America's Complicity in Saddam's Crimes

Saddam Hussein's execution on Dec. 30 prevents him from being put on trial for his most serious crimes – genocide against the Kurds and the use of poison gas in the Iran-Iraq war. As many as 100,000 Kurds were killed in 1988. Why then was Saddam executed for killing 148 men and boys in the Shiite town of Dujail in 1982?

Human rights activists say the answer is clear: the Bush White House wanted to prevent Saddam from offering evidence of US complicity in his crimes as a defense. It's the same reason the Saddam trial was held under Iraqi auspices rather than in the International Criminal Court: ''It's to protect their own dirty laundry,'' Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, told the New York Times in 2004. ''The U.S. wants to keep the trial focused on Saddam's crimes and not their acquiescence.''

Human Rights Watch has done more to document Saddam's genocide of the Kurds than any other organization. Their 1993 report remains the most detailed and meticulous account, based on extensive interviews with eyewitnesses and analysis of Iraqi government internal communications. During the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam had lost control of Kurdish regions because all his troops had been sent to the battlefields. But as that war came to an end in 1988, he launched his "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds, leveling thousands of their villages and killing 50,000-100,000, mostly by bombing and mass executions.

Saddam's most notorious atrocity was his use of poison gas against Kurds in the town of Halabja in 1988, killing at least 5,000. George Bush cited that attack – "gassing his own people" -- as part of his argument for a US war against Iraq. However back in 1988 the US worked to prevent the international community from condemning Iraq's chemical attack against Halabja, instead attempting to place part of the blame on Iran. [See Dilip Hiro, "Iraq and Poison Gas," TheNation.com, Aug. 28, 2002.]

The US had supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, on the grounds that Iran was a greater threat to the US after the rise to power of the Ayatolla Khomeini.

When the Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988, Saddam's genocide against the Kurds was no secret. The US Senate passed a bill to penalize Baghdad for violating the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons – they did it virtually without opposition, in a single day.

But the Reagan Administration killed the bill. Political scientist Bruce Jentleson of Duke University told the BBC that they did it "for two reasons. One, economic interests. In addition to oil, Iraq at that point had become the second-largest recipient of government agricultural credits to buy American agriculture . . . . And secondly was this continual blinders of the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

During the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam used chemical weapons, most obviously in his 1988 campaign to retake the Fao Peninsula. The had been banned since the 1925 Geneva Convention. His trial for that crime has also been prevented by the execution.

Again his defense was likely to have been that the US did not object at the time. Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, told the New York Times in 2002 that "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose."

Trials in Baghdad for other Iraqi leaders accused of genocide against the Kurds and violation of the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons may be held. But as Antoine Garapon, director of the Institute for Advanced Legal Studies in Paris, told the New York Times, even if others stand trial, "the person deemed most responsible would never face judgment."

Thus Saturday's execution of Saddam Hussein seems less an act of justice for his victims and more an effort to cover up US complicity in his regime.

Comments (26)

1. And we go into another round of this....

   "Churchill praising Hitler in 1938" addendums from the Even Harder Left...."Walter Lippmann glossing over Stalin's crimes" from the Right.

   Posted by Mask at 12/30/2006 @ 7:32pm

2. "Human rights activists say the answer is clear: the Bush White House wanted to prevent Saddam from offering evidence of US complicity in his crimes as a defense."

   And where's the proof? Saddam had his lawyers, loyal followers and three years to defend his case before the Iraqi court. Doesn't anyone think it strange that no one came to his defense.

   "It's the same reason the Saddam trial was held under Iraqi auspices rather than in the International Criminal Court: 'It's to protect their own dirty laundry,' Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, told the New York Times in 2004. 'The U.S. wants to keep the trial focused on Saddam's crimes and not their acquiescence.'"

   And this coming from the same group that couldn't bring a conviction against Saddam for 15 years. The Iraqi people and the Iraqi government wasn't going to wait or rely on the International community to judge him, after all they did a piss poor job handling the case against Slobidan Milosevic and Augusto Pinochet. Go figure.

   Posted by ACook at 12/30/2006 @ 8:06pm

3. One would think that the crimes against humanity for which Hussein was executed would be of sufficient interest to humanity to have justified his trial by an international court. The very fact that it was carried out by a court of a government given life Soviet style by the Bush Regime makes Jon Weiner's contentions plausible. They've quashed just about everything else making them vulnerable, notably by the grandfathering so fundamental to that Enabling Act look-alike, the MCA. Hussien's death will forever carry moral taint, the capstone of that "victory" we're experiencing in Iraq.

   Posted by jlowell at 12/30/2006 @ 8:55pm

4. Weiner displays the typical liberal obsession with procedure, (as well as bashing George W. Bush at every available opportunity), with no concern at all for the fact that justice has at long last been served in the case of Saddam Hussein....As if there is any merit to finding Saddam guilty of capital crimes more than once.

