foment wars, and to sell military supplies - a cycle that requires red-hot war to use up the weapons supplied, to fuel the market. The US has nothing to do with exporting peace, democracy and freedom. Nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #7)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 03:11 AM

17. Interesting . . .

 

.
.
.

I remember reading about 10 years ago,

that the USA's "powers that be" (were talking the money people, not the government) had ambitions from the beginning (right after the USA whipped the British) to make the USA a huge military establishment to control the World.

From watching how the USA takes care of its own citizens, and the USA's behaviour around the Globe,

I do not consider this theory too far fetched.

JFK and MLK tried to stop it.

They died.

CC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConcernedCanuk (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 03:47 PM

64. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 01:13 AM

8. First the...

 

...'reveal' that the CIA had orchestrated the '53 coup of the, elected, government in Iran..now this...wonder what it's all about? Could it be that the Administration has decided that it's time to let the country and the world know just how effin evil the Republican Party truly is - in case you hadn't noticed, Repugs had the Whitehouse (including directing the CIA of course) during both. What's next, the CIA and Chile...Nixon's sabotage of the '68 Vietnam peace agreement - and another 20,000 American troops died as a result...as well as Reagan and Bush 41's 'arms deal' with Iran to keep the Embassy Hostages until after the 80 election - just to ensure an election win. Point is, if the truth about just what depths the GOP have, and will, stoop to to get and keep power becomes known, the bastards just might be outlawed altogether. Then again, their base isn't really bothered by it cause they're effin evil as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirtyDawg (Reply #8)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 01:48 AM

12. I doubt it.

Last edited Mon Aug 26, 2013, 03:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Could it be that the Administration has decided that it's time to let the country and the world know just how effin evil the Republican Party truly is


Obama DOJ Asks Court to Grant Immunity to George W. Bush For Iraq War

August 22, 2013

In court papers filed today, the United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-doj-asks-court-to-grant-immunity-to-george-w-bush-for-iraq-war/5346637

And as for Poppy Bush, Obama gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.



Edit: Added Link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NealK (Reply #12)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 11:10 AM

50. Link, please????? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedda_foil (Reply #50)


Response to hedda_foil (Reply #50)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 03:48 PM

65. Oops, sorry.

Link added.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirtyDawg (Reply #8)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 01:53 AM

13. The US war machine is supported by both parties equally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 01:33 AM

9. More reason we need to intervene in Syria -- so we can control who gasses who

It would be very upsetting if we're not pulling the strings and determining who the gassers and the gassees are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 01:43 AM

10. This reminds me of Halabja, Halabja, Halabja that we found so offensive, but extended

agricultural credits to Saddam the following year.

I don't know how many times I've heard that from right-wing sources as justification for the invasion of Iraq. The gassing of the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja was in March 1988. (Remember how all we heard in leadup to the Iraq invasion was "Saddam gassed his own people, he gassed his own people, Halabja, Halabja, Halabja!")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack#International_sources_for_technology_and_chemical_precursors

But the U.S. government didn't seem to be so upset at the time -- the next year they extended agricultural credits to Saddam's regime.

http://axisofevelknievel.blogspot.com/2007/03/march-16.html

By the end of the 1990s, Halabja was rarely mentioned in the American press and almost never by political leaders like Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. By the summer of 2002, however, Bush administration officials had developed a certain fondness for the town’s name, invoking it as often as possible as the United State prepared for yet another war against Saddam Hussein. Three days before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, George W. Bush spoke in his radio address about the anniversary of the Halabja massacre:

"Whole families died while trying to flee clouds of nerve and mustard agents descending from the sky. Many who managed to survive still suffer from cancer, blindness, respiratory diseases, miscarriages, and severe birth defects among their children."



http://www.scribd.com/doc/30988264/An-Inconvenient-Atrocity-The-Chemical-Weapons-Attack-on-the-Kurds-of-Halabja-Iraq
U.S. Government Reaction

Reagan administration officials responded to the attacks on Halabja by rhetorically condemning the use of chemical weapons but failing to back their words with action. In fact, not only did the administration fail to penalize Iraq for chemical weapons use on civilians, it actively blocked efforts by others to hold Saddam Hussein and his regime accountable. The administration blamed Iran as well as Iraq for the attacks on Halabja, without ever producing evidence of Iranian involvement, a strategy that diffused international outrage; it tried (unsuccessfully) to prevent the UN from investigating the Halabja attacks; and it successfully stopped a tough Congressional bill—that would have hit Iraq with harsh sanctions for chemical weapons use—from becoming law. The administration put economic and energy-related interests above human rights when formulating official policy on Iraq, and evidence of these priorities appears frequently in memos and cables. The U.S. government, however, was not in lock step concerning Iraq and chemical weapons use. Some members of Congress argued passionately on the floor of the Senate and House to penalize Baghdad; the State Department was not unanimous in its objective to maintain good relations with Iraq, putting Secretary of State George Shultz in the position of having to decide which of his staffers’ policy positions to approve.

