INTL WIKILEAKS STRUCK A DEAL WITH ISRAEL OVER CABLE LEAKS

TECH32

Veteran Member
1. That isn't proof - it is just more word shuffling.
2. So the government claims they had an opportunity to have saved lives and they rejected it? Seriously?
But they also admit that they are 'outraged' by this outing of documents as it is endangering lives and so they are going to take more of our freedoms away because that is the only way to protect national security.

Doesn't that just smell of something rotten somewhere all over the place?

Something is not right here and I don't trust these 'sources' when things don't make sense.

Emily - the document was released by the State Department. If you want to see actual PROOF greater than these reports, I suggest you contact Hilary Clinton directly.

Absent that, please STFU because your statements are lowering our collective IQ and have done irreparable harm to whatever dignity you might have had walking into this conversation.
 

Emily

One Day Closer
Emily - the document was released by the State Department. If you want to see actual PROOF greater than these reports, I suggest you contact Hilary Clinton directly.

Absent that, please STFU because your statements are lowering our collective IQ and have done irreparable harm to whatever dignity you might have had walking into this conversation.

Aside from your need to use vulgarities to communicate - I believe that shows that you are one with a low IQ.

Of course we have NEVER had something released by one group to cover themselves only to find out later that it was not accurate. The government NEVER lies - right?

IF this is true then why isn't everyone ranting about the fact that the government had an opportunity to protect the informants in Iraq who were helping our military and turned them down?

Instead - we are holding up some ruse that Israel DID make such a deal - again with no proof.

I will not dignify your need to use vulgarities by granting your wish in any shape way or form.

Adults discuss things and may agree to disagree. Children use the kind of language and attitude you did. I don't take orders from children.
 

Emily

One Day Closer
Uh... you asked for proof that Wikileaks approached the US Government to see what sensitive information may harm sources.. did you not? Is this not proof?




Yes, the Government is an incompetent, corrupt organization.. I that that's what we've been saying for years, if not decades.

I said it in another post, but I will repeat it again here -

IF this were true, then where are the rants by these same 'news sources' against the fact that the US would turn down the chance to protect the informants in Iraq and Afghanistan who trusted the US and would now be exposed and face their death?

THAT is the real story here and everyone doesn't see a problem that this is not the focus instead of what Israel did or didn't do and whether or not Wiki is right or wrong for printing it?

Our government turned their backs on people who have allied with us and it is not a huge story drawing outrage from every direction?

Don't you see how this makes it all seem bizarre and not pass the smell tests?
 

Jeffrey Thomason

Veteran Member
I said it in another post, but I will repeat it again here -

IF this were true, then where are the rants by these same 'news sources' against the fact that the US would turn down the chance to protect the informants in Iraq and Afghanistan who trusted the US and would now be exposed and face their death?

THAT is the real story here and everyone doesn't see a problem that this is not the focus instead of what Israel did or didn't do and whether or not Wiki is right or wrong for printing it?

Our government turned their backs on people who have allied with us and it is not a huge story drawing outrage from every direction?

Don't you see how this makes it all seem bizarre and not pass the smell tests?

I wasn't speaking to the merits of the OP or the focus on Israel, just the specific facts in this matter.

1) That Wikileaks offered the US Government some actions in order to reduce "damage" or "harm" to individuals contained within the Cables.

2) That the US Government turned down such offer.

If a similar offer was extended to Israel, or any other country in the cables, and accepted then good for them!
 

Emily

One Day Closer
I wasn't speaking to the merits of the OP or the focus on Israel, just the specific facts in this matter.

1) That Wikileaks offered the US Government some actions in order to reduce "damage" or "harm" to individuals contained within the Cables.

2) That the US Government turned down such offer.

If a similar offer was extended to Israel, or any other country in the cables, and accepted then good for them!


And no one is seeing the irony in this thing that the entire WIKILEAKS issue is all about the governments lying all over the place and yet these claims by the state department are accepted as fact?

