Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3386357.stm

Danish troops have found dozens of mortar rounds in southern Iraq which could contain chemical weapons according to initial tests.
The 36 120mm shells appeared to have been buried for at least 10 years, the army said.

All showed traces of blister gases, the army said, a group of chemical compounds which include mustard gas.

The comments are published on the Danish army website, according to Reuters news agency.

Forgot to add "Eat my shorts democrats!":D

LOL Gotta Luv ya Norm...

Norm,

What if BUSH hadn't called for the removal of UN weapons inspectors, might they also have found them? It's is also interesting to NOTE that according to your article: "On Thursday, a 400-strong team of weapons disposal experts was withdrawn from Iraq but US administration officials insisted their job had been completed. "

But the real question is EXACTLY in HOW would "36 120mm shells appear to have been buried for at least 10 years" represent an IMMINENT threat to AMERICA?

I think your ALLEGIANCE to an IDEALOGY is blinding you to some real possibilities that you have been LIED to. However I totally respect your commitment to what you believe in...

Ken

What if BUSH hadn't called for the removal of UN weapons inspectors, might they also have found them?


First of all saddam IGNORED 14 u.n. sanctions. Do you think he would just up and star complying?


But the real question is EXACTLY in HOW would "36 120mm shells appear to have been buried for at least 10 years" represent an IMMINENT threat to AMERICA?


Dosn't matter, as saddam was claiming that he didn't have any.



I think your ALLEGIANCE to an IDEALOGY is blinding you to some real possibilities that you have been LIED to.


I have yet to see any evidence that I have been lied to.

To put it into perspective, I lost a watch in my house about 6 months ago and I havn't been able to find that and my house is a lot smaller than Iraq.

First of all saddam IGNORED 14 u.n. sanctions. Do you think he would just up and star complying?

Norm,

I do see your point, however it would appear that if a 400-strong team of US weapons disposal experts didn't find anything in 9 months and the DANES "only" find 36 120mm shells appear to have been buried for at least 10 years(which are yet to be PROVEN to contain a blistering agent) perhaps the sanctions were perhaps more effective then we had been lead to believe?

Considering the volitile nature of the region, wouldn't it also make sense that SADDAM would want his many internal and external enemies to THINK he had WMD to protect his UN ecomomic sanction WEAKENED ***?


I have yet to see any evidence that I have been lied to. If you are honestly making this claim, which I believe you are, you may also have proven my point about the BLINDNESS that IDEALOGY creates since there has been an abundence of credible evidence about mis represented facts, even from within the administration. Can you say ***** for example?

I hope that like ME, both you and DC come to admit that you are not EXPERTS on this topic and so you begin to look to views outside of your own OPINIONS for information. You might be very surprised what you FIND...

Be well,

Ken

PS. I am VERY comfortable with you continuing to believe BUSH acted to protect AMERICA from an IMMINENT threat in IRAQ. There will likely be FEWER and FEWER that will be able to agree with you based on the EVIDENCE. Since when that is looked at it can be argued that the following was TRUE:

"Iraq WMD Was Not An Immediate Threat
· Iraq's nuclear program had been suspended for many years; Iraq focused on preserving a latent, dual-use chemical and probably biological weapons capability, not weapons production.
· Iraqi nerve agents had lost most of their lethality as early as 1991.
· Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, and UN inspections and sanctions effectively destroyed Iraq's large-scale chemical weapon production capabilities.

Inspections Were Working
· Post-war searches suggest the UN inspections were on track to find what was there.
· International constraints, sanctions, procurement, investigations, and the export/import control mechanism appear to have been considerably more effective than was thought.

Intelligence Failed and Was Misrepresented
· Intelligence community overestimated the chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.
· Intelligence community appears to have been unduly influenced by policymakers' views.
· Officials misrepresented threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missiles programs over and above intelligence findings.

Terrorist Connection Missing
· No solid evidence of cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda.
· No evidence that Iraq would have transferred WMD to terrorists-and much evidence to counter it.
· No evidence to suggest that deterrence was no longer operable.

Post-War WMD Search Ignored Key Resources
· Past relationships with Iraqi scientists and officials, and credibility of UNMOVIC experts represent a vital resource that has been ignored when it should be being fully exploited.
· Data from the seven years of UNSCOM/IAEA inspections are absolutely essential. Direct involvement of those who compiled the more-than-30-million- page record is needed.

War Was Not the Best-Or Only-Option
· There were at least two options preferable to a war undertaken without international support: allowing the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspections to continue until obstructed or completed, or imposing a tougher program of "coercive inspections."

http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/IraqReport3.asp?from=pubdate





"An idea is something you have;
an ideology is something that has you." --Morris Berman

US finds evidence of WMD at last - buried in a field in Maryland

Wednesday May 28, 2003

The good news for the Pentagon yesterday was that its investigators had finally unearthed evidence of weapons of mass destruction, including 100 vials of anthrax and other dangerous bacteria.

