Bush's first crime against Iraq

[Dr. D]

As far as can be verified, only the Baltimore Sun carried this story in the United States. Later it was apparently removed from its archives but a Baltimore Sun reporter was added to the White House Press Corps. Was there a deal made? The story originally appeared in the Baltimore Sun, December 10, 2002

Throughout the winter of 2002, the Bush administration publicly accused Iraqi weapons declarations of being incomplete. The almost unbelievable reality of this situation is that it was the United States itself that had removed over 8,000 pages of the 11,800 page original report.

This came as no surprise to Europeans however, as Iraq had made extra copies of the complete weapons declaration report and unofficially distributed them to journalists throughout Europe. The Berlin newspaper Die Tageszetung broke the story on December 19, 2002 in an article by Andreas Zumach.

At the same time, according to the investigation by Michael Niman, the Iraq government sent out official copies of the report on November 3, 2002. One, classified as “secret,” was sent to the International Atomic Energy Agency, another copy went to the UN Security Council. The U.S. convinced Colombia, chair of the Security Council and current target of U.S. military occupation and financial aid, to look the other way while the report was removed, edited, and returned. Other members of the Security Council such as Britain, France, China and Russia, were implicated in the missing pages as well (China and Russia were still arming Iraq) and had little desire to expose the United States’ transgression. So all members accepted the new, abbreviated version.

But what was in the missing pages that the Bush administration felt was so threatening that they had to be removed? What information were Europeans privy to that Americans were not?

According to Niman, “The missing pages implicated twenty-four U.S.-based corporations and the successive Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. administration in connection with the illegal supplying of Saddam Hussein government with myriad weapons of mass destruction and the training to use them.” Groups documented in the original report that were supporting Iraq’s weapons programs prior to Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait included:

- Eastman Kodak, Dupont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Sperry, Hewlett-Packard, and Bechtel,

- U.S. government agencies such as the Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture and Department of Defense,

- Nuclear weapons labs such as Lawrence-Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia.

Beginning in 1983, the U.S. was involved in eighty shipments of biological and chemical components, including strains of botulism toxin, anthrax, gangrene bacteria, West Nile fever virus, and Dengue fever virus. These shipments continued even after Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran in 1984. Later, in 1988 Iraq used the chemical weapons against the Kurds.

But perhaps most importantly, the missing pages contain information that could potentially make a case for war crimes against officials within the Reagan and the Bush Sr. administrations. This includes the current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - for his collaboration with Saddam Hussein leading up to the massacres of Iraqi Kurds and acting as liaison for U.S. military aid during the war between Iraq and Iran.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Dr. D

[Leonardo]

Given the long-standing (friendly) association the US had with Saddam pre 9/11 I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of what is alleged is true. While the US is in the position it is, however, I don't see there being a political will amongst other nations to do anything about it.

Hypocrisy, maybe, but that's the reality of it. It seems some crimes do pay (and pay very well, according to Mr Cheney and co).

[The Silver Thong]

As little as this suprises it's another nail in the empty coffin. No matter how much evidience there is nothing as intense as a war crimes trial will ever come of this. As some on these forums will say what lies and Saddam had the UN in his pocket blah blah blah. The corruption is beyond discription.

[AROCES]

As far as can be verified, only the Baltimore Sun carried this story in the United States. Later it was apparently removed from its archives but a Baltimore Sun reporter was added to the White House Press Corps. Was there a deal made? The story originally appeared in the Baltimore Sun, December 10, 2002

A reporter. Let me guess, no name, right?

Throughout the winter of 2002, the Bush administration publicly accused Iraqi weapons declarations of being incomplete.

Hans Blix of the UN is the one who was not able to complete his inspection in 2 years.

The almost unbelievable reality of this situation is that it was the United States itself that had removed over 8,000 pages of the 11,800 page original report.

Wait a minute, I thought it was 7,000 pages????

This came as no surprise to Europeans however, as Iraq had made extra copies of the complete weapons declaration report and unofficially distributed them to journalists throughout Europe. The Berlin newspaper Die Tageszetung broke the story on December 19, 2002 in an article by Andreas Zumach.

Well, quite obvious Saddam was using the European journalist for his deceptions and trickery.

[eight bits]

Dr. D:

Is this your source for (most of) what you posted?

http://www.sources.com/SSR/Docs/ProjectCen...earbook2004.htm

(which itself cites Michael I. Niman, "What Bush Didn't Want You to Know about Iraq" The Humanist and ArtVoice March/April 2003)

From the Forum guidelines: Do: Always include a source link to properly credit where the story is from. Not doing so constitutes plagiarism.

Edited May 19, 2009 by eight bits
typo

[Dr. D]

A reporter. Let me guess, no name, right?

I'll try to find the name of the reporter. In the meantime, please provide us with a complete list of all the researchers who allegedly gave George Tenet the false information that later reached Bush. I mean that is an old claim of yours so let's see if you can deliver what you demand of others.

Hans Blix of the UN is the one who was not able to complete his inspection in 2 years.

Have you ever been to Iraq or is this more from your crystal ball? It's a big nation and if a government was trying to hide arms there, it would take considerable time. Of course, it might have helped if the earlier inspectors were not forced to run out of Iraq because George Sr. decided to drop bombs on them.

Wait a minute, I thought it was 7,000 pages????

My error. I guess the Bush regime was more corrupt than I remembered.

Well, quite obvious Saddam was using the European journalist for his deceptions and trickery.

Or he knew the deceptions of the Bush Administration and decided to protect himself. Pretty slick move, I'd say considering what happened after.

Dr. D:

Is this your source for (most of) what you posted?

http://www.sources.com/SSR/Docs/ProjectCen...earbook2004.htm

(which itself cites Michael I. Niman, "What Bush Didn't Want You to Know about Iraq" The Humanist and ArtVoice March/April 2003)

From the Forum guidelines: Do: Always include a source link to properly credit where the story is from. Not doing so constitutes plagiarism.

My apologies. Yes, it can be found there.

[AROCES]

Have you ever been to Iraq or is this more from your crystal ball? It's a big nation and if a government was trying to hide arms there, it would take considerable time. Of course, it might have helped if the earlier inspectors were not forced to run out of Iraq because George Sr. decided to drop bombs on them.

See, Saddam was monkeying around with the Weapons Inspector that created UN Resolution 17 and now it was Bush not because Saddam defying the UN Inspectors.

It is clear where you are coming from, and you know you dont make sense anymore, but you are too deep into it already you afraid to realize how you been duped all these years.

My error. I guess the Bush regime was more corrupt than I remembered.

You should have made it 50,000 pages.

For special effect.

Or he knew the deceptions of the Bush Administration and decided to protect himself. Pretty slick move, I'd say considering what happened after.

Hah! It's coming out now. You are on Saddam's side!

[Dr. D]

See, Saddam was monkeying around with the Weapons Inspector that created UN Resolution 17 and now it was Bush not because Saddam defying the UN Inspectors.

It is clear where you are coming from, and you know you dont make sense anymore, but you are too deep into it already you afraid to realize how you been duped all these years.

Don't you mean Article 17? And a reference please to indicate that an arms inspector "created" this bit of legislation.

Sure we have been duped. . . . anyone can tell by the tons of WMDs discovered in all parts of Iraq.

You should have made it 50,000 pages. For special effect.

The Bush mob was honorable . . . . they never stole more than they needed.,

Hah! It's coming out now. You are on Saddam's side!

Do I think that his trial was fair? NO

Do I think that the invasion of his nation was justified? NO

Do I think the U.S. should have had such a great influence in his trial? NO

If that's being on his side, enjoy it. Saddam was created by more than one U.S. presidents and was permitted to do whatever he wanted while the CIA turned a blind eye. He WAS supplied with chemicals from the U.S. (I don't care if it was the majority of chemicals or not!) and he was manipulated for the interests of the U.S.

ONly to a neocon mind are such things justified when later we accuse him of doing all the things he was encouraged to do or when his actions were conveniently ignored, thus suggesting acceptance.

