Moving On | Choose your lifeMoving On | Choose your life
Safe Passage Foundation - Support to youth raised in high demand organizations

Saturday, January 31, 2009    

Home | New Content | Statistics | Games | FAQs

Getting On : All My Politics

Where DID Saddam get his weapons?

from Joe H - Friday, March 28, 2003
accessed 1761 times

This is an article from the Times Online called "How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal". 

By TARGET="_new">,,3-528574,00.html
Tim Reid

DONALD RUMSFELD, the US Defence Secretary and one of the most strident critics of Saddam Hussein, met the Iraqi President in 1983 to ease the way for US companies to sell Baghdad biological and chemical weapons components, including anthrax and bubonic plague cultures, according to newly declassified US Government documents.

Mr Rumsfeld’s 90-minute meeting with Saddam, preceded by a warm handshake which was captured on film, heralded a US policy under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr of courting the Iraqi leader as an ally throughout the 1980s.
The strategy, seen as a bulwark against the Islamic fundamentalism of Iran, was so obsessively pursued that Washington stepped up arms supplies and diplomatic activity even after the Iraqis had gassed Kurds in northern Iraq in March 1988, according to the records.

A National Security Directive of November 1983 stated that the US would do whatever was necessary and legal” to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. Mr Rumsfeld, who was a private citizen at the time, was chosen by Mr Reagan as a special envoy to the Middle East. He met Saddam on December 20 and told him that Washington was ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a State Department report of the meeting.

The policy was followed with such vigour over the next seven years that on July 25, 1990, only one week before Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US Ambassador to Baghdad met Saddam to assure him that President Bush “wanted better and deeper relations”.

The extraordinary lengths to which successive US Administrations went to befriend Saddam, while ignoring his use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and his own people, was highlighted in The Washington Post yesterday. It is a timely reminder of American involvement in the creation of Saddam’s arsenal as the current President Bush, who has repeatedly cited Saddam’s possession of chemical and biological weapons as a reason for disarming him, prepares for a possible US-led invasion of Iraq.

To prevent Iraqi defeat in the Iran-Iraq war, which was started by Iraq and lasted from 1980 to 1988, the Reagan Administration began supplying Saddam with battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop movements.

By the end of the decade, Washington had authorised the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications. These included poisonous chemicals and biological viruses, among them anthrax and bubonic plague. A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee disclosed that dozens of biological agents were shipped to Iraq in the mid-1980s under licence from the US Commerce Department, including strains of anthrax. Anthrax has been identified by the Pentagon as a key component of Saddam’s biological weapons programme.

The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare. In November 1983, a month before Mr Rumsfeld’s first visit to Baghdad, George Shultz, the Secretary of State, was given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops were resorting to “almost daily use of CW (chemical weapons) against the Iranians”.

But the Reagan Administration, already committed to wooing Baghdad, turned a blind eye to the reports. In February 1982, despite objections from Congress, the State Department had already removed Iraq from its terrorism list.

Mr Rumsfeld recently said that he had, at the December 1983 meeting, "cautioned” Saddam about the use of chemical weapons. That claim does not tally with a declassified State Department note of his meeting. A Pentagon spokesman later said that Mr Rumsfeld issued the caution to Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi Foreign Minister.

According to an affidavit sworn by Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official during the Reagan Administration, the US “actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third-country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required.”

Mr Teicher said that William Casey, the former CIA Director, used a Chilean front company to supply Baghdad with cluster bombs.

The Iraqi Air Force began using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq in late 1987, provoking outrage on Capitol Hill, particularly after the now infamous March 1988 attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja. But, in September 1988, Richard W. Murphy, the Assistant Secretary of State, wrote in a memo addressing Saddam’s use of chemical weapons: “The US-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political and economic objectives. We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis.”

The present President Bush has repeatedly cited Saddam’s use of chemical weapons “against his own people” as justifying “regime change”. David Newton, a former US Ambassador to Baghdad, told the Post: “Fundamentally, the policy was justified. 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 (Saddam’s) Government would become less repressive and more responsible.”

Reader's comments on this article

Add a new comment on this article

from Anthony
Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 19:26

President Bush is not responsible for the policies of fomer administrations.  However, he might consider replacing Rumsfeld.
(reply to this comment)
From lucidchick
Thursday, April 03, 2003, 00:41

And Ashcroft!  Yeech!(reply to this comment
from Nick
Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 16:55

Average visitor agreement is 1 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)

I do not see how this justifies Sadam from keeping them. They may have been given to him for good uses, but he has since abused that privilege and needs to have them taken away from him.

Just like when you become a felon in the US you lose the right to have a firearm.

(reply to this comment)
From mex
Wednesday, April 02, 2003, 20:42

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)

What the fuck is your major dysfunction, you are so pro this war it keeps you from being rational. Sure Iraq can have WMD’s as long as we are selling them to him and he is putting them to “good use”. Who dictates good use? The USA? WTF  

(reply to this comment
From Joe H
Wednesday, April 02, 2003, 20:08

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)

"good uses"?  Jesus fucking Christ Nick!  What could possibly be a "good use" for anthrax?  Exactly how dumb are you?

(reply to this comment
from mex
Monday, March 31, 2003 - 12:21

"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
Samuel P. Huntington
(reply to this comment)
From pisshead
Sunday, September 21, 2003, 21:39

I agree with mex. They are a "bad" people who need a "bad" leader. just to misquote your ever wise leader. We won and will always win cuz we got more nukes and anthrax and everything else. By the way The brits rule. basra is the calmest place in the whole fucked up country and thats because the us idiot soldiers fix bayontes to control a demonstration. (reply to this comment
From frmrjoyish
Sunday, September 21, 2003, 23:58

Well, you sure live up to your name, pisshead, with a coment like that!(reply to this comment

My Stuff

log in here
to post or update your articles


69 user/s currently online

Web Site User Directory
5047 registered users

log out of chatroom

Happy Birthday to demerit   Benz   tammysoprano  

Weekly Poll

What should the weekly poll be changed to?

 The every so often poll.

 The semi-anual poll.

 Whenever the editor gets to it poll.

 The poll you never heard about because you have never looked at previous polls which really means the polls that never got posted.

 The out dated poll.

 The who really gives a crap poll.

View Poll Results

Poll Submitted by cheeks,
September 16, 2008

See Previous Polls

Online Stores

I think, therefore I left

Check out the Official
Moving On Merchandise
. Send in your product ideas

Free Poster: 100 Reasons Why It's Great to be a Systemite

copyright © 2001 - 2009

[terms of use] [privacy policy] [disclaimer] [The Family / Children of God] [contact:] [free speech on the Internet blue ribbon] [About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]