Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the WH Secretly Armed Iraq

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 04:09 PM
Original message
Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the WH Secretly Armed Iraq
by http://www.namebase.org/sources/UL.html

"Friedman, Alan. Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq. New York: Bantam Books, 1993. 455 pages.
This is the story that Bill Clinton promised to investigate if he got elected, but now (January 1994) it appears that his handlers have other plans. It's about how the White House, with assistance from allies in London and Rome, violated the law in order to support Saddam Hussein. Then, following the invasion of Kuwait, George Bush compared him to Hitler, set up the American response, and he and Margaret Thatcher began covering up their past dealings. The story involves the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL), the Department of Agriculture's Commodity Credit Corporation, Iraq's nuclear procurement program, and the CIA and Carlos Cardoen (a Chilean arms dealer). Given this ten-year history, it was not unreasonable for Saddam Hussein to assume that U.S. ambassador April Glaspie was giving him the green light to invade Kuwait. And maybe she was; perhaps Bush thought he needed a quick-fix war to try out the Pentagon's new toys and crank up his popularity.
Alan Friedman is an American citizen who began covering Iraqgate while serving as the Milan correspondent for the Financial Times of London. His book includes 74 pages of reproduced bank and government documents, as well as extensive end notes.
ISBN 0-553-09650-8 "

This book never got much publicity due to the BFEE. Maybe now it will be reprinted and, along with Scott Ritter's new book on how the CIA and WH gamed the WMD situation that they'd set up, will shed much needed light on why Judith Miller, Robert Novak, and other Operation Mockingbird media 'assets' were hellbent to out an undercover CIA operative for their own ideological ends, national security wasn't even a part of the equation.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
flamin lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. And before that we armed Iran. The whole middle east was a
surrogate for the super powers. We arm one side, they the other and they become pieces on a chess board.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Yes, if I remember correctly from Sy Hersh's Price of Power
Dr K, after the Vietnam debacle, went to the Shah of Iran-- who not long before had blown billions on a Persian national 'birthday' millenium party-- and told him to buy US military armaments, and in exchange for that he would get a 'green light' to increase the price of worldwide oil. And jeepers, that's what happened.

It's called The Third Option book by spook legend extraordinaire Ted 'Blond Ghost' Shackley.

Nice to know that it gets mentioned occasionally in media but never acknowledged publicly by the appropriate powers that be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. Exactly. Poppy Bush used Clinton's naivete at the time to cover HIS ass.
Keeping all that important info hidden now makes Clinton look complicit. Man, did he get played BIGTIME.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I'm still waiting for Clinton to get angry enough to spill the beans.
He needs to stop playing Mr. Nice Guy. It would be so easy if Hillary weren't running for president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. Never understood why Clinton didn't back Henry Gonzalez...
Eine kleine backgrounder, via NAMEBASE and APF network:



Friedman, Alan
Scandals / Iraqgate

Fri Aug 8 02:12:19 2003
64.140.158.45

Scandals / Iraqgate


Friedman, Alan. Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq. New York: Bantam Books, 1993. 455 pages.
http://www.namebase.org/books57.html

This is the story that Bill Clinton promised to investigate if he got elected, but now (January 1994) it appears that his handlers have other plans. It's about how the White House, with assistance from allies in London and Rome, violated the law in order to support Saddam Hussein. Then, following the invasion of Kuwait, George Bush compared him to Hitler, set up the American response, and he and Margaret Thatcher began covering up their past dealings. The story involves the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL), the Department of Agriculture's Commodity Credit Corporation, Iraq's nuclear procurement program, and the CIA and Carlos Cardoen (a Chilean arms dealer). Given this ten-year history, it was not unreasonable for Saddam Hussein to assume that U.S. ambassador April Glaspie was giving him the green light to invade Kuwait. And maybe she was; perhaps Bush thought he needed a quick-fix war to try out the Pentagon's new toys and crank up his popularity.

Alan Friedman is an American citizen who began covering Iraqgate while serving as the Milan correspondent for the Financial Times of London. His book includes 74 pages of reproduced bank and government documents, as well as extensive end notes.



And a little bit on a lesser known tome:



Mantius, Peter. Shell Game: A Story of Banking, Spies, Lies, Politics, and the Arming of Saddam Hussein.

New York: St.Martin's Press, 1995. 288 pages.