[Lord Umbarger]

Rather he had WMD or not, he had been in violation of the cease fire agreement for right at eight years anyway. Clinton should have acted on his violations when he first started up with them. Bush the first should have gone straight to Bagdad, Bush the second should have had a better consensous of opinion.... of course, there would have always been decenters as long as the Russians and the French were living high off the hog selling him stuff that was banned under the cease fire.

[Lord Umbarger]

It just occured to me, people on the Left can't find the lost papers that they know where there yet, are certain that Saddam didn't have weapons that can't be found. Maybe those on the Right can say they never existed as well!!! See? I could talk circles around Rush Limbaugh! LOL!

[acidhead]

Do I think that his trial was fair? NO

Do I think that the invasion of his nation was justified? NO

Do I think the U.S. should have had such a great influence in his trial? NO

If that's being on his side, enjoy it. Saddam was created by more than one U.S. presidents and was permitted to do whatever he wanted while the CIA turned a blind eye. He WAS supplied with chemicals from the U.S. (I don't care if it was the majority of chemicals or not!) and he was manipulated for the interests of the U.S.

ONly to a neocon mind are such things justified when later we accuse him of doing all the things he was encouraged to do or when his actions were conveniently ignored, thus suggesting acceptance.

I couldn't agree more Dr. D

On a side note how many times has the MSM reported Chemical Ali was sentenced to death? I lost count.

Edited May 19, 2009 by acidhead

[danielost]

question if the europians knew this in 2002 and we didn't start the war until 2003 why did so many europians back us in that war.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

question if the europians knew this in 2002 and we didn't start the war until 2003 why did so many europians back us in that war.

What Europeans backed us in the war besides Britain? Poland? Enlighten me as to this overwhelming European support you speak of.

[danielost]

What Europeans backed us in the war besides Britain? Poland? Enlighten me as to this overwhelming European support you speak of.

Long before that though George W. was pushing the U.S. Congress and our Allies (as well as the U.N.) to try to generate support for the war. He was successful in engaging the U.K., Italy, Spain and several Eastern European countries to join us but larger allies most notably France and Germany were opposed to the war. Spain later withdrew mainly as a result of a change in government that occurred after a major al Qaeda attack in Spain just before elections.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...05140716AArkwtV

there i don't think spain or italy are the uk. or poland.

[acidhead]

What Europeans backed us in the war besides Britain? Poland? Enlighten me as to this overwhelming European support you speak of.

In March 2003, the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, Poland, Denmark, and Italy began preparing for the invasion of Iraq, with a host of public relations, and military moves. In his March 17, 2003 address to the nation, Bush demanded that Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay surrender and leave Iraq, giving them a 48-hour deadline.[57] But Bush actually began the bombing of Iraq on March 18, the day before his deadline expired. On March 18, 2003, the bombing of Iraq by the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Poland, Australia, and Denmark began, without UN support, unlike the first Gulf War or the invasion of Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

*******

The invasion of Iraq was strongly opposed by some traditional U.S. allies, including France, Germany, Chile, New Zealand, and Canada.

Their leaders argued that there was no evidence of WMD and that invading Iraq was not justified in the context of UNMOVIC's February 12, 2003 report. On February 15, 2003, a month before the invasion, there were many worldwide protests against the Iraq war, including a rally of 3 million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.[22] According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.[23] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Long before that though George W. was pushing the U.S. Congress and our Allies (as well as the U.N.) to try to generate support for the war. He was successful in engaging the U.K., Italy, Spain and several Eastern European countries to join us but larger allies most notably France and Germany were opposed to the war. Spain later withdrew mainly as a result of a change in government that occurred after a major al Qaeda attack in Spain just before elections.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...05140716AArkwtV

there i don't think spain or italy are the uk. or poland.

Neither Italy, nor Spain provided any military support for the war in Iraq. Only four countries, other than the U.S., did. Cool points to you if ya go and find out who they were.

[acidhead]

Long before that though George W. was pushing the U.S. Congress and our Allies (as well as the U.N.) to try to generate support for the war. He was successful in engaging the U.K., Italy, Spain and several Eastern European countries to join us but larger allies most notably France and Germany were opposed to the war. Spain later withdrew mainly as a result of a change in government that occurred after a major al Qaeda attack in Spain just before elections.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...05140716AArkwtV

there i don't think spain or italy are the uk. or poland.

No offense Daniel.... but.... yahooanswers.com?....LOL... :lol:

[acidhead]

Neither Italy, nor Spain provided any military support for the war in Iraq. Only four countries, other than the U.S., did. Cool points to you if ya go and find out who they were.

I just posted the info on page #1---post #15 of this thread... Here's a re-post:

In March 2003, the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, Poland, Denmark, and Italy began preparing for the invasion of Iraq, with a host of public relations, and military moves. In his March 17, 2003 address to the nation, Bush demanded that Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay surrender and leave Iraq, giving them a 48-hour deadline.[57] But Bush actually began the bombing of Iraq on March 18, the day before his deadline expired. On March 18, 2003, the bombing of Iraq by the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Poland, Australia, and Denmark began, without UN support, unlike the first Gulf War or the invasion of Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

*******

The invasion of Iraq was strongly opposed by some traditional U.S. allies, including France, Germany, Chile, New Zealand, and Canada.

Their leaders argued that there was no evidence of WMD and that invading Iraq was not justified in the context of UNMOVIC's February 12, 2003 report. On February 15, 2003, a month before the invasion, there were many worldwide protests against the Iraq war, including a rally of 3 million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.[22] According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.[23] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

I just posted the info on page #1---post #15 of this thread... Here's a re-post:

In March 2003, the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, Poland, Denmark, and Italy began preparing for the invasion of Iraq, with a host of public relations, and military moves. In his March 17, 2003 address to the nation, Bush demanded that Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay surrender and leave Iraq, giving them a 48-hour deadline.[57] But Bush actually began the bombing of Iraq on March 18, the day before his deadline expired. On March 18, 2003, the bombing of Iraq by the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Poland, Australia, and Denmark began, without UN support, unlike the first Gulf War or the invasion of Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

*******

The invasion of Iraq was strongly opposed by some traditional U.S. allies, including France, Germany, Chile, New Zealand, and Canada.

Their leaders argued that there was no evidence of WMD and that invading Iraq was not justified in the context of UNMOVIC's February 12, 2003 report. On February 15, 2003, a month before the invasion, there were many worldwide protests against the Iraq war, including a rally of 3 million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.[22] According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.[23] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

You're right. Spain did provide a limited amout of troops in Iraq. Touche my friend!!!!!!

[Dr. D]

question if the europians knew this in 2002 and we didn't start the war until 2003 why did so many europians back us in that war.

So many? There are 48 nations in Europe.

The United Kingdom, Poland, Romania, Denmark, Bulgaria, Albania, Czech Republic, Armenia, Bosnia & Herzegovina gave their aid to this “cause” to the tune of under 10,000 soldiers but many were designated as non-combatant.

Spain, Portugal, Norway, the Netherlands, Italy and Slovakia got out of the coalition.

That means that about 30% of the European nations participated and many in very limited and short termed roles.

[danielost]

Neither Italy, nor Spain provided any military support for the war in Iraq. Only four countries, other than the U.S., did. Cool points to you if ya go and find out who they were.

sorry spain had troops on the ground. The terriost threatened to bomb them if they didn't remove the troops. They removed the troops, then they were bombed.

[acidhead]

It wasn't called "the Coalition of the Willing" for nothing:

In November 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush, visiting Europe for a NATO summit, declared that "should Iraqi President Saddam Hussein choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him."[2]

Thereafter, the Bush administration briefly used the term "Coalition of the Willing" to refer to the countries who supported, militarily or verbally, the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent military presence in post-invasion Iraq since 2003. The original list prepared in March 2003 included 49 members.[3] Of those 49, only four besides the U.S. contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and Denmark). 33 provided some number of troops to support the occupation after the invasion was complete. Six members have no military.

Today, the official White House list of the coalition shows 48 member states;[3] Costa Rica was removed from the list since the support given was annulated by the Constitutional Court in a suit filed by citizen Luis Roberto Zamora, the Ombudsman and the Costa Rican Bar Association against President Pacheco's decision.[4] However, the relevance of several of the other nations that appear on the list has been questioned.[5] For example, Turkey remains on the list despite reneging on its support before the war began and denying U.S. forces passage to its border with Iraq during the invasion.

In December 2008 University of Illinois Professor Scott Althaus reported that he had learned that the White House was editing, and back-dating, revisions to the list of countries in the coalition.[7][8] Althaus found that some documents had been entirely removed from the record, and that others contradicted one another. The process he expected was for the original documents to remain, and to be supplemented by later revisions and updates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Willing

********

Iraq War critics such as John Pilger have pointed out that 98% of the military is from the U.S. and Britain and is therefore accurately described as a predominantly Anglo-American force rather than as a coalition.

Salon.com columnist Laura McClure, noting the large amounts of foreign aid money being offered in exchange for supporting the Iraq War, referred to Bush's coalition as the "Coalition of the billing".[9]

U.S. Senator Robert Byrd, ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, has referred to the coalition formed for the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the acronym COW, expressing his concern that the United States was being "milked" as a "cash cow."

Michael Moore devoted one sub-chapter to the Coalition in his book Dude, Where's My Country?. He remarked that most countries in the Coalition did not really help and that several had no army. He dubbed it "The Coalition of the Coerced, Bribed, and Intimidated".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_...riticism_of_use

Edited May 19, 2009 by acidhead

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

sorry spain had troops on the ground. The terriost threatened to bomb them if they didn't remove the troops. They removed the troops, then they were bombed.

No, I know. I acknowledged that in my other post man.

[Dr. D]

Rather he had WMD or not, he had been in violation of the cease fire agreement for right at eight years anyway. Clinton should have acted on his violations when he first started up with them. Bush the first should have gone straight to Bagdad, Bush the second should have had a better consensous of opinion.... of course, there would have always been decenters as long as the Russians and the French were living high off the hog selling him stuff that was banned under the cease fire.

The stated purpose of the invasion was to find and remove WMDs. Rumsfeld even told Americans, "We know where they are . . . ." Well, none were found and now it is generally agreed that none ever existed.

The administration then . . . and all the neocons falling in robotic line . . . . changed the theme of the war to suggest that it was to remove Saddam, the horrible dictator.

If one knows the culture and character of Middle Eastern people, they would recognize that Saddam was not a dictator to them and that they cannot and will not accept a democratic form of government for very long.

[AROCES]

Don't you mean Article 17? And a reference please to indicate that an arms inspector "created" this bit of legislation.

Sure we have been duped. . . . anyone can tell by the tons of WMDs discovered in all parts of Iraq.

What I mean was the 17 UN resolutions of the UN on Iraq to come clean that Saddam continously defied, the reason why Hans Blix can't complete his Inspection.

Yes, we been duped by Saddam. But it does not score political points, Bush lied does.

Do I think that his trial was fair? NO

Do I think that the invasion of his nation was justified? NO

Do I think the U.S. should have had such a great influence in his trial? NO

If that's being on his side, enjoy it. Saddam was created by more than one U.S. presidents and was permitted to do whatever he wanted while the CIA turned a blind eye. He WAS supplied with chemicals from the U.S. (I don't care if it was the majority of chemicals or not!) and he was manipulated for the interests of the U.S.

ONly to a neocon mind are such things justified when later we accuse him of doing all the things he was encouraged to do or when his actions were conveniently ignored, thus suggesting acceptance.

Like I said, we tried other ways to tame Saddam and you still complain.

what you prefer was to leave him alone and turn a blind eye on the mass graves and horror he is spreading in the Middle East, and you keep promoting your global community.

Edited May 20, 2009 by AROCES