Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Those Pesky WMD's

  • For those who keep insisting that Saddam had no WMD and no way of producing them, The Hague has some embarrassing news. It convicted Saddam's supplier, Dutch businessman Frans van Anraat, to 15 years for selling Saddam the chemicals used to kill at least 5,000 Kurds in Halabja
From the UK Times online, it seems Mr. van Anraat had been hiding in Baghdad of all places for 14 years until the US led invasion caused him to flee to the Netherlands where he was arrested in 2003. He had sold Saddam 1,000 tons of chemicals to make mustard gas. Tons of chemicals that Saddam refused to account for in numerous UN Resolutions. And this is only from a single supplier. As more documents become declassified, the evidence of a massive WMD program will come to light and the silence from the American left and the main stream media becomes more deafening and damning by the day.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd bet that if Sadam himself stood up in court and in perfect English, gave the secret location of the largest stockpile of WMD's, the Ark of the Covenant and Nazi gold hidden in Iraq, it wouldn't make a 15 second blurb in the current media.
Unfortunately, the current mainstream media (refer to LeftisBest for Exhibit A) is severely 'left-oriented', anti-establishment, anti-Bush and very biased. Why? $$$$, so it seems. For some time, many of these so called 'unbiased' media sources have been spinning their take on a story one way or another, predominantly to the left. Its simply popular to be conter-culture, like it was in the 60's and 70's while opposing the Vietnam War. I submit that many people against the war then (and now) were simply on the bandwagon because it was against the 'man', and seeking to fufil a desire to rebel against conventional society. Truth is comming out about WMD's and the fact that they DO exist, but it won't matter. The world has heard that they don't exist for long enough, so that's the truth.
Look at it this way: Fatty Arbuckle, silent film star, was arrested for raping a woman with a Coke bottle, ultimately causing so much trauma to her that she bled to death. Fantastic news, making Randolph Hearst millions. Tried and aquitted three times, with the third jury offering an appology to good 'ol Fatty because they saw it as bullshit. However, 70 plus years later, mention his name and "he banged the girl with a Coke bottle". Same concept. The more fantastic, popular story became the truth.
Most news (not all) is way too editorialized. Certainly, not all is pushed left, as some (like FOX) is swung right, but a majority of it is left. SCC has pointed out a number of media-attention-whore items that have been proven false or altered to suit the needs of the publisher. The false New Orleans rape parties in the 'dome' and the lack of Muslim references in the 'Paris is burning' events are two that come to mind off the top of my head.
We will always have reporters that are partial to one direction or another when telling news, but it seems we haven't had decent media telling the story from an impartial standpoint in some time. Am I high on this, or is anyone else seeing the same thing?

Eh, either way, TRU still sucks.

12/27/2005 04:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You, my man, are soooo right.

The media theory sounds good too!


12/27/2005 06:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everytime one of those media assholes approach me I just burp in their face. Yea I know... its racist and uneducated. However it works.

12/27/2005 07:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ATTENTION SUPERVISORS!!! That PDT can check on pending jobs. Go to menu, hit EQ enter a time prior to actual and a district. IT DOES WORK! So shut it down, put all PO's on the same page.

12/27/2005 08:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why are most of you cops all fat-asses in Chicago? We get to see you food blisters on TV all the time. At crime scenes you all gauk with those stupid beanies on your heads. I never see other departments wearing those. Is it because your all clowns?

12/27/2005 08:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, most other departments look professional on TV. Chicago looks like the Keystone cops.

12/27/2005 09:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the last two posts: FU "We don't care and it shows" that's our motto.

12/27/2005 10:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Why are most of you cops all fat-asses in Chicago? We get to see you food blisters on TV all the time. At crime scenes you all gauk with those stupid beanies on your heads. I never see other departments wearing those. Is it because your all clowns?

12/27/2005 08:42:52 AM

Why thankyou for the comment.Actually you are quite wrong on the fat, food blisters thing. Most cops in Chicago on average have only 3 years on this job and are not fat. The women, thats another story. But if they were not hired dickless wonders like you would march on city hall or something. Oh yeah when your scared don't call 911!

12/27/2005 11:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We're fat because we like to eat. Your wife makes me keep the big red nose and the giant shoes on when I fuck her pimply ass. What a star chasing whore! Any other questions?

12/27/2005 11:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exploiting the Dead of Halabja

The Bushites love to visit the mass graves in Halabja. That's where about 7,000 Kurds died after a chemical weapons attack. "I can't tell you that Saddam Hussein was a murderous tyrant -- you know that," said Colin Powell with prosaic certainty. "What I can tell you is that what happen here in 1988 is never going to happen again."

No, probably not. But what Powell didn't bother to mention is the fact the US State Department "instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame," according Joost R. Hiltermann of Human Rights Watch, which has extensively investigated the Halabja incident. "The result of this stunning act of sophistry was that the international community failed to muster the will to condemn Iraq strongly for an act as heinous as the terrorist strike on the World Trade Center."

Photo ops with disentombed corpses aside, Powell also didn't bother to mention that people connected to the US government at the time of the Halabja massacre believe Iran, not Iraq, committed the atrocity. "We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds," insisted Stephen C. Pelletiere a few months ago in the New York Times. "I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair."

In another article published in the New York Times last year, Col. Walter P. Lang, a senior defense intelligence officer during the Iran-Iraq war, said the CIA wasn't particularly concerned over the use of chemical weapons. "It was just another way of killing people -- whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference." In fact, that was the idea -- to not only sit back while the Iranians and Iraqis killed each other off in huge numbers, but actively arm both sides.

Declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers reveal US intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in assisting Iraqi defenses in their efforts to resist "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. Both the Reagan and Bush administrations authorized the sale to Iraq of various items that had both military and civilian applications, i.e., chemical and biological weapons. "Fundamentally, the policy was justified," David Newton, a former US ambassador to Baghdad, told the Washington Post. "We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible."

This is nonsense, of course -- the US policy was to make sure Iran and Iraq killed each other off in record numbers. Estimates of the number of dead range up to 1.5 million.

In 1983, Jonathan T. Howe, a senior State Department official, was filling in Secretary of State George P. Shultz on the "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians. Nonetheless, the nurtured relationship with the Butcher of Baghdad was so important to the Reaganites that they appointed a special envoy to the Middle East -- none other than Donald H. Rumsfeld, who flew off to Baghdad to shake Saddam's hand. The so-called "talking points" the Reagan-Saddam relationship were contained within National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, the exact contents of which remain classified.

"The presidential directive was issued amid a flurry of reports that Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons in their attempts to hold back the Iranians," writes Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post. "In principle, Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare, a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory."

Mr. Dobbs is being polite -- the US sold chemical and biological weapons to Iraq and through Israel Hawk missiles to Iran for the express purpose of making sure the two sides fought to a bloody stalemate. As for the Geneva Protocol, it means nothing to the Reaganites, the Bushites, or, for that matter, the Clintonites -- that is unless some official enemy engages in some nastiness.

"In May, 1986, West German authorities foiled an $81 million ammunition deal and uncovered a tank deal in the process," writes the Jane Hunter, editor and publisher of Israeli Foreign Affairs. "Charged in the case were an Israeli and a former Israeli citizen. The West German weekly Stern said a telex from the state-owned Israeli Military Industries dated April I indicated official Israeli involvement... During the Reagan administration US policy has swung through various levels of support for Iraq. Israel's often-stated policy on the Gulf war is to keep it going as long as possible because the dreadful carnage ties up the combatants and prevents either from attacking Israel."

Moreover, when the Halabja massacre came to light a few years later, the Reagan administration opposed congressional efforts to respond by imposing economic sanctions, arguing that they would be contrary to US interests.

In fact, when Bush I came into office, his administration recommended assigning high priority to US-Iraq relations because Saddam Hussein was considered a potential "major player" in regard to the development of political and economic relations. In 1989, Bush signed a National Security Directive (NSD) designating "economic and political incentives" supposedly designed to "moderate" Iraqi behavior and expand US influence. A few months before Bush signed this NSD, the FBI raided the Atlanta branch office of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) and discovered there were off-the-books loans to Iraq's Ministry of Industry and Military Production, including its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and missile programs.

In other words, the officials in the Reagan and Bush administrations are directly responsible for selling Iraq the weapons Bush Junior now carps about so self-righteously and Colin Powell promises the Iraqis will never use on the Kurds or anybody else ever again -- not even the Iranians.

Naturally, none of this means diddly to the average American, who knows nothing about how Reagan and Bush's daddy armed Saddam to the teeth. After all, millions of Americans think Saddam is Osama, Saddam is responsible for the horrific events of 9/11, and the US found tons of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. Colin Powell, standing before the headstones of Halabja, can easily perpetuate the outlandish myths and brazen lies that drive the Bush Doctrine of Total War forward in the Middle East, as the Likudite neocons deem necessary.

Powell's macabre stop at the mass graves of Halabja was stage managed to counter criticism over the United States' failure to find Saddam's illusory caches of chemical and biological weapons. "What happened over the intervening 15 years?" Powell asked rhetorically, referencing the period since the Halabja attack. "Did he suddenly lose the motivation?"

No, Colin. Saddam was no longer useful -- and there was no longer any reason to sell him weapons of mass destruction after the Iran-Iraq war was fought to a bloodstained draw. David Kay, the former UN inspector who is head of the Defense Intelligence Agency's Iraq Survey Group, will not find any WMD in Iraq -- not because Saddam furtively hid them but rather because they don't exist.

And that's because the US stopped providing them soon after Iraq Invasion I.

Kurt Nimmo is a photographer and multimedia developer in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Visit his excellent online gallery Ordinary Vistas. Nimmo is a contributor to Cockburn and St. Clair's, The Politics of Anti-Semitism. A collection of his essays for CounterPunch, Another Day in the Empire, will be published this fall by Dandelion Books.

He can be reached at: nimmo@zianet.com
September 20, 2003
Colin Powell in Iraq
Exploiting the Dead of Halabja

12/27/2005 12:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rumsfeld should know : Who minded Iraqi mustard gas in 1983?

By Joost R. Hiltermann International Herald Tribune
Friday, November 29, 2002

In warning against a possible Iraqi chemical or biological strike against U.S. troops, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld remarked last week that "there's a danger that Saddam Hussein would do things he's done previously — he has in the past used chemical weapons."

Rumsfeld should know. Declassified State Department documents show that when he had an opportunity to raise the issue of chemical weapons with the Iraqi leadership in 1983, he failed to do so in any meaningful way. Worse, he may well have given a signal to the Iraqis that the United States would close its eyes to Iraq's use of chemical weapons during its war with Iran, providing an early boost to Iraq's plans to develop weapons of mass destruction.

As President Ronald Reagan's special envoy for the Middle East, Rumsfeld in December 1983 made the first visit by a U.S. official of his seniority to Baghdad, where he met President Saddam Hussein and Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. Iraq had broken off diplomatic relations with the United States in June 1967. Now both sides hoped that the talks in Baghdad would facilitate a resumption of formal ties.

The visit came at a time when Iraq was facing Iranian "human wave" assaults that posed a serious threat to the regime. In response, Iraq had started to use chemical weapons on the battlefield — primarily mustard gas, a blister agent that can kill. This was known in Washington at least as early as October 1983. State Department officials had raised the alarm, suggesting ways of deterring further Iraqi use.

But they faced resistance. Washington, while taking a formal position of neutrality in the Gulf conflict, had started a pronounced tilt toward Iraq, providing it with significant financial and political support.

As talking points and minutes of the meetings show, the aim of Rumsfeld's mission was to inform the Iraqi leadership of America's shifting policy in the Middle East. It was also intended to explore a proposal to run an oil pipeline from Iraq to the Jordanian port of Aqaba (a U.S. business interest involving the Bechtel Corporation), and to caution the Iraqis not to escalate the war in the Gulf through air strikes against Iranian oil facilities and tankers (which Washington feared might draw the United States into the war).

There is no indication that Rumsfeld raised U.S. concerns about Iraq's use of poison gas with Saddam Hussein. But in a private meeting with Tariq Aziz, he made a single brief reference to "certain things" that made it difficult for the United States to do more to help Iraq. These things included "chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights."

There is no record of further discussion of chemical weapons or human rights at these meetings, which covered the length and breadth of the warming relationship. Rumsfeld did, however, place considerable emphasis on the need for Iraq to prevent an escalation in the Gulf conflict via attacks on Iranian oil installations and tankers. Certainly nothing suggests that he told the Iraqi leadership to take care of "certain things" before diplomatic relations could be restored.

The senior U.S. diplomat in Baghdad reported a few days later with evident delight that "Ambassador Rumsfeld's visit has elevated U.S.-Iraqi relations to a new level." But, he noted, "during and following the Rumsfeld visit we have received no commitment from the Iraqis that they will refrain from military moves toward escalation in the Gulf."

The record of the war suggests that, flush with their new confidence in U.S. backing, the Iraqis may have felt that they were now less restrained. They attacked Iranian oil facilities and ended up drawing the United States into the war, in 1987.

In the first Iranian offensive after Rumsfeld's visit, in February 1984, Iraq used not only large amounts of mustard gas but also the highly lethal nerve agent tabun. It was the first recorded use of the nerve agent in history. In November 1984, shortly after Reagan's re-election, diplomatic relations between the Washington and Baghdad were restored.

Iraq made increasing use of chemical weapons on the battlefield and even against civilians. This culminated in the wholesale gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988, causing the deaths of several thousand innocent men, women, and children.

Eventually Iraq was able to force a cease-fire with Iran after eight years of fighting.

The American public should demand a full accounting for the support its leadership provided Iraq in the past, including its green light to chemical weapons use — weapons that Washington is belatedly claiming should be destroyed.



The writer, Middle East project director for the International Crisis Group, is preparing a book on U.S. policy toward Iraq, with partial support from the Open Society Institute and the MacArthur Foundation. He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

12/27/2005 12:13:00 PM  
Anonymous leftisthebest(again) said...

The ceasefire is over...back to Bush-bashing!

The mustard gas was produced between 1984 and 1989. No disputes there. The argument comes in if there was any WMD's when the U.S. invaded Iraq.

So far there was been no evidence the weapons exsisted in 2003. During the first inspections of Iraq in 1990's by the U.N. it was discussed he had gas and WMD's. Where are they now?

The silence from the left is because this story is nothing new. Kind of like Bush and cronies stealing from the working man.

Boy, it feels good to be back in the heat of battle. Hope SCC and the rest here had an enjoyable Christmas.

12/27/2005 12:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They found the dual purpose chem. labs, about 2 dozen of them. We also found the missles to deliver the chemical weapons. The missles with the mixing cylinders for the precursor chemicals.

The danish marines found a couple of pallets of mustard gas.

The Poles found small quantities of chemical weapons.

The terrorists set off a artillery round that contained Sarin gas. Two soldiers became ill from the attack. Where did the terrorists get that chem. round from?

When the Marines took over Nasariah, they found a coule hundred chemical protective suits stored for the Iraqi troops. And antidote for chemical weapons exposure. Why would the Iraqis have this stuff if they did not have chemical weapons.

Every time our guys went into a weapons dump, they found large quantities of pesticides. Pesticides are precursor agent for chem. weapons. Or Saddam didnt like bugs.

Joe Wilson was proven to be a liar as well.

All these stories were in the back pages of our newspapers, or a little blurb in the Tv. The stories never got the coverage it deserved.

12/27/2005 01:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

from another thread...

Anonymous said...
I don't agree with the way 12/26/2005 04:14:35 PM worded it, but what so many people don't want to face up to is the fact that Islam COMMANDS its followers to slay the infidel. Islam doesn't request, offer tacit permission, allow that it might be ok if the infidel is persecuting you-no, Islam commands you to convert by the sword and slay the infidel who will not acknowledge Allah. I have been to the middle east twice, and have met many Islamics who are decent people, but there is no denying or condoning the underlying message of th Islamic faith. "Religion of peace" my ass.

12/27/2005 01:33:06 PM

12/27/2005 01:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To lefty.....He got rid of the weapons when he knew that Bush wasn't kidding and was going to invade....just like Tookie turned to writing kids books because he was behind bars and knew he was going to die....similarities???? they were both caught and played the media to be sympathetic to their causes. WMD's would still be in Iraq's hands if not for Bush and Tookie would have still been killing innocent people had he not been put in jail.

12/27/2005 01:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


12/27/2005 02:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its not about the oil....we haven't taken a drop and if it was about the oil we wouldn't have been paying over 3 bucks a gallon for gas....wake up!!!!

12/27/2005 03:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


12/27/2005 05:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You need to have some sort of a filter for these 20,000 word cut and paste jobs. Either that or put the instructions on how to post a link on your home page.

12/27/2005 07:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's only a theory. I'll throw this into the mix. A couple of weeks ago, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D) was on Meet the Press. He stated to Russert that he had travelled to Syria and told Assad (A Bath party member like Saddam) that we were definately going to invade Iraq. This was in 2002.

Lets think this one through, after Rockefeller leaves Syria, Assad calls Hussein. Tells him its a foregone conclusion that he is getting invaded. The weapons are moved. Now there are no Large stockpiles of weapons in Iraq.

Look up the transcript, maybe dumocrat Rockefeller is somewhat responsible.

Remeber the Israeli General stating a couple of weeks ago that he knows that WMD was transported to Syria before the invasion.

Things to think about.

12/27/2005 07:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...


12/27/2005 05:56:14 PM

Just for the record, what country are you posting from? Personaly, I think you're homegrown. As popular as this sight is, I just don't get the impression it's reached a huge worldwide audience.

You're just some pathetic loser who thinks by talking trash he's proven his manhood. Instead of choking your chicken here, do it in the shower.

12/27/2005 07:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Mr. Lewinski said...

I would never believe that a United States Senator would ever reveal a military secret to a foreign government. Thats as preposterous as that purpoted cumstain on my little Monica's dress.

12/27/2005 08:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another thought, Is the CPD really prepared in the event of a WMD attack in our fair city?

12/27/2005 11:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Neil Sullivan is on the case! As soon as he extracates himself from the trunk of his car, he'll tell you all about it.

12/28/2005 01:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you had 2 tons of marijuana and I told you in 6 months I,m getting a search warrant for it, could you get rid of it??

12/28/2005 03:55:00 PM  

<< Home

Newer Posts.......................... ..........................Older Posts