The bad news was that the stash was found, not in Iraq, but fewer than 50 miles from Washington, near Fort Detrick in the Maryland countryside.

The anthrax was a non-virulent strain, and the discoveries are apparently remnants of an abandoned germ warfare programme. They merited only a local news item in the Washington Post.

But suspicious finds in Iraq have made front-page news (before later being cleared), given the failure of US military inspection teams to find evidence of the weapons that were the justification for the March invasion.

Even more embarrassing for the Pentagon, there was no documentation about the various biological agents disposed of at the US bio-defence centre at Fort Detrick. Iraq's failure to come up with paperwork proving the destruction of its biological arsenal was portrayed by the US as evidence of deception in the run-up to the war.

In an effort to explain why no chemical or biological weapons had been found in Iraq, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said yesterday the regime may have destroyed them before the war.

Speaking to the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations thinktank, he said the speed of U.S. advance may have caught Iraq by surprise, but added: "It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict."

The US germ warfare programme at Fort Detrick was officially wound up in 1969, but the base has maintained a stock of nasty bugs to help maintain America's defences against biological attack.

The leading theory about the unsolved anthrax letter attacks in 2001 is that they were carried out by a disgruntled former Fort Detrick employee; equipment found dumped in a pond eight miles from the base has been linked to the crimes.

The Fort Detrick clean-up has unearthed over 2,000 tonnes of hazardous waste.

The sanitation crews were shocked to find vials containing live bacteria. As well as the vaccine form of anthrax, the discarded biological agents included Brucella melitensis, which causes the virulent flu-like disease brucellosis, and klebsiella, a cause of pneumonia.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,965319,00.html

Originally posted by Oldbillplod
To put it into perspective, I lost a watch in my house about 6 months ago and I havn't been able to find that and my house is a lot smaller than Iraq. LOL very good Oldbill!

To put it into perspective, I lost a watch in my house about 6 months ago and I haven't been able to find that and my house is a lot smaller than Iraq.

Bill,

I wonder if the level of sophisticated technology that was employed for 9 MONTHS in IRAQ might OFFSET the difference is size? My guess would be you'd find your WATCH inside of 2 nano seconds with their machinery.

ken

Finding a Weapon in a Crowd: Technology Could Help Police Spot (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/CuttingEdge/cuttingedge010720.html)

As a Teenager born and raised in a liberal area of California,
I believe that the whole WMD is a big propeganda plot,
as a cadet in Civil Air Patrol, USAFX I think that we needed to take Saddam out and used any excuse we could have. Point is he is a bad guy.. we got him.. now lets go home once they figure out how to stabalize Iraq.

Originally posted by Srebeiro
As a Teenager born and raised in a liberal area of California,
I believe that the whole WMD is a big propeganda plot,
as a cadet in Civil Air Patrol, USAFX I think that we needed to take Saddam out and used any excuse we could have. Point is he is a bad guy.. we got him.. now lets go home once they figure out how to stabalize Iraq.

I don't think our government could give two ****s about him being a bad guy. We put him in power, and we knew he was a bad guy. There are plenty of other bad guys that we have helped put in power. The difference is, they remain our puppet. Saddam did not.

Originally posted by kenny J
Bill,

I wonder if the level of sophisticated technology that was employed for 9 MONTHS in IRAQ might OFFSET the difference is size? My guess would be you'd find your WATCH inside of 2 nano seconds with their machinery.ken

Whats the chances of borrowing that equpmant then, only I was quite fond of that watch.

Whats the chances of borrowing that equpmant then, only I was quite fond of that watch.

Bill,

My guess would be it is a MATTER of price.... an expensive one at that no doubt...

Ken

This was not a guy who was beholden to the US in any way

DC,

While what you have said MIGHT be TRUE. Why then was Bush's father while president, using TAX payers money to secure loans for Saddam to buy weapons up until the EVE of the first GULF WAR?back to you,

Ken

Actual TESTIMONY before the 102nd CONGRESS:

HON. TOM LANTOS

in the House of Representatives

TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1992


Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, just 1 year ago, Americans were flush with the glow of the military victory over Saddam Hussein. Parades were held in the largest of cities and in the smallest of hamlets. New York and Washington were trying to outdo each other in the splendor of their competing celebrations of victory.

This year, however, we are wallowing in the sordid aftermath of the revelations of the misguided administration policy that brought about that war. We have been treated to details of how the administration bent over backwards in its misguided effort to support the regime of Saddam Hussein on the very eve of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Mr. Speaker, William Safire summarized this squalid tale of policy run amuck in an excellent article that appeared in yesterday's issue of the New York Times. I ask that this article be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to read it carefully.