There really is no way to know what is truth or fiction anymore so WIKILEAKS succeeded in their goal.
 

Jeffrey Thomason

Veteran Member
And no one is seeing the irony in this thing that the entire WIKILEAKS issue is all about the governments lying all over the place and yet these claims by the state department are accepted as fact?

What claims? There are no "claims" there are two letters that were sent to their respective addressees... what possible room is there for ambiguity?
There really is no way to know what is truth or fiction anymore so WIKILEAKS succeeded in their goal.

Their goal? Oh do enlighten us.
 

Emily

One Day Closer
What claims? There are no "claims" there are two letters that were sent to their respective addressees... what possible room is there for ambiguity?


Their goal? Oh do enlighten us.

So you believe that you can believe whatever the State Department says? All righty then.

And you believe that the Wikileaks destroying ALL credibility of ALL governments around the world destroying anyone's ability to believe or trust anyone else is a good thing then you are the one who will have to do the enlightening because I believe that while there are evil people, there are also good ones too and our military are in harms way and all those who may be good have just been handed over for execution and those who build their lives on lies are still being believed by folks like you.

Such wisdom - there must be an award for it somewhere.
 

Jeffrey Thomason

Veteran Member
So you believe that you can believe whatever the State Department says? All righty then.

No.. I believe that Wikileaks sent a little addressed to a US Ambassador (representing the State Department), because I've seen the letter with my own eyes (linked above). I believe the State Department replied to the letter, because I've seen the letter with my own eyes (also linked above).

What is the State Department "lying" about in this case?

And you believe that the Wikileaks destroying ALL credibility of ALL governments around the world destroying anyone's ability to believe or trust anyone else is a good thing then you are the one who will have to do the enlightening because I believe that while there are evil people, there are also good ones too and our military are in harms way and all those who may be good have just been handed over for execution and those who build their lives on lies are still being believed by folks like you.

Such wisdom - there must be an award for it somewhere.

I'm pretty sure that the governments around the world are doing a fine job of destroying their own credibility, if the Cablegate cables wake up some sheeple to that fact, all the better.

The Afghan War Logs and the Iraq War Logs are a far different matter (IMHO) and should have been pursued with at least a quarter of the ferocity that this leak was. Though to this day we still have not heard of a single death attributed to any of the information that was released, and its been quite a few months now.
 

TECH32

Veteran Member
Aside from your need to use vulgarities to communicate - I believe that shows that you are one with a low IQ.

Of course we have NEVER had something released by one group to cover themselves only to find out later that it was not accurate. The government NEVER lies - right?

IF this is true then why isn't everyone ranting about the fact that the government had an opportunity to protect the informants in Iraq who were helping our military and turned them down?

Instead - we are holding up some ruse that Israel DID make such a deal - again with no proof.

I will not dignify your need to use vulgarities by granting your wish in any shape way or form.

Adults discuss things and may agree to disagree. Children use the kind of language and attitude you did. I don't take orders from children.

I have been accused of many things up here, but I don't recall ever having a low IQ as being one of them. There are times when vulgarities (which, I would point out, I did not use - but rather an acronym for such) are appropriate to make a point.

Assange claimed to have sent letters to the State Department. The State Department released these letters, along with their responses, to the media last week.

Yet you bellow for PROOF! You think they are ALL lying! That it's all part of some conspiracy!

Now, if one party or the other denied there ever being letters sent, then you might have a point.

But that's not the case here. The letters themselves were released and BOTH parties have confirmed they were sent and received.

I am also not assuming that Israel made any deal - I merely stated that if they did, so what?

I fail to see how you can even attempt to keep this conversation going. In fact, I think you are starting to border on trolling here.
 

Emily

One Day Closer
No.. I believe that Wikileaks sent a little addressed to a US Ambassador (representing the State Department), because I've seen the letter with my own eyes (linked above). I believe the State Department replied to the letter, because I've seen the letter with my own eyes (also linked above).

