"Can you prove Saddam and Osama were former US employees?"

Got a few of those emails after my last article was published:

http://truthout.org/docs_03/121503A.shtml

This is what I came up with. The stuff in italics is the questions that came in one of the emails. Y'all might be able to make use of this.

======

"CAN you prove that Saddam was employee of the US Government?"

Saddam Hussein as former employee:

U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds
By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 30, 2002; Page A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true

High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

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.

...more...

---

Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam'

Declassified papers leave the White House hawk exposed over his role
during the Iran-Iraq war

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday December 31, 2002
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

The Reagan administration and its special Middle East envoy, Donald
Rumsfeld, did little to stop Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, even though they knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against Iran, it was reported yesterday.

US support for Baghdad during the Iran-Iraq war as a bulwark against
Shi'ite militancy has been well known for some time, but using
declassified government documents, the Washington Post provided new
details yesterday about Mr Rumsfeld's role, and about the extent of the Reagan administration's knowledge of the use of chemical weapons.

The details will embarrass Mr Rumsfeld, who as defence secretary in the Bush administration is one of the leading hawks on Iraq, frequently denouncing it for its past use of such weapons.

...more...

========================

"CAN you demonstrate that OBL was a US Government agent?"

Osama bin Laden as former employee:

Interview: 27-Year CIA Veteran by Will Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Interview

Thursday 26 June 2003

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/062603B.shtml

Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years, serving seven Presidents. He is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is co-director of the Servant Leadership School, an outreach ministry in the inner city of Washington.

-------

PITT: Could you give me some background regarding who you are and what
work you did with the CIA?

McG: I was a graduate student in Russian studies when I got interested in the Central Intelligence Agency. I was very intrigued that there was one central place to prevent what happened at Pearl Harbor from happening again. I had been commissioned in the US Army, so I needed to do my two years service there, but wound up down in Washington DC. I took a job with the CIA in 1963, and it was what it was made out to be.

In other words, I was told that if I were to come on as an analyst of
Soviet foreign policy, when I sat down in the morning, in my In-Box would be a bunch of material from open sources, from closed sources, from photography, from intercepts, from agent reports, from embassy reports, you name it. It would be right there, and all I had to do was sift through it and make some sense out of it. If I had an important enough story, I would write it up for the President the next morning. That seemed too good to be true, but you know what? It was true, and it was really heady work.

PITT: Which Presidents did you serve?

McG: I started with President Kennedy and finished with President Bush, the first President Bush. That would make seven Presidents.

PITT: What was your area of expertise with the CIA?

McG: I was a Soviet Foreign Policy analyst. I also worked on Soviet
Internal Affairs when I first came on, but then my responsibilities grew and I became responsible for a lot of different parts of the world. During the 1980s I was briefing the Vice President and Secretaries of State and Defense, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I did this every other morning. We worked in teams of two, and on any given morning depending on schedules, I would be hitting two or perhaps three of those senior officials.

(snip)

PITT: In your time at CIA as a Soviet Foreign Policy analyst, you were
directly involved with analyzing Soviet policy issues in the run-up to and duration of the Soviet war in Afghanistan?

McG: Yes.

PITT: How deep into the details of that did you get?

McG: Oh, quite deep. By that time my responsibilities had grown, and I
stayed very interested and abreast of what was going on there.

PITT: Could you talk about how America’s involvement in the Soviet war in Afghanistan led to the events of September 11? There are some very clear, straight-line connections – starting with Brzyznski’s ‘Afghan Trap’ in 1978 - between the two events, yes? From your perspective, how did that develop?

McG: The big momentum was put on by a fellow named William Casey, who was head of CIA under Reagan. He saw this as a little war that he could wage and win, and he had a lot of support from folks on the Hill. What they did was arm and recruit folks like Osama bin Laden and others. One of the big decisions they had to make was whether or not to give them Stinger missiles. I remember when that was under discussion. The dangers of giving these uncontrollable folks Stinger missiles was emphasized, but the decision was to go ahead and give them those missiles anyway. In many respects, the folks that were used as our proxies in this war against the Soviets have come back to bite us, and to bite us very hard as we know from 9/11.