For one example of differing views regarding Iraqi policy among State Department staffers, in this case whether to extend Export-Import Bank credits, see Action Memorandum, “Export-Import Financing for Iraq,” Alan P. Larson, Richard W. Murphy, and Richard Schifter to George P. Shultz, 29 December 1988, Digital National Security Archive, document no. IG00739. The Digital National Security Archive


====================================

Just another example of how we helped Saddam get and use gas.

As for Syria, well, let's watch out for phony outrage by some politicians over the use of gas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #10)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 05:28 AM

20. Was it not that the type of chemical weapon used was sold to Iran not Iraq?

And, we were hiding that we were selling to both sides by saying Saddam gassed his own people.

I guess I have to wade through this whole mess again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Festivito (Reply #20)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 07:20 AM

25. I remember when Fritz Hollings retired from the Senate.

 

In the days before he left, he read into the record, for days IIRC, invoices and shipping lists for all of the chemical weapons that went to Saddam. I know it's in the Senate record, and he put copies of all the documents in there too. It was all part of his last hurrah. The press didn't seem at all interested in the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Festivito (Reply #20)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 08:43 AM

32. He gassed the KURDISH people--pay no attention to those lines on the map.

They are not Persian, they are not Iraqi, they are not Turkish, they are not Syrian, they are not Azerbaijani.

They are KURDS, with their own language, their own culture, their own customs and their own distinctive genetic code.

Kurds tend to do what is best for themselves, unfettered by nationalistic alliances unless they are of benefit to them, personally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 02:23 AM

14. And people on this board keep getting snarky with me

For not trusting the CIA/NSA/White House. I keep briinging up the past and we "need to move forward".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #14)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 07:17 AM

24. Some people can never seem to understand why trust is EARNED and not just given

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabels (Reply #24)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 09:15 AM

38. But Obama has a "D" after his name

People (including myself) voted for him. If I do not support him it MUST be because:

1) I hate black people.

2) I am secretly in the pay of the Koch Brothers and have been ever since I signed up for this board back in 2003 and fought tooth and nail for 5 five years on the e-voting issue.

3) I am a racist.

4) I am an unrealistic purists who expects just too much when I demand the party not sanction or collude with war crimes, murder, illegal spying, etc.

5) I am a bigot.

6) I am a fool.

7) I don't like "dark-skinned people"

8) I get all my news from Al-Jazeera

9) I am a Kloset Klasnman

10) It's because Obama's black.

Detect a theme here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #38)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 06:29 PM

70. I don't know exactly why you would not want support Obama.......

but if you would just change your outlook a little and come over to the DARK SIDE with the rest of the looney-bins then you might have a better understanding of how things work

It really is no shock for me on what is going on with Obama, Clinton did the same type of thing in his second term

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabels (Reply #70)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 08:14 PM

74. Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Stegall

which in my book makes him partially to blame for The Great Recession.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #38)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 06:51 PM

72. Dectect a theme?

Yes, but you wouldn't like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 02:56 AM

15. Betcha mainstream media is going to ignore this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #15)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 03:17 AM

18. They've been ignoring it since the 80's

Why would they stop now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 03:46 AM

19. there was doubt ? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 07:16 AM

23. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 07:38 AM

27. Well, Well, Well - The Truth Always Outs - And Some Want To Trust Obama And The NSA

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 07:39 AM

28. It's ok when we do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 08:54 AM

33. Samantha Power

Actually wrote of this theory in "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide. Peter Galbraith - I *think* was shut down/unable to get action on this in 1987 for just this reason.

We all know there were no WMDS in Iraq - but I'll always believe they (the Bush Cabal) expected to find these biological/chemical weapons. Bush expected it because his daddy was in on the giving of them to Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #33)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 06:58 PM

73. Agreed. But it's not exactly news. How did anyone forget this?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #73)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 09:48 PM

75. Shock Doctrine

. That's how they forgot. Random rambling - my gut response on the Syria issue - Precisely how do we know Assad had this exact chemical weapon?

This picture and the OP are most likely old news to the average DU reader - and those of us in DC ten years ago to protest Iraq. But this story seems a little too convenient today. *sigh*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #75)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 10:30 PM

77. Agreed. And I'm thinking it's very convenient too. Media doesn't give 'news.'

I think that died when Turner sold CNN, the instanteous observation of events as they were happening, as news, and not as a product. Since the owners make money off the contracts to the government...

