I concur:
Former President Clinton said Wednesday the political changes in Iraq, including parliamentary elections in January, will help bring stability to the region.
Clinton met with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and a number of Danish lawmakers during his visit. The former president spoke with reporters before flying to Jordan for a poverty conference.
”The Sunnis and the Shiites, the Kurds and all the various tribes can work out accommodations that will allow them to build a stable society, I think that will be good for Iraq and good for the Middle East,” Clinton said at the end of a two-day visit to Denmark.
In January, Iraq held the its first democratic parliamentary elections to choose a 275-member National Assembly and provincial legislatures.
”There is no point living in the past,” Clinton said. ”Look at where we are now. Everyone, all freedom-loving people would be better off with a genuinely representative, effective, free government in Iraq whatever your feelings are about what went on before.”
There is a middle-ground between the neo-con bogeyman of the left’s nightmares and the lying, putrid, sack of shit known as George Galloway. Clinton appears to have found it. This is, no matter how many times your favorite lefty screeches “Bush lied- people died,” a worthwhile endeavor, as I have always believed it was.
Andrei
“There is a middle-ground between the neo-con bogeyman of the left’s nightmares and the lying, putrid, sack of shit known as George Galloway.”
“Sack of shit” is a pretty strong term. I haven’t followed the Galloway issue as closely as others, so enlighten me… Where is the evidence that Galloway is a “sack of shit?” Given his testimony at the hearing, I’m going to take the position he is innocent until proven guilty. He has asked people to produce the smoking guns on him, which I haven’t seen yet.
So John? Where are the smoking guns? Why should we follow the “sack of shit” meme you just put out there?
(ASCII text being what it is, please do not read any cynicism into this post. I’m asking honestly to see whatever information you have that leads you to such a strong conclusion on the character of Galloway. His speech during the hearing does not give me the impression at all that he is a “sack of shit.”)
ppgaz
As much as I like to agree with your posts, I say again, on this point you are wrong.
The issue is not “Bush lied — people died.”
The issue is “Bush lied — and nobody cares.”
That’s the point, the whole point, and nothing but the point.
When presidents can manipulate the nation into war on the basis of bullshit, and later we just wink and turn away, then you tell me …
What the fuck are we fighting for?
The Disenfrachised Voter
I think it is pretty obvious that the US is just as guilty as any country when it comes to this oil-for-food scandal. To deny that we had any knowledge of this is laughable. We either knew about it, and turned a blind eye, or we actively participated in the scandal.
I saw Galloway’s testimony and it was nice to get a breath of fresh air in our government for once. Man how I wish the house/senate were much more like the British parliamentary system in the sense of “debating”. They don’t take bullshit over there, unlike the pussies in our government.
John Cole
You guys are as disturbing as those that will apologize for Bush at all costs.
Bush didn’t lie, he was wrong. We all were. But I still felt that this endeavor was worth it even if there had never been a mention of WMD, so calling it a ‘bullshit’ war scores no points with me.
The evidence about Galloway- oh, who gives a shit. You don’t care. Have fun spinning Carl Levin into your neo-con conspiracy.
Rick
Oh, Galloway’s name is all over Ba’athist documents, and he was outed by Tarik Aziz, if no one else.
So his Sack-of-Shitdom is established–certainly to the level of Oswald Mosley–as a craven puppet of tyrants (Saddam & USSR foremost).
Or maybe he’s a principled totalitarian. I’ll keep my mind open.
Cordially…
Andrei
“Bush didn’t lie, he was wrong. We all were.”
Please… Don’t clump me in with folks like you who were wrong about the reasons for going to war. I have never been a proponent of this war, ever. I also never fully bought the logic or information regarding it hook line and sinker like you and others seem to have.
I was never wrong. I never took the position someone like you did. So it’s impossible for me to be wrong on that count.
On the flip side, I was never right either, purely because the method by which I wanted to see the whole situation handled back in 2002 was never allowed to happen. There’s no way to know if some of use were “right” on that grounds. We’ll just never know and now we have to move forward and live with the current sitaution to see where it now takes us.
