Discussion:
A Black Day For The Loonie Liberals!
(too old to reply)
HOD
2003-12-14 13:54:57 UTC
Permalink
They've lost their leader and have no idea how to react!
abracadabra
2003-12-14 14:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by HOD
They've lost their leader and have no idea how to react!
Hey - Saddam was never a friend of the left. It was folks like Reagan who
loved Saddam
As a leftie, I'm glad we got that war criminal. Hopefully it'll make things
easier for our soldiers.
HOD
2003-12-14 14:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by abracadabra
Post by HOD
They've lost their leader and have no idea how to react!
Hey - Saddam was never a friend of the left. It was folks like Reagan who
loved Saddam
As a leftie, I'm glad we got that war criminal. Hopefully it'll make things
easier for our soldiers.
Quit being so civil...... you're messing up my fun! :-))
abracadabra
2003-12-14 14:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by abracadabra
Post by abracadabra
Post by HOD
They've lost their leader and have no idea how to react!
Hey - Saddam was never a friend of the left. It was folks like Reagan who
loved Saddam
As a leftie, I'm glad we got that war criminal. Hopefully it'll make
things
Post by abracadabra
easier for our soldiers.
Quit being so civil...... you're messing up my fun! :-))
Well, the premise that a lot of cons are working under is somehow we on the
left are upset that a totalitarian dictator has been captured.
What's funny to me is how people said Saddam would want to go out as a
martyr, in a blaze of glory, and they caught him hiding in a hole in the
ground. How pathetic. Saddam has never been the threat people make him out
to be. He was this ruthless guy with nukes, aimed at America's heart - as it
turns out he's this aging hippie looking guy without any WMDs at all, who
had the strategic ability of a hamster.

Still - glad the thug is caught, glad he's in custody. It'll help Bush in
the short run. If the killing of Americans continues (or gets worse) then
it'll be a bump in the polls.
Hey - I wanna see him tried on war crimes in the USA. We can argue about
that!
HOD
2003-12-14 15:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by abracadabra
Post by abracadabra
Post by abracadabra
Post by HOD
They've lost their leader and have no idea how to react!
Hey - Saddam was never a friend of the left. It was folks like Reagan
who
Post by abracadabra
Post by abracadabra
loved Saddam
As a leftie, I'm glad we got that war criminal. Hopefully it'll make
things
Post by abracadabra
easier for our soldiers.
Quit being so civil...... you're messing up my fun! :-))
Well, the premise that a lot of cons are working under is somehow we on the
left are upset that a totalitarian dictator has been captured.
What's funny to me is how people said Saddam would want to go out as a
martyr, in a blaze of glory, and they caught him hiding in a hole in the
ground. How pathetic. Saddam has never been the threat people make him out
to be. He was this ruthless guy with nukes, aimed at America's heart - as it
turns out he's this aging hippie looking guy without any WMDs at all, who
had the strategic ability of a hamster.
Still - glad the thug is caught, glad he's in custody. It'll help Bush in
the short run. If the killing of Americans continues (or gets worse) then
it'll be a bump in the polls.
Hey - I wanna see him tried on war crimes in the USA. We can argue about
that!
I believe he will eventually be tried on war crimes, however, I think the
greater opportunity for impact toward stability in Iraq will be to have him
tried there by the citizens of Iraq. The only problem with that is the
extended timeline it's sure to cause.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if the attacks don't increase initially.....
hope I'm wrong!
John Slade
2003-12-15 00:36:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by abracadabra
Post by abracadabra
Post by abracadabra
Post by HOD
They've lost their leader and have no idea how to react!
Hey - Saddam was never a friend of the left. It was folks like Reagan
who
Post by abracadabra
Post by abracadabra
loved Saddam
As a leftie, I'm glad we got that war criminal. Hopefully it'll make
things
Post by abracadabra
easier for our soldiers.
Quit being so civil...... you're messing up my fun! :-))
Well, the premise that a lot of cons are working under is somehow we on the
left are upset that a totalitarian dictator has been captured.
What's funny to me is how people said Saddam would want to go out as a
martyr, in a blaze of glory, and they caught him hiding in a hole in the
ground. How pathetic. Saddam has never been the threat people make him out
to be. He was this ruthless guy with nukes, aimed at America's heart - as it
turns out he's this aging hippie looking guy without any WMDs at all, who
had the strategic ability of a hamster.
Still - glad the thug is caught, glad he's in custody. It'll help Bush in
the short run. If the killing of Americans continues (or gets worse) then
it'll be a bump in the polls.
Hey - I wanna see him tried on war crimes in the USA. We can argue about
that!
I just saw Howard Dean make comments about this capture. He didn't look
too happy. However he congratulated the military, the Iraqis and the Bush
administration. He was a class act all the way. His stock just went up. Dean
said he wouldn't bring politics up today but would instead celebrate. If I
were the Democratic candidates, I would start showing how it was republicans
who supported Hussein even after the infamous Halabja gas attack. This has
to be done to remind people what party consistently opposed Saddam Hussein.

John
HOD
2003-12-15 02:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Slade
Post by abracadabra
Post by abracadabra
Post by abracadabra
Post by HOD
They've lost their leader and have no idea how to react!
Hey - Saddam was never a friend of the left. It was folks like Reagan
who
Post by abracadabra
Post by abracadabra
loved Saddam
As a leftie, I'm glad we got that war criminal. Hopefully it'll make
things
Post by abracadabra
easier for our soldiers.
Quit being so civil...... you're messing up my fun! :-))
Well, the premise that a lot of cons are working under is somehow we on
the
Post by abracadabra
left are upset that a totalitarian dictator has been captured.
What's funny to me is how people said Saddam would want to go out as a
martyr, in a blaze of glory, and they caught him hiding in a hole in the
ground. How pathetic. Saddam has never been the threat people make him out
to be. He was this ruthless guy with nukes, aimed at America's heart -
as
Post by John Slade
it
Post by abracadabra
turns out he's this aging hippie looking guy without any WMDs at all, who
had the strategic ability of a hamster.
Still - glad the thug is caught, glad he's in custody. It'll help Bush in
the short run. If the killing of Americans continues (or gets worse) then
it'll be a bump in the polls.
Hey - I wanna see him tried on war crimes in the USA. We can argue about
that!
I just saw Howard Dean make comments about this capture. He didn't look
too happy. However he congratulated the military, the Iraqis and the Bush
administration. He was a class act all the way. His stock just went up. Dean
said he wouldn't bring politics up today but would instead celebrate. If I
were the Democratic candidates, I would start showing how it was republicans
who supported Hussein even after the infamous Halabja gas attack. This has
to be done to remind people what party consistently opposed Saddam Hussein.
John
You are joking aren't you?
If Dean were president today, you'd be calling Saddam "Daddy".
Nobody is this ignorant!
!social
2003-12-14 20:48:47 UTC
Permalink
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam gassed his
own people with American-made chemicals. Why don't we take this
opportunity to remember that we supported Saddam during his most
oppressive years.
fãhç
2003-12-14 21:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by !social
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam gassed his
own people with American-made chemicals. Why don't we take this
opportunity to remember that we supported Saddam during his most
oppressive years.
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam had nothing to do
with 9/11.
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam had no WMD in the
months before Bush launched his illegal invasion of Iraq.
HOD
2003-12-15 02:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by fãhç
Post by !social
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam gassed his
own people with American-made chemicals. Why don't we take this
opportunity to remember that we supported Saddam during his most
oppressive years.
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam had nothing to do
with 9/11.
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/12/2003)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&
sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html


Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof
that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks
against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious
Palestinian terrorist.

Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just
weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US
history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the
then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of
the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the
Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day
"work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad.

In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and
demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for
attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".

The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a
report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says
has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.

Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained
the document, Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man
Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine.

"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with
al-Qaeda," he said. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that
we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with
al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11
attacks."

Although Atta is believed to have been resident in Florida in the summer of
2001, he is known to have used more than a dozen aliases, and intelligence
experts believe he could easily have slipped out of the US to visit Iraq.