   By the way, Saddam was not the first to use chemical weapons since the 1925 Geneva Convention protocols, Italian Dictator Mussolini also used chemical weapons in Ethiopia in the 1930's....And the Soviet use of sophisticated micro-toxin type biological weapons (yellow rain)in Afghanistan in the 1980's is pretty well documented as well......Which might well explain why, at the time, the Soviets use of yellow rain, and their military doctrine that relied heavily on the use of Chemical and biological weapons in a European WWIII scenario, was of more serious concern than Saddam's use of older, more conventional (but no less lethal) Mustard and Sarin chemical agents.

   No doubt this history is of little concern to the "human rights activists" cited in Weiner's essay.......But it was a subject of constant study to those of us in the US Army Chemical Corps......

   Posted by davebarlett at 12/30/2006 @ 9:46pm

5. Saddam was convicted about as much as the Iraq "war" is mission accomplished. Not at all. Because our government is cotrolled by a bunch of characters who are not only corruptly complicit but dunderheads who are too incompetent to deserve to have any influence in a modern, democratic government.

   Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 10:12pm

6. Was going to comment but ACOOK, MASK, and DAVEBARLETT more than make the case for the absurdity of this article

   Posted by CPT at 12/30/2006 @ 10:33pm

7. Red, posting your usual insightful and articulate comments, I see....But I guess no one expects you to understand that the real mission in invading Iraq, which was accomplished, was to:

   1. Eliminate Saddam Hussein and his threat to regional peace, and his support of international terrorism

   2. Establish a strategic threat to Iran and Syria by having Coalition military forces on their borders for the forseeable future.

   3. Send the message that the US would pre-emptively deal with state sponsors of terrorism, thru the UN when possible, thru military means if necessary

   Question: If Qaddafi in Libya got the message, why can't progressives?

   Answer: Because Quddafi is crazy, but he's not stupid or deluded

   Posted by davebarlett at 12/30/2006 @ 10:39pm

8. 1. Eliminate Saddam Hussein and his threat to regional peace, and his support of international terrorism and replace Saddams' threat to regional peace with our threat to regional peace as well as replacing Saddam's support for international terrorism with a cause celebre that is a terrorist recruiting poster. Mission Accomplished

   2. Establish a strategic threat to Iran and Syria by having Coalition military forces on their borders for the forseeable future. See item 1 above (for the slower witted that would be our threat to regional peace. After all, if you want a job done right, you should call in the experts) Mission Accomplished (although that coalition is looking even more threadbare than the third hand bed sheet of a coalition that the NeoCons scraped together at the start of this grand adventure)

   3. Send the message that the US would pre-emptively deal with state sponsors of terrorism, thru the UN when possible, thru military means if necessary and that the U.S. refuses to conform to international law. (I believe that is the definition of "Rogue Nation".) Mission Accomplished

   Remember:

   We're the Good Guys. How do we know we're the good guys? Because we're the agents of God's will. (conveniently forgetting that the plague bacterium may also be an agent of God's will) How do we know we're the agents of God's will? Because we're the good guys. Repeat in perpetuity.

   Posted by canaar at 12/30/2006 @ 11:16pm

9. Self-loathing must be a real bitch. So get on with it and hang him again.

   Posted by Sliver at 12/30/2006 @ 11:27pm

10. ‘Pro-Bugger the Facts' like caking the make up on acne or liposuction for the obese are the same ideals that say kill Saddam and problem solved, but only under mountains of right wing nut 'job's bull shit.

    Criminals are criminals whether they're ours or someone else's. The sad fact is the far right wing nuts are almost completely entrenched in defending theirs as heroes thus as complicit and the cry not to root out truth but to blame the victims and play who is the worst criminal-- 'certainly not ours'-- but say lets not get to the facts please.

    Right wing obfuscators must be seen as criminals themselves for not demanding the truth but rather defending crime and are as co-conspirators and should be hung along with Saddam. That's neither pro or anti American--it's pro-justice. Anti-justice new con's BS has worn way too thin as to be totally transparent. Hide the lie long enough you rot from the inside out and we end up no better than the wrost we condem.

    "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad." Aldous Huxley

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/30/2006 @ 11:31pm

11. One really wonders if Jon Weiner is just being provacative to get more hits on this blog.

    The big player at Halabja in the March 1988 atrocity was "Chemical Ali" (Ali Hassan al-Majid) and he is yet to make his trial appearance. Their are plenty of players, such as Tariq Aziz, also yet to come who were involved first hand with Rumsfeld and hence the US administration. Aziz who spent 2 1/2 days with Rumsfeld can probably spill the beans better than Saddam as he was more directly involved.