But don’t ever say “we all were wrong.” People like you were. Not all of us.
“The evidence about Galloway- oh, who gives a shit. You don’t care.”
Well… you just lost my respect. I actually was interested. Sorry you feel compelled to use such harsh language like calling someone a “sack of shit” and then not wanting to enlighten those of us who have been reading this blog as of recent as to why you ‘d go to that sort of length. You’ve done a reasonable job of posting cross links and other means to read information on other fronts when you’ve made these accusations in the past. Sorry you’re not going to be bothered here.
I guess that makes you… oh who gives a shit? You don’t care, really do you?
John Cole
Andrewi- The evidence is armpit high and has already been discussed at length. I apologize if I offended you, but I thought you knew what was out there and had dismissed it. At any rate, the evidence is what Rick said and boatloads more.
As far as the “I was not wrong” bit, because your option never got tried, I have to say- nonsense. We tried for a decade to do nothing. Hussein, though he did not have WMD or we did not find any, was planning to the day he was deposed to attempt to get them or start making them again. Meanwhile, every day, we were being shot at in the no-fly zone, money in the oil-for-food program was being channeled to scum like Galloway and others, and, because of the money spread so liberally amnong cronies, France and others were moving to ned the sanctions altogether.
The notion that there was a feasible alternative is wrong- there was either ending the sanctions or pre-emptive war.
Steven
I think Clinton has it right. A true representative government in Iraq that is actually worked out among the Iraqi factions can only be a good thing.
My issue is that there is little to no evidence that the current Administration has the ability to pull this off. They have shown extreme incompetence in handling the post-attack environment in Iraq. It’s one thing to have grand ideas…we all agree that freedom from tyranny and the creation of representative government are desirable outcomes. But to make those real, particularly if you are trying to impose them from the outside, you need a plan and the ability to execute the plan. This administration has had neither. Every step following the entry into Baghdad has been either been based on completely false premises (it’ll be Paris 1944 redux), lack of or faulty intelligence, or botched execution. No matter how much one wants the Iraqis to be successful in forming a representative government, today there is not a working government in Iraq and the country is probably closer to an all-out factional civil war than it was six months ago. The administration has no solution to this problem, because they have refuse to fully acknowledge that the “terrorists” are a significantly larger group than Al Qaeda. As a consequence, their diplomatic efforts are ineffectual and we are never going to commit the military resources that would be required to completely subdue the Sunnis.
So where does that leave us? Frankly, with not much more than a hope and a prayer.
Rick
Hussein, though he did not have WMD or we did not find any, was planning to the day he was deposed to attempt to get them or start making them again. Meanwhile, every day, we were being shot at in the no-fly zone, money in the oil-for-food program was being channeled to scum like Galloway and others, and, because of the money spread so liberally amnong cronies, France and others were moving to ned the sanctions altogether.
John,
Well summed up, though you may have delivered a shock to the delicate systems of your new readers.
I guess Markos didn’t properly warn them that you knew Saddam was in continual violation of the cease fire agreement.
Cordially…
Andrei
“We tried for a decade to do nothing.”
Seems like you’re assuming my option as opposed to going to was to do nothing or to continue to do what we had been doing in the past decade up until 9/11.
Since we’ve never discussed this together back in 2002, I know you don’t know what I think what options would have been better than going to war, so I’ll just say don’t assume I believed that “nothing” was the right thing to do just because I opposed a war as the solution. There are usually numerous solutions to a problem, and being opposed to one of them is not a mutually exclusive situation. It just means you’re opposed to that particular solution, so let’s not assume otherwise.
“At any rate, the evidence is what Rick said and boatloads more.”
I’ve seen links to this sort of thing before but haven’t dug through them adequately yet. I guess I’ll have to go digging myself. However, I find it interesting that in yesterday’s testimony, Galloway addressed these accusations head on, claiming they were false and that no one has provided the smoking guns to prove him guilty without a reasonable doubt. And even now, I have yet to see people posting information and documentaiton that indeed provides the smoking guns. (Not saying it isn’t there, just that I have yet to see it.)