(BY WILLIAM SAFIRE)
Washington: Americans now know that the war in the Persian Gulf was brought about by a colossal foreign-policy blunder: George Bush's decision, after the Iran-Iraq war ended, to entrust regional security to Saddam Hussein.

What is not yet widely understood is how that benighted policy led to the Bush Administration's fraudulent use of public funds, its sustained deception of Congress and its obstruction of justice.

As the Saudi Ambassador, Prince Bandar, was urging Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker to buy the friendship of the Iraqi dictator in August 1989, the F.B.I. uncovered a huge scam at the Atlanta branch of the Lavoro Bank to finance the buildup of Iraq's war machine by diverting U.S.-guaranteed grain loans.

Instead of pressing the investigation or curbing the appeasement, the President turned a blind eye to lawbreaking and directed another billion dollars to Iraq. Our State and Agriculture Department's complicity in Iraq's duplicity transformed what could have been dealt with as `Saddam's Lavoro scandal' into George Bush's Iraqgate.

The first element of corruption is the wrongful application of U.S. credit guarantees. Neither the Commodity Credit Corporation nor the Export-Import Bank runs a foreign-aid program; their purpose is to stimulate U.S. exports. High-risk loan guarantees to achieve foreign-policy goals unlawful endanger that purpose.

Yet we now know that George Bush personally leaned on Ex-Im to subvert its charter--not to promote our exports but to promote relations with the dictator. And we have evidence that James Baker overrode worries in Agriculture and O.M.B. that the law was being perverted: Mr. Baker's closest aid, Robert Kimmett, wrote triumphantly, `your call to . . . Yeutter . . . paid off.' Former Agriculture Secretary Clayton Yeutter is now under White House protection.

Second element of corruption is the misleading of Congress. When the charge was made two years ago in this space that State was improperly intervening in this case, Mr. Baker's top Middle East aide denied it to Senate Foreign Relations; meanwhile, Yeutter aides deceived Senator Leahy's Agriculture Committee about the real foreign-policy purpose of the C.C.C. guarantees. To carry out Mr. Bush's infamous National Security Directive 26, lawful oversight was systematically blinded.

Third area of Iraqgate corruption is the obstruction of justice. Atlanta's assistant U.S. Attorney Gail McKenzie, long blamed here for foot-dragging, would not withhold from a grand jury what she has already told friends: that indictment of Lavoro officials was held up for nearly a year by the Bush Criminal Division. The long delay in prosecution enabled James Baker to shake credits for Saddam out of malfeasant Agriculture appointees.

READ ABOUT THIS YOURSELF: 102nd Congress (1991-1992)
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r102query.html

SEARCH TERM: lavoro

We only began supporting him during the Iran/Iraq war only because we had issues with Ian.

Yep, supporting as in sending chemical weapons so he could use them to rid his palaces of roaches? Duh! Chemical weapons are for killing people, we gave them to Saddam then throw a fit because he used them???? So it was ok for us to send chemical weapons to Iraq becaues we had issues with Iran? Then we use the fact that he used them as justifacation to invade his sorry ***.
Why can't the government be honest for once?

*Presidents Speech*
"I don't know or care if Saddam has WMD, we are going in because We feel it needs to be done. Why? Because if we think you may be a future threat we are going to take you out, that's why."

What would be so hard about that?

Ooooooppppppppssssssss!!!! (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4127077)
:eek:

Originally posted by Norm357
What if BUSH hadn't called for the removal of UN weapons inspectors, might they also have found them?


First of all saddam IGNORED 14 u.n. sanctions. Do you think he would just up and star complying?


But the real question is EXACTLY in HOW would "36 120mm shells appear to have been buried for at least 10 years" represent an IMMINENT threat to AMERICA?


Dosn't matter, as saddam was claiming that he didn't have any.



I think your ALLEGIANCE to an IDEALOGY is blinding you to some real possibilities that you have been LIED to.


I have yet to see any evidence that I have been lied to.


Norm here is your evidence. Bush sent us in there saying he knew they had WMD and that saddam was an imminent threat. If they 'knew' they had weapons, I'm telling you right now, MI would have 'known' where they were. It took them nearly a year to find them (remember when they 'found' some earlier but turned out to be nothing), and they weren't even us troops that actually found them. Saddam did have chemical weapons in the first war, hey about 10 years ago. He threatened to use them, but he didn't. Chemical weapons could be anything from CS to mustard, to sarin, as you know.

Originally posted by ngcsubutterbar
Norm here is your evidence. Bush sent us in there saying he knew they had WMD and that saddam was an imminent threat. If they 'knew' they had weapons, I'm telling you right now, MI would have 'known' where they were. It took them nearly a year to find them (remember when they 'found' some earlier but turned out to be nothing), and they weren't even us troops that actually found them. Saddam did have chemical weapons in the first war, hey about 10 years ago. He threatened to use them, but he didn't. Chemical weapons could be anything from CS to mustard, to sarin, as you know.