    I have a better opinion of your lawmakers than many of seem to have and it seems that after Christine Gosden's testimony, before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Chemical and Biological Weapons Threats to America, 22 April 1988 (Dr. Gosden had been to Halabja and gave a run down on what she, as an expert, saw), the Saddam regime lost any support it may have had from America.

    The following is fron The National Security Archive:

    Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford's defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31].

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

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

    Although official U.S. policy still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a "don't ask - don't tell" basis.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/30/2006 @ 11:49pm

12. So are these statements true or not? And if no laws were broken-- shouldn't there have been? Are we a nation of laws or just profit?

    September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]

    February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]

    December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]

    1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]

    November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]

    November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]

    October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

    November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]

    December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

    July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

    January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]

    March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

    May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

    May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

    March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

    Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]

    February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]

    April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

    August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

    August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]

    August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]

    September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]

    September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15]

    December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]

    July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]

    August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]

    July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]

    August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]

    June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." [5]

    July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]

    February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]

    August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]

    References: Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002 Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91 Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002 Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002 ABC Nightline. June9, 1992 Counter Punch, October 10, 2002 Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994 Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002 Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991 Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002 Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986 Case Study: The Anfal Campaign. www.gendercide.com

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/31/2006 @ 01:01am

13. CANAAR, so the US presence in Iraq constitutes a threat to regional peace, and the invasion itself makes the US a rogue nation.....pretty well sums up the "progressive" position on the war, good job. Well, at least we can agree on the rest.

    By the way, who ever said we were the good guys? Certainly not me. But perhaps you'd be a prouder citizen of Iran, China or Russia? Or would you say, Vive La France? I would say, Bon Voyage, Canaar.....

    Posted by davebarlett at 12/31/2006 @ 01:08am

14. Published on Monday, December 30, 2002 by the Washington Post

    U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup

    Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds

    by Michael Dobbs

    The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

    Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys."

    A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

    Opinions differ among Middle East experts and former government officials about the pre-Iraqi tilt, and whether Washington could have done more to stop the flow to Baghdad of technology for building weapons of mass destruction.

    "It was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now," says Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA military analyst and author of "The Threatening Storm," which makes the case for war with Iraq. "My fellow [CIA] analysts and I were warning at the time that Hussein was a very nasty character. We were constantly fighting the State Department."

    "Fundamentally, the policy was justified," argues David Newton, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, who runs an anti-Hussein radio station in Prague. "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."

    To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified. According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.

    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. 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.

    Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians. But the Reagan administration had already committed itself to a large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in several visits by the president's recently appointed special envoy to the Middle East, Donald H. Rumsfeld.

    Secret talking points prepared for the first Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad enshrined some of the language from NSDD 114, including the statement that the United States would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West." When Rumsfeld finally met with Hussein on Dec. 20, he told the Iraqi leader that Washington was ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a State Department report of the conversation. Iraqi leaders later described themselves as "extremely pleased" with the Rumsfeld visit, which had "elevated U.S.-Iraqi relations to a new level."

    In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq.

    Rumsfeld has also said he had "nothing to do" with helping Iraq in its war against Iran. Although former U.S. officials agree that Rumsfeld was not one of the architects of the Reagan administration's tilt toward Iraq -- he was a private citizen when he was appointed Middle East envoy -- the documents show that his visits to Baghdad led to closer U.S.-Iraqi cooperation on a wide variety of fronts. Washington was willing to resume diplomatic relations immediately, but Hussein insisted on delaying such a step until the following year.

    As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in February 1982, despite heated objections from Congress. Without such a move, Teicher says, it would have been "impossible to take even the modest steps we were contemplating" to channel assistance to Baghdad. Iraq -- along with Syria, Libya and South Yemen -- was one of four original countries on the list, which was first drawn up in 1979.

    When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

    A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

    The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide."

    Chemicals Kill Kurds

    In late 1987, the Iraqi air force began using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq that had formed a loose alliance with Iran, according to State Department reports. The attacks, which were part of a "scorched earth" strategy to eliminate rebel-controlled villages, provoked outrage on Capitol Hill and renewed demands for sanctions against Iraq. The State Department and White House were also outraged -- but not to the point of doing anything that might seriously damage relations with Baghdad.

    "The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political and economic objectives," Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote in a September 1988 memorandum that addressed the chemical weapons question. "We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis."

    Bush administration spokesmen have cited Hussein's use of chemical weapons "against his own people" -- and particularly the March 1988 attack on the Kurdish village of Halabjah -- to bolster their argument that his regime presents a "grave and gathering danger" to the United States.

    The Iraqis continued to use chemical weapons against the Iranians until the end of the Iran-Iraq war. A U.S. air force intelligence officer, Rick Francona, reported finding widespread use of Iraqi nerve gas when he toured the Al Faw peninsula in southern Iraq in the summer of 1988, after its recapture by the Iraqi army. The battlefield was littered with atropine injectors used by panicky Iranian troops as an antidote against Iraqi nerve gas attacks.