PITT: The invasion came in 1979 because the Soviets were worried about
their puppet regime in Afghanistan. It became a great Muslim cause to
defend Afghanistan against the godless invaders. Osama bin Laden became a hero by funding this fight, and by fighting along with the others. When the war ended in 1989, when the Soviets withdrew with their tail between their legs, Afghanistan was left in an utterly shattered and destroyed state. Given the fact that we basically precipitated the start of that war by arming and training those mujeheddin fighters to go after the Afghan government in 1978 and 1979, why was the decision made in 1989 to leave Afghanistan in such a sorry state? The chaos left in the aftermath of that war led to the rise of the Taliban. Why didn’t we help clean up the terrible mess we had helped to cause?

McG: I hate to be cynical about these things, but once we got the Soviets out, our reason to be there basically evaporated. You may ask about the poor people and the poor country. Well, we have a history of doing this kind of thing, of using people. The Kurds are one example. We use them and betray them, and we don’t care much once our little geopolitical objective has been achieved. That’s what was in play here. Nobody gave a damn. We had a brilliant victory, we got the Soviets out of there, we started pounding our chests, and nobody gave much thought to helping the poor Afghanis that were left behind.

In addition, these bad guys were our good guys. Osama bin Laden and all those folks were people we armed and trained, and when you get that close – and this is a systemic problem within the Agency – when you get that close so that you’re in bed with these guys, you can’t step back and say, “Whoa, wait a second. These guys could be a real danger in the future.” You can’t make a calculated, dispassionate analysis of what might be in store for these guys. It was a poor situation politically, strategically, and as it turned out, analytically as well.

==================

"Also can you prove that the United States gave the Iraq government Anthrax or chemical weapons? Like explicit sales receipts, do you have anything other then vague "CIA OPERATION?""

A U.S. Gift to Iraq: Deadly Viruses

A 1995 letter from the Centers for Disease Control lists all the biological materials sent to Saddam's scientists for 10 years

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2002/nf20020920_3025.htm

I assume you will take BusinessWeek as a respectable source. The receipts are here:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2002/nf20020920_3025.htm#LETTER

Hope this helps.

embroiled in this exact debate currently with a not-quite-freeper friend.

(He's an ex-spook who knows better, but is messing with me.)

bookmarked for emails to skeptical friends

They didn't know?? I heard a legal analyst talking about it on CNN last night and Aaron Brown didn't even deny it. I thought our 'arrangements' with these people was common knowledge. geesh.

Plenty of meat to chew on there. This is the kind of substance that gets swept under the balloons and bunting on the cable and network news shows. If it does get mentioned, they have 2 or 3 RW pundits by remote satellite to interrupt, impugn the patriotism of the lone centrist liberal on the set, and shout, "we'reatwarthepresidentisabolddecisiveleaderthisisagreatdayforamerica!!!!".

GD sure needed a nutritious meal after all the junk food and heartburn. :-)

and I ask this honestly....what's the point? That it's all a sham? That Saddam has never been an enemy of America? I'm really just curious......what IS the point?

is the one lessone we have not learned, the lesson that the current crew would have us avoid learning at all costs, because if the American people learn this one lesson, the empire days are over.

The lesson?

Actions have consequences.

Oh, PS: American has a lot of enemies. They probably number in the millions. We should maybe concentrate on the ones that are actually a threat. Hussein did not qualify.

This is the house that the American taxpayer built

This is the foreign dictator who lives in the house that America built

This is US government money that paid the foreign dictator who lives in the house that the American taxpayer built.

These are weapons of mass destruction bought with US government money by the foreign dictator who lives in the house that the American taxpayer built.

Here are the dead killed by weapons of mass destruction bought with US government money by the foreign dictator who lives in the house that the American taxpayer built.

Here are mourners who cry for the dead killed by weapons of mass destruction bought with US government money by the foreign dictator who lives in the house that the American taxpayer built.

Here are angry mobs that join mourners who cry for the dead killed by weapons of mass destruction bought with US government money by the foreign dictator who lives in the house that the American taxpayer built.

Here are idealogues who lead angry mobs that join mourners who cry for the dead killed by weapons of mass destruction bought with US government money by the foreign dictator who lives in the house that the American taxpayer built.

