Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons' - FOI documents reveal!!

reply to post by bladdersweat

nah, its the daily mail that tends to republish old news as new news once the general sleeping public forgets about events the way they happen. maybe it is a good thing to bring it to the surface for new readers.

That's the same reasoning I would use.

It may be common knowledge to some, but not to everyone. Even if this story is rehashed, it still needs to be brought to the surface as often as needed so it doesn't get pushed aside by other current affairs, which would suit Rumsfeld just fine.

Not to mention it was more than a decade ago, In this day in age with all the media bombardment it's easy for stories like this to slip through the grates.

Are they US Navy documents? Because I once came across and read them online by accident and then they were removed before I thought to go back and take screen shots and post them here. But I did post about the fact that I saw them somewhere around here, oh, about 6 or years ago. It may have been under my old name.

And, yes. It was pretty much common knowledge that fell prey to the history revisionists who was so active during the Bush-43 era.

Oh, how time erases history. This was such common knowledge at the time, that Dave Chappelle even had a bit on his show called 'Negrodamus' where the character was asked about important historical questions and predictions. I can't remember the exact exchange, but it was something like this:

Question: "Why is George W. Bush so insistent that there are WMDs in Iraq?"

Answer: "Because he has the receipt."

reply to post by Halfswede


But didn't that same administration also accuse Hussein of the war crime of using that same gas on their own people (or neighboring) people? So it was used up. Guess they're special and can have it both ways.

reply to post by taketheredpill


He was also involved with selling and supplying Iraq with the mobile chemical weapons labs to make the chemical weapons.

These were all destroyed shortly after Iraq used the chemicals on the Kurdish villiages, basically to bury the evidence of the slaughter of innocent people by the regime.

They got the hats handed to them after the first Gulf war, and after Saddam was left in charge they scurried around getting rid of the WMD's in case they were dragged off to the ICC for crimes against Humanity.

That's the story of Iraqi WMD's...and well Bush Jnr, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Blair and his mob, along with UN weapons inspectors in the mid 90's knew.

Which makes Gulf war #2, based on a complete and utter lie.

Skyfloating
Ive been saying this for years. The Kurds, who were victims of Saddams chemical weapons have also been saying and showing it.

Yet the majority of Americans, ATSers and even mainstream media still claim that "Saddam had no WMD".

edit on 2014 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

actually it was not that he never had WMD gas, but that he currently did not. where it was had 3 possibilities. a) he had used up his supply, b)he had buried it somewhere in the desert, in such a way (like completely surrounded and filled with sand) that US and ally satellites could not find it. c) his stocks had been transported somewhere else out of his country. but the fact is that excuse for the war hinged on Saddam currently having those weapons (not that it seemed to matter in the end). personally i always suspected they were trucked elsewhere (not sure if to another country or buried) since video played on the news of the storage sites seemed to have tire tracks going off in to the desert.

i don't think anyone at least at that time (don't know about younger people), had any doubts that Saddam had used the gas on the Kurds. so there was no doubt that he at some point had it. in fact i do believe it was also common knowledge that the US knew beyond a shadow of doubt that he had, had the gas since it was the US that had sold it to him in the first place.

Skyfloating
Ive been saying this for years. The Kurds, who were victims of Saddams chemical weapons have also been saying and showing it.

Yet the majority of Americans, ATSers and even mainstream media still claim that "Saddam had no WMD".

edit on 2014 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

Bush Bashing is much easier with that lie firmly intact.

Did Sadam have WMD's? Sure, stamped made in USA all over them. We probably had an inventory sheet with serial numbers.
But the news needed to push public thinking in a different direction. It's a good thing people are so damn easy to manipulate.

reply to post by generik


I don't know, in the first gulf war, I remember being a bit worried about SCUD missiles. I suppose once we claimed victory, he was nice enough to follow orders and got rid of all the bad things he had. After all, he was a real good listener.

reply to post by taketheredpill


I just love it when old conspiracy theories suddenly become truth, when will people learn...

MysterX
reply to post by taketheredpill

 

He was also involved with selling and supplying Iraq with the mobile chemical weapons labs to make the chemical weapons.

These were all destroyed shortly after Iraq used the chemicals on the Kurdish villiages, basically to bury the evidence of the slaughter of innocent people by the regime.

They got the hats handed to them after the first Gulf war, and after Saddam was left in charge they scurried around getting rid of the WMD's in case they were dragged off to the ICC for crimes against Humanity.