    Far from declining, the supply of U.S. military intelligence to Iraq actually expanded in 1988, according to a 1999 book by Francona, "Ally to Adversary: an Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace." Informed sources said much of the battlefield intelligence was channeled to the Iraqis by the CIA office in Baghdad.

    Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation."

    The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein as a moderate and reasonable Arab leader continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, documents show. When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she assured him that Bush "wanted better and deeper relations," according to an Iraqi transcript of the conversation. "President Bush is an intelligent man," the ambassador told Hussein, referring to the father of the current president. "He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/31/2006 @ 01:22am

15. Posted by DAVEBARLETT 12/31/2006 @ 01:08am

    You sound simply like an international pro-crime foot-soldier. You could do very well working for a Saddam or Reagon or hsuB or a Stalin, name a murdering boss type and your type is there kissing their feet, obediently. Yourself-- being soulless, honoring only the gold coin.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/31/2006 @ 01:31am

16. March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

    May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

    May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

    March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/31/2006 @ 01:51am

17. Posted by DAVEBARLETT 12/31/2006 @ 01:08am

    Of course, you are correct. We replaced Saddam's "threat" to regional peace with a war followed by an occupation that bred an insurgency that let to a civil war that lived in the house that George built.

    Love it or leave it huh? Examining deeds rather than hollow platitudes, I would be most pleased to hold the door for you.

    Posted by canaar at 12/31/2006 @ 10:47am

18. Weiner displays the typical liberal obsession with procedure

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 12/30/2006 @ 9:46pm

    Crazy, isn't it? I mean, why did the Dems bother with a bloody election to regain control of Congress when a few assassinations would have accomplished the power switch without the headaches and expense of elections across all districts of the country. Same difference, really. Thanks for pointing out the ridiculousness of a broad vision.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/31/2006 @ 1:16pm

19. Always happy to stir up the loony lefties....

    Posted by davebarlett at 12/31/2006 @ 3:52pm

20. And where's the proof? Saddam had his lawyers, loyal followers and three years to defend his case before the Iraqi court. Doesn't anyone think it strange that no one came to his defense. --ACOOK

    Oh yes, and he had top-notch international lawyers as well, didn't he? And how many were murdered while "defending" him? I stopped counting after three.

    Next time, perforate your in(s)ane comment so I can break it more cleanly before wiping my ass with it.

    Posted by Left is Right at 12/31/2006 @ 10:45pm

21. Send the message that the US would pre-emptively deal with state sponsors of terrorism, thru the UN when possible, thru military means if necessary

    Question: If Qaddafi in Libya got the message, why can't progressives?

    --DAVEBARLETT

    Wow, I didn't know that the Iraq fiasco was meant to impress al-Qaddafi. I really need to visit desperatelydefendingyourideology.com more often.

    Since you have such a finger on the pulse of international politics, can you tell me: Any chance Kim Jong Il will "get the message" any time soon? How about Ahmadinejad? Or will they simply do what progressives have been saying they will, which is to ramp up the pursuit of nuclear weaponry, to prevent insane, rapture-ready nutballs from invading them?

    Posted by Left is Right at 12/31/2006 @ 10:57pm

22. Much like Iraq and iran in the 80's, we are not winning, or losing.

    Which tin-pot dictator we call a friend now will be the next Saddam?

    any bets?

    Niyazov is out, obviously. Noriega is in the can. Mushareff will get taken out by his own. Someone from Northern Africa?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/31/2006 @ 10:59pm

23. Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow

    Quite a name. Probably won't be popular with the press.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/31/2006 @ 11:11pm

24. Question: If Qaddafi in Libya got the message, why can't progressives?

    --DAVEBARLETT

    Because we aren't getting farm subsidies from your tax dollars like the terrorist Qaddafi?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/31/2006 @ 11:42pm

25. The problem with Qaddafi was never that people thought he was going to get nuclear weapons - it was his alleged role in blowing up Pan Am flight 107 over Lockerbie Scotland.

    Which George Bush has given him a pardon for.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 01/02/2007 @ 6:08pm

26. This is not really news as it was clear that the US was keeping a grip on Saddam and his access to the world from the moment they captured him. Why else would we allow a highly placed American Attorney to be on his defense team? A real trial would not only have exposed the secrets, it would have pasted pictures of Saddam with our politicians of the times, like Cheney, in global headlines over and over again. Americans at the highest levels were guilty of condoning these crimes against humanity and should have answered for them. Instead they are still the leaders, and still committing the crimes against humanity. Will it change? Probably not.

    Posted by discoverer at 01/03/2007 @ 7:25pm