Abu Nidal, who was responsible for the failed assassination of the Israeli
ambassador to London in 1982, was based in Baghdad for more than two
decades.
Post by fãhç
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam had no WMD in the
months before Bush launched his illegal invasion of Iraq.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his
chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile
delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,
including Al Qaeda members..."
---- Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002
fãhç
2003-12-15 02:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by HOD
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/12/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&
Post by HOD
sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the
Telegraph
Oooh! Another exclusive memo from the Telegraph. I'm sure they are hoping
nobody will force their hand like all the other bullshit stories they've
printed.

Besides, don't you believe your beloved leaders in Washington DC?

"We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control
of 9/11."
Condoleezza Rice, Tuesday Sept. 16th, 2003

"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say
that"
Donald Rumsfeld on whether Iraq had ties to al-Qeada, Wednesday Sept. 17th,
2003

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11"
George W. Bush, Thursday Sept. 18th, 2003
HOD
2003-12-15 03:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/12/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the
Telegraph
Oooh! Another exclusive memo from the Telegraph. I'm sure they are hoping
nobody will force their hand like all the other bullshit stories they've
printed.
Besides, don't you believe your beloved leaders in Washington DC?
"We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control
of 9/11."
Condoleezza Rice, Tuesday Sept. 16th, 2003
"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say
that"
Donald Rumsfeld on whether Iraq had ties to al-Qeada, Wednesday Sept. 17th,
2003
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11"
George W. Bush, Thursday Sept. 18th, 2003
Think about this....
Is it possible this article was released based on information not available
at the time of the above quotes????
I believe all of the above statements to be true at the time........ what's
your point?
fãhç
2003-12-15 07:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/12/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by
the
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
Telegraph
Oooh! Another exclusive memo from the Telegraph. I'm sure they are
hoping
Post by fãhç
nobody will force their hand like all the other bullshit stories they've
printed.
Besides, don't you believe your beloved leaders in Washington DC?
"We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control
of 9/11."
Condoleezza Rice, Tuesday Sept. 16th, 2003
"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could
say
Post by fãhç
that"
Donald Rumsfeld on whether Iraq had ties to al-Qeada, Wednesday Sept.
17th,
Post by fãhç
2003
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September
11"
Post by fãhç
George W. Bush, Thursday Sept. 18th, 2003
Think about this....
Is it possible this article was released based on information not available
at the time of the above quotes????
I believe all of the above statements to be true at the time........ what's
your point?
The Telegraph has printed a bunch of articles with supposedly "exclusive"
documents and "unnamed sources" which all turned out later to be bogus.

Confidence is not high in that publication. You need to wait and see if
this is confirmed by any other news sources with better credibility.
Otherwise, it's just more crap from a gossip rag.
HOD
2003-12-15 13:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/12/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by
the
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
Telegraph
Oooh! Another exclusive memo from the Telegraph. I'm sure they are
hoping
Post by fãhç
nobody will force their hand like all the other bullshit stories they've
printed.
Besides, don't you believe your beloved leaders in Washington DC?
"We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or
control
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
of 9/11."
Condoleezza Rice, Tuesday Sept. 16th, 2003
"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could
say
Post by fãhç
that"
Donald Rumsfeld on whether Iraq had ties to al-Qeada, Wednesday Sept.
17th,
Post by fãhç
2003
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September
11"
Post by fãhç
George W. Bush, Thursday Sept. 18th, 2003
Think about this....
Is it possible this article was released based on information not
available
Post by fãhç
at the time of the above quotes????
I believe all of the above statements to be true at the time........
what's
Post by fãhç
your point?
The Telegraph has printed a bunch of articles with supposedly "exclusive"
documents and "unnamed sources" which all turned out later to be bogus.
Confidence is not high in that publication. You need to wait and see if
this is confirmed by any other news sources with better credibility.
Otherwise, it's just more crap from a gossip rag.
Come on.... tell me, when was the last time anything referenced here that
challenged your cult's agenda wasn't considered by you and yours to be
suspicious or an outright lie?

I'll tell you where "confidence is not high". It's in every response put
forth by a liberal that insist that the messenger is the problem in every
case where the message doesn't support their liberal cause.
fãhç
2003-12-16 01:17:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/12/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained
exclusively
Post by fãhç
by
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
the
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
Telegraph
Oooh! Another exclusive memo from the Telegraph. I'm sure they are
hoping
Post by fãhç
nobody will force their hand like all the other bullshit stories
they've
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
printed.
Besides, don't you believe your beloved leaders in Washington DC?
"We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or
control
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
of 9/11."
Condoleezza Rice, Tuesday Sept. 16th, 2003
"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I
could
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
say
Post by fãhç
that"
Donald Rumsfeld on whether Iraq had ties to al-Qeada, Wednesday Sept.
17th,
Post by fãhç
2003
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the
September
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
11"
Post by fãhç
George W. Bush, Thursday Sept. 18th, 2003
Think about this....
Is it possible this article was released based on information not
available
Post by fãhç
at the time of the above quotes????
I believe all of the above statements to be true at the time........
what's
Post by fãhç
your point?
The Telegraph has printed a bunch of articles with supposedly "exclusive"
documents and "unnamed sources" which all turned out later to be bogus.
Confidence is not high in that publication. You need to wait and see if
this is confirmed by any other news sources with better credibility.
Otherwise, it's just more crap from a gossip rag.
Come on.... tell me, when was the last time anything referenced here that
challenged your cult's agenda wasn't considered by you and yours to be
suspicious or an outright lie?
I'll tell you where "confidence is not high". It's in every response put
forth by a liberal that insist that the messenger is the problem in every
case where the message doesn't support their liberal cause.
Confidence is not high based solely on the Telegraph's past performance in
any stories where they claim they have "exclusive" evidence. Corroboration
is needed. There is none so far.

I suspect that this story like their other stories will soon be debunked and
fade from view. But it will leave bullshit impressions in the minds of
people like you. Then these newsgroups will be repeatedly hit with reprints
of these debunked stories by hit-and-run trolls, and more bandwidth will be
wasted repeatedly debunking them. And the cycle of life continues.
HOD
2003-12-16 01:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by HOD
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/12/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&
Post by HOD
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained
exclusively
Post by fãhç
by
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
the
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
Telegraph
Oooh! Another exclusive memo from the Telegraph. I'm sure they are
hoping
Post by fãhç
nobody will force their hand like all the other bullshit stories
they've
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
printed.
Besides, don't you believe your beloved leaders in Washington DC?
"We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or
control
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
of 9/11."
Condoleezza Rice, Tuesday Sept. 16th, 2003
"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I
could
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
say
Post by fãhç
that"
Donald Rumsfeld on whether Iraq had ties to al-Qeada, Wednesday
Sept.
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
17th,
Post by fãhç
2003
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the
September
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
11"
Post by fãhç
George W. Bush, Thursday Sept. 18th, 2003
Think about this....
Is it possible this article was released based on information not
available
Post by fãhç
at the time of the above quotes????
I believe all of the above statements to be true at the time........
what's
Post by fãhç
your point?
The Telegraph has printed a bunch of articles with supposedly
"exclusive"
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
documents and "unnamed sources" which all turned out later to be bogus.
Confidence is not high in that publication. You need to wait and see if
this is confirmed by any other news sources with better credibility.
Otherwise, it's just more crap from a gossip rag.
Come on.... tell me, when was the last time anything referenced here that
challenged your cult's agenda wasn't considered by you and yours to be
suspicious or an outright lie?
I'll tell you where "confidence is not high". It's in every response put
forth by a liberal that insist that the messenger is the problem in every
case where the message doesn't support their liberal cause.
Confidence is not high based solely on the Telegraph's past performance in
any stories where they claim they have "exclusive" evidence.
Corroboration
Post by HOD
is needed. There is none so far.
I suspect that this story like their other stories will soon be debunked and
fade from view. But it will leave bullshit impressions in the minds of
people like you. Then these newsgroups will be repeatedly hit with reprints
of these debunked stories by hit-and-run trolls, and more bandwidth will be
wasted repeatedly debunking them. And the cycle of life continues.
What we have here is another liberal soothsayer! Limited only by his
inability to forecast anything negative concerning liberal stories.... most
of which come from some loudmouth liberal loonie's asshole!
fãhç
2003-12-16 05:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/12/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained
exclusively
Post by fãhç
by
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
the
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
Telegraph
Oooh! Another exclusive memo from the Telegraph. I'm sure they
are
Post by HOD
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
hoping
Post by fãhç
nobody will force their hand like all the other bullshit stories
they've
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
printed.
Besides, don't you believe your beloved leaders in Washington DC?
"We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or
control
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
of 9/11."
Condoleezza Rice, Tuesday Sept. 16th, 2003
"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I
could
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
say
Post by fãhç
that"
Donald Rumsfeld on whether Iraq had ties to al-Qeada, Wednesday
Sept.
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
17th,
Post by fãhç
2003
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the
September
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
11"
Post by fãhç
George W. Bush, Thursday Sept. 18th, 2003
Think about this....
Is it possible this article was released based on information not
available
Post by fãhç
at the time of the above quotes????
I believe all of the above statements to be true at the time........
what's
Post by fãhç
your point?
The Telegraph has printed a bunch of articles with supposedly
"exclusive"
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
documents and "unnamed sources" which all turned out later to be
bogus.
Post by HOD
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Confidence is not high in that publication. You need to wait and
see
Post by fãhç
if
Post by HOD
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
this is confirmed by any other news sources with better credibility.
Otherwise, it's just more crap from a gossip rag.
Come on.... tell me, when was the last time anything referenced here
that
Post by HOD
Post by fãhç
challenged your cult's agenda wasn't considered by you and yours to be
suspicious or an outright lie?
I'll tell you where "confidence is not high". It's in every response put
forth by a liberal that insist that the messenger is the problem in
every
Post by HOD
Post by fãhç
case where the message doesn't support their liberal cause.
Confidence is not high based solely on the Telegraph's past performance in
any stories where they claim they have "exclusive" evidence.
Corroboration
Post by HOD
is needed. There is none so far.
I suspect that this story like their other stories will soon be debunked
and
Post by HOD
fade from view. But it will leave bullshit impressions in the minds of
people like you. Then these newsgroups will be repeatedly hit with
reprints
Post by HOD
of these debunked stories by hit-and-run trolls, and more bandwidth will
be
Post by HOD
wasted repeatedly debunking them. And the cycle of life continues.
What we have here is another liberal soothsayer! Limited only by his
inability to forecast anything negative concerning liberal stories.... most
of which come from some loudmouth liberal loonie's asshole!
And of course you blindly accept uncorroborated stories only when it suits
your world view. Otherwise you consider it Lies of the Loony Liberals.
Sounds like you have a case of Selective Stupidity.
Tempest
2003-12-16 03:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by HOD
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/12/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by
the
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
Telegraph
Oooh! Another exclusive memo from the Telegraph. I'm sure they are
hoping
Post by fãhç
nobody will force their hand like all the other bullshit stories they've
printed.
Besides, don't you believe your beloved leaders in Washington DC?
"We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or
control
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
of 9/11."
Condoleezza Rice, Tuesday Sept. 16th, 2003
"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could
say
Post by fãhç
that"
Donald Rumsfeld on whether Iraq had ties to al-Qeada, Wednesday Sept.
17th,
Post by fãhç
2003
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September
11"
Post by fãhç
George W. Bush, Thursday Sept. 18th, 2003
Think about this....
Is it possible this article was released based on information not
available
Post by fãhç
at the time of the above quotes????
I believe all of the above statements to be true at the time........
what's
Post by fãhç
your point?
The Telegraph has printed a bunch of articles with supposedly "exclusive"
documents and "unnamed sources" which all turned out later to be bogus.
What do you expect from a Rupert Murdoch owned gossip rag?
Post by HOD
Confidence is not high in that publication. You need to wait and see if
this is confirmed by any other news sources with better credibility.
Otherwise, it's just more crap from a gossip rag.
--
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act.
- George Orwell
fãhç
2003-12-16 05:30:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tempest
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/12/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&
Post by Tempest
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by
the
Post by fãhç
Post by HOD
Telegraph
Oooh! Another exclusive memo from the Telegraph. I'm sure they are
hoping
Post by fãhç
nobody will force their hand like all the other bullshit stories they've
printed.
Besides, don't you believe your beloved leaders in Washington DC?
"We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or
control
Post by fãhç
Post by fãhç
of 9/11."
Condoleezza Rice, Tuesday Sept. 16th, 2003
"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could
say
Post by fãhç
that"
Donald Rumsfeld on whether Iraq had ties to al-Qeada, Wednesday Sept.
17th,
Post by fãhç
2003
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September
11"
Post by fãhç
George W. Bush, Thursday Sept. 18th, 2003
Think about this....
Is it possible this article was released based on information not
available
Post by fãhç
at the time of the above quotes????
I believe all of the above statements to be true at the time........
what's
Post by fãhç
your point?
The Telegraph has printed a bunch of articles with supposedly "exclusive"
documents and "unnamed sources" which all turned out later to be bogus.
What do you expect from a Rupert Murdoch owned gossip rag?
I knew I had heard that somewhere in the media before. But I wasn't able to
confirm it by searching the Telegraph's web site.
Post by Tempest
Post by fãhç
Confidence is not high in that publication. You need to wait and see if
this is confirmed by any other news sources with better credibility.
Otherwise, it's just more crap from a gossip rag.
--
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act.
- George Orwell
Michael
2003-12-15 13:42:27 UTC
Permalink
"The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a
report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says
has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria."

OOPS, another Niger forgery???
Post by HOD
Post by fãhç
Post by !social
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam gassed his
own people with American-made chemicals. Why don't we take this
opportunity to remember that we supported Saddam during his most
oppressive years.
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam had nothing
to
Post by HOD
do
Post by fãhç
with 9/11.
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/12/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&
Post by HOD
sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html
Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof
that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks
against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious
Palestinian terrorist.
Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just
weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US
history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the
then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of
the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the
Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day
"work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad.
In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and
demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for
attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".
The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a
report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says
has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.
Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained
the document, Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man
Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine.
"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with
al-Qaeda," he said. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that
we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with
al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11
attacks."
Although Atta is believed to have been resident in Florida in the summer of
2001, he is known to have used more than a dozen aliases, and intelligence
experts believe he could easily have slipped out of the US to visit Iraq.
Abu Nidal, who was responsible for the failed assassination of the Israeli
ambassador to London in 1982, was based in Baghdad for more than two
decades.
Post by fãhç
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam had no WMD in
the
Post by fãhç
months before Bush launched his illegal invasion of Iraq.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his
chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile
delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,
including Al Qaeda members..."
---- Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002
HOD
2003-12-15 23:24:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
"The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a
report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says
has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria."
OOPS, another Niger forgery???
OOPS, or not???
Post by Michael
Post by HOD
Post by fãhç
Post by !social
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam gassed his
own people with American-made chemicals. Why don't we take this
opportunity to remember that we supported Saddam during his most
oppressive years.
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam had nothing
to
Post by HOD
do
Post by fãhç
with 9/11.
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 14/12/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&
Post by Michael
Post by HOD
sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html
Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof
that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks
against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious
Palestinian terrorist.
Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just
weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US
history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the
then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head
of
Post by HOD
the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the
Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a
three-day
Post by HOD
"work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad.
In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort"
and
Post by HOD
demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for
attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".
The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a
report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it
says
Post by HOD
has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.
Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had
obtained
Post by HOD
the document, Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man
Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine.
"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with
al-Qaeda," he said. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence
that
Post by HOD
we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with
al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11
attacks."
Although Atta is believed to have been resident in Florida in the summer
of
Post by HOD
2001, he is known to have used more than a dozen aliases, and intelligence
experts believe he could easily have slipped out of the US to visit Iraq.
Abu Nidal, who was responsible for the failed assassination of the Israeli
ambassador to London in 1982, was based in Baghdad for more than two
decades.
Post by fãhç
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam had no WMD in
the
Post by fãhç
months before Bush launched his illegal invasion of Iraq.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his
chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile
delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,
including Al Qaeda members..."
---- Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002
HOD
2003-12-15 02:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by !social
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam gassed his
own people with American-made chemicals. Why don't we take this
opportunity to remember that we supported Saddam during his most
oppressive years.
We supported Saddam against our enemy.... no more, no less!
William David Thweatt
2003-12-15 17:17:50 UTC
Permalink
!social (***@hotmail.com) wrote:
: Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam gassed his
: own people with American-made chemicals. Why don't we take this
: opportunity to remember that we supported Saddam during his most
: oppressive years.

The US never sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein had
his own chemical plants where they manufactured the chemical weapons. The
precursors for chemical weapons manufacturing are the same as those used
in other chemical manufacturing processes, especially pesticide
manufacturing.

During the 1980's we tolerated Saddam Hussein because he was the enemy of
Iran. Iran was the enemy of the US and an ally of the Soviet Union,
another enemy of the US. It was in our best interest to keep Iran's
terrorists occupied with fighting Iraq instead of taking more Americans
hostage.

Remember, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

--
--
William "Dave" Thweatt
Robert E. Welch Postdoctoral Fellow
Chemistry Department
Rice University
Houston, TX
***@ruf.rice.edu
***@us.army.mil
a***@no-spam-panix.com
2003-12-15 20:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by !social
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam gassed his
own people with American-made chemicals. Why don't we take this
opportunity to remember that we supported Saddam during his most
oppressive years.
William> The US never sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein had
William> his own chemical plants where they manufactured the chemical weapons. The
William> precursors for chemical weapons manufacturing are the same as those used
William> in other chemical manufacturing processes, especially pesticide
William> manufacturing.

William> During the 1980's we tolerated Saddam Hussein because he was the enemy of

We actively supported him, despite knowing of his WMD programs
and use.

William> Iran. Iran was the enemy of the US and an ally of the Soviet Union,

No, Iran was an enemy of the Soviet Union. Iraq was closely associated
with the Soviet Union, Saddam greatly admired Stalin.

William> another enemy of the US. It was in our best interest to keep Iran's

This you got right, we were enemies with the SU.

William> terrorists occupied with fighting Iraq instead of taking more Americans
William> hostage.

William> Remember, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

No, that is moral hogwash. Friends are friends. Enemies
are enemies. And the enemy of an enemy can be a friend or
and enemy.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
Eagle Eye
2003-12-16 00:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Post by !social
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam
gassed his own people with American-made chemicals. Why
don't we take this opportunity to remember that we supported
Saddam during his most oppressive years.
William> The US never sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein.
William> Saddam Hussein had his own chemical plants where they
William> manufactured the chemical weapons. The precursors for
William> chemical weapons manufacturing are the same as those
William> used in other chemical manufacturing processes,
William> especially pesticide manufacturing.
William> During the 1980's we tolerated Saddam Hussein because
William> he was the enemy of
We actively supported him, despite knowing of his WMD programs and
use.
Could you elaborate on this? In what ways did the Carter and Reagan
administrations support the Iraqi regime? How much did these
administrations know of Iraq's WMD programs? How did their support
change after it was revealed that he used WMDs?

Now, put it in context. Did anyone in the Reagan administration
fight others in the US government to sell nuclear reactors capable
of producing weapons-grade uranium? No? Oh yeah, that was
Jacques Chirac. Even the USSR balked at that request.

Did the US administration approve shipments of precursors? In
fact, once he started using chemical weapons, the US tightened
export restrictions. It was the Europeans who were selling.

What about conventional weaponry? Where did he get that?

I'm not arguing that the US administrations had clean hands, but
you should be more careful with your accusations and at least
try offer some perspective on the relative involvement of the
US, France, (East/West) Germany, USSR, etc..
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
William> Iran. Iran was the enemy of the US and an ally of the
William> Soviet Union,
No, Iran was an enemy of the Soviet Union. Iraq was closely
associated with the Soviet Union, Saddam greatly admired Stalin.
That's overly simplistic. Iran was never an ally of the USSR,
but the various factions (the shah and the Islamic Revolutionaries)
often used the Soviet's desire for influence when it was to their
advantage. The USSR generally sided with Iraq, but relations were
often strained with an attempted Communist coup in Iraq and the
Iran-Iraq war. Consequently, Iraq turned to Europe, and to a much
lesser extent the US, for arms and materiel for WMDs.

[snip]

=====
EE

Latine loqui coactus sum.
a***@no-spam-panix.com
2003-12-16 14:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Post by !social
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam
gassed his own people with American-made chemicals. Why
don't we take this opportunity to remember that we supported
Saddam during his most oppressive years.
William> The US never sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein.
William> Saddam Hussein had his own chemical plants where they
William> manufactured the chemical weapons. The precursors for
William> chemical weapons manufacturing are the same as those
William> used in other chemical manufacturing processes,
William> especially pesticide manufacturing.

William> During the 1980's we tolerated Saddam Hussein because
William> he was the enemy of
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
We actively supported him, despite knowing of his WMD programs and
use.
Eagle> Could you elaborate on this? In what ways did the Carter and Reagan
Eagle> administrations support the Iraqi regime? How much did these

I do not know about Carter. Reagan's administration gave them
intelligence, gleaned at least in part from spy satellites. They
sold them some weapons, but most of Iraq's weapons came from the
Soviet Bloc. Donald Rumsfeld himself was a special envoy to Saddam,
and there is a famous photo of them embrasing on the tarmac.

Eagle> administrations know of Iraq's WMD programs? How did their support

The Iraqi's were using them on Iran at the time.

Eagle> change after it was revealed that he used WMDs?

It did not.

Eagle> Now, put it in context. Did anyone in the Reagan administration
Eagle> fight others in the US government to sell nuclear reactors capable
Eagle> of producing weapons-grade uranium? No? Oh yeah, that was
Eagle> Jacques Chirac. Even the USSR balked at that request.

The French have a terrible record on weapons sales too.

Eagle> Did the US administration approve shipments of precursors? In
Eagle> fact, once he started using chemical weapons, the US tightened
Eagle> export restrictions. It was the Europeans who were selling.

Eagle> What about conventional weaponry? Where did he get that?

Eagle> I'm not arguing that the US administrations had clean hands, but
Eagle> you should be more careful with your accusations and at least
Eagle> try offer some perspective on the relative involvement of the
Eagle> US, France, (East/West) Germany, USSR, etc..

My comments were not meant to be complete. Just a rebuttal
of Mr. Thweatt's white wash. "Tolerate", "Enemy of the USSR"...

William> Iran. Iran was the enemy of the US and an ally of the
William> Soviet Union,
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
No, Iran was an enemy of the Soviet Union. Iraq was closely
associated with the Soviet Union, Saddam greatly admired Stalin.
Eagle> That's overly simplistic. Iran was never an ally of the USSR,
Eagle> but the various factions (the shah and the Islamic Revolutionaries)
Eagle> often used the Soviet's desire for influence when it was to their
Eagle> advantage. The USSR generally sided with Iraq, but relations were
Eagle> often strained with an attempted Communist coup in Iraq and the
Eagle> Iran-Iraq war. Consequently, Iraq turned to Europe, and to a much
Eagle> lesser extent the US, for arms and materiel for WMDs.

The Islamic government of Iran killed every leftist they
could find. Perhaps they played a bit of footsie with the
USSR, but they were enemies to the core.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
Eagle Eye
2003-12-16 20:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Post by !social
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that
Saddam gassed his own people with American-made
chemicals. Why don't we take this opportunity to remember
that we supported Saddam during his most oppressive
years.
William> The US never sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein.
William> Saddam Hussein had his own chemical plants where they
William> manufactured the chemical weapons. The precursors for
William> chemical weapons manufacturing are the same as those
William> used in other chemical manufacturing processes,
William> especially pesticide manufacturing.
William> During the 1980's we tolerated Saddam Hussein because
William> he was the enemy of
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
We actively supported him, despite knowing of his WMD
programs and use.
Eagle> Could you elaborate on this? In what ways did the
Eagle> Carter and Reagan administrations support the Iraqi
Eagle> regime? How much did these
I do not know about Carter. Reagan's administration gave them
intelligence, gleaned at least in part from spy satellites. They
sold them some weapons, but most of Iraq's weapons came from the
Soviet Bloc.
Before the Iran-Iraq war, at least. I don't know the percentages,
but I've read that the USSR strictly limited arms sales when Iraq
invaded Iran, at which point Saddam went to the Europeans.
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Donald Rumsfeld himself was a special envoy to Saddam, and there
is a famous photo of them embrasing on the tarmac.
There are photos of Rabin shaking hands with Arafat. Don't
confuse the symbolism of a photo with the substantive actions.
Rummy did make deals with the devil, but the media should
publish pictures of Chriac and Hussein a hundred times for
each time Rummy's photo-op is published in the interest of
accuracy.
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Eagle> administrations know of Iraq's WMD programs? How did
Eagle> their support
The Iraqi's were using them on Iran at the time.
So you're not talking about knowledge of his WMD programs before
he actually used them?

I also read that after some private British companies were
approached with requests for precursor chemicals, they alerted
the government, which in turn let the CIA (under Carter) know
about this.
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Eagle> change after it was revealed that he used WMDs?
It did not.
Actually, it did. They clamped down on export restrictions for
precursor chemicals, adding several new countries to the list to
prevent indirect sales.

However, the US should have loudly denounced this and cut off
ties completely.
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Eagle> Now, put it in context. Did anyone in the Reagan
Eagle> administration fight others in the US government to sell
Eagle> nuclear reactors capable of producing weapons-grade
Eagle> uranium? No? Oh yeah, that was Jacques Chirac. Even
Eagle> the USSR balked at that request.
The French have a terrible record on weapons sales too.
Chirac's long-time relationship with Saddam certainly explains
his motivation for opposing the US so vehemently. Anyone who
viewed him as having any principles was sorely mistaken.
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Eagle> Did the US administration approve shipments of
Eagle> precursors? In fact, once he started using chemical
Eagle> weapons, the US tightened export restrictions. It was
Eagle> the Europeans who were selling.
Eagle> What about conventional weaponry? Where did he get
Eagle> that?
Eagle> I'm not arguing that the US administrations had clean
Eagle> hands, but you should be more careful with your
Eagle> accusations and at least try offer some perspective on
Eagle> the relative involvement of the US, France, (East/West)
Eagle> Germany, USSR, etc..
My comments were not meant to be complete. Just a rebuttal of
Mr. Thweatt's white wash. "Tolerate", "Enemy of the USSR"...
I realize that. But it is important to paint an accurate picture,
rather than letting the blame-America-for-everything lies and
distortions go unchallenged.
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
William> Iran. Iran was the enemy of the US and an ally of the
William> Soviet Union,
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
No, Iran was an enemy of the Soviet Union. Iraq was closely
associated with the Soviet Union, Saddam greatly admired
Stalin.
Eagle> That's overly simplistic. Iran was never an ally of the
Eagle> USSR, but the various factions (the shah and the Islamic
Eagle> Revolutionaries) often used the Soviet's desire for
Eagle> influence when it was to their advantage. The USSR
Eagle> generally sided with Iraq, but relations were often
Eagle> strained with an attempted Communist coup in Iraq and
Eagle> the Iran-Iraq war. Consequently, Iraq turned to Europe,
Eagle> and to a much lesser extent the US, for arms and
Eagle> materiel for WMDs.
The Islamic government of Iran killed every leftist they could
find. Perhaps they played a bit of footsie with the USSR, but
they were enemies to the core.
If they did that, they'd have to commit suicide. The Iranian
government uses extensive central planning and extensive
subsidies. They meddle with private enterprise with such things as
legal restrictions on firing employees, as a means to hide
unemployment. The government claims ownership of many large
industries, particularly oil. Part of recent reforms include a
very sluggish attempt to shift the economy towards a free market.

Though I don't have any hard numbers, I do not doubt that the
IR government cracked down on hard-core communists, particularly
pro-Soviets, as they cracked down on political dissidents in general,
minority groups (like Kurds), and other groups which posed a threat
to their rule.

But remember that Iran and the PRC do quite a bit of business,
so the IR government isn't/wasn't so much "enemies to the core" with
communists as hostile to communists which bordered them and thus posed
a danger.

=====
EE

Latine loqui coactus sum.
w***@harley.com
2003-12-17 00:05:56 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Dec 2003 00:13:49 -0000, Eagle Eye
Post by Eagle Eye
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Post by !social
Why don't we take this opportunity to remember that Saddam
gassed his own people with American-made chemicals. Why
don't we take this opportunity to remember that we supported
Saddam during his most oppressive years.
William> The US never sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein.
William> Saddam Hussein had his own chemical plants where they
William> manufactured the chemical weapons. The precursors for
William> chemical weapons manufacturing are the same as those
William> used in other chemical manufacturing processes,
William> especially pesticide manufacturing.
William> During the 1980's we tolerated Saddam Hussein because
William> he was the enemy of
We actively supported him, despite knowing of his WMD programs and
use.
Could you elaborate on this? In what ways did the Carter and Reagan
administrations support the Iraqi regime? How much did these
administrations know of Iraq's WMD programs? How did their support
change after it was revealed that he used WMDs?
It was the Reagan/Bush administration. They sent
Donald Rumsfeld to meet with Hussein, and Rumsfeld
told Reagan that " We can work with this guy." We
supplied them with military equipment, technology,
even Nuclear, biological, and chemical. The
reason that the administration believes that there
are Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq is that we
have the reciepts, and there are some weapons that
were not accounted for. Hussein's brother-in-law
in 1995 told the CIA that all of the weapons were
destroyed after the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam Hussein
had him killed when he returned to Iraq. Hussein
used gas on the Iranians before he gassed the
Kurds, and we helped him with that. We supported
Hussein until he fell in to the trap that we set
for him. He (Hussein) came to the State
Department for permission to invade Kuwait (which
had been part of Iraq until 1948) because he
believed that they were stealing Iraqi oil. He
was told "We have no agreement with Kuwait".
Hussein had been given the green light to invade.
Post by Eagle Eye
Now, put it in context. Did anyone in the Reagan administration
fight others in the US government to sell nuclear reactors capable
of producing weapons-grade uranium? No? Oh yeah, that was
Jacques Chirac. Even the USSR balked at that request.
Did the US administration approve shipments of precursors? In
fact, once he started using chemical weapons, the US tightened
export restrictions. It was the Europeans who were selling.
What about conventional weaponry? Where did he get that?
I'm not arguing that the US administrations had clean hands, but
you should be more careful with your accusations and at least
try offer some perspective on the relative involvement of the
US, France, (East/West) Germany, USSR, etc..
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
William> Iran. Iran was the enemy of the US and an ally of the
William> Soviet Union,
No, Iran was an enemy of the Soviet Union. Iraq was closely
associated with the Soviet Union, Saddam greatly admired Stalin.
That is not how I remember it. We had installed
and supported a puppet dictator in Iran that was
controlled by the US government and the oil
companies. The people kicked the Shah out in the
70's, and the Ayatollah Khomeini (who had been in
exile in France) became the Islamic Fundamentalist
ruler. He nationalized the oil, and kicked the
Americans out. Meanwhile the Shah was of no
further use to us, and we refused to grant him
sanctuary. Iranian Students stormed the US
embassy in Tehran in 1978 and held the Americans
there hostage for over a year, until Ronald Reagan
took office. Reagan would later sell the
Iranians weapons so that he could finance the
"Freedom Fighters" in Nicaragua, because Congress
refused to fund them. You might remember the
Iran-Contra scandal.
Post by Eagle Eye
That's overly simplistic. Iran was never an ally of the USSR,
but the various factions (the shah and the Islamic Revolutionaries)
often used the Soviet's desire for influence when it was to their
advantage. The USSR generally sided with Iraq, but relations were
often strained with an attempted Communist coup in Iraq and the
Bingo, in comes CIA and Saddam.
Post by Eagle Eye
Iran-Iraq war. Consequently, Iraq turned to Europe, and to a much
lesser extent the US, for arms and materiel for WMDs.
[snip]
=====
EE
Latine loqui coactus sum.
Eagle Eye
2003-12-19 00:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@harley.com
On 16 Dec 2003 00:13:49 -0000, Eagle Eye
[snip]
Post by w***@harley.com
Post by Eagle Eye
Could you elaborate on this? In what ways did the Carter and
Reagan administrations support the Iraqi regime? How much did
these administrations know of Iraq's WMD programs? How did their
support change after it was revealed that he used WMDs?
It was the Reagan/Bush administration. They sent Donald Rumsfeld
to meet with Hussein, and Rumsfeld told Reagan that " We can work
with this guy."
True. They chose to look the other way.
Post by w***@harley.com
We supplied them with military equipment,
The US supplied him with trucks and helicopters. His lethal
weapons were purchased from the USSR, Germany, France, China,
etc..
Post by w***@harley.com
technology, even Nuclear, biological, and chemical.
That's the propaganda line, but the vast majority of WMD materiel
came from Europe. Some bacterial strains came from US labs.
Post by w***@harley.com
The reason that the administration believes that there are Weapons
of Mass Destruction in Iraq is that we have the reciepts,
Did the Germans and French give the US copies of their receipts?

After the Gulf War in 1991, plenty of weapons were confiscated,
conventional and WMDs. Can you document any which were not from
the USSR, Europe, China, North Korea, etc.?
Post by w***@harley.com
and there are some weapons that were not accounted for. Hussein's
brother-in-law in 1995 told the CIA that all of the weapons were
destroyed after the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam Hussein had him killed
when he returned to Iraq. Hussein used gas on the Iranians before
he gassed the Kurds, and we helped him with that.
The US provided satellite intelligence. Some people allege that
they did so knowing it would help him target the Iranians for
chemical weapons attacks. I haven't seen of any hard evidence for
that. It could be true or it could simply be more
blame-America-for-everything propaganda.
Post by w***@harley.com
We supported Hussein until he fell in to the trap that we set for
him. He (Hussein) came to the State Department for permission to
invade Kuwait (which had been part of Iraq until 1948) because he
believed that they were stealing Iraqi oil. He was told "We have
no agreement with Kuwait". Hussein had been given the green light
to invade.
All evidence I've seen suggests the US didn't expect him to capture
the entire nation, but rather a few oilfields on the border. The
notion that the Bush pere adminstration set a trap is pretty
stupid, considering the fact that it would have been far less
costly to avoid the whole war and keep the status quo.
Post by w***@harley.com
Post by Eagle Eye
Now, put it in context. Did anyone in the Reagan administration
fight others in the US government to sell nuclear reactors
capable of producing weapons-grade uranium? No? Oh yeah, that
was Jacques Chirac. Even the USSR balked at that request.
Did the US administration approve shipments of precursors? In
fact, once he started using chemical weapons, the US tightened
export restrictions. It was the Europeans who were selling.
What about conventional weaponry? Where did he get that?
I'm not arguing that the US administrations had clean hands, but
you should be more careful with your accusations and at least try
offer some perspective on the relative involvement of the US,
France, (East/West) Germany, USSR, etc..
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
William> Iran. Iran was the enemy of the US and an ally of
the William> Soviet Union,
No, Iran was an enemy of the Soviet Union. Iraq was closely
associated with the Soviet Union, Saddam greatly admired
Stalin.
That is not how I remember it. We had installed and supported a
puppet dictator in Iran that was controlled by the US government
and the oil companies. The people kicked the Shah out in the
70's,
Radical Islamic Revolutionaries kicked him out. "The people" were
not of one mind.
Post by w***@harley.com
and the Ayatollah Khomeini (who had been in exile in France)
became the Islamic Fundamentalist ruler. He nationalized the oil,
and kicked the Americans out. Meanwhile the Shah was of no
further use to us, and we refused to grant him sanctuary. Iranian
Students stormed the US embassy in Tehran in 1978 and held the
Americans there hostage for over a year, until Ronald Reagan took
office. Reagan would later sell the Iranians weapons so that he
could finance the "Freedom Fighters" in Nicaragua, because
Congress refused to fund them. You might remember the Iran-Contra
scandal.
Yep.
Post by w***@harley.com
Post by Eagle Eye
That's overly simplistic. Iran was never an ally of the USSR,
but the various factions (the shah and the Islamic
Revolutionaries) often used the Soviet's desire for influence
when it was to their advantage. The USSR generally sided with
Iraq, but relations were often strained with an attempted
Communist coup in Iraq and the
Bingo, in comes CIA and Saddam.
Saddam was already the number two guy in Iraq. He didn't need the
CIA to become the top dog.

=====
EE

Latine loqui coactus sum.
w***@harley.com
2003-12-19 05:24:51 UTC
Permalink
On 19 Dec 2003 00:19:31 -0000, Eagle Eye
Post by Eagle Eye
Post by w***@harley.com
On 16 Dec 2003 00:13:49 -0000, Eagle Eye
[snip]
Post by w***@harley.com
Post by Eagle Eye
Could you elaborate on this? In what ways did the Carter and
Reagan administrations support the Iraqi regime? How much did
these administrations know of Iraq's WMD programs? How did their
support change after it was revealed that he used WMDs?
It was the Reagan/Bush administration. They sent Donald Rumsfeld
to meet with Hussein, and Rumsfeld told Reagan that " We can work
with this guy."
True. They chose to look the other way.
Post by w***@harley.com
We supplied them with military equipment,
The US supplied him with trucks and helicopters. His lethal
weapons were purchased from the USSR, Germany, France, China,
etc..
Post by w***@harley.com
technology, even Nuclear, biological, and chemical.
That's the propaganda line, but the vast majority of WMD materiel
came from Europe. Some bacterial strains came from US labs.
Post by w***@harley.com
The reason that the administration believes that there are Weapons
of Mass Destruction in Iraq is that we have the reciepts,
Did the Germans and French give the US copies of their receipts?
After the Gulf War in 1991, plenty of weapons were confiscated,
conventional and WMDs. Can you document any which were not from
the USSR, Europe, China, North Korea, etc.?
This is from an interview with Andreas Zumach,
Geneva-based UN correspondent with the German
newspaper Die Tageszeitung who obtained an
unedited copy of Iraq's 12,000 page report to the
United Nations. The report reveals how German and
U.S. corporations helped build Iraq's weapons
program.

December 18, 2002 Democracy Now

A German newspaper has obtained portions of Iraq's
top secret weapons report that reveals at least 24
U.S. corporations as well as four agencies of the
U.S. government illegally helped Iraq build its
biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

Some of the corporations include Hewlett Packard,
DuPont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Tectronics, Bechtel,
International Computer Systems, Unisys, Sperry and
TI Coating.

The Berlin-based paper Die Tageszeitung also
reports the U.S. Department of Energy delivered
essential non-fissile parts for Baghdad's nuclear
weapons program in the 1980s. The Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce and Defense also provided
assistance.

According to the paper, only one country had more
business ties to Iraq than the U.S. That was
Germany. As many as 80 German companies are also
listed in Iraq's report. And the paper reported
that some German companies continued to do
business with Iraq until last year



Here is a part of a transcript of an interview by
Amy Goodman of Alan Friedman (global economics
correspondent for the International Herald Tribune
and author of the book Spider’s Web: The Secret
History of How the White House Illegally Armed
Iraq):

I apologise for length
You can read the entire transcript, or listen to
the interview at www.democracynow.org
Post by Eagle Eye
Post by w***@harley.com
Quote>>
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 Koppel in 1991,
1992, and the book, Spider's Web, 1993, because
people in America thought it was more interesting
to look at Whitewater.
Post by Eagle Eye
Post by w***@harley.com
End Quote>>
The notion that the Bush pere adminstration set a trap is pretty
stupid, considering the fact that it would have been far less
costly to avoid the whole war and keep the status quo.
Oh, I don't know how stupid it was. The
government has been trying to get control of
Middle East oil ever since the end of WWII. Henry
Kissinger said in 1972 that "Oil is too important
to be left in the hands of the Arabs." Now we
have Military forces all over the Middle East.
Post by Eagle Eye
Post by w***@harley.com
Post by Eagle Eye
Now, put it in context. Did anyone in the Reagan administration
fight others in the US government to sell nuclear reactors
capable of producing weapons-grade uranium? No? Oh yeah, that
was Jacques Chirac. Even the USSR balked at that request.
Did the US administration approve shipments of precursors? In
fact, once he started using chemical weapons, the US tightened
export restrictions. It was the Europeans who were selling.
What about conventional weaponry? Where did he get that?
I'm not arguing that the US administrations had clean hands, but
you should be more careful with your accusations and at least try
offer some perspective on the relative involvement of the US,
France, (East/West) Germany, USSR, etc..
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
William> Iran. Iran was the enemy of the US and an ally of
the William> Soviet Union,
No, Iran was an enemy of the Soviet Union. Iraq was closely
associated with the Soviet Union, Saddam greatly admired
Stalin.
That is not how I remember it. We had installed and supported a
puppet dictator in Iran that was controlled by the US government
and the oil companies. The people kicked the Shah out in the
70's,
Radical Islamic Revolutionaries kicked him out. "The people" were
not of one mind.
I guess you don't remember the images of the
crowds in the streets, it was pretty impressive.
Post by Eagle Eye
Post by w***@harley.com
and the Ayatollah Khomeini (who had been in exile in France)
became the Islamic Fundamentalist ruler. He nationalized the oil,
and kicked the Americans out. Meanwhile the Shah was of no
further use to us, and we refused to grant him sanctuary. Iranian
Students stormed the US embassy in Tehran in 1978 and held the
Americans there hostage for over a year, until Ronald Reagan took
office. Reagan would later sell the Iranians weapons so that he
could finance the "Freedom Fighters" in Nicaragua, because
Congress refused to fund them. You might remember the Iran-Contra
scandal.
Yep.
Post by w***@harley.com
Post by Eagle Eye
That's overly simplistic. Iran was never an ally of the USSR,
but the various factions (the shah and the Islamic
Revolutionaries) often used the Soviet's desire for influence
when it was to their advantage. The USSR generally sided with
Iraq, but relations were often strained with an attempted
Communist coup in Iraq and the
Bingo, in comes CIA and Saddam.
Saddam was already the number two guy in Iraq. He didn't need the
CIA to become the top dog.
That is true, but the number one guy was still
alive.
Post by Eagle Eye
=====
EE
Latine loqui coactus sum.
WydeGlyde

Vote for a change
www.kucinich.us
Gus
2003-12-20 23:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@harley.com
On 19 Dec 2003 00:19:31 -0000, Eagle Eye
Post by Eagle Eye
Post by w***@harley.com
On 16 Dec 2003 00:13:49 -0000, Eagle Eye
[snip]
Post by w***@harley.com
Post by Eagle Eye
Could you elaborate on this? In what ways did the Carter and
Reagan administrations support the Iraqi regime? How much did
these administrations know of Iraq's WMD programs? How did their
support change after it was revealed that he used WMDs?
It was the Reagan/Bush administration. They sent Donald Rumsfeld
to meet with Hussein, and Rumsfeld told Reagan that " We can work
with this guy."
True. They chose to look the other way.
Post by w***@harley.com
We supplied them with military equipment,
The US supplied him with trucks and helicopters. His lethal
weapons were purchased from the USSR, Germany, France, China,
etc..
Post by w***@harley.com
technology, even Nuclear, biological, and chemical.
That's the propaganda line, but the vast majority of WMD materiel
came from Europe. Some bacterial strains came from US labs.
Post by w***@harley.com
The reason that the administration believes that there are Weapons
of Mass Destruction in Iraq is that we have the reciepts,
Did the Germans and French give the US copies of their receipts?
After the Gulf War in 1991, plenty of weapons were confiscated,
conventional and WMDs. Can you document any which were not from
the USSR, Europe, China, North Korea, etc.?
This is from an interview with Andreas Zumach,
Geneva-based UN correspondent with the German
newspaper Die Tageszeitung who obtained an
unedited copy of Iraq's 12,000 page report to the
United Nations. The report reveals how German and
U.S. corporations helped build Iraq's weapons
program.
December 18, 2002 Democracy Now
A German newspaper has obtained portions of Iraq's
top secret weapons report that reveals at least 24
U.S. corporations as well as four agencies of the
U.S. government illegally helped Iraq build its
biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.
Some of the corporations include Hewlett Packard,
DuPont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Tectronics, Bechtel,
International Computer Systems, Unisys, Sperry and
TI Coating.
The Berlin-based paper Die Tageszeitung also
reports the U.S. Department of Energy delivered
essential non-fissile parts for Baghdad's nuclear
weapons program in the 1980s. The Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce and Defense also provided
assistance.
According to the paper, only one country had more
business ties to Iraq than the U.S. That was
Germany. As many as 80 German companies are also
listed in Iraq's report. And the paper reported
that some German companies continued to do
business with Iraq until last year
Here is a part of a transcript of an interview by
Amy Goodman of Alan Friedman (global economics
correspondent for the International Herald Tribune
and author of the book Spider’s Web: The Secret
History of How the White House Illegally Armed
I apologise for length
You can read the entire transcript, or listen to
the interview at www.democracynow.org
Post by Eagle Eye
Post by w***@harley.com
Quote>>
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 Koppel in 1991,
1992, and the book, Spider's Web, 1993, because
people in America thought it was more interesting
to look at Whitewater.
Post by Eagle Eye
Post by w***@harley.com
End Quote>>
The notion that the Bush pere adminstration set a trap is pretty
stupid, considering the fact that it would have been far less
costly to avoid the whole war and keep the status quo.
Oh, I don't know how stupid it was. The
government has been trying to get control of
Middle East oil ever since the end of WWII. Henry
Kissinger said in 1972 that "Oil is too important
to be left in the hands of the Arabs." Now we
have Military forces all over the Middle East.
Post by Eagle Eye
Post by w***@harley.com
Post by Eagle Eye
Now, put it in context. Did anyone in the Reagan administration
fight others in the US government to sell nuclear reactors
capable of producing weapons-grade uranium? No? Oh yeah, that
was Jacques Chirac. Even the USSR balked at that request.
Did the US administration approve shipments of precursors? In
fact, once he started using chemical weapons, the US tightened
export restrictions. It was the Europeans who were selling.
What about conventional weaponry? Where did he get that?
I'm not arguing that the US administrations had clean hands, but
you should be more careful with your accusations and at least try
offer some perspective on the relative involvement of the US,
France, (East/West) Germany, USSR, etc..
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
William> Iran. Iran was the enemy of the US and an ally of
the William> Soviet Union,
No, Iran was an enemy of the Soviet Union. Iraq was closely
associated with the Soviet Union, Saddam greatly admired
Stalin.
That is not how I remember it. We had installed and supported a
puppet dictator in Iran that was controlled by the US government
and the oil companies. The people kicked the Shah out in the
70's,
Radical Islamic Revolutionaries kicked him out. "The people" were
not of one mind.
I guess you don't remember the images of the
crowds in the streets, it was pretty impressive.
Post by Eagle Eye
Post by w***@harley.com
and the Ayatollah Khomeini (who had been in exile in France)
became the Islamic Fundamentalist ruler. He nationalized the oil,
and kicked the Americans out. Meanwhile the Shah was of no
further use to us, and we refused to grant him sanctuary. Iranian
Students stormed the US embassy in Tehran in 1978 and held the
Americans there hostage for over a year, until Ronald Reagan took
office. Reagan would later sell the Iranians weapons so that he
could finance the "Freedom Fighters" in Nicaragua, because
Congress refused to fund them. You might remember the Iran-Contra
scandal.
Yep.
Post by w***@harley.com
Post by Eagle Eye
That's overly simplistic. Iran was never an ally of the USSR,
but the various factions (the shah and the Islamic
Revolutionaries) often used the Soviet's desire for influence
when it was to their advantage. The USSR generally sided with
Iraq, but relations were often strained with an attempted
Communist coup in Iraq and the
Bingo, in comes CIA and Saddam.
Saddam was already the number two guy in Iraq. He didn't need the
CIA to become the top dog.
That is true, but the number one guy was still
alive.
Hmm, the US funded & armed Iraq and we know from the Iran-Contra case
that the US armed Iran - we were fighting ourselves!
HOD
2003-12-21 01:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
Post by w***@harley.com
On 19 Dec 2003 00:19:31 -0000, Eagle Eye
Post by Eagle Eye
Post by w***@harley.com
On 16 Dec 2003 00:13:49 -0000, Eagle Eye
[snip]
Post by w***@harley.com
Post by Eagle Eye
Could you elaborate on this? In what ways did the Carter and
Reagan administrations support the Iraqi regime? How much did
these administrations know of Iraq's WMD programs? How did their
support change after it was revealed that he used WMDs?
It was the Reagan/Bush administration. They sent Donald Rumsfeld
to meet with Hussein, and Rumsfeld told Reagan that " We can work
with this guy."
True. They chose to look the other way.
Post by w***@harley.com
We supplied them with military equipment,
The US supplied him with trucks and helicopters. His lethal
weapons were purchased from the USSR, Germany, France, China,
etc..
Post by w***@harley.com
technology, even Nuclear, biological, and chemical.
That's the propaganda line, but the vast majority of WMD materiel
came from Europe. Some bacterial strains came from US labs.
Post by w***@harley.com
The reason that the administration believes that there are Weapons
of Mass Destruction in Iraq is that we have the reciepts,
Did the Germans and French give the US copies of their receipts?
After the Gulf War in 1991, plenty of weapons were confiscated,
conventional and WMDs. Can you document any which were not from
the USSR, Europe, China, North Korea, etc.?
This is from an interview with Andreas Zumach,
Geneva-based UN correspondent with the German
newspaper Die Tageszeitung who obtained an
unedited copy of Iraq's 12,000 page report to the
United Nations. The report reveals how German and
U.S. corporations helped build Iraq's weapons
program.
December 18, 2002 Democracy Now
A German newspaper has obtained portions of Iraq's
top secret weapons report that reveals at least 24
U.S. corporations as well as four agencies of the
U.S. government illegally helped Iraq build its
biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.
Some of the corporations include Hewlett Packard,
DuPont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Tectronics, Bechtel,
International Computer Systems, Unisys, Sperry and
TI Coating.
The Berlin-based paper Die Tageszeitung also
reports the U.S. Department of Energy delivered
essential non-fissile parts for Baghdad's nuclear
weapons program in the 1980s. The Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce and Defense also provided
assistance.
According to the paper, only one country had more
business ties to Iraq than the U.S. That was
Germany. As many as 80 German companies are also
listed in Iraq's report. And the paper reported
that some German companies continued to do
business with Iraq until last year
Here is a part of a transcript of an interview by
Amy Goodman of Alan Friedman (global economics
correspondent for the International Herald Tribune
and author of the book Spider’s Web: The Secret
History of How the White House Illegally Armed
I apologise for length
You can read the entire transcript, or listen to
the interview at www.democracynow.org
Post by Eagle Eye
Post by w***@harley.com
Quote>>
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 Koppel in 1991,
1992, and the book, Spider's Web, 1993, because
people in America thought it was more interesting
to look at Whitewater.
Post by Eagle Eye
Post by w***@harley.com
End Quote>>
The notion that the Bush pere adminstration set a trap is pretty
stupid, considering the fact that it would have been far less
costly to avoid the whole war and keep the status quo.
Oh, I don't know how stupid it was. The
government has been trying to get control of
Middle East oil ever since the end of WWII. Henry
Kissinger said in 1972 that "Oil is too important
to be left in the hands of the Arabs." Now we
have Military forces all over the Middle East.
Post by Eagle Eye
Post by w***@harley.com
Post by Eagle Eye
Now, put it in context. Did anyone in the Reagan administration
fight others in the US government to sell nuclear reactors
capable of producing weapons-grade uranium? No? Oh yeah, that
was Jacques Chirac. Even the USSR balked at that request.
Did the US administration approve shipments of precursors? In
fact, once he started using chemical weapons, the US tightened
export restrictions. It was the Europeans who were selling.
What about conventional weaponry? Where did he get that?
I'm not arguing that the US administrations had clean hands, but
you should be more careful with your accusations and at least try
offer some perspective on the relative involvement of the US,
France, (East/West) Germany, USSR, etc..
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
William> Iran. Iran was the enemy of the US and an ally of
the William> Soviet Union,
No, Iran was an enemy of the Soviet Union. Iraq was closely
associated with the Soviet Union, Saddam greatly admired
Stalin.
That is not how I remember it. We had installed and supported a
puppet dictator in Iran that was controlled by the US government
and the oil companies. The people kicked the Shah out in the
70's,
Radical Islamic Revolutionaries kicked him out. "The people" were
not of one mind.
I guess you don't remember the images of the
crowds in the streets, it was pretty impressive.
Post by Eagle Eye
Post by w***@harley.com
and the Ayatollah Khomeini (who had been in exile in France)
became the Islamic Fundamentalist ruler. He nationalized the oil,
and kicked the Americans out. Meanwhile the Shah was of no
further use to us, and we refused to grant him sanctuary. Iranian
Students stormed the US embassy in Tehran in 1978 and held the
Americans there hostage for over a year, until Ronald Reagan took
office. Reagan would later sell the Iranians weapons so that he
could finance the "Freedom Fighters" in Nicaragua, because
Congress refused to fund them. You might remember the Iran-Contra
scandal.
Yep.
Post by w***@harley.com
Post by Eagle Eye
That's overly simplistic. Iran was never an ally of the USSR,
but the various factions (the shah and the Islamic
Revolutionaries) often used the Soviet's desire for influence
when it was to their advantage. The USSR generally sided with
Iraq, but relations were often strained with an attempted
Communist coup in Iraq and the
Bingo, in comes CIA and Saddam.
Saddam was already the number two guy in Iraq. He didn't need the
CIA to become the top dog.
That is true, but the number one guy was still
alive.
Hmm, the US funded & armed Iraq and we know from the Iran-Contra case
that the US armed Iran - we were fighting ourselves!
Hardly......!
w***@harley.com
2003-12-21 06:51:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 23:12:56 GMT, Gus
Post by Gus
Hmm, the US funded & armed Iraq and we know from the Iran-Contra case
that the US armed Iran - we were fighting ourselves!
That about sums it up. Except of course we
weren't *actually* involved.

How come Bush wants to keep everything so secret?
What could he be hiding? How come he wants to
seal the Presidential Records all the way back to
his Dad? What have the Bushs been up to?

Do you think that Saddam Hussein will get a fair
trial in Iraq? Why isn't he being tried in The
Netherlands like other Heads-of-State? The United
Nations will have no place at all in this trial.

Sounds like "Liberty and Justice for All."


FXDWG

www.kucinich.us vote for a change.

Loading...