People keep saying that Bush lied but is it really lieing when he was acting in good faith, on intel that turned out to be bad that was recieved from the British?

doing the right thing for the 'right reason' is what ethics is.


he did the 'right' thing for the wrong reason. It is that simple.

As I have said before, George Bush senior screwed everything up by not taking out Saddam the first time when we had more world wide support and the morals of the entire army were destroyed. We pulled out and Saddam got his people to believe that he threw us out. The average Iraqi didn't have a clue what was going on in the outside world. Hell this time when we attacked some of the people believed we were defeated when we were rolling in on the airport. George Bush Jr. over stated the extent of WMD to get the country to back up his decision and now people are pissed because they feel used and lied to. I was 100% GWB for president all the way through the election and into the war on terror but the deal in Iraq and his implementing of some new job bills has made me not such big fan.
Thanks
Rob

If they can bury this then who knows how much other stuff is hidden underground. It seems like thier most popular hiding spot seeing as how that is also where Saddam was.


Scroll down to see the pics (http://cryptome.org/iraq-mig.htm)

lol ya know, the way that thing is 'not' taken care of (no intake covers, etc) it almost makes me think it was abandoned and then covered up by the desert like many many things are.

nope, I have said here before. If bush made the claim that he was doing it for humanitarian purposes, I'd be all for it, as that could be proven.

Stalin murdered more people than Hitler did. We were allies with Stalin.

no no ya got me wrong I wasn't trying to argue anything there, just stating a simple fact that sometimes things we do 'could' bite us in the arse later. Hitler was an imminent threat to us and our holdings in europe, stalin was only a threat to his own people.


now on the second part we never will truly know wether or not the administration knew/thought they knew/ or had some other motive. Therefore I will never say what happened overall was bad, I'm glad saddam is out. Temporarily we screwed ourselves in that region, but overall I think it will make for a more secure peace. Just the fact that it was 'an availible distraction' that could have been made up is what erks me, known or unknown.

Originally posted by Barenaked
If they can bury this then who knows how much other stuff is hidden underground. It seems like thier most popular hiding spot seeing as how that is also where Saddam was.


Scroll down to see the pics (http://cryptome.org/iraq-mig.htm)


Joe, you know those pics are fabricated. After saddam was just a cheery old guy who meant no harm to no one.:rolleyes:






The above is sarcasm for those of you to thick to realize it.

why wouldn't he hide planes like that.......its not like we didn't blow his entire airforce to hell anytime we saw a plane .............it would be stupid of him as a military leader to just leave them 'out'

Danish Tests Show Arms Found in Iraq Not Chemical
Wed January 14, 2004 12:24 PM ET

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - The Danish Army said on Wednesday initial tests showed a cache of mortar rounds found buried in Iraq on January 9 did not contain any chemical substances as originally suspected.

"The expert group from the Iraq Survey Group have investigated five ... and none of them have showed any trace of chemical substances," the Danish Army Operational Command said in a statement.

Samples would be sent to the United States for further tests and the results were expected within three to five days, the command said.

Denmark said its troops found the 36 mortar shells buried in southern Iraq and that early examination had suggested they could contain blister gas.

The shells had been buried for at least 10 years, it said.

Blister gas, an illegal weapon which Saddam Hussein said he had destroyed, was used extensively against the Iranians during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

President Bush ordered U.S.-led forces to invade Iraq after accusing Saddam of possessing weapons of mass destruction. No such arms have been found so far.

Link Again (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4127077)

Well all that matters is that there won't be any more mass graves in Iraq any more. Estimates are that Saddam may have murdered more than a million people. But if the Bush-haters are ok with that, there's not much I can add. DC you are just too funny.. AT at every POINT SADDAM was supported BY the AMERICAN government. In particular by BUSH Sr. and Donald Rumsfeld...

Good thing you have little interest in the details of the FACTS involved. I understand you prefer your own revisionist sense of history and are utterly uninterested in looking at said facts. In fact I'm very comfortable with your manner of PUBLIC display..

But you are sounding less and less like the educated professional that you claim to be...


ken

What people constantly forget is when the Stark was hit by an Iraqi missle, the Iraqi's were supposedly our allies. We blamed the Iranians because if they hadn't fought the Iraqi's, the "mistaken" missle attack would not have occurred. Lest the Republican's forget is that the Iran-Iraq war was started by the Iraqi's with weapons provided by the west (primarily the US). The chemical weapons used can be traced straight back to the US. (and it wasn't Carter supplying them either).

The Republicans sure have short memories when it comes to the truth. Perhaps that is why they beleive that deception and deceit is not in fact a lie.

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


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.