When the feds arrested Christopher Drogoul in 1991, the manager of the Atlanta branch of the Italy's Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL), they charged him with 347 felony counts. The story was that Drogoul had hoodwinked his Italian bosses and funneled billions to Saddam Hussein. The prosecutor, Gale McKenzie, was given her lines by U.S. intelligence insiders, and tried to place all of the blame on Drogoul. The bosses at BNL were only too happy to go along, and hired lawyers with close connections to the prosecution. But judge Marvin Shoob saw that the government was pulling a fast one. It was attempting to blame Drogoul for what amounted to an off-the-books effort by Fortune 500 corporations and U.S. policymakers to recruit Iraq as an ally, by giving them credits that were used to purchase arms.

Congressman Henry Gonzalez, who is a tenacious muckraker when his targets are Republicans, tried to make hay out of Iraqgate in 1992. But Shoob was sufficiently outspoken that he had to give the Drogoul case to another judge, whereupon Drogoul cut a deal and ended up serving 33 months. There was a bit of BNL fallout back in Italy, and an Iraqgate scandal in Britain, while in the U.S. the story was already dead. The fact that our media had been so unabashedly enthusiastic over the high-tech death and destruction of the Gulf War may have had something to do with it.



SOURCE with a nice ALL CAPS names listing...

http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/8-10-03/discussion.cgi.54.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chelsea0011 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sadaam is not being tried for
any gassings of the Iranians and Kurds in the early 80's when Reagan was President.The reason being that the trial could become a mess with the US having to explain why they supplied weapons and stood by while Saddam slaughtered thousands. Not one sanction against Sadaam by the Reagan administration after he unleased WMD's came from these attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I think they are having numerous trails for Saddam....
...the first one deals with killings in 1982 that are non-chem weapon involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chelsea0011 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. So Poppy is on the witness list?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Supposedly the Iranians did it using cyanide-based CW, ArmyWarCollege
source mentioned below

From the website
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread18930/pg1

""Saddam did NOT GAS HIS OWN PEOPLE

I'm tired of everyone across the United States using the excuse of Saddam "gassing his own people" as a justification for killing more Middle Eastern innocents, especially since it isn't true.

"Supposedly Hussein gassed Iraqi Kurds at Halabja in March 1988 during the closing days of the Iran-Iraq war. But it isn't true. In 1990, the U.S. government found that the Kurds died by cyanide gas. It was the Iranians who used cyanide, while the Iraqis used mustard gas. This means it was the Iranians who accidentally killed the Kurds during battle. Hussein had nothing to do with it. (Source: Army War College, Stephen Pelletier & colleague)"

http://www.truthaboutwar.org/1brutal.shtml


"And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent ? that is, a cyanide-based gas ? which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html?ex=1064894400&en=a7ddf2c51b0e20ff&ei=5070 ""
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monkey see Monkey Do Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I wouldn't trust an army report
from the time when Bush was keen to carry on supporting & arming Saddam & didn't want to get drawn into defending the Kurds from genocide. HRW & Amnesty both say Saddam did it & I have much more faith in them.

Regards "Spiders Web" it really is an excellent book and should have been reissued 3 years ago. If you want an arms-dealer's perspective (albeit a British one) check out "In the Public Interest" by Gerald James. There's also a very good book on the assassination of Gerald Bull (the guy behind the Supergun) but the title escapes me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. It doesn't really make any difference to BFEE
As Amy Goodman's DemocracyNow! article link below shows, it didn't make any difference whether Iraq or Iran did the deed; what was necessary at the time is all that really matters...

Monday, Sept. 29th, 2003
Halabja: How Bush Sr. Continued to Support Saddam After the 1988 Gassing of Thousands And Bush Jr. Used it As a Pretext For War 15 Years Later
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/29/155243

"After the Halabja gassing President Bush I and Sen. Bob Dole fought sanctions against Iraq even though the gassing killed thousands and was reportedly carried out in part by U.S.-made helicopters. From 1989 to 1990 the gassing was mentioned about once a month in major press outlets, yet in the three weeks leading up to the 2003 invasion, the press mentioned it 150 times. In 15 years the gassing went from an untold story to a pretext for invasion"

When is served the 'Saddam did it' purpose, that was used. After Saddam was captured we are now seeing the 'Iran did it' purpose being floated. Today's environment suits them to use both now that Saddam is on trial and Iran's nuclear situation is fluid.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McKenzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
5. "George Bush compared him to Hitler"...well read this...
Perhaps George Bush might like to reconsider that in the light of his own family's funding of certain dictators in the past.

<snip>

These and other actions taken by the U.S. government in wartime were, tragically, too little and too late. President Bush's family had already played a central role in financing and arming Adolf Hitler for his takeover of Germany; in financing and managing the buildup of Nazi war industries for the conquest of Europe and war against the U.S.A.; and in the development of Nazi genocide theories and racial propaganda, with their well-known results.