I just want to know where the smoking guns are, as Galloway’s speech was, quite frankly, fairly compelling from my point of view. If he is indeed a “sack of shit,” all I ask for in concrete, bullet-proof evidence.
Andrei
“Hussein, though he did not have WMD or we did not find any, was planning to the day he was deposed to attempt to get them or start making them again.”
By the way… this logic is fine and dandy and all — and can be applied to enough other countries in the world that one has to ask themselves how they plan to address it simply from a pragmatic resource point of view when it comes to using the machinery of war — but it wasn’t what was used to sell this war.
It’s fine imho for third rate politicians or despots of lesser countries to use whatever means they want to rule their people, and whatever logic they want to use when they engage in war. Being third rate or despots naturaly lowers the standards or expectation of how smart or intelligent they are wen it comes to running a country or killing people in the name of whatever power mongering cause they promote.
It is NOT fine imho for a country as progressive, civilized, advanced and moral as America to spread such faulty intelligence and paper thin logic to justify how it engages in wars and democracy on the planet. Something about… the road less traveled… be the change you wish to see in the world… blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth…. all that stuff, you know?
When you want to live to higher standard — and promote democracy and freedom as the proper means by which to live and run a country to those living in the dark ages — you can’t make excuses for when you or those you chose to represent you screw things up. Even when they do the “right” thing based but did so based on all the wrong reasons.
The Disenfrachised Voter
“The evidence about Galloway- oh, who gives a shit. You don’t care. Have fun spinning Carl Levin into your neo-con conspiracy.”
I’ll take that as you know that the case against Galloway is bullshit and thus resort to an ad hominem.
I am willing to listen to the case against Galloway but from what I’ve read, and what I’ve heard, they don’t have shit on Galloway except guilt by association.
Brad R.
OK, my take (I’m very liberal, but I pride myself in being “reality-based” too… and keep in mind, these are just impressions based on everything I’ve read):
Do I think Bush lied? No.
I think Bush thought, like many, many people did, that Saddam Hussein had something to hide. The problem was, he had no real idea about *what* Saddam had.
Ergo, the administration cherry-picked the juiciest bits of intelligence and hyped them to the public and the U.N., convinced that even if they weren’t all accurate, they’d find *some* banned weapons at the end of the rainbow.
Now at the same time, I don’t think taking out Saddam’s WMD was the primary objective of this war. Nor do I think OIL!!! was the primary objective. In fact, I’d say the major failure of the administration is that I (and many others) still don’t know *what* the primary objective of this war is.
For people like John and Gregory Djerejian, it’s about promoting democracy in the Middle East. Do I believe that’s the primary objective of, say, Donald Rumsfeld. As Rummy himself would say, “Golly, no!”
Thoughts?
Stormy70
John – you sure threw them into a tailspin today. By the way, if we had not gone into Iraq, no way in hell Bush would have been reelected. Most of the “Neo Con!” blogs thought it was a mistake to even mention WMDs, or cuddle up to the corrupt UN. Both bit Bush in the ass later. Iraq needed to be taken care of in the post 9/11 world.
Andrei
“John – you sure threw them into a tailspin today.”
Is this the ASCII equivalent of lightly smacking each other on the ass like those machos guys do in major league sports?
I enjoyed and agreed with much of the commentary from Cole on the Schiavo case. I actually still enjoy his rants and snipes in many other respects and on other issues, even when they aren’t in line with my own opinion or view. But man… reading comments from the likes of Stormy, Birkel and Rick. Well… I guess this might be the first time I remove an RSS feed not because of the blogger but because of the kind of audience the blogger seems to attract.
Rick
Oh, just huff some smelling salts and dive back in. Jeepers!
Cordially…
Brad R.
Iraq needed to be taken care of in the post 9/11 world.
Stormy brings up another important point- while the UN sanctions were effective at keeping Saddam from developing Nukes, from a humanitarian standpoint they were untennable. The country was an economic disaster with no hope of recovery as long as Saddam was in power.