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

U.S. Shipments of Pathogens to Iraq
The Associated Press

Shipments from the United States to Iraq of the kinds of pathogens later used in Iraq's biological weapons programs, according to records from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Senate Banking Committee and U.N. weapons inspectors:

ANTHRAX

Iraq admitted making 2,200 gallons of anthrax spores and putting some of them into weapons. U.N. inspectors said Iraq could have made three times as much anthrax as it acknowledged, and could not verify Iraq's claims to have destroyed all of its weaponized anthrax.

The American Type Culture Collection, a biological samples repository in Manassas, Va., sent two shipments of anthrax to Iraq in the 1980s. Three anthrax strains were in a May 1986 shipment sent to the University of Baghdad, which U.N. inspectors later linked to Iraq's biological weapons program. A 1988 shipment from ATCC to Iraq also included four anthrax strains.

BOTULINUM

Iraq admitted making 5,300 gallons of botulinum toxin, a deadly poison produced by the Clostridium botulinum bacteria, and putting some of it into weapons. Five warheads filled with botulinum toxin are missing.

ATCC sent six strains of Clostridium botulinum to the University of Baghdad in the May 1986 shipment. The September 1988 ATCC shipment to Iraq also contained one strain of Clostridium botulinum.

In March 1986, the CDC sent samples of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxiod (used to make a vaccine against botulinum poisoning) directly to Iraq's al-Muthanna complex, a center for Iraq's chemical weapons program and the site where Iraq restarted its dormant biological weapons program in 1985.

GAS GANGRENE

U.N. inspectors concluded Iraq could have produced hundreds of gallons of the germs that cause gas gangrene, though Iraq admitted producing just a fraction of that amount. Gas gangrene, caused by the Clostridium perfringens bacteria, causes toxic gases to form inside the body, killing tissues and causing internal bleeding, lung and liver damage.

ATCC sent three strains of Clostridium perfringens to the University of Baghdad in the May 1986 shipment and another three strains in the 1988 shipment.

OTHER

The CDC sent bacteria samples to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission in 1985, 1987 and 1988. The commission was involved in Saddam's attempts to build a nuclear bomb and other weapons of mass destruction.

The CDC also sent bacteria samples to the Sera and Vaccine Institute in Amiriyah, Iraq, in 1988. The institute stored samples and did genetic engineering research for Iraq's biological weapons programs, U.N. inspectors found.

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/politics/4186725.htm

U.S. supplied the kinds of germs Iraq later used for biological weapons

Monday September 30
WASHINGTON (AP) - Iraq's bioweapons program that President George W. Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that United Nations weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research.


The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.


The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran. They were detailed in a 1994 Senate Banking Committee report and a 1995 follow-up letter from the CDC to the Senate.


The exports were legal at the time and approved under a program administered by the Commerce Department.


"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a former United Nations biological weapons inspector.


"But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."


The disclosures put the United States in the uncomfortable position of possibly having provided the key ingredients of the weapons America is considering waging war to destroy, said Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va). Byrd entered the documents into the Congressional Record this month.


Byrd asked Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about the germ transfers at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Byrd noted that Rumsfeld met Saddam in 1983, when Rumsfeld was president Ronald Reagan's Middle East envoy.


"Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown?" Byrd asked Rumsfeld after reading parts of a Newsweek article on the transfers.


"I have never heard anything like what you've read, I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt it," Rumsfeld said. He later said he would ask the Defence Department and other government agencies to search their records for evidence of the transfers.


Invoices included in the documents read like shopping lists for biological weapons programs. One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based ATCC included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the UN that it had made weapons out of all three.


The company sent the bacteria to the University of Baghdad, which UN inspectors concluded had been used as a front to acquire samples for Iraq's biological weapons program.


The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in alleged weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxiod - used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin - directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show.


Botulinum toxin is the paralyzing poison that causes botulism. Having a vaccine to the toxin would be useful for anyone working with it, such as biological weapons researchers or soldiers who might be exposed to the deadly poison, Tucker said.


The CDC also sent samples of a strain of West Nile virus to an Iraqi microbiologist at a university in the southern city of Basra in 1985, the records show.


http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/01/1033283479056.html

DC,

I notice you are not listed as a VERIFIED LEO. Should I be curious as to why?

ken

It has been common knowledge that we supplied many of the munitions that helped them kick irans ***. I do mean 'common' knowledge.

Was the United States an ally of Iraq at any time back then?

short answer, cat, would be no no 'offical' alliance ever existed. But we were certainly having an affair with Iraq :)

exerpt http://www.siyassa.org.eg/esiyassa/ahram/2003/1/1/STUD1.HTM

from an international politics journal


-----------
US Policy towards Iraq: 1979-1990

Since the lessons of the past inform the future, a review of US policy is useful and telling.

After Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iraq became the designated buffer between a perceived threatening Iran and the Arab Gulf states. Because of the active oilfields and reserves located in the Gulf states, Iraq's buffer role was of strategic importance to the Gulf states and to the US. The ambiguity of the US commitment to the Iraqi regime of Hussein between 1979 and 1990, and even in the aftermath of the Gulf War, produced ineffective and inconsistent policies which emboldened Hussein in his practices. Much of what the US complains of today is in fact the consequence of its own past policies.

The flawed US Iraq policy started during the Iran-Iraq War, when the US helped Iraq, but not enough to ensure its military success against Iran. This was a reflection of Henry Kissinger's 'plague on both houses' policy according to which both countries would drain each other economically and militarily, and so lose their capacity for mischief elsewhere. The US gave Hussein satellite intelligence on Iranian disposition of forces and other intelligence and military planning support. It also encouraged Arab Gulf states to give financial support to Iraq's war effort. Worst of all, however, the US turned a blind eye to Iraq's use of chemical weapons in 1983 against Iranian civilians in two border regions. This included such internationally prohibited weaponising of mustard gas, sarin and VX poisonous agents. In so doing, the Iraqi regime committed war crimes and bore no consequence, benefiting from an unconscionable impunity.

During this period, Arab Gulf states supported US policy, in part because they almost always do, and in part because they feared Iran's political and territorial ambitions. This threat perception was supported by Iran's 1980 seizure of two small islands belonging to the United Arab Emirates, but most of all because of Iran's influence on the large Shia minority in these countries. The US also shared these concerns.

Certain economic interests were also at stake. For the US, it was grain and commodities sales to Iraq and oil contracts for US companies. For Western Europe, Iraq was a source of oil and a substantial trading partner. More significant, however, was Iraq's long-standing relationship with the USSR, which for years had equipped the Iraqi military. Moreover, during the period 1980-1990, Iraq had embarked on a secret programme to develop weapons of mass destruction -WMD- and delivery capabilities whose components and technology were mostly purchased from Europe. Hence, Europe and the USSR -later Russia- were favourable to Iraq, and they supported its regime whenever US policy turned negative. This, too, contributed to the fluctuation in America's Iraq policy.

Mixed signals from the US led Baghdad to the conclusion that the positive signals outweighed the negative ones.

Two examples illustrate this proposition. First, for almost a decade prior to its invasion of Kuwait, Iraq purchased millions of dollars worth of grain and other commodities from the US on favourable credit and financing terms. This trading relationship was actively supported by several influential Republican senators, such as Robert Dole and Alan Simpson, who represented states that are large producers of these exported commodities. In the spring of 1990, a delegation of senior US senators from these states went to Baghdad, and in worldwide-televised coverage of their meeting with Hussein, were seen assuaging his concerns about US media criticism of his regime. Second, in April 1990, shortly after the US Senate delegation visit, the recently appointed US ambassador to Baghdad, April Gillespie, during a meeting with Hussein, inadvertently gave him the impression that the US would turn a blind eye to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Though it was later explained away as a diplomatic misunderstanding, it did seem to have encouraged Hussein's aggressive intentions against Kuwait.

In the US these signals did not mean much, but to an Arab leader like Hussein who never travelled to the US, and who saw that country from his limited perspective, these signals were quite clear. For the same reasons, Hussein was also convinced that if he signalled the US his intention of respecting the territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia and other Arab Gulf states while continuing to act as a buffer against Iran, he would be allowed to keep Kuwait and its significant oil reserves. Since Hussein would continue to sell Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil to the US, Europe and Japan, he assumed that certain interests would put the concerns of these countries to rest. Moreover, Europe and Russia would be happy to have a richer trading partner.

Indeed, ambiguous US policy and inconsistent signals from Washington's elected and diplomatic officials left the Iraqi regime convinced of its strategic importance to the US, and in Hussein's mind, the quid pro quo would be the take-over of Kuwait, and he gambled on that belief. Furthermore, he and his advisers assumed that if he acted swiftly, the US would be slow to react, and the fait accompli would be irreversible. In other words, as he saw it, the US and Europe had everything to gain by working with him, or at least by allowing a take-over of Kuwait without any more than official protest and public condemnation.

If Hussein was delusional, he had objective reasons to make this political assessment, and few in his tyrannical one-man regime dared contradict him.

The present Bush administration learned that lesson and is anything but equivocal or ambiguous about its intentions, and that may explain why Hussein got the message and unequivocally accepted the terms of the new arms inspection regime reflected in Resolution 1441.
_____________________

For the curious:
Search the United States Congressional Record of the 102nd Congress (1991-1992) here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r102query.html

If you search the word: LAVORO AS in BANCA NAZIONALE DEL LAVORO SCANDAL you will get the following HITS as entire into public the RECORD:

1 . THE ADMINISTRATION'S IRAQ GATE SCANDAL -- (BY WILLIAM SAFIRE) (Extension of Remarks - May 19, 1992)
2 . JUDGE WILKEY'S LETTERS (House of Representatives - September 10, 1992)
3 . THE BANCA NAZIONALE DEL LAVORO SCANDAL: HIGH-LEVEL POLITICS TRY TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE (House of Representatives - September 14, 1992)
4 . EFFORTS TO THWART INVESTIGATION OF THE BNL SCANDAL (House of Representatives - March 30, 1992)
5 . KISSINGER ASSOCIATES, SCOWCROFT, EAGLEBURGER, STOGA, IRAQ, AND BNL (House of Representatives - April 28, 1992)
6 . PROLIFERATION PROFITEERS: PART 9 -- HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK (Extension of Remarks - April 18, 1991)
7 . MY ADVICE TO THE PRIVILEGED ORDERS (House of Representatives - February 03, 1992)
8 . CONTINUING SAGA OF ATTEMPTS TO THWART BNL INVESTIGATION (House of Representatives - May 18, 1992)
9 . PROLIFERATION PROFITEERS: PART 20 -- HON. FORTNEY (PETE) STARK (Extension of Remarks - July 16, 1991)
10 . SENATE RESOLUTION 207--REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS STUDY GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL ARMS SALES (Senate - October 25, 1991)
11 . ARMS TO ENEMIES (Senate - April 17, 1991)
12 . FURTHER INFORMATION ON BNL DEALINGS (House of Representatives - April 09, 1992)
13 . KISSINGER ASSOCIATES, BNL, AND IRAQ (House of Representatives - May 02, 1991)
14 . MY ADVICE TO THE PRIVILEGED ORDERS (House of Representatives - March 03, 1992)
15 . SCANDAL INVOLVING ATLANTA AGENCY OF BANCO NATIONAL DEL LAVORO (House of Representatives - February 04, 1991)
16 . REPORT ON NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO IRAQ MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT--PM 265 (Senate - August 03, 1992)
17 . REPORT ON NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO IRAQ--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC NO. 102-367) (House of Representatives - August 03, 1992)
18 . BUSH'S FAILED IRAQ POLICY -- (Senate - September 30, 1992)
19 . SCOWCROFT IMPROPERLY INTERVENED IN CCC PROGRAM AND MANY MORE LIES TO CONGRESS (House of Representatives - July 09, 1992)
20 . CONCERNS ABOUT FOREIGN BANK REGULATION, BNL LOANS TO IRAQ, AND BNL LOANS TO IRAQI FRONT COMPANIES (House of Representatives - July 31, 1992)
21 . REPORT ON BANKING COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION OF THE ATLANTA BRANCH BNL (House of Representatives - March 02, 1992)
22 . THE BNL CASE: HEAR NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL (House of Representatives - September 28, 1992)
23 . COMMITTEE ON BANKING, FINANCE AND URBAN AFFAIRS' INVESTIGATION OF BANCA NAZIONALE DEL LAVORO (House of Representatives - February 21, 1991)
24 . GONZALEZ IRAQ EXPOSE 1 (House of Representatives - March 25, 1992)
25 . HOW WE APPEASED A TYRANT -- HON. BARBARA BOXER (Extension of Remarks - March 06, 1991)
26 . UNITED STATES POLICY TO ARM IRAQ (House of Representatives - July 21, 1992)
27 . Daily Digest - Wednesday, April 17, 1991
28 . Daily Digest - Thursday, May 21, 1992
29 . Daily Digest - Tuesday, April 9, 1991
30 . OIL SALES TO IRAQ AND MORE DETAILS ON MATRIX-CHURCHILL CORP. (House of Representatives - September 21, 1992)
31 . BNL SUBPOENA RENEWAL (House of Representatives - April 24, 1991)
32 . CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES AND THE SUBPOENA ORDERED BY SPECIAL COUNSEL MALCOLM WILKEY (House of Representatives - June 22, 1992)
33 . BRASS FACTORY IN IRAQ (House of Representatives - September 25, 1992)
34 . NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL THIEVERY IN HIGH PLACES (House of Representatives - May 04, 1992)
35 . THE BNL AFFAIR: PROGRESS DESPITE OBSTRUCTION (House of Representatives - September 09, 1992)
36 . THE TRUTH ABOUT PRESIDENT BUSH'S RECORD ON IRAQ (Senate - October 01, 1992)
37 . TREATY DOCUMENTS NOS. 102-20 AND 102-32 (Senate - September 29, 1992)
38 . FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS SAFETY AND CONSUMER CHOICE ACT OF 1991 (House of Representatives - August 01, 1991)
39 . THE CASE OF IRAQ AND THE EXPORT-IMPORT BANK (House of Representatives - February 24, 1992)
40 . BNL SUBPOENA RENEWAL (House of Representatives - April 25, 1991)
41 . MY ADVICE TO THE PRIVILEGED ORDERS (House of Representatives - March 24, 1992)
42 . Daily Digest - Tuesday, April 16, 1991
43 . THE ROSTOW GANG (House of Representatives - July 07, 1992)
44 . Daily Digest - Friday, September 25, 1992
45 . DETAILS ON IRAQ'S PROCUREMENT NETWORK (House of Representatives - August 10, 1992)
46 . Daily Digest - Wednesday, May 20, 1992
47 . INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTION REQUESTING IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION BY HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE (House of Representatives - September 17, 1992)
48 . MY ADVICE TO THE PRIVILEGED ORDERS (House of Representatives - May 09, 1991)
49 . RETAIL DEPOSIT TAKING BY FOREIGN BANKS (Senate - December 18, 1991)
50 . LOAN GUARANTEE ASSISTANCE TO ISRAEL (Senate - October 01, 1992)