Here are the orders of idealogues who lead angry mobs that join mourners who cry for the dead killed by weapons of mass destruction bought with US government money by the foreign dictator who lives in the house that the American taxpayer built.

Here are bombs timed to the orders of idealogues who lead angry mobs that join mourners who cry for the dead killed by weapons of mass destruction bought with US government money by the foreign dictator who lives in the house that the American taxpayer built.

Here are terrorists carrying bombs timed to the orders of idealogues who lead angry mobs that join mourners who cry for the dead killed by weapons of mass destruction bought with US government money by the foreign dictator who lives in the house that the American taxpayer built.

Here is the American taxpayer afraid of terrorists carrying the bombs made to the plans of idealogues who lead angry mobs that join mourners who cry for the dead killed by weapons of mass destruction bought with US government money by the foreign dictator who lives in the house that the American taxpayer built.

Isn't there a difference between saying that the US government and Usamma bin Laden both funded the Muhajadeen, and saying that Usamma bin Laden is an ex-employee of the US governemnt?

I have been giving a lot of talks lately at colleges and for organizations about the Iraq war. Always in my remarks I ask the same question. "It has been almost 20 months since the attacks of September 11. It has been over 570 days since the Towers fell. The 9/11 attacks are the principle reason, according to the Bush administration, which justifies the war. Can anyone tell me why those attacks happened? Has anyone in the Bush administration or the media come forth with a reasonable explanation besides 'Evildoers who hate our freedom?'"

Every time I get blank stares, and always a few sets of widened eyes, as if my question caused them to suddenly realize that no such explanation has ever been put forward.

The fact is that the Bush administration has labored mightily and long to make sure no such answers are coming. They fought the creation of an independent investigative body because they wanted to be able to choose the chairman. Once they were gifted this privilege, they abused it with the appalling nomination of Henry Kissinger. If you want a fair and open examination of facts, regardless of shadowy loyalties and compromising corporate connections, you do not choose Kissinger. If you want the master of the black bag and the black op, the undisputed heavyweight champion of Washington insiderdom, the gold standard for cover-up and cover-your-ass, you cannot do better than Henry. This choice told us everything we need to know about the Bush administration's desire to get to the bottom of 9/11.

When I ask my question at these talks, someone in the audience always demands an answer. More often than not, I tell them about Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Afghan Trap. In 1979, Brzezinski was serving as Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, and he decided the time had come to challenge the Soviet Union in their own back yard. At this time, Afghanistan was ruled by a communist puppet regime of the Soviets called the People's Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, or PDPA. Brzezinski instituted a plan to train fundamentalist Islamic mujeheddin fighters in Pakistan, and sent those fighters to attack the PDPA. The idea was not to destroy the PDPA, but to make the Soviets so nervous about the stability of their puppet regime that they would invade Afghanistan to protect it. Brzezinski wanted, at bottom, to hand the Soviet Union their own debilitating Vietnam.

The plan worked. The Soviets invaded in 1979, and over the next ten years spent its blood and treasure trying to defeat the Afghan warriors who banded together to defend their country. By 1989 millions of Afghan civilians had been killed, millions more had been internally displaced, and hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops had been killed or wounded. In the process, the nation of Afghanistan was torn to pieces. Worst of all, the United States – which energetically worked to start the war, and which armed and funded the Afghan mujeheddin once the war was underway – did absolutely nothing to aid ravaged Afghanistan once the Soviets withdrew. Brzezinski proudly described the Afghan Trap in an interview he gave to a French publication called Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998:

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042203A.shtml

Are you saying that the US government gave Usamma bin Laden money?

because the guy who ran the Soviet section of the CIA (Ray McGovern in original post) during the Reagan administration is saying it. It's pretty much black-letter history.

Regarding this quote from Ray McGovern:
"What they did was arm and recruit folks like Osama bin Laden and others."

I think he means recruited Osma bin Laden to give money, not to receive money.

I genuinely don't understand you. Osama bin Laden was a US employee in the fight against the Soviets. He was a Cold War temp worker hired to do a job.

Usama bin Laden didn't need money from the US.

He was valued for making financial donations to the Muhajadeen.