Now the product being sold is another war, and we're being primed to accept it. NATO has just sent their ships off he coast of Syria. USA, UK and France so far. All the nuke powers are looking at Russia. Assad says he wants diplomacy. IDK what the truth is about these regimes over there.

I can't help but think this a delayed PNAC or an End Timer fantasy. The world is tired of this. But I think this OP is suggesting that the nerve gas is all our fault.

It's not like we're the only source for Sarin gas. It goes into that evil Obama meme, USA is always wrong. He has tried to keep us out of this mess. Now the call of genocide, as you said somewhere else, has been made and NATO will act on it. I just don't wanna...

I stumbled on this today, I'd already posted the UK papers claiming that Assad was using Sarin and hundred have gone to the hospital to be treated according to the Doctors w/o Borders group report. Now the Saudis are buying more WMD and Syria is saying they will send these things to Israel.



That's a lot of countries and most of the world's defense spending:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO; /ˈneɪtoʊ/ NAY-toh; French: Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique Nord (OTAN)), also called the (North) Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4 April 1949. The organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party. NATO's headquarters are in Brussels, Belgium, one of the 28 member states across North America and Europe, the newest of which, Albania and Croatia, joined in April 2009. An additional 22 countries participate in NATO's "Partnership for Peace", with 15 other countries involved in institutionalized dialogue programs. The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the world's defence spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014576504#post22

I was replying to a post reporting that NATO ships were offshore. Ready to do... well, some thing...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014576504#post7

Which referenced this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014576350/

About that Sarin gas:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023524905#post66





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 09:16 AM

40. If Saddam is Hitler then who is George Bush? Analogical mapping between systems of social roles.

Spellman, Barbara A.; Holyoak, Keith J.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 62(6), Jun 1992, 913-933.

The analogy between World War II and the 1991 Persian Gulf crisis led people to construct a coherent system of roles for the participants in the Gulf crisis. The Analogical Constraint Mapping Engine (ACME), a model of analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction (K. J. Holyoak & P. Thagard, 1989), makes predictions about the types of correspondences people are likely to draw between the people and countries in these analogs. Both a survey (Exp 1) and an experimental study (Exp 2) revealed clear evidence that people have a strong tendency to generate mappings that honor certain basic coherence constraints. In Exp 3, with science-fiction materials, further evidence for the generality of these constraints was obtained. Computer simulations of Exps 2 and 3 using ACME yielded mappings similar to those generated by Ss. General models of analogical reasoning may have implications for everyday understanding of complex systems of social roles. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.913

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 09:23 AM

44. No one could have predicted... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 10:06 AM

46. of course we did...

or have we all forgotten how the US Military found old "expired" chem ordinance with US markings on it during the Iraq invasion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #46)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 03:54 PM

66. Holy cow, the Guardian claims the US used them in Iraq

Everyone knows the Guardian is the only reliable source for all the USA's despicable acts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #66)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 11:09 PM

78. No earlier than that...

Invasion force found old bunkers full of old chem ordinance bought from us by saddam.

too old to be any good, but we gave it to him courtesy of rumsfeld.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #78)

Tue Aug 27, 2013, 08:15 AM

81. Surprising only few papers reported this

since most continue to deny finding chemical weapons in Iraq, much less weapons with US markings. All the mass media except the Guardian must be in on this.
If we leave off the US markings, this is exactly the stuff that all the RW sites used to defend Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 10:17 AM

47. This is not "news" Most of us knew that when it was happening. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #47)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 11:05 AM

49. It would be news to most Americans

If they ever got their heads out of MTV's or Fox's ass long enough to find out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 11:17 AM

51. It would be nice

if I were shocked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 11:46 AM

53. So this tweet went out from an FP editor last night as this story broke



I don't get the logic.
Obama isn't supposed to object to Assad's use of chem weapons because Reagan didn't care when Saddam used them?
Also, just to note, Foreign Policy is as mainstream as it gets, so I don't get the bit about the mainstream media ignoring this.
Other than that, carry on folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Benton D Struckcheon (Reply #53)

Tue Aug 27, 2013, 04:22 AM

80. Two Ways This "Complicates" the Situation

 

First, if the US War-Criminals Involved Were In Prison, we might have a bit more credibility. I've yet to see a perpwalk, or even harsh words, though I suspect the latter "lip service" may be forthcoming. Clearly, there is no "clean break" between R and D foreign policy; they even hang out together at the same War-Criminal's Club, the CFR.