That's the story of Iraqi WMD's...and well Bush Jnr, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Blair and his mob, along with UN weapons inspectors in the mid 90's knew.

Which makes Gulf war #2, based on a complete and utter lie.

In any case, chemical weapons are not really WMD's of any major consequence larger than conventional weapons. You need specific engineered delivery systems, namely artillery, rockets or aircraft. And if you have those, what exactly does chemical add to the mix? They're very poor terrorist weapons compared to the very effective & reliable truck or person bomb.

If you're able to fly over a village and gas it at low altitude, would you make things any worse than if you had cluster bombs?

In the end, Iran has turned out to be much more of a problem. Without that war, the West would be back to making undercover deals with Saddam to thwart Iranian interests. Basically Saddam's enemies were Iranians and any other Islamic fundamentalists. From the West's strategic point of view, an appropriately bribed/threatened Saddam would have been the better option.

And who did he take orders from, ultimately?

Let's pretend Bush wasn't aware of this first and foremost

gardener
And who did he take orders from, ultimately?

His scrotum, ultimately. But also the USSR.

reply to post by taketheredpill


I doubt that the things you mention in your OP are coincidental, since coincidences of such synergistic disposition are rare in the extreme. Proving, however, that Rumsfeld was complicit in the explicit sense, of providing chemical weapons, and the components thereof, with full knowledge of what they would be used for, is somewhat tricky. No doubt all arses have been well and truly covered by layers of plausible deniability that would confound the mind, in a legal sense.

This will be one of those things that people will argue the toss over for decades, without any closure either way, like the JFK assassination, and Area 51.

Let us say that I sell a person a baseball bat. Let us also assume, that the person to whom I have sold the implement, does not immediately strike me, as being a particularly sporty sort of person. Let us assume also, that the not particularly sports oriented person, to whom I have sold the bat, does not intend to play any baseball, using this, or any other implement. I can conduct that sale, because I can merely assume, for the purposes of the sale, that the bat will be used for its intended purpose, despite being fully aware that the only roundish objects which will be meeting with that bat, are attached to someone's shoulders. Should Johnny law come a knocking on my door, I can tell them that I had no reason to assume that the item would be misused in the hands of its new owner, and that am guilty only of conducting a sporting goods sale, which is not a crime. Unless they happened to have a recorded conversation between myself and the purchaser, in which the actual intent behind the purchase were made explicit, there would be a legal route by which I could walk away clean as a whistle blast.

Unless investigating officials were to discover that I was under no false impressions about the sale of the item, and it's intended use, then I am at no legal fault what so ever, regardless of the moral implications of the sale.

The same argument could be made here, and would be just as bogus, but would be even more unassailable, because of the stature and power of the person who is suspected of being involved in enabling a dictatorial nut sucker to acquire weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the probability of intelligence agency efforts to bury any potential detractors from Rumsfelds version of events. So, this will be one of those things that people "know" but will never come to anything legally speaking, if previous events and their eventual outcomes are anything to go by.

blaming saddam for what the US did is just plain BS..just like tony blairs 40 minutes...or the lie saddam blew up his own oil fields when it has come out that it was a special detail of us troops that did it


GET OVER IT
the coalition of the willing committed genocide which makes them FAR LOWER then saddam ever was...
just for the HYPOCRISY alone if nothing else

ypu want to see weapons of mass destruction?
Look at what DEPLETED URANIUM has done to the iraqis children and the US troops
and you people are on about gassing that may never have happened?

pppphhhhhttt!

apologies for the long quote:
it all needs to be said

Saddam never gassed his own people

A Stephen C. Pelletiere commentary appeared in the January 31, 2003 New York Times, yet no one seems to have noticed. Here is part of what he wrote about frequent statements that Saddam Hussein gassed 5000 Kurds at Halabja in 1988:

...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.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war.

The Baathist regime did kill thousands of Kurds during fighting to suppress occasional uprisings by what Americans call gangs or terror groups. Iran, Turkey and Syria have also killed thousands of Kurds, and of course the USA has killed thousands of innocent Iraqis to maintain order, albeit unintentionally. A better example of a government leader using chemicals to "gas his own people" occurred in 1993 near Waco, Texas.

Bush Administration defies the Geneva Conventions

In February 2003, the Geneva-based International Red Cross ruled that Muslims captured in Afghanistan were Prisoners of War (POWs) and entitled to the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration rejected this decision and shocked the world community by openly defying the Geneva Conventions and insisting the POWs were "detainees". America's corporate media ignored this story, implying that each head-of-state is allowed to interpret the Geneva Conventions however he pleases. The International Committee of the Red Cross is charged with interpreting the Geneva conventions and using diplomacy to encourage compliance. The world is outraged as the US military continues to violate the Geneva Conventions by interrogating POWs for long periods while boasting some will be executed.

The Bush administration claimed that the execution of six German saboteurs during World War II set a precedent. However, a formal state of war existed at that time after a declaration of war by the US Congress, and those Germans were captured in the USA with plans for specific attacks, unlike the current prisoners who were captured on a battlefield overseas. The Bush Administration ordered soldiers at the US Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (called Gitmo) to call their POWs "detainees." Gitmo was chosen because of its unique status as a parcel of territory occupied against the will of a host nation. Cuba objects to the continued occupation of Gitmo and its use as a prison. The base was established after the Spanish-American war and no longer serves any military purpose.

American military officers are taught the rules of the Geneva Conventions and told they must ignore illegal orders which violate these treaties, even if they come from "temporary occupants of the White House" as General Douglas MacArthur once described. This caused conflicts last year as a courageous General in charge of security at Gitmo, Brigadier General Rick Baccus, insisted on obeying the Geneva Conventions by referring to the prisoners as POWs. Baccus was removed after irritating Major General Michael Dunlavey, who is in charge of interrogating the prisoners, with his decision to allow the Red Cross to put up posters advising detainees they need only provide their name, rank and number during questioning.

Meanwhile, quiet resistance within the US military delayed plans for military tribunals, avoiding another violation of the Geneva Conventions. The British sent stern warnings that executing British citizens deemed POWs by the Red Cross would not be tolerated, so their nine citizens have been excused from death threats. This past Summer, after months of private discussions about POW treatment at Gitmo, the Red Cross openly declared the US Government in violation of the Geneva Conventions based upon first hand reports from Cuba. Food quality and exercise rights were tied to cooperation during interrogations, reports of physical torture emerged, and it was revealed that three boys under age 16 were in custody. Since Gitmo was run as a high security facility with all activities considered secret, Gitmo commanders were enraged at the prospect of facing an international war crimes tribunal in the future.

Three people who worked among POWs at Gitmo were promptly arrested, and espionage was suggested as the reason. The most noteworthy "spy" was US Army Captain James Yee, who was found to have notes about POWs in a briefcase when he flew into Jacksonville, Florida, which is not uncommon for a chaplain. This West Point graduate was not imprisoned at the Army stockade at nearby Fort Stewart as is customary; he was transported to a maximum security Navy Brig at Charleston, South Carolina, where three other US citizens are held without charges or access to lawyers. Yee was not formally charged within 45 days as required and not allowed free pending charges as is customary for a simple accusation of "mishandling classified information." Yee was recently released after 76 days of confinement and charged with failing to use proper cover sheets for classified documents. Prosecutors also charged him with adultery and viewing pornographic material on a government computer. Since most US servicemen can be charged with such "crimes", a strong message has been sent to every soldier at Gitmo to keep his mouth shut.

According to an October 24, 2003 article in the Washington Post,

Military authorities launched an investigation of Army Capt. James Yee, a Muslim chaplain at the Guantanamo Bay prison, after a series of confrontations between him and officials over the treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees there, according to military officials and other informed sources.

Yee, who ministered to the inmates at the U.S. Navy prison in Cuba, protested what he believed were lives of unrelieved tension and boredom experienced by his fellow Muslims in captivity, the officials and other sources said.

Some interrogators at the prison complex objected after concluding that Yee's private, one-on-one meetings with inmates interfered with their attempts to fully control the prisoners' environment, numerous sources said. Some detainees appeared less cooperative in interrogations after visits from Yee, the sources said.

Apparently, the senior intelligence officer at Gitmo, US Army Colonel Jack Farr, crossed his superiors too. On November 29, 2003 he was charged with "wrongfully transporting classified material without the proper security container on or around Oct. 11, 2003" and lying to investigators. Criminal charges for such petty violations are extremely rare, and indicate retribution for reasons which remain secret.

Iraq Reconstruction Contract Awarded in 2001

Someone in the Pentagon noted the US Army posted this contract announcement on the Internet. No one in the media except Chuck Spinney's website took note. Here are three parts:

The U.S. had grounds to believe Saddam was planning to destroy Iraq's own oil infrastructure in the event of hostilities.