Hence, 'employee.'

"Spider's Web-the secret history of how the White House illegally armed Iraq" Alan Friedman.
P-172 "between August 2 and October 4, 1990 the State Department approved twelve new military equipment orders worth five million dollar,including items such as spare parts and components for TOW missiles, helicopter components for the AH-1S Cobra, 105mm cartridges for artillery shells, and conversion kits for M-16 rifle."
These arms went to King Hussein of Jordan, to be transferred to Baghdad. "Bush and Baker's policy on Jordan was cynical enough to ignore even Jordan's violations of the UN embargo after the invasion of Kuwait."
The day of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, August 2, 1990.

n/t

how about the CIA spy satellite pix the US allowed the iraqis access to which showed iranian troop movements during the iran/iraq war?

or

U.S., Britain Helped Iraq Develop Chemical And Biological Weapons"
http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/psn/mar98/0002.html

U.S. companies sold Iraq the ingredients for a witch's brew
http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html


In 1982, the Reagan Administration took Iraq off its list of countries alleged to sponsor terrorism, making it eligible to receive high-tech items generally denied to those on the list. Conventional military sales began in December of that year. Representative Samuel Gejdenson, Democrat of Connecticut, chairman of a House subcommittee investigating "United States Exports of Sensitive Technology to Iraq," stated in 1991:

"From 1985 to 1990, the United States Government approved 771 licenses for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application. The United States spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted. . . . The Administration has never acknowledged that it took this course of action, nor has it explained why it did so. In reviewing documents and press accounts, and interviewing knowledgeable sources, it becomes clear that United States export-control policy was directed by U.S. foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was U.S. foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein."

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html


http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

http://www.praesentia.us/archives/000436.html

Thanks to Will and others on the thread

Back to the Front Page with this invaluable resource, I says!

:evilgrin:
dbt

through the corporate media filter.

:-)

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein:
The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Actual PDFs of original documents... great stuff!

"U.S. Diplomatic and Commercial Relationships with Iraq, 1980 - 2 August 1990": cites original documents including Senate reports, etc.
http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

Set in the mountains of Afghanistan and the equally hazardous headquarters of the CIA Operations Directorate in Washington, The Black Tulip is a fast-paced thriller, based on real events, by the legendary spy who masterminded the plot to arm Afghan freedom fighters in their holy war against the Soviets. A longtime veteran of the CIA, Bearden knows the tricks of the trade, the price of honor, the bonds of blood, and the enduring lure of retribution.

there really is more info in the public than many realize. Certainly the greater press ignores all these sources.

I understand that we screwed up here by supporting Saddam, Signing agreements with North Korea...I dunno about it being wrong helping the Mujahadeen...

Arming Saddam was shortsighted and vindictive, Rum-uh-dum is going to pay if Saddam testifies. And going in after him now was wrong...so no argument there.

But Bin Laden? I guess we armed him by providing US Airliners.

Let's stick with Saddam...Bin Laden attacked the US. Well, it seems like he did...that still hasn't been totally proven.

And in a court of law you are treated almost as the perp.

The United States has made a habit out of creating one monster after another and then acting completely innocent when Frankenstein wreaks havoc on the village and kills people. How long will people buy this baloney with their hand over their hearts?

As long as we have warpigs from both parties.

for in the coming months we will need to educate people and back up what we are saying. Letters to the editor will be quite effective I think.

kick.

:dem:

:kick:

They can't help themselves. In a world where cheap high quality oil is king. Charlie Wilson's war helped bring the Soviet empire down, it was the Soviet's Waterloo and the CIA's golden age. Afghanistan knocked the Russia based psuedo-commies out of winning "the great game" after their domestic oil peaked out. The Soviet Union got pushed aside in the oil game and was never competitive again in the empire contest. Thus control of the cheap mid east and central asian oil passed into the hands of the Anglo-American oil oligopolies. Our military industrial complex-BFEE will defend control over this oil to the bitter end. It's far more important to them than any ideals of "America" or democracy or progress for mankind.

it amazes me that the same people who believe that f***wit Bush is a "real president", who believe every freaking lie that comes out of his mouth, demand actual PROOF of the things YOU say.