Second, the US tried to Blame Iran for Saddam's CW use at the time - clearly knowing the truth. Ronnie Reagan even sent some "Cowboy Boots" with Rummy, as a present, for his buddy Saddam. http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/gallagher168.html (some other "Good 'ol Reagan" memories in that piece) But returning to the "Blame the CW on Iran" trick:

It was not until 1990 that the U.S. government would try to substantiate what it was trying to do since 1988, that is to deflect blame for chemical weapons use away from Iraq and redirect at least some of the blame towards Iran. The U.S. Army War College report of 1990, entitled “Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East,” authored by a team led by Steven C. Pelletiere concluded that Iran, not Iraq, was responsible for the chemical weapons attack on Halabja.

http://projectsheffield.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/how-the-forgotten-city-of-halabja-became-the-launchpad-for-war-on-iraq/

Now we have new declassified evidence of US awareness of CW use by Iraq, and continued support for the regime using them. So are we to believe the State Dept, now, when the claim is made that Assad decided to commit national-suicide by:

Killing a bunch of civilians with CW,
Crossing Pres. Obama's "Red Line,"
Just as UN-Inspectors arrived,
While the tide of war was turning in his favor,
And he was about to attend peace-negotiations with the upper-hand?

He purportedly tortured for the CIA, so I'm not giving him credit for "humanitarian of the year," but isn't it just a bit more plausible - or might we at least suspect - that this was a rebel operation, considering they just happen to be Suicidal / Homicidal Fundamentalist-Terrorists, and all.

There is also the question of whether those were some of the Libyan CW Gadaffi gave up (rewarded with a Western-backed civil-war), perhaps passed with one of the CIA's gift-packages out of Bengazi? At this point, that is speculation; maybe in another 35 years, we will see the declassified documents. Until then, who knows - but we do have a consistent pattern of deceit and a strong motive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 12:35 PM

56. I worked with some of the people involved

The US wanted access to Soviet Military equipment and Saddam was willing to give us access, in return for certain favors.
The Iraqis let us analyze the Soviet T-72 MBT, which, at the time (1982-3), was the biggest threat to US Forces. We were able to take Core Samples of the Armor and determine where all of the weak points were and determine the most efficient countermeasures.
If you remember back to the first Gulf War, where US Armor was able to take out the Iraqi Tanks with little loss on our side, you will be able to understand how valuable this information was.

There's always two or more sides to a story, so, unless one has all the facts, all of the speculation is pretty much Bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to formercia (Reply #56)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 01:27 PM

59. So, the U.S. helping Saddam's army with chemical warfare against Iran

Eventually facilitated U.S. conventional warfare against Saddam's army, just a few years later. Alliances sure are fickle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleo (Reply #59)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 05:27 PM

68. Providing intelligence is not helping with Chemical Warfare.

I have no knowledge of such activities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to formercia (Reply #68)

Wed Aug 28, 2013, 11:06 PM

82. Intelligence is vital in using any weapon

Troop movements, dispositions, defences, etc - all vital for targeting and logistics. Given the nature of chemical weapons e.g. Wind dispersal, good intelligence of the enemy's movements would be all the more useful. To say that supplying intelligence is not helping flies is sophistry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 01:15 PM

57. Not a surprise.

There was a joke after Gulf War I when we were disarming Iraq that we knew Saddam had WMDs because we had the receipts....

Not a very funny joke though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #57)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 03:04 PM

62. "we knew Saddam had WMDs because we had the receipts.... "

 

.
.
.

I knew years ago about the USA supplying chemical weapons to Iraq.

USA is not about peace - it's about global domination.

Get people to kill off each other, then move in.

USA sells more weapons globally than any other nation.

Then goes back with their own bombs and bullets to "control" it after those countries have depleted their defence resources.

Problem is, China and Russia ain't fooled - they are waiting for the USA to overextend its Military resources,

then all hell is gonna break loose.

I don wanna be here then.

CC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConcernedCanuk (Reply #62)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 03:08 PM

63. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConcernedCanuk (Reply #62)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 05:28 PM

69. + another

We already left. It was an economic decision at the time (forcibly retired after the economic crash) but I'd been wanting to get out for a long time. Tired of the feeling of blood on my hands, and no way to stop it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 06:44 PM

71. Mainstream Media: The enemy of the American People

Well this is another revelation we were already aware of. Now this will get virtually no coverage in the Mainstream Media. But when they were propagating and perpetuating the lies to justify attacking Iraq, you heard Saddam's use of chemical warfare 24/7. This while our own government looks like the cat that swallowed the canary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 10:01 PM

76. We always play both sides against each other

then act all holier than thou when that sort of shit goes down. Nothing ever gets done because as long as big business and the military industrial complex makes money on the deal TPTB will turn a blind eye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2013, 11:43 PM

79. Its OK. Obama gave them immunity. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread