Rumsfeld can't find the chemical weapons

[shemp]

Rumsfeld: Iraqi Help Needed in WMD Search (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030417_2091.html)

"I don't think we'll discover anything, myself," Rumsfeld said at a town hall-style meeting with Pentagon employees.

[peptoabysmal]

Taken out of context, here's the rest of it:

"I don't think we'll discover anything, myself," Rumsfeld said at a town hall-style meeting with Pentagon employees.

"I think what will happen is we'll discover people who will tell us where to go find it. It is not like a treasure hunt where you just run around looking everywhere, hoping you find something."

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Taken out of context, here's the rest of it:

"I don't think we'll discover anything, myself," Rumsfeld said at a town hall-style meeting with Pentagon employees.

"I think what will happen is we'll discover people who will tell us where to go find it. It is not like a treasure hunt where you just run around looking everywhere, hoping you find something."

Looks like Shemp's a good candidate for the vacant Iraqi Minister of Information position!

[Jedi Knight]

Think of how odd it is that the Iraqi regime managed to steal away all their WMD, and yet twenty years ago they had weaponized WMD in sarin and other weapons that killed over 100,000 kurds in northern Iraq.

Iraq made a mistake by not hiding some of it, because to hide it all proved deception in and of itself. It would be like a military force coming into America and not finding nuclear weapons and Americans saying we never had any in this country.

That is how remarkable the Iraqi deception is and its roots are in France, components of the UN who were allied with Iraq through monetary incentives, and the sheer sophistication of the Iraqi intelligence and weapons development institutions.

The US will find Iraqi WMD, that I am certain, but it just goes to show that when the UN stalls the United States from trying to protect freedom, it gives enemy nation-states time to implement their deception.

Now Germany and France are saying not to lift the embargo against Iraq until the WMD is found. It is simply the most hilarious propaganda the world has witnessed since pre-WWII.

JK

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Think of how odd it is that the Iraqi regime managed to steal away all their WMD, and yet twenty years ago they had weaponized WMD in sarin and other weapons that killed over 100,000 kurds in northern Iraq.

Iraq made a mistake by not hiding some of it, because to hide it all proved deception in and of itself. It would be like a military force coming into America and not finding nuclear weapons and Americans saying we never had any in this country.

That is how remarkable the Iraqi deception is and its roots are in France, components of the UN who were allied with Iraq through monetary incentives, and the sheer sophistication of the Iraqi intelligence and weapons development institutions.

The US will find Iraqi WMD, that I am certain, but it just goes to show that when the UN stalls the United States from trying to protect freedom, it gives enemy nation-states time to implement their deception.

Now Germany and France are saying not to lift the embargo against Iraq until the WMD is found. It is simply the most hilarious propaganda the world has witnessed since pre-WWII.

JK

If you are saying that they should have left some out to create a degree of credability...I think you are absolutely right.

I also agree with you that stalling on the lifting of sanctions is posturing that the Iraqi people can well do without at this time.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Reginald


If you are saying that they should have left some out to create a degree of credability...I think you are absolutely right.

I also agree with you that stalling on the lifting of sanctions is posturing that the Iraqi people can well do without at this time.

They did find some minor infractions. These were used as part of the justification for the war.

[shanek]

If anyone can find the weapons, Rumsfeld should be able to—after all, he's the one who sold them to Iraq! :eek:

[subgenius]

Originally posted by shanek
If anyone can find the weapons, Rumsfeld should be able to—after all, he's the one who sold them to Iraq! :eek:
Worth remembering history, so we aren't condemned to repeat it.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius

Worth remembering history, so we aren't condemned to repeat it.

As long as we're remembering correctly.

Which weapons did Rumsfeld sell to the Iraqis, exactly?

[Tmy]

Cant sell the Iraqi Oil till sanctions are lifted right?

Cant the Coalition tap into the Iraqi frozen assests in the mean time. If they need capital for the people.

[Aardvark_DK]

I don't think that it's completely unlikely that both Saddam and the Iraqi WMD are now in France. According to certain sources Germany and France are planning massive terrorist actions against the US.

Don't say you weren't warned.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


As long as we're remembering correctly.

Which weapons did Rumsfeld sell to the Iraqis, exactly?

Its no big secret.

Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons and provided the technology for Saddam's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.

And:
Records reveal CDC sent germ strains to Iraq in 1980s

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Iraq's bioweapons program, which President Bush wants to eradicate, got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta sent samples to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s reveal. Iraq had ordered the samples, saying it needed them for legitimate medical research.
.....

The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.
The transfers were done in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran. They were detailed in a 1994 Senate banking committee report and a 1995 follow-up letter from the CDC to the Senate.
The exports were legal at the time and approved under a program administered by the Commerce Department.
"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector.
"But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."
The disclosures put the United States in the uncomfortable position of potentially having provided the key ingredients of the weapons it is considering waging war to destroy, said Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat. Mr. Byrd entered the documents into the Congressional Record this month.
Mr. Byrd asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about the germ transfers at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. The senator noted that Mr. Rumsfeld met Saddam in 1983, when Mr. Rumsfeld was President Reagan's Middle East envoy.
"Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown?" Mr. Byrd asked Mr. Rumsfeld after reading parts of an article in Newsweek magazine on the transfers.


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021001-8211716.htm

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius


Its no big secret.

Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons and provided the technology for Saddam's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.

Really?

Hundreds of millions? Would that be 2 hundreds of millions? (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16037)

I've seen no evidence that we sold them technology for chemical or nuclear, but I'm willing to see what evidence you have.

What evidence I've seen indicates that most of their nuclear, chemical, and bioweapons technology came from France and Germany, and most of their conventional military technology came from USSR, France, China, and various Warsaw Pact states.


"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector.
"But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."


Not particularly damning, it appears to me.

MattJ

[Tmy]

Maybe they cant find WMD cause there are none. Theyve been ordered to be destroyed, maybe they have been.

[shanek]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
As long as we're remembering correctly.

Which weapons did Rumsfeld sell to the Iraqis, exactly?

The ones he used to gas the Kurds.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by shanek


The ones he used to gas the Kurds.

You'll pardon me if I don't take your word for it. I've seen this accusation a lot, but I can't find the evidence.

[Baker]

I wonder if we are going to get any more reply's from shemp on this?

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Baker
I wonder if we are going to get any more reply's from shemp on this?

Maybe Shemp will do a poll on that one?

[shanek]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
You'll pardon me if I don't take your word for it. I've seen this accusation a lot, but I can't find the evidence.

Then you must have been living under a rock...It's not like anyone even tried to deny it!

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1230-04.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-528574,00.html
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E115%257E1186555,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/printable534798.shtml

[subgenius]

Originally posted by shanek


Then you must have been living under a rock...It's not like anyone even tried to deny it!

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1230-04.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-528574,00.html
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E115%257E1186555,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/printable534798.shtml
Denial is not a river in Eqypt. Sometimes you get tired of doing the research for those who would rather not know. I had posted a story and link in the post he responded to. Makes you wonder.
Like you say, it hasn't even been contested, just dismissed as "that was then, this is now", hindsight, or naivete.

[Mel]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Looks like Shemp's a good candidate for the vacant Iraqi Minister of Information position!

LOL!!!! It would seem so.



Did anybody actually believe we would overthrown a dictator PLUS zero in on his cache of hidden weapons all within weeks (or even months) of entering the country?

At this time the most important thing to worry about is that whatever is INSIDE Iraq stays in Iraq and then we can conduct a thorough and organized search.

Frankly, I see no pressing need to provide proof other than to satisfy the naysayers. The naysayers will still come up with all sorts of excuses and justifications for Iraq's arsenal AFTER they are shown proof positive........ so I don't see where they should be considered an important factor.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by shanek


Then you must have been living under a rock...It's not like anyone even tried to deny it!



I've read your links, and they say what I already know. The US sold strains of bacteria that can be used for military or civilian purposes. (Did Hussein use Anthrax to gas the Kurds, Shanek?) Also we sold pesticides and equipment to make pesticides. It has been my understanding that up until this point, it is your belief that pesticides are not chemical weapons. Have you changed your mind? Your sources list these pesticides as 'types that might be used for chemical weapons' without bothering to say exactly what types that would be. I remain skeptical. Are they mustard weapons? VX? Sarin? Or are they just pesticides?

It further seems to me that if the concern is that Iraq may create its own chemical weapons from dual-use equipment, then selling pesticides to a country that farms is far less damning (in fact, should be encouraged) when compared to selling them equipment to create their own.

Your rather flip comment, that Rumsfeld sold Iraq the chemical weapons that he used to gas the Kurds, has not been supported by your sources, I'm afraid.

MattJ

[crackmonkey]

It gets tiresome hearing this same canard ad nauseum...

show me evidence that the US sold Iraq chem weapons, specifically those used to gas Kurds. It's 'put up or shut up' time.

[iain]

Originally posted by Mel


LOL!!!! It would seem so.



Did anybody actually believe we would overthrown a dictator PLUS zero in on his cache of hidden weapons all within weeks (or even months) of entering the country?
Just to check, these are the same weapons that the CIA knew Saddam had. They had lots of evidence about these weapons, some of which we couldn't be told.

Just how strong must that evidence have been if the US now can't find those weapons in months? Doesn't that suggest that the evidence was not nearly as good as the US and UK were making out?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mel
Did anybody actually believe we would overthrown a dictator PLUS zero in on his cache of hidden weapons all within weeks (or even months) of entering the country?

If there really were all of the evidence that Bush, Powell, et al said there were, then yes, it should have been no problem. There should be no need for a "thorough and organized search" unless this evidence never existed to begin with.

[subgenius]

And what's curious is how they let Iraq's Intelligence Ministry be looted, and thus it can be credibly (?) be asserted that they can't be found because the documents are missing. Same with the looting of the Health Lab which we had identified as a possible source/location of evidence of biological weapons.
Not to mention that looters made off with dangerous biological agents (viruses, bacteria, etc), and let loose lab animals carrying god knows what.

(And how bout the prosecution "accidentally" delivering classified documents to Mousaoui's cell a while back. Now if he divulges some information it can be claimed he got it from those documents. Ahh but that would have been a good thread. Stay tuned. It gets curiouser and curiouser.)

By the way I think we should have taken Saddam out 12 years ago, regardless of WMD's.

[shanek]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I've read your links, and they say what I already know. The US sold strains of bacteria that can be used for military or civilian purposes. (Did Hussein use Anthrax to gas the Kurds, Shanek?)

If you had actually read the links, you would have seen otherwise.

The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses,

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers,

DONALD RUMSFELD, the US Defence Secretary and one of the most strident critics of Saddam Hussein, met the Iraqi President in 1983 to ease the way for US companies to sell Baghdad biological and chemical weapons components,

(That one was from the first paragraph of the Times Online story, so no way could you have missed it if you'd actually read it.)

By the end of the decade, Washington had authorised the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications. These included poisonous chemicals and biological viruses,

You're displaying clear signs of being wilfully ignorant here.

[shanek]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
show me evidence that the US sold Iraq chem weapons, specifically those used to gas Kurds. It's 'put up or shut up' time.

Just did. Proved it. Your turn.

[crackmonkey]

I'll admit that I just skimmed over the articles, but from the quotes you cite there is still no proof the US supplied any chem weapons to Iraq. It talks about poisonous chemicals... pesticides are poisonous, but not synonymous with chemical weapons. Many - dare I say most - industrial chemicals are poisonous, but aren't chemical weapons.
If legal dual-use chemicals are considered chem weapons, then the US has found a motherlode of chem weapons in Iraq. I assume you don't agree, so we should take this one off the table.
So - specifically, what chem weapons did the US sell Iraq? Whcih of these were used to gas the Kurds? Specificity is encouraged...

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by shanek


If you had actually read the links, you would have seen otherwise.

I did read the links. Despite your direct quotes, "poisonous chemicals", "chemicals", and "poisonous chemicals" are not "chemical weapons".

"Chemical weapons components" would be closer if the article went the next step and demonstrated that those components were used for chemical weapons. Unfortunately it doesn't list any particular chemicals, and most of the articles make clear that other people supplied them with more than we did.

Originally posted by shanek
(That one was from the first paragraph of the Times Online story, so no way could you have missed it if you'd actually read it.)


I saw it. Even said so:

Also we sold pesticides and equipment to make pesticides. It has been my understanding that up until this point, it is your belief that pesticides are not chemical weapons. Have you changed your mind? Your sources list these pesticides as 'types that might be used for chemical weapons' without bothering to say exactly what types that would be. I remain skeptical. Are they mustard weapons? VX? Sarin? Or are they just pesticides?


Originally posted by shanek
You're displaying clear signs of being wilfully ignorant here.

It appears that I am the one looking for more information, while your mind is made up.

MattJ

[shanek]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I did read the links. Despite your direct quotes, "poisonous chemicals", "chemicals", and "poisonous chemicals" are not "chemical weapons".

They said CHEMICAL WEAPONS COMPONENTS!!!! THEY SAID THAT AND I QUOTED IT!!! :mad:

Some people aren't even willing to give an inch...

[crackmonkey]

They were referring to the 'insecticides believed to be used to make chem weapons', I gather. Not exactly anyone's definition of a smoking gun, unless you're prepared to consider all the insecticides found to be evidence of chemical weapons production.
In any case, is there any proof that these were used against the Kurds, as you asserted? What were the chem weapons used against the Kurds? What were the pesticides referred to in the Times article? Can the pesticides be used to make the Kurd-killing chemicals?
So far you have more faith than evidence...

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by shanek


They said CHEMICAL WEAPONS COMPONENTS!!!! THEY SAID THAT AND I QUOTED IT!!! :mad:

Some people aren't even willing to give an inch...

You'll notice I had an entire paragraph in my reply (that you chose not to respond to) in response to that quote in particular.

[Mel]

Originally posted by shanek


If there really were all of the evidence that Bush, Powell, et al said there were, then yes, it should have been no problem. There should be no need for a "thorough and organized search" unless this evidence never existed to begin with.

Unless, Saddam was hiding the weapons in clear &/or overly obvious sights, I'd tend towards thinking it might take some time to locate them.

The fact that there was evidence of POSSESSING weapons does NOT mean there was also intelligence about locations.

The fact that there has been all that talk about MOBILE UNITS could also make it difficult to find a final destination?

[jema]

Originally posted by shanek


They said CHEMICAL WEAPONS COMPONENTS!!!! THEY SAID THAT AND I QUOTED IT!!! :mad:

Some people aren't even willing to give an inch...

Seems to be a form of head up orifice attitude common to Americans over this war :( the goal posts constantly moving, if you provide signed till receipts you would get told others sold him more, or that was all in the past, we are on the side of the angels today :rolleyes:
I think the basic problem is that once they do give an inch and concede some of the blatent facts about past records, present intentions, and who has their greedy fingers in the pie, then they would be faced with a whole tapestry of cosy beliefs come tumbling down.....

jema

[subgenius]

Originally posted by jema


Seems to be a form of head up orifice attitude common to Americans over this war :( the goal posts constantly moving, if you provide signed till receipts you would get told others sold him more, or that was all in the past, we are on the side of the angels today :rolleyes:
I think the basic problem is that once they do give an inch and concede some of the blatent facts about past records, present intentions, and who has their greedy fingers in the pie, then they would be faced with a whole tapestry of cosy beliefs come tumbling down.....

jema
Like a house of cards.

[Mel]

Originally posted by jema


Seems to be a form of head up orifice attitude common to Americans over this war :(

?????

As opposed to WHAT country?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by jema


Seems to be a form of head up orifice attitude common to Americans over this war :( the goal posts constantly moving, if you provide signed till receipts you would get told others sold him more, or that was all in the past, we are on the side of the angels today :rolleyes:


I thought I was just playing the same game that war opponents played before the war.

Are pesticides chemical weapons or not? He hasn't answered that question, (with regard to the current discussion) though I've offered it more than once.

[crackmonkey]

The 'evidence' presented so far falls considerably short of being persuasive. So far, we have the US selling pesticide to Iraq, that some are suspcious of being converted into some kind of weapon. There has been no proof that it WAS used as a WMD precursor, and these pesticides haven't been regarded as evidence of WMD possession by the anti-Bushies so far...
WHere's the link between the pesticides and the dead Kurds? Provide SOMETHING, for God's sake... if not, then just admit that it's a possibility but less than conclusive.
The US did aid the Iraqi bioweapons program, that has been documented and shown here. As far as the chem weapons, so far it's no more than speculation. How about some hard, incontrovertible facts? Not merely a musing by a newspaper that certain agricultural chemicals MAY have been used as a precursor to some unspecified chemical weapons...

[shanek]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I thought I was just playing the same game that war opponents played before the war.

Are pesticides chemical weapons or not? He hasn't answered that question, (with regard to the current discussion) though I've offered it more than once.

It's irrelevant to the discussion. They sold chemical weapons components to Iraq. End of story.

It was relevant in the other story because the alleged "chemical weapons" was nothing more that pesticide found in an agricultural facility. Gee, now what would an agricultural facility be doing with pesticide?

[shanek]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The 'evidence' presented so far falls considerably short of being persuasive. So far, we have the US selling pesticide to Iraq, that some are suspcious of being converted into some kind of weapon

That isn't it at all. Read the links. We sold him weapons to use against the Iranians. You jingoists are really getting desperate...

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by shanek


It's irrelevant to the discussion. They sold chemical weapons components to Iraq. End of story.

It was relevant in the other story because the alleged "chemical weapons" was nothing more that pesticide found in an agricultural facility. Gee, now what would an agricultural facility be doing with pesticide?

That's clearly not the end of the story since chemical weapons components = pesticide components.

[crackmonkey]

Speaking for myself, I'll galdly admit that you were totally right and I was talking out my ass if you can connect al the dots here... if you can provide proof that the US provided the chem weapons that killed the Kurds, I'll eat my words.
In fact, if you can even show evidence that proves that these precursor/pesticides were used to make the chem thatkilled the Kurds, I'll grovel before you.
If you can't do that, why not just admit that you have no proof?

[crackmonkey]

It was relevant in the other story because the alleged "chemical weapons" was nothing more that pesticide found in an agricultural facility. Gee, now what would an agricultural facility be doing with pesticide?
So... they're merely pesticides if they're in an agricultural facility, but they're WMD precursors otherwise. I think I get it...
So where were the Times' 'suspected precursor pesticides' kept? If they were in agricultural facilities then they're not WMD precursors, right?

[shanek]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
So... they're merely pesticides if they're in an agricultural facility, but they're WMD precursors otherwise. I think I get it...

It's called "context," brainiac. Are you really saying we were giving Iraq pesticides so that they could protect their crops? At a time when they just happened to have been at war with a major enemy of ours?

[crackmonkey]

Perhaps... did they not use pesticides during that time? How many pesticides were used on crops as opposed to being used ni WMD production? Are the 'pesticides' that were imported since the war with Iraq WMD precursors if they were purchased from countries unfriendly to the US?
This is getting dangerously close to parody. Do you have any proof at all? Even if it's not completely convincing... give me whatever you have. I'm curious to see what level of proof you require...

[fishbob]

Looks like we need a chemist to comment here. I understand that some of pretty toxic pesticides (that are now banned in the US), manufactured by American companies, are often sold to other countries where environmental impacts are not of much concern. The compounds contained in some of the nastier pesticides could possibly make them into nice raw materials for chem weapons. The questions are:
Were the pesticides actually suitable for manufacture of chem weapons?
What did Saddam do with these pesticides?
What did Rumsfeld think Saddam was going to do with the pesticides?
What did Rumsfeld's boss think Saddam was going to do with the pesticides?

[crackmonkey]

And did Rumsfeld hav anything to do with the sale of said pesticides? Were the pesticides ever used as pesticides? How do we know what proportion of the pesticides were used agriculturally and how much were used as WMD precursors, as the Times article alludes?
Any evidence clarifying these points would be helpful.

[ArmchairPhysicist]

It's all about Context. We find chemicals that are used to make pesticides, we question them. The location is a pesticide factory, we can reasonably say that they are being used as pesticides until the investigations prove otherwise...

On the other hand, while supporting him in the war against Iran we sell him anthrax and bubonic viruses along with multiple-use chemicals. It's fairly reasonable that the other chemicals were intended as weapons since they were given in support of a war Further, the chemicals that we gave him (to support his efforts in that war) are included in the list of things that we are accusing him of using as weapons.

Now, add that up: We give him chemicals in support of a war. The same people who supplied the chemicals are saying that they are for use in weapons of mass destruction. Nobody is trying to claim otherwise, including the persons who gave him the chemicals.

At what point does it become doubtful that the chemicals were intended for weapons use? Saddam didn't deny that he had them and used them for weapon production, he claims he used/destroyed them. The US hasn't denied that we gave them to him (The technology and the base components), we're just saying that we don't believe that he abandoned the research and production.

It's not a question of (and never has been) whether he has WMD capability or where he got that capability. It's only a question of whether he still has the facilities/components and whether he continues to develop them

[AN@S]

ha ha ha ha ..

I think that the american administration has made a BIG mistake...

they attacked Iraq and it costs them a huge amounts of money but they found no weapons of mass destruction...
and they forgot North Korea which is the real danger on the united states ....

WHAT A STUPID ADMINISTRATION!!!!
:D

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by ArmchairPhysicist
At what point does it become doubtful that the chemicals were intended for weapons use?

At no point, in my opinion.

[Incitatus]

The insecticide, Seven, is a cholinergic blocking agent. It is, effectively, a nerve gas except it is not a gas. You'd have to aerosolize it or somehow get it into a gaseous state. Selling it to Iraq does not seem to be a biggie to me, it is pretty easy to get.

[subgenius]

“CIA Director [William] Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war,” the affidavit continued. “Pursuant to the secret NSDD, the United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required.”
Moreover, says Teicher, the U.S. actually provided military advice to the Iraqis, relaying U.S. intelligence to Saddam from the highest levels of the U.S. government, from President Reagan and then-Vice President Bush, father of the current president.
.....
In his affidavit, Teicher said he “personally attended meetings in which CIA Director Casey or CIA Deputy Director [Robert] Gates noted the need for Iraq to have certain weapons such as cluster bombs and anti-armor penetrators in order to stave off the Iranian attacks.
Teicher said his notes, memoranda and other documents in his files showed or tended to show that the CIA, “including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq.”
Teicher’s comments about an Iraqi tilt are borne out in the declassified State Department documents related to Rumsfeld’s 1983 Baghdad trip, although not in such detail.
...
When Rumsfeld met with Saddam the following morning, accompanied by State Department Arab experts Robert Pelletreau and William Eagleton, Iraqi television videotaped the opening greetings and delivery of President Reagan’s letter to the Iraqi leader. Saddam was dressed in military uniform, a pistol on his hip. Rumsfeld conveyed his pleasure at being in Baghdad.
While there was no discussion of U.S. military help to Iraq, Rumsfeld reiterated to Saddam the United States’ intention of eliminating arms deliveries to Iran, stating “The U.S. and Iraq shared interests in preventing Iranian and Syrian expansion.” He said the U.S. was urging other states to curtail arms sales to Iran and believed it had successfully closed off U.S.-controlled exports by third countries to Iran.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp

[subgenius]

From 1982 to 1987 he was a member of the National Security Council, responsible for the Middle East and for Political-Military Affairs. Part of his job entailed meeting with the CIA officials who wanted to arm Saddam Hussein in his battle against Iran, an eight-year affair -- costing a million lives -- which we bankrolled and encouraged in part to keep U.S. arms manufacturers in the clover.

We played both sides against the middle. According to White House internal memos, we shipped planeloads of missiles to Iran in exchange for hostages -- in some cases 300 TOW missiles per hostage. When the war started going Iran's way, we began helping Iraq.
http://citypaper.net/articles/2002-10-24/pretzel.shtml
(CBS) Newly released documents show that U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, played a leading role in building up Iraq's military in the 1980s when Iraq was using chemical weapons, a newspaper reports.
....
The newspaper says a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague.
.....
Kenneth Pollack, a one-time CIA analyst and author of a current book advocating war with Iraq, told the Post, "It was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now. My fellow [CIA] analysts and I were warning at the time that Hussein was a very nasty character. We were constantly fighting the State Department."

https://publish.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml
Why was it a "horrible mistake" if they were't weapons?

Remember this was an administration with a history of secret arms sales. They knew how to do things on the sly.
"Plausible deniability."

They were arming Iraq through third countries. Even Israel wanted in on the act.

There's nothing we can do about it now, except maybe learn from history. Why be in such denial about it?

[subgenius]

We did this by giving him money to buy weapons. Sure he got some from Germany and other places, but could not have without our financial assistance.

The policy to do this was captured in a November 1983 National Security Directive that is still classified, but apparently stated that U.S. policy was to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to stop Iran from winning.

At the same time, there were multiple reports Iraq was using chemical weapons to repulse the Iranian advance; one State Department official told Secretary of State George Shultz that Iraq was engaging in "almost daily use of (chemical weapons)" against Iranian troops.

This policy led to several Rumsfeld visits to Baghdad, as a private citizen working as a presidential envoy.

According to State Department report, at his first meeting with Saddam, Rumsfeld told Hussein the U.S. wanted a full resumption of relations. While the defense secretary has since said he warned Iraq about the use of chemical weapons, notes of the meeting do not show this. Rumseld apparently did mention the chemical weapons concern in a meeting with an aide to Saddam.

A 1995 affidavit by former National Security Agency official Howard Teicher, obtained by the Post, claimed that the U.S. "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required."

https://publish.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml


On the "insecticide" "issue", anyone believe these dual use agents were given for peaceful purposes when they were at war, we knew they were using chemicals in war, we covertly sided with them, we funded their arms buying, gave them intelligence, stated that our national interests were in Iraq not losing, and we had a history of secret arms supplying.)

Did we do anything to see if the "insecticides" were being used that way? Looked the other way perhaps? Still looking the other way perhaps?

Oh and notice that Rumsfeld went as a private citizen, how damn noble of him. Why no US officials? Keep down the paper trail perhaps?

[subgenius]

This is called looking the other way while covering your ass:

Congressional investigations after the Gulf War revealed that the Commerce Department had licensed sales of biological agents, including anthrax, and insecticides, which could be used in chemical weapons, to Iraq.
When Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1987, there was anger in Congress and the White House. But a memo in 1988 from Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy stated that "The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is … important to our long-term political and economic objectives."
"We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis," the Post quoted the memo as saying.
https://publish.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml

[ithinksoiam]

I guess Rumsfeld can't give out all the evidence he had even to his own military commanders. Can't trust them military folks, you know :)

[subgenius]

One of Saddam's techniques is to have others do his dirty work and then blackmail them into silence.
We couldn't impose any sanctions because he would have exposed our complicity.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by ithinksoiam
I guess Rumsfeld can't give out all the evidence he had even to his own military commanders. Can't trust them military folks, you know :)
Couldn't give it to the inspectors either, they might have found them and then....oops.

(P.S. Let me be the first to welcome you to the jungle. ;) )

[davefoc]

Hmm, I have read the foregoing and some of the links with some interest. Sadly, it does appear that the information provided supports the notion that the US assisted Iraq with chemical weapon developement during the Iran/Iraq war.

A few points however:
1. It appears that nobody put forth any evidence that the US sold Iraq chemical weapons directly as was claimed. If the US sold them anything it appears that the US sold them "chemical weapons components".
2. The story is actually more ambiguous than it might seem at first. "Chemical weapon components" means virtually nothing without more accompanying detail than was provided in the Times story. What was the exact nature of those components? Were they accompanied with secret technology transfers that provided information on the manufacture and/or use of chemical weapons? Did they have plausible civilian applicaitons?
3. The story listed a source but didn't directly quote from the source. Why not? What are the "newly declassified US Government documents"? What exactly did they say?

A small point on the nuclear issue. The US was probably not the source of any technology transfers there. A US company bid for the contract to make the Iraqi reactor that was blown up by the Israelis in the early 1980's but a French company was selected. So on that one I'm inclined to believe that the US is probably innocent, not by intent but by circumstance.

Lastly, I'd like to make a somewhat unrelated comment about the whole Ollie North, arms for hostage deal:

This gets my vote for the stupidest, most counterproductive policy of any administration in the history of the American republic. It forced us to provide additional support to Iraq to convince our other Arab allies that we weren't really tilting to Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. It may have indirectly led to such things as the Stark attack, the downing of the Iranian airliner and even the Lockerby airliner bombing. And in net it led to the release of not one hostage. After each hostage was released they just captured another one, brilliant Ollie. Interestingly, the original hostage, a CIA spy captured in Lebanon was never released alive and was probably tortured to death.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by davefoc
Hmm, I have read the foregoing and some of the links with some interest. Sadly, it does appear that the information provided supports the notion that the US assisted Iraq with chemical weapon developement during the Iran/Iraq war.

A few points however:
1. It appears that nobody put forth any evidence that the US sold Iraq chemical weapons directly as was claimed. If the US sold them anything it appears that the US sold them "chemical weapons components".
2. The story is actually more ambiguous than it might seem at first. "Chemical weapon components" means virtually nothing without more accompanying detail than was provided in the Times story. What was the exact nature of those components? Were they accompanied with secret technology transfers that provided information on the manufacture and/or use of chemical weapons? Did they have plausible civilian applicaitons?
3. The story listed a source but didn't directly quote from the source. Why not? What are the "newly declassified US Government documents"? What exactly did they say?

A small point on the nuclear issue. The US was probably not the source of any technology transfers there. A US company bid for the contract to make the Iraqi reactor that was blown up by the Israelis in the early 1980's but a French company was selected. So on that one I'm inclined to believe that the US is probably innocent, not by intent but by circumstance.

Lastly, I'd like to make a somewhat unrelated comment about the whole Ollie North, arms for hostage deal:

This gets my vote for the stupidest, most counterproductive policy of any administration in the history of the American republic. It forced us to provide additional support to Iraq to convince our other Arab allies that we weren't really tilting to Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. It may have indirectly led to such things as the Stark attack, the downing of the Iranian airliner and even the Lockerby airliner bombing. And in net it led to the release of not one hostage. After each hostage was released they just captured another one, brilliant Ollie. Interestingly, the original hostage, a CIA spy captured in Lebanon was never released alive and was probably tortured to death.

I have been reading an interesting book called 'blowback', a term used to indicate when US foreign policy actions intended to cause on effect cause a bad reaction against the US.

This is a perfect example of 'blowback', and an indication that what is done in the name of US citizens, ofteny without their knowledge or informed consent, will cause direct suffering of US citizens.

Their is often a reason why adventures such as the Ollie North are incident are kept secret, it is because such policies would not be endorsed if made public.

[subgenius]

Well I hate to get back to the original topic of the thread but we may be getting closer to finding something.

Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert
By JUDITH MILLER


WITH THE 101ST AIRBORNE DIVISION, south of Baghdad, Iraq, April 20 — A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, members of the team said.

They said the scientist led Americans to a supply of material that proved to be the building blocks of illegal weapons, which he claimed to have buried as evidence of Iraq's illicit weapons programs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/international/worldspecial/21CHEM.html?ex=1051502400&en=558d236c00fc7bc9&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

[crackmonkey]

Finally... let's see if this pans out.
Good posts, Subgenius. There's some substance there. It appears that the US may well have contributed to the chemical weapons arsenal of Saddam... but I'm not a true believer yet.
Davefoc has some good questions that need answers, if there are any. How much insecticide did Iraq import from all sources? What percentage of this stuff was 'dual-use'? How much was actually used agriculturally? Was this pesticide sale by the US set up specifically by the government, or did they merely not object to a private company doing business with Saddam?
What chem weapons were used on the Kurds? When were the dual-use sales permitted by the US?
Further, if dual-use chemicals are tantamount to WMD possession, doesn't that mean that the 'pesticides' found in Iraq -sneered at by some here - are evidence that Bush was right ? Saddam was manufacturing WMD.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Finally... let's see if this pans out.
Good posts, Subgenius. There's some substance there. It appears that the US may well have contributed to the chemical weapons arsenal of Saddam... but I'm not a true believer yet.
Davefoc has some good questions that need answers, if there are any. How much insecticide did Iraq import from all sources? What percentage of this stuff was 'dual-use'? How much was actually used agriculturally? Was this pesticide sale by the US set up specifically by the government, or did they merely not object to a private company doing business with Saddam?
What chem weapons were used on the Kurds? When were the dual-use sales permitted by the US?
Further, if dual-use chemicals are tantamount to WMD possession, doesn't that mean that the 'pesticides' found in Iraq -sneered at by some here - are evidence that Bush was right ? Saddam was manufacturing WMD. Well, if chemicals have dual use, how can possessing them prove that Bush was right? If the US attacked Norway tomorrow, they would find tons of dual-use chemicals there, but it wouldn't prove a thing, at least not until you have answered the questions above about 'normal' use of those chemicals.

The 24/48 hour see-what-are-the-facts is still in force, isn't it? :confused:

I won't be surprised if/when we find something, but we have seen a few false alarms already, and 'a scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program '? In my ears it sounds a bit ... hearsay. Let's wait and see.