What is the State Department "lying" about in this case?
Oh good grief. You are telling me that you have seen the letter IN PERSON and it can be validated and you are willing to stand by the fact that OUR State Department actually refused to do whatever they could to stop this? There is so much wrong with this that I truly give up. You are gullible and there is no cure for that.
Do you have Obama's birth certificate too because we have been looking for that?
I'm pretty sure that the governments around the world are doing a fine job of destroying their own credibility, if the Cablegate cables wake up some sheeple to that fact, all the better.
Oh so this is just a nice little exercise in getting the truth out there and we should all just not worry about anything getting out. Hey - I think we should demand that the US government unlock ALL their documents and let all of us just peruse it all and to heck with passwords and locked doors. Right?
The Afghan War Logs and the Iraq War Logs are a far different matter (IMHO) and should have been pursued with at least a quarter of the ferocity that this leak was. Though to this day we still have not heard of a single death attributed to any of the information that was released, and its been quite a few months now.
LOL So you think that we hear about everything that happens? Your trust of our government and the media is pretty amazing. I have to give you credit.

Could you provide me with a link of all those who have disappeared and died in the last few months just so we can all make sure that none of those who were exposed have been killed? I haven't had a chance to take a look for myself yet.

After all, I am sure that the nice people who are our enemies will never harm a hair on the head of informants. After all, the US never kills enemies so why should our enemies do that. Nope - they probably are all having a great time laughing at all this and partying.
 

Emily

One Day Closer
I have been accused of many things up here, but I don't recall ever having a low IQ as being one of them. There are times when vulgarities (which, I would point out, I did not use - but rather an acronym for such) are appropriate to make a point.

Assange claimed to have sent letters to the State Department. The State Department released these letters, along with their responses, to the media last week.

Yet you bellow for PROOF! You think they are ALL lying! That it's all part of some conspiracy!

Now, if one party or the other denied there ever being letters sent, then you might have a point.

But that's not the case here. The letters themselves were released and BOTH parties have confirmed they were sent and received.

I am also not assuming that Israel made any deal - I merely stated that if they did, so what?

I fail to see how you can even attempt to keep this conversation going. In fact, I think you are starting to border on trolling here.


1. An acronym for a vulgarity is still a vulgarity.
2. Trolling? That is rich. Wikileaks proves that our government lies. Wikileaks is dealing in stolen property. But THEY are the ones we are to believe. So you decide that liars and theives are who you stand with.

Got it.

I agree - there is no point in continuing this insanity when people are holding up liars and thieves as their source for 'truth.'

Question: When vulgarities do not work for you then you start name calling by calling me a troll?

And you claim to have a high IQ?
 

Jeffrey Thomason

Veteran Member
Now this is just starting to get fun...

Oh good grief. You are telling me that you have seen the letter IN PERSON and it can be validated and you are willing to stand by the fact that OUR State Department actually refused to do whatever they could to stop this? There is so much wrong with this that I truly give up. You are gullible and there is no cure for that.
Do you have Obama's birth certificate too because we have been looking for that?

When two parties say they sent letters, and two letters are released to the media, and neither side questions the contents. I think we can say that yes, letters were exchanged and the contents released to the media are accurate.

Unless you are suggesting collusion between the State Department and Wikileaks, which makes the entire question moot.
Oh so this is just a nice little exercise in getting the truth out there and we should all just not worry about anything getting out. Hey - I think we should demand that the US government unlock ALL their documents and let all of us just peruse it all and to heck with passwords and locked doors. Right?

Perhaps we should demand the US government give a damn about electronic security and not try and shoot a cruise missile at the messenger?
LOL So you think that we hear about everything that happens? Your trust of our government and the media is pretty amazing. I have to give you credit.

Could you provide me with a link of all those who have disappeared and died in the last few months just so we can all make sure that none of those who were exposed have been killed? I haven't had a chance to take a look for myself yet.

Of course we don't hear about everything, but I'm willing to bet there'd be a few pissed off family members beating down the media to publicly hang Assange.

After all, I am sure that the nice people who are our enemies will never harm a hair on the head of informants. After all, the US never kills enemies so why should our enemies do that. Nope - they probably are all having a great time laughing at all this and partying.

You do realize that the documents released have had the names redacted by the media organizations, right?

Do me a favor.. look at this link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-embassy-cables-key-points

Find me something you object to being released.

Just one thing. I'm interested in hearing about it.
 
.....

OMG!!!! :lol:


Look, the Political Commissars are out in force again. Same people trying to strip away First Amendment Rights straight out of our Constitution and put you in jail, just as they have accomphlised in Europe and Canada, for critizing Isreal, and by their twisted logic, Jews in general.



Your power to frighten Americans is fast slipping away.


Satan? who invented Satan?

Satan and his followers hate Israel....it makes it real easy to guess who the bad guys are...........



Give it a rest child. It is Satan's followers who can't stand open discussion and TRUTH to come out.
 
............

Rumsfeld's Handshake Deal with Saddam
by Norman Solomon

Christmas came 11 days early for Donald Rumsfeld two years ago when the news broke that American forces had pulled Saddam Hussein from a spidery hole. During interviews about the capture, on CBS and ABC, the Pentagon's top man was upbeat. And he didn't have to deal with a question that Lesley Stahl or Peter Jennings could have logically chosen to ask: "Secretary Rumsfeld, you met with Saddam almost exactly 20 years ago and shook his hand. What kind of guy was he?"

Now, Saddam Hussein has gone on trial, but such questions remain unasked by mainstream U.S. journalists. Rumsfeld met with Hussein in Baghdad on behalf of the Reagan administration, opening up strong diplomatic and military ties that lasted through six more years of Saddam's murderous brutality.

As it happens, the initial trial of Saddam and co-defendants is focusing on grisly crimes that occurred the year before Rumsfeld gripped his hand. "The first witness, Ahmad Hassan Muhammad, 38, riveted the courtroom with the scenes of torture he witnessed after his arrest in 1982, including a meat grinder with human hair and blood under it," the New York Times reported Tuesday. And: "At one point, Mr. Muhammad briefly broke down in tears as he recalled how his brother was tortured with electrical shocks in front of their 77-year-old father."

The victims were Shiites -- 143 men and adolescent boys, according to the charges -- tortured and killed in the Iraqi town of Dujail after an assassination attempt against Saddam in early July of 1982. Donald Rumsfeld became the Reagan administration's Middle East special envoy 15 months later.

On Dec. 20, 1983, the Washington Post reported that Rumsfeld "visited Iraq in what U.S. officials said was an attempt to bolster the already improving U.S. relations with that country." A couple of days later, the New York Times cited a "senior American official" who "said that the United States remained ready to establish full diplomatic relations with Iraq and that it was up to the Iraqis."

On March 29, 1984, the Times reported: "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name." Washington had some goodies for Saddam's regime, the Times account noted, including "agricultural-commodity credits totaling $840 million." And while "no results of the talks have been announced" after the Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad three months earlier, "Western European diplomats assume that the United States now exchanges some intelligence on Iran with Iraq."

A few months later, on July 17, 1984, a Times article with a Baghdad dateline sketchily filled in a bit more information, saying that the U.S. government "granted Iraq about $2 billion in commodity credits to buy food over the last two years." The story recalled that "Donald Rumsfeld, the former Middle East special envoy, held two private meetings with the Iraqi president here," and the dispatch mentioned in passing that "State Department human rights reports have been uniformly critical of the Iraqi President, contending that he ran a police state."

Full diplomatic relations between Washington and Baghdad were restored 11 months after Rumsfeld's December 1983 visit with Saddam. He went on to use poison gas later in the decade, actions which scarcely harmed relations with the Reagan administration.

As the most senior U.S. official to visit Iraq in six years, Rumsfeld had served as Reagan's point man for warming relations with Saddam. In 1984, the administration engineered the sale to Baghdad of 45 ostensibly civilian-use Bell 214ST helicopters. Saddam's military found them quite useful for attacking Kurdish civilians with poison gas in 1988, according to U.S. intelligence sources. "In response to the gassing," journalist Jeremy Scahill has pointed out, "sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most U.S. technology. The measure was killed by the White House."

The USA's big media institutions did little to illuminate how Washington and business interests combined to strengthen and arm Saddam Hussein during many of his worst crimes. "In the 1980s and afterward, the United States underwrote 24 American corporations so they could sell to Saddam Hussein weapons of mass destruction, which he used against Iran, at that time the prime Middle Eastern enemy of the United States," writes Ben Bagdikian, a former assistant managing editor of the Washington Post, in his book The New Media Monopoly. "Hussein used U.S.-supplied poison gas" against Iranians and Kurds "while the United States looked the other way."

Of course the crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime were not just in the future when Rumsfeld came bearing gifts in 1983. Saddam's large-scale atrocities had been going on for a long time. Among them were the methodical torture and murders in Dujail that have been front-paged this week in coverage of the former dictator's trial; they occurred 17 months before Rumsfeld arrived in Baghdad.

Today, inside the corporate media frame, history can be supremely relevant when it focuses on Hussein's torture and genocide. But the historic assistance of the U.S. government and American firms is largely off the subject and beside the point.

A photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand on Dec. 20, 1983, is easily available. (It takes a few seconds to find via Google.) But the picture has been notably absent from the array of historic images that U.S. media outlets are providing to viewers and readers in coverage of the Saddam Hussein trial. And journalistic mention of Rumsfeld's key role in aiding the Iraqi tyrant has been similarly absent. Apparently, in the world according to U.S. mass media, some history matters profoundly and some doesn't matter at all.

Norman Solomon is the author of the new book "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." For information, go to:

www.WarMadeEasy.com.
 
..........

16 January 2003 | mail this article | print |
This article is part of the series: Iraq-US-connection
[ 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 ]
Email:

Personal meeting between Saddam and Rumsfeld
American poison gas for Saddam, courtesy of Rumsfeld
By Daan de Wit

This article has been translated into English by Marienella Meulensteen

By having a personal meeting with Saddam Hussein in 1983, the American Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld took care of it that American companies started to deliver poison gas to Iraq. He cleared the way 'for U.S. companies to sell Baghdad biological and chemical weapons components, including anthrax and bubonic plague cultures, according to newly declassified U.S. Government documents', as it is to be read in The Times. 'Mr Rumsfeld’s 90-minute meeting with Saddam, preceded by a warm handshake [...] was captured on film [...]'. See the footage at the bottom of this article.

The policy of the U.S. lasted until just before the attack on Kuwait

The Washington Post writes: '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 Times: 'The policy was followed with such vigour over the next seven years that on July 25, 1990, only one week before Saddam invaded Kuwait, the U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad met Saddam to assure him that President Bush “wanted better and deeper relations”.' That same Ambassador, April Glaspie, gave Saddam the green light for the invasion of Kuwait (see this DeepJournal).

U.S. main supplier Saddam

'To prevent Iraqi defeat in the Iran-Iraq war, which was started by Iraq and lasted from 1980 to 1988, the Reagan Administration began supplying Saddam with battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop movements. By the end of the decade, Washington had authorised the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications. These included poisonous chemicals and biological viruses, among them anthrax and bubonic plague.' Up to this day, the Americans have problems to keep the Plague inside their laboratories. Today it became known that the lost Plague samples from the Texan university have been found again.'According to an affidavit sworn by Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official during the Reagan Administration, the U.S. “actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third-country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required.” Mr. Teicher said that William Casey, the former CIA Director, used a Chilean front company to supply Baghdad with cluster bombs.'

Anthrax

'A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee disclosed that dozens of biological agents were shipped to Iraq in the mid-1980s under license from the U.S. Commerce Department, including strains of anthrax. Anthrax has been identified by the Pentagon as a key component of Saddam’s biological weapons program.' Anthrax, the stuff that scared everyone so much some time ago (except for Vice President Cheney, because he had been vaccinated long before) because Al Qaida was sending it around, until it became known that it originated from an American army laboratory.
Halabja

'In November 1983, a month before Mr. Rumsfeld’s first visit to Baghdad, George Shultz, the Secretary of State, was given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops were resorting to “almost daily use of CW (chemical weapons) against the Iranians”.' The Times as well as the Washington Post cite in this connection the well-known poison gas attack on the Kurds in Halabja, but that was alleged to have been committed by Iran and not by Irak. See part one in this series.
 
...........

Bush & Cheney Are Misinformed
Jude Wanniski
March 25, 2002



Memo To: Karl Rove, President’s political counselor
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: Saddam Did Not Gas the Kurds

I have not been bothering you much with these open memos, Karl, but I have to do so today, as I’ve spent the weekend watching both President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney saying over and over again that we have to get rid of Saddam Hussein because he has killed his own people with poison gas. President Bush cited last week’s New Yorker article by Jeffrey Goldberg, which gives an account of the 1988 gassings based on 14-year-old hearsay. On three different Sunday talk shows, Cheney repeated the charge that Saddam killed as many as 100,000 Iraqi Kurds, in this manner. What I am telling you publicly, Karl, is that this DID NOT HAPPEN.

The reason I am addressing this information to you is that you are the only member of President Bush’s inner circle whose total responsibility is his political success. That means you want him to be the best informed man in his own administration, for if he acts on misinformation, he can make enormous errors that will damage him with the electorate. So I tell you, Karl, that he is misinformed on this issue, as is the VP. There is no possibility that Saddam gassed his own people and no evidence that he did. None. Forget Iraq’s protests that he never did, as I would not base any conclusion on “not guilty” pleas from Saddam or his team. But all the evidence is that whatever bad stuff he has done as Iraq’s political leader, he has never presided over troops who dropped poison gas on his own Iraqi citizens.

There are other issues involving Saddam that clearly cause concern to our government, and to the governments just visited by Cheney, but this is the one that connects when we think of Saddam as being the embodiment of evil. Hey, I remember being tear gassed by the police at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, 1968, when I was a reporter for the National Observer. I could understand why the police gassed the anti-war demonstrators. I could never have understood if the police had used poison gas.

There is no report in the history of the world of a political leader using poison gas against his own people in an open field for no reason. Adolf Hitler rounded Jews up and gassed them because he believed them to be subhuman. Saddam did not do anything like this and a little bit of effort on your part will persuade you, the President and the Vice President, that it did not happen.

If it had, why does Saddam get along as well as he is these days with the Kurds? And can you imagine the Iraqi general who supposedly supervised the gassing of 100,000 Kurds defecting from Iraq and being spirited to England by the Kurds. Can you imagine Ariel Sharon helping Herman Goering make his way out of Germany to Argentina? And when the general gets there, he announces that he did not use poison gas on Iraqis. I’m afraid the President has been briefed with selective information, Karl.

You should first pitch out the New Yorker report by Jeffrey Goldberg, who offers no evidence, only quotes from various Kurds who seem to remember gas being used.

My big problem with Goldberg is that he told me three years ago that he had served in the Israeli army, which made him a dual citizen of the United States and Israel.


I read his long article and can tell you it is worthless as “evidence.” Even at the time, Turkey said it could not tell whether Kurds showing up on its side of the border had been gassed or were victims of malnutrition. Not that Goldberg is malicious, only that he had a serious bias going into the assignment and there is no evidence he made any attempt to test his own initial hypothesis. Having a dual citizenship with the U.S. and Israel might be okay in ordinary times, but when push comes to shove, you cannot serve two masters.

Goldberg has thrown in with Richard Perle’s team, and as you can readily see in his article, he quotes Jim Woolsey, who is Perle’s agent. Even before the article hit the newsstands, Woolsey was on national tv telling audiences to rush out and buy the New Yorker to read it.

Go to Amazon.com, Karl, and look for the author Stephen Pelletiere. His book is entitled Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Gulf, published in 2001 by Praeger. It is $70 and worth the money. Pelletiere is also the author of the 1990 report I have previously cited that exonerated Iraq from the gassing at Halabja. It is listed by Amazon but is "out of print." I believe it was the report Jim Baker cited with Tariq Aziz in their 1990 Geneva meeting, telling Aziz he did not believe the story of Iraq gassing the Kurds.

Pelletiere is retired at age 70 and living in central Pennsylvania. He is a Ph.D. in political science and was the chief of the CIA Iraq desk at Langley in the 1980s.

He left the CIA in 1987 to become a lecturer at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., and was sent in 1988 to investigate Halabja.


He based his conclusions that the "several hundred Kurds" who died at Halabja must have been killed by Iranians, because the deaths were caused by cyanide gas, which Iraq had not used in the war against Iran (they used mustard gas), and which, says Pelletiere, they had no ability to produce.

He says the Iranians blamed the deaths on the Iraqis and won the public-relations war that followed, even though journalists at Halabja could see the symptoms being caused by cyanide gas.

In his new book, Pelletiere again addresses the question of the alleged gassing later in 1988, which Secretary of State George Shultz at the time said resulted in the deaths of 100,000 Kurds. Pelletiere argues that story was a complete fabrication, and that to this day no bodies were ever found. His account is consistent with the account of the Iraqi government, but as time goes on, the Shultz account still winds up being accepted by our press corps.... and our President.

I’ll return to this issue again and again, Karl, until the President and Vice President give some indication they have been correctly informed on it. Following is Dr. Pelletiere’s brief account of Halabja. I spoke to him last week by telephone and he told me: “You are on solid ground in saying Saddam did not gas his own people.”
* * * * *

On March 16, 1988, at Halabja, an Iraqi Kurdish city near Baghdad, the Iraqis and the Iranians both used gas. The Iranians, it seemed, had come to see the advantages of chemical warfare under circumstances advantageous to them - not mustard gas, the persistent agent that the Iraqis used, but non-persistent forms that disorient the enemy but then are quickly dissipated, allowing the human wave attacks to pour through.

At Halabja the action developed like this. The rebel Kurdish leader, Jalal Talabani, facilitated the introduction of Iranian forces into Halabja by night so that the Iraqi commander was unaware of the penetration. In the morning, the Iranians burst from hiding, overwhelmed the Iraqi garrison, and drove it from the city.

The Iraqi commander, in an attempt to regain possession, called in a chemical barrage (of mustard gas). This had the effect of disconcerting the Iranians, which allowed the Iraqis to regain possession. The Iranians now sprang their surprise, as they dumped a blood agent on the reoccupying Iraqis.

Mustard gas from the Iraqi side, cyanide-based gas from the Iranian side -- and the citizens of Halabja caught in the middle. Several hundred Kurdish civilians were killed during these successive attacks.

However, when the Iranians took back the city, they photographed the dead Kurds and subsequently publicized the deaths, making out that Iraqi gas had killed the civilians and denying that they had used gas as well.

Reporters let into the city to inspect the devastation noted, however, that most of the dead Kurds were blue in their extremities, implying that they had been killed by a blood agent, a chemical that Iraq did not use and, at this time, lacked the capacity to produce. This fact was noted in the press accounts and also by officials of several nongovernmental agencies called to inspect the scene.

Later, the U.S. government confirmed the fact that both sides had used gas and averred that, in all likelihood, Iranian gas killed the Kurds; however, this new information was not revealed until 1990, so the impression remained in the public mind that the Iraqis alone were responsible for the gassings.




Many Americans worship the Father of Lies, and they are all of them decieved.


Only now that they have lost everything and see the dictatorship rise around them do they awake.
 
Top