Now obviously, we couldn’t just lift sanctions and let Saddam develop any damn weapons he wanted, but we couldn’t just let the country starve either.
John Cole
Brad R.- Your moderate tone and reasonable thoughts are not appreciated one bit.
If you are going to come wallow in the cesspool with me, you better learn how to start slinging shit.
j/k
:)
Bob
I guess news of the Downing Street memo didn’t reach Balloon Juice yet. Or at least it hasn’t been absorbed. If MI6 was reporting that the Bush team was raring to go the summer before, was going to use the WMD theory, the intelligence was thin but was being “fixed,” if you read that and don’t understand that everything Bush et al said from then until the invasion was a lie, then I’ve got some aluminum tubes to sell you.
As far as Galloway is concerned, he went before Norm Coleman’s hearings yesterday, pounded the shit out of him, and flew back to London.We are still awaiting for Coleman to come up with any evidence that Galloway participated in the the oil-for-food program.
I forget if patriotism or religion was the last refuge of a scoundrel, but what the hell, we’ve got a twofer this time. And plenty of our own scoundrels.
Bob
Brad, does that mean that because George Bush is running enormous debts, destroying all sorts of social safety nets and facilitating the destruction of our economy (as well as continuing to pursue new and exciting ways to use nuclear weapons) that I can expect to see a coalition force coming to rescue us po’ folk?
Bob
By the way, what’s wrong with:
Bush lied, people died, nobody cared.
And while we’re in the neighborhood, was Karzai an executive for Unocal or Exxon before the U.S. propped him up in the big seat in Afghanistan?
Brad R.
John-
Hey, I can sling it when people are just acting like retards. I take it you haven’t read my piece on the most recent Little Green Footballs circle-jerk.
Brad R.
I guess news of the Downing Street memo didn’t reach Balloon Juice yet. Or at least it hasn’t been absorbed. If MI6 was reporting that the Bush team was raring to go the summer before, was going to use the WMD theory, the intelligence was thin but was being “fixed,” if you read that and don’t understand that everything Bush et al said from then until the invasion was a lie, then I’ve got some aluminum tubes to sell you.
Like I said, I think the intelligence *was* fixed around the policy, as Bush & Co. had decided that Saddam had WMD but didn’t have real detailed knowledge about *what* he had. This is not a lie (i.e., intentionally saying things you know to be untrue), it’s more of a Dan Rather mistake- believing something to be true to such an extent that contrary evidence is tossed aside.
And yes, I found it really, really ironic that the Bush administration was ragging on Newsweek for making accusations based on faulty sources.
ppgaz
Some people are never going to get this. Fine, that’s life. I just don’t want those people running my country.
It isn’t about Saddam Hussein. It’s about us. When a president can spin his way into a war and basically leave the American people out of the debate … because THERE WAS NO DEBATE on the actual issues …. then government of the people is reduced to a slogan.
The government did not trust the people enough to come forth and say: We urge this war of opportunity and choice, because we think the world will be better off without Saddam Hussein. Why not? Wasn’t that a winning argument in October 2002? Apparently not, because this so-called great and noble cause for war was not the case that was made.
Now, after the fact, these lying crapheads want to make that argument and thereby deflect from the fact that they never gave the people — via Congress – the opportunity to consider whether a war, based on that premise, costing uncountable billions and taking years to settle, was either worth it, or the right thing to do.
Even now, even with the constant recitation of the “world better without Saddam” talking points, the American people are not buying that argument. That’s now, after the grand night bombings and grand statue topplings and the photogenic shots of Hussein doing the perp thing …. the majority of Americans don’t seem to think it was a great idea, or that George Bush is doing a great job. Neither do the majority of citizens in the Western world, as near as I can tell.
These scumbags went over our heads and ginned up a war because they wanted one. That’s the truth, and no amount of lipstick on the pig is going to change it.
That’s wrong, and I won’t stand for it. That isn’t good enough. Ends Justify Means is not what they taught me in school and not what they taught me that America was about.