History of Saddam Flash (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html)

If you have a fast connection the flash presentation basically runs all of this down.

Rumsfeld, Bush Sr. Refused To Back 1989 UN Resolution To Investigate Iraq For Human Rights Abuses

By Jason Leopold

03/13/03

In 1989, the State Department released a report that described in gruesome detail Iraq’s violation of human rights, specifically how Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein tortured his own people for allegedly being disloyal.

But despite the atrocities outlined in the report, which President Bush now refers to when speaking about his desire to remove Hussein from power, the United States, under the first Bush Administration, refused to vote in favor of a United Nations resolution calling for an inquiry into Iraq’s treatment of its population and possibly indicting Hussein for war crimes and human rights abuses.

The two people most vocal about refusing to go along with the U.N. investigation are now lobbying for a U.N. resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq and are highly critical of the countries that refuse to back a U.S. led coalition to use military force to remove Hussein from power. Those men are Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

But in 1989, the first Bush administration refused to join the U.N. in publicly protesting the forced relocation of at least half a million ethnic Kurds and Syrians in the late 1980s, even though the act violated principles of the 1948 Genocide Convention, according to Middle East Watch, a human rights organization.

The Bush and Reagan administrations also declined to punish Iraq when it used poison gas against Iranian soldiers in 1984 and Kurdish citizens in 1988. Moreover, the U.S. did not oppose the fact that Hussein bought 45 American helicopters, worth about $200 million, with assurances they were for civilian use, then transferred them to his military.

Armitage said in 1990 that that "in retrospect, it would have been much better at the time of their use of gas if we'd put our foot down," according to an August 1990 story in the Los Angeles Daily News.

Despite U.S. intelligence reports that showed Iraq’s capability of building weapons of mass destruction and its inhumane treatment of its own civilians, the Bush Administration turned a blind eye and instead focused on improving U.S. relations with Hussein. The U.S. removed Iraq from its list of countries supporting terrorism in 1983, which reopened the door to federal subsidies and loans to Iraq.

Saddam Hussein “made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world," Rumsfeld said, who, as a Middle East envoy for the Regan Administration, reopened discussions with Saddam in 1983, according to the Daily News story. "It struck us as useful to have a relationship with him."

The current Bush Administration, many of whom served in the Reagan and the first Bush administrations, refuse to acknowledge that their policies toward Iraq at the time backfired and we may be paying a price for it now. But at this point, Iraq does not pose a threat to the U.S. and threats against the nation appear to be purely personal.

Under former Rumsfeld’s watch during his years in the Reagan and Bush administrations, he and the former presidents allowed Hussein to build his army and a cache of chemical and nuclear weapons. In fact, many of the hawks that serve in the current Bush Administration assisted Hussein’s regime in reaching these goals during the late 1980s and early 1990s.

For example, Judicial Watch said, according to the Daily News story, “that the U.S. extended $270 million in government-guaranteed credit from the Export-Import Bank to buy other American goods, despite repeated failures to make loan repayments on time. Since 1982, Baghdad has become one of the biggest buyers of U.S. rice and wheat, purchasing $5.5 billion in crops and livestock with federally guaranteed loans and agricultural subsidies and its own hard cash.”

“Iraq benefited from a thriving grain trade with American farmers, cooperation with U.S. intelligence agencies, oil sales to American refiners that helped finance its military, and muted White House criticism of its human rights and war atrocities,” the Daily News story said.

Armitage admitted in 1990 that the Reagan and Bush administrations were well aware of Hussein’s brutality, but still, the U.S. was more interested in maintaining a healthy relationship with Iraq because the country’s vast oil reserves was beneficial to U.S. interests.

"We knew this wasn't the League of Women Voters," Armitage said, referring to Hussein’s regime, according to the Daily News story.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2103.htm