The planning effort was done by Brown & Root Services (BRS)* under a task order issued under the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract. The Commander, CENTCOM, identified a requirement for contingency planning for repairing and providing for continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure. This included planning for extinguishing oil well fires and assessing damage to oil facilities in the immediate aftermath of hostilities.

*The government contracted with BRS to perform the planning effort because BRS is the Army's contractor for the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP). The LOGCAP contract is used to develop plans to address such requirements of Combatant Commanders. When a specific plan is needed, a task order is issued under the contract. The current LOGCAP contract was awarded to BRS on December 14, 2001, after a competitive source selection process.

Note the date, December 14, 2001, almost a year before the Bush administration began to alert Americans that urgent action was required to eliminate Saddam Hussein, which later included all "Baathists" in Iraq, and then the entire Iraqi Army. Brown & Root Services is part of the Halliburton Corporation which has won dozens of lucrative Iraqi reconstruction projects awarded without competitive bidding. Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton for five years before quitting to join President Bush's campaign in 2000. He left Halliburton nearly bankrupt after a disastrous oil deal in Brazil and a merger with dying Dresser Industries. Nevertheless, Cheney received $20 million in severance pay from Halliburton, and continues to receive deferred compensation of around $150,000 a year.

www.g2mil.com...

speaking of weapons of mass destruction
rumspheld got a$$pertame legalized
and you think saddam was bad?
jeeez

being proven guilty is a cornerstone of the american way
oh sorry, silly me... rather, its the american dream ..
cause it it sure isn't the reality

Did Iran gas the Kurds? Claims of Saddam's Genocide Far from Proven

We know that Iran overran the village and its small garrison of Iraqi troops; what is contested is who was responsible for the deaths--Iran or Iraq--and how large the death toll was.
The best evidence is a 1990 report by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College.[2] Marine Corps document FMFRP 3-203, "Lessons Learned: Iran-Iraq War," dated December 10, 1990.

It concluded that Iran, not Iraq, was the culprit in Halabja.

but what would marines know...i mean just because they were there.....

but hey if it makes you feel better about genocide on a par with the old nazis...
then lets just keep saying saddam was a baaaaaad man

New revelations earlier this month reinforce the widely held belief that the Pentagon has been covering up the extent and gravity of the complex of illnesses known as Gulf War Syndrome.
Military logs covering eight days in March 1991 are missing. a period in which tens of thousands of US and allied troops were accidentally exposed to chemical and/or biological agents.

During this mysterious eight-day gap, US troops blew up the huge Kamisiyah munitions dump in southern Iraq, that held 6,000 shells and 297 rockets containing the nerve agent Sarin, or mustard gas. The cloud produced by the explosion drifted south, blanketing at least 15,000 allied troops, according to a CIA study. Other studies suggest 100,000 men were affected by the toxic cloud.

The Pentagon, coalition leader Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, and former US Chief of Staff Colin Powell, all insist there is no proof allied forces were exposed to chemical-biological weapons (CBW), in spite of many alarms by chemical sensors. Indeed, Gulf War veterans have not died, or been hospitalized, at an abnormal rate.

www.monitor.net...

There is your mad gasser..
as pogo said:
"we have met the enemy and he are us "

so where is your regime change?

hellobruce

DarksideOz
it was not because Iraq invaded Kuwait, it was because Kuwait was slant-drilling into Iraq and stealing Iraq's oil,

is there any evidence for that claim? Iraq made that claim, did they show any evidence for it?
www.nytimes.com...

edit on 5-3-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

I have seen evidence of it that is just as more, or just as less believable then WMD's or 9/11 involvement.
Sometimes you don't need direct evidence to see a pattern. Iraq reacts to slant-drilling by invading Kuwait to send a message. The US, which is an oil friendly ally of Kuwait, and probable benefactor of slant-drilling due to oil partnership, then responds to by attacking Iraqi forces and then Iraq to send a message in response.
But other than someone making the claim, how does one actually prove that slant-drilling was occurring without actual footage or photos of the actual process. And if slant-drilling was occurring, then you can be sure it was a top secret site or had maximum security at the very least.
Either Saddam was lying about slant-drilling, and used it as an excuse to attack Kuwait, and/or, the US is lying about it's involvement in slant-drilling and using lies to justify attacking Saddam and Iraq. Now take into account the lies about WMD's, 9/11 etc. Did Saddam go back into Kuwait based on a lie the second time......No, but did the US go back into Iraq based on a lie for the second time.....Yes.

Do track records and history count as evidence ?