Kimmitt
I think Bush lied, but only to one person — himself. Bush wanted desperately to believe that the WMDs existed, and so he did. The reality of the intelligence he received or any other part of the situation was irrelevant. Bush was convinced, and that’s the end of it. That’s why the Left is reality-based and Bush is not.
Now, Powell . . . Powell lied to the UN. He knew better, and he played the part of the good soldier.
TJ Jackson
Reality based Left? Always amusing to read the ravings of those who have never been to the Middle East, never served in the military and are so well versed in the arcane arts of WMD as Kimmit is. Perhaps the reality based Left can tell the Kurds that the WMD were all an illusion or the 100,000 Iranians who were victims of phosphene, sarin, VX or tabun. In 20 years the evidence will leak out, just as the Venona tapes shredded the reality based Left’s arguments about their activities in the 40s and 50s.
Simon
Perhaps the reality based Left can tell the Kurds that the WMD were all an illusion or the 100,000 Iranians who were victims of phosphene, sarin, VX or tabun.
Perhaps our leaders can apologize to the Kurds and Iranians for the fact that some of our former Republican administrations sold the phosphene, sarin, VX or tabun to Saddam. Or to the Shia, for convincing them to rise up against Saddam and them letting them be slaughtered while our troops had to sit by and watch.
TJ, you’re right that they did have WMD at some point, but that’s just a straw man at this point. The deafening silence on the right over the Downing Street Memo is quite damaging to any perception of reality they may lay claim to.
jdm
Oh, TJ, that’s an *alternate* reality, not like a real reality.
Like Bruce Thornton said, “Because of the brutal violence of those warriors against jihad, we in the West today enjoy the luxury of cynicism, cheap irony, effete tolerance, and hedonism. We moral dwarves stand on the shoulders of those giants and spit on their heads, thinking our ingratitude is really an intellectual sophistication superior to the primitive superstitions and na
Jim Henley
14,000 bombing sorties and multiple coup attempts over ten years is “doing nothing?”
Bob
Bush wasn’t lying? Pullleeeeze!
TJ, history didn’t start with the first Monica bj. I’ve got a nice photo of Rummy gladhanding Saddam on the very day that America’s then-ally was gassing people (can’t remember if it was Kurds or Iranians that day).
And having worked four years in a VA hospital after my military service, I think it’s a little short-sighted to shortchange veterans’ care. Most people don’t kill other people without suffering consequences (which is good, unless you’re waging lots of wars).
Brad, about those aluminum tubes I’m selling. They were in a mobile centrifuge unit I had in the back of my RV.
Kimmitt, the good soldier lied to his commander-in-chief. Telling others to lie about you indicates a dishonesty that’s not restricted to any internal dialogue.
By the way, any more information on who was entertaining/employing Guckert/Gannon at the White House?
I suggest folks read THE HIDDEN HITLER.
Bob
Kimmitt, that should be the good soldier lied FOR his commander-in-chief.
Libertine
I kinda like “reality based” thought. And to me the reality is that we whether a person was for or against the war (and I was very much AGAINST it) the reality of it is we have to deal with the ongoing guerilla war and the new government.
As for Clinton’s comments I tend to agree. The only thing I will praise (surpise, surpise) Bush for regarding Iraq is that the US appears to have not tried to influence the outcome of the election judging by the dominance of the Shi’ites in the election. The Shi’ites have close ties to Iran and might be difficult to deal with in the long run. Trying to get the Sunni’s more involved in the government is important, and again over time, getting the Sunni’s involved will cut down on the violence. I think the wild card in Iraq’s future are the Kurds. They have their own nationalist agenda and would just assume form a new country with the Kurds in Turkey if given a chance. I view the Kurds as the sect within Iraq which holds the key to how well the new Iraqi government will succeed or fail. But the administration for the most part is letting the process play out. Good call by Bush.
As far as Galloway goes…he is a fringe player in the UK Parliament. He is like a troll, in an on-line sense…just ignore him and hopefully he will just go away, lol.
Libertine
I wanted to add that probably the most important thing to do is get our military out of Iraq for the stability of the country. The Iraqi police force/military needa to be fully trained and that goal seems to be a long way off. Our military has the mother of all targets painted on it and the sooner we can get them out the better as far as I am concerned, just for their welfare. Guerilla wars are a son of a bitch…you just can’t see the attacks coming and nobody is wearing an opposing uniform.
Andrei Herasimchuk
“The country was an economic disaster with no hope of recovery as long as Saddam was in power.”
North Korea is in worse condition with a better likelyhood of WMD. Your point?
Slartibartfast
Really? We sold nerve and blister agents to Iraq? Well, there ought to be a cite for this, somewhere.
Ron Phelps
I’ve always thought your take on the Iraq war was a holdover from a bad 60’s acid trip, John.
You remember that old song…
Paranoia runs deep
Into your mind it will creep
Starts when you’re always afraid
etc..
Sadam was no worse than say the leaders of
saudi arabia and we aren’t killing their women and children. There was NO REASON to be afraid of Sadam, at all.
timekeeper
Simon, put up or shut the fuck up.
Provide documentation that former Republican administrations sold the phosphene, sarin, VX or tabun to Saddam. No, a picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam does not constitute proof.
I am so fucking sick and tired of hearing the same bullshit trope repeated by the mindless lefty drones, when it is demonstrably false. In fact, the Reagan and first Bush administrations caught and prevented the sale of some of these items by private parties. At no time did ANY US government (Republican or Democratic) sell nerve agents or their precursors to the Iraqis.
Kimmitt
Telling others to lie about you indicates a dishonesty that’s not restricted to any internal dialogue.
True, but I stand by my earlier statement. The thing that makes Bush an effective politician is that whatever he’s saying, he actually believes it. Right then, at that moment, Bush believes whatever is coming out of his mouth. It doesn’t matter that it is logically inconsistent with what came out of his mouth 30 seconds ago. It doesn’t matter that it clearly contradicts observed reality. Bush believes what he believes, right at that moment. He’s a liar, but he only lies to one person, and that person is a gullible fool. That’s why he’s so very good with prepared speeches and so terrible off-the-cuff. When he speaks extemporaneously, he’s forced to think, and he’s held accountable for contradictions. He gets confused and defensive, because he genuinely believed both of those things at the time, but now it looks like they contradict, and he’s stuck.
Thus, Bush can be the most protectionist President since Nixon but still call himself a free trader. Because in his own mind, the two concepts never meet.
katiemc
rming Iraq and the Path to War
A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no exception. Below are some relevant dates.
September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]
February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]
December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]
1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]
November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do “whatever was necessary and legal” to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]
November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq’s missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]
Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan’s Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]
July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]
January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of “dual-use” export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq’s use of these weapons. [10]
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]
March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]
Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]
February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the “Anfal” campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]
April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]
August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]
August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]
August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]
September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]
September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: “The US-Iraqi relationship is… important to our long-term political and economic objectives.” [15]
December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]
July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush “wanted better and deeper relations”. Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]
August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]
Simon
timekeeper, I was out for a little, but it looks like katiemc took care of your put up or stfu charge. Now, why don’t you do some homework yourself. I had some more choice words for you, but my cooler side prevailed. Why is it that so many conservative commenters lose their temper so quickly?
timekeeper
Katie, I’d like to see the source documents that your list obviously references as footnotes or endnotes. Without them, the list is just a list. If the documentation is believable (comes from mainstream sources), I will apologize here and on my own blog.
Kimmitt
Heh, yeah, you forgot to post your citation. :)
Bob
At least katiemc did a better job of presenting her case than Norm Coleman did.
Simon
Here’s some more. And then read this.
July 1991. The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80’s using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians.
August 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta’s branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime.
June 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: “It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980’s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam’s Iraq into [an aggressive power].”
September 1992. US Representative Henry Gonzalez of Texas in testimony before the House: “The arming of Iraq is one of the most incredible chapters in recent foreign policy. Not only were foreign aid programs and international financial systems abused, but our military men and women were sent to fight the very war machine we helped create.”
February 1994. Senator Riegle form Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome.
August 2002. “The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern… We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose”. Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times.