</snip.

http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 01:44 AM
Response to Original message
11. K and R and bookmarked. I hope some of this comes out in SH's
trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
13. Just Google "shaking hands with saddam" and you will find everything...
...you need.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
14. Want to know what's going on today? Read this book.
Spider's Web author Alan Friedman was on Democracy Now and gave Amy Goodman a good overview:



ALAN FRIEDMAN: We need to go back to the beginning of the 1980's to understand how the United States created the monster that Saddam Hussein is today. In the early 1980's, remember the United States was violently against the Islamic fundamentalists of Iran, of Ayatollah Khomieni. At the time the United States, using the power of the White House with particular interest by Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush, using the intelligence services and the Pentagon, was embarked upon a tilt to Iraq. Nobody really liked Saddam Hussein. Everybody knew that he was a dictator who had gassed his own people but the United States made the decision to back Iraq in order to use Saddam Hussein as a - you know, as a cynical balance of power against Iran. The tragic result, of course, was that as the United States armed Iraq in the early 1980's, a war continued throughout the 1980's between Iran and Iraq, that cost the lives of more than 1 million people. What really happened then is as the 1980's progressed, and as George Herbert Walker Bush moved from the vice presidency in the Reagan administration to the White House himself, the war in Iraq -- the war between Iraq and Iran ended, and, of course, what had been created was a kind of auto pilot, if you will.

My book and my research and the work that I did at the time with people like Ted Koppel of ABC’s Nightline where we did a joint investigation and the work done at the time by William Safire in The New York Times and my own work in breaking the Iraq gate scandal showed essentially how the netherworld, the dark world of intelligence agents, arms dealers, crooked financiers that had been used in the 1980's to get military equipment from the United States and Europe to Saddam Hussein when it was considered a good thing to do, because he was being used as a bulwark against Iran continued to function after the Iran-Iraq war ended. So, essentially, a machinery of global dimension was put in place.

Now, I discovered this at the end of the 1980's when I was reporting for The Financial Times of London and we uncovered the scandal of more than $5 billion of American taxpayer backed credits that had been funneled by the Atlanta, Georgia branch of an Italian bank to Saddam Hussein with the full knowledge of the C.I.A. and later on of the White House, under the Bush administration. That’s because that bank, it later transpired, an Italian bank called B & L, its Atlanta, Georgia branch was being used to surreptitiously finance Saddam Hussein's purchase of both agricultural goods and weaponry. And the very frightening part of it is that this group of intelligence agents outside the government, but working with the blessing of the government as it later turned out with the blessing of people like James Baker and George Herbert Walker Bush, this organization of arms dealers and transshipment specialists continued to sell a whole variety of equipment to Saddam Hussein, including U.S. military rocket cluster bombs that were transshipped from Pennsylvania through Chile to Iraq, nuclear and chemical weapons technology, and missile technology and the United States didn't really do anything to stop this shipment because at the time the argument used by the C.I.A. and the White House was that if you allowed a limited amount of military weapons and technology to flow to Iraq, even though it was completely illegal against U.S. law, against international treaties, if you allowed this to happen, as an intelligence operation, the rationalization in the Bush administration went, then you could keep better track of what kind of weaponry Saddam was developing.

What really happened, of course, is that there were people along the way who were greedy, who were making money off of it, and there were people in governments in Italy and Britain and in the Thatcher government and in the Andriotti government in Italy who were working with their American counterparts and they continued the flow of equipment. Some of this is very sophisticated stuff and one of the scandals -- the way the scandal was developed was I first uncovered financial documents for a British company called Matrix Churchill based in Coventry in England that was sending what seemed to be innocent machine tool equipment to Saddam Hussein. But it wasn't. It was dual use technology that the C.I.A. and the British intelligence knew was going into Saddam's missile program and his nuclear program, but they allowed it to happen. So, the real problem is that we had a Frankenstein monster that got out of control, a Bush administration between 1988 and "Operation Desert Storm” in 1990 1991, that essentially turned a blind eye to this continuing shipment to Iraq, and then, of course, when we had the invasion of Kuwait, and the United States under Colin Powell and Schwarzkopf went in and then President Bush decided not to finish the job, but to leave Saddam alone, unfortunately, then it became time to cover up the tilt to Iraq, to cover up the way the United States has helped to shape and build Iraq's military strength and then ensued a traditional cover up which nobody cared about when I brought it out with Ted come in 1991, 1992, and the book, Spider's Web, 1993, because people in America thought it was more interesting to look at Whitewater.

SOURCE:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/17/1615235



Cardoen, anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
countryjake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
15. Here's a bit more pre-history...
this could be used as a companion piece to drum up even more renewed interest in Friedman's book:

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 02:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC