Free Dating Site    

I seriously doubt that so many SMART democrats were fooled. Are they all that stupid?

That was only a FRACTION of the Democrats out there that were "Fooled"...

As I stated, can you say Hypocrisy?

Seems to be a lot of A$$ covering going on in the Democrat circles. And the people making up the reports to slam the current administration, were the very ones pushing war in the first place.

Do you not get the we are PISSED AT THEM TOO?

The progressives who have been right on the money from the start of this administration have had it with the likes of many of the Dems right now also.

That does not change the fact that w and his cronies manipulated intelligence and lied to the people of this country to get us into this horrendous, illegal, country bankrupting, murderous fiasco. Why dont you admit that?!

You are defending this person? Seriously?

I might have some understanding of your position.

This kind of thinking is what makes people traitors..I hear Canada is opening its doors, have at it. As it goes, If you havent been there and seen it with your own eyes, you have NO right to say your right about something that you have just HEARD about..(and yes, I was in the military)

Yes, and he was executed by the elected Iraqi government for his crimes against Iraq. All thanks to the brave men and women of the U.S. Military. Which provided the security necessary for the Iraqi government to even come into being, since they were attacked daily on the ground by terrorists, and daily in the media by Democrats.

Also, if you can remember, which I dont' think you can. You asked me what was MY POSITION on why we should invade, you didn't ask what the U.S. position was.

Frankly I am ashamed that the U.S. does not do more to prevent genocide.

But then, with lots of people like you around. There is never enough support to stop it.

My position is the same as the 50 or 100 or so Democrat leaders that talked invasion for 10+ years.

Personally, Saddam Mustard gassing and committing Mass Murder of thousands of innocent Kurd civilians was enough for me.

"As early as 1983 the Reagan Administration was already well aware that Iraq was using chemical weapons in its war against Iran. According to U.S. intelligence on an ‘almost daily basis’. But that wasn’t all. There were also intelligence reports the Iraqis were using chemical weapons in the north of their own country, in the battle against the Kurds. But the White House did nothing."

Dr. Stephen Bryen,
Pentagon official

Then Iraq requested 1.5 million vials of atropine - the antidote for nerve gas - to protect Iraqi soldiers from chemical weapons. The State Department supported the sale even through nobody had nerve gas except the Iraqi army.

Dr. Bryen raised the red flag and Iraq was not allowed to purchase the drugs. But according to documents recently released by the Iraqis themselves, several U.S. companies provided chemical and biological components to Iraq during the 1980s which were used to develop weapons.

Iraq also received billion in loans and credits to purchase American food and goods - more than almost any other country. It left Saddam free to spend his hard currency on more weapons.

Washington's Reaction to the Attack on Halabja
But after the chemical attack on Halabja in 1988 (read more) the truth seemed too sinister to ignore.

Senate staffer Peter Galbraith drafted legislation - the Prevention of Genocide Act - that imposed harsh economic sanctions on the regime. (read more)

Billions in loans and agricultural credits would be cut off. America would no longer purchase Iraqi oil which accounted for one quarter of Iraq's production. And all U.S. exports to Iraq would be suspended.

Although the bill passed through the Senate in only one day the powerful farm and business lobbies warned that the legislation would only punish the Americans trading with Iraq.

When the Bill reached the House of Representatives, the provisions to remove agricultural credits and end bank loans were removed. Eventually the Act was caught up in Congressional bureacracy and died before it was passed. (read more)

Turning a Blind Eye Towards Saddam
Although the U.S. government officially denounced the gassing of the Kurds, it was business like never before with Iraq. After 1988 business with Iraq actually increased. By 1989, Iraq was given American agricultural guarantees worth $1 billion. Iraq was the largest importer of U.S. rice and the 2nd largest participant in the agricultural credit program.

Not long afterwards, believing that the U.S. would let him get away with murder again, Saddam Hussein sent his troops into Kuwait to claim the oil rich emirate as an Iraqi province.

Peter Galbraith says that the U.S. seriously under-estimated Saddam Hussein.

"We would not be here today in a 2nd Gulf War against Saddam Hussein if he had understood and if he had been made to understand that his behaviour would have consequences."

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/alliance.html

Conclusion

The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a "just war." The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.

Most of the information in this briefing book, in its broad outlines, has been available for years. Some of it was recorded in contemporaneous news reports; a few investigative reporters uncovered much more - especially after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. A particular debt is owed to the late representative Henry Gonzales (1916-2000), Democrat of Texas, whose staff extensively investigated U.S. policy toward Iraq during the 1980s and who would not be deterred from making information available to the public [Note 2]. Almost all of the primary documents included in this briefing book were obtained by the National Security Archive through the Freedom of Information Act and were published in 1995 [Note 3].


His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31].

Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests." Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights." He then moved on to other U.S. concerns [Document 32]. Later, Rumsfeld was assured by the U.S. interests section that Iraq's leadership had been "extremely pleased" with the visit, and that "Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person" [Document 36 and Document 37].

Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in late March 1984. By this time, the U.S. had publicly condemned Iraq's chemical weapons use, stating, "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran's charges that Iraq used chemical weapons" [Document 47]. Briefings for Rumsfeld's meetings noted that atmospherics in Iraq had deteriorated since his December visit because of Iraqi military reverses and because "bilateral relations were sharply set back by our March 5 condemnation of Iraq for CW use, despite our repeated warnings that this issue would emerge sooner or later" [Document 48]. Rumsfeld was to discuss with Iraqi officials the Reagan administration's hope that it could obtain Export-Import Bank credits for Iraq, the Aqaba pipeline, and its vigorous efforts to cut off arms exports to Iran. According to an affidavit prepared by one of Rumsfeld's companions during his Mideast travels, former NSC staff member Howard Teicher, Rumsfeld also conveyed to Iraq an offer from Israel to provide assistance, which was rejected [Document 61].

- ibid

Personally, Saddam Mustard gassing and committing Mass Murder of thousands of innocent Kurd civilians was enough for me.

My parents lived in Europe during ww2, and the mass genocide attempt at killing off all the Jews.

Like them, I say. NEVER AGAIN.

Bush lied about everything he has ever said,everything he has done,and everything he will do

Just because someone else told a lie, doesn't mean that lying is ok now.

Childish rational behind your defending of this president's treason.