Obama Praises McCain’s Comments on Iraq

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 26 2008, 05:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 26 2008, 05:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 26 2008, 05:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Denny, I agree with you. I just think that over-hyping a 7-month change of opinion on a 6 year war is kind of silly - for all the reasons you described.</div>

Well if there weren't much of a difference they wouldn't have Peteraus and Crocker come in after seven months to testify before Congress would they?
</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>That's simply crap. Obama wanted to end the war and bring all combat forces home before the surge. Now that the surge that Obama opposed is working and Maliki is calling for a troop withdraw suddenly Obama's been right all along?</div>

What the heck are you talking about? Been right all along? Leading the witness?
</div>

I was simply quoting one of huevonkiller's articles and responding to it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 27 2008, 08:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 26 2008, 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Denny, I agree with you. I just think that over-hyping a 7-month change of opinion on a 6 year war is kind of silly - for all the reasons you described.</div>
What I don't get is how people can be against "war" but support the troops and now want to escalate our military involvement in Afghanistan.
</div>

What's confusing about that? People are against the Iraq War, however want the troops to do as well as they can while they are in the war/occupation. Iraq and Afghanistan are two different situations and people against Iraq want to concentrate on Afghanistan where they believe we should have had more troops all along.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>

What I don't get is how people can be against "war" but support the troops and now want to escalate our military involvement in Afghanistan.</div>

What's confusing about that? People are against the Iraq War, however want the troops to do as well as they can while they are in the war/occupation. Iraq and Afghanistan are two different situations and people against Iraq want to concentrate on Afghanistan where they believe we should have had more troops all along.
</div>

I guess people are expressing their concern about where we distribute our troops, and what we have them doing. Where we send our children off to war and for what reasons are a very personal concern for many Americans. We know that we cannot have complete trust in the decision making processes, so we scrutinize the decisions more.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 12:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>People weren't against the Iraq war when it started. Bush had an approval rating through the roof when he made his "mission accomplished" speech signaling the end of the actual war and the start of rebuilding.

Maybe people will support a quagmire in Afghanistan (ask the Ruskies about that one) because the press won't piss all over it to change public opinion, but it's still a massive mistake.

If we're going to war, it should be for a purpose. Revenge is the worst of all purposes, and rebuilding a nation that was in the stone ages to that same level has already been accomplished. At least in Iraq, we spent $600B (and counting) rebuilding a modern nation with schools and universities and hospitals and natural resources that can support a healthy economy. In Afghanistan, we're putting the heroin exporters back in business, because they have nothing else to build an economy around.</div>

Not everyone was supportive of the Iraq invasion. Most were, but not all.

How about we go to war just so that we can take resources for ourselves? It's not revenge, its domination and control. If our oil costs are going through the roof, why not just take someone else's supply so that it brings our costs down a bit? Seems logical to me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I grew up in the 60s, Vietnam era. I know the anti-war crowd to not support the troops, but rather to throw baggies of urine and feces at them when they returned from duty. I find it difficult to believe that they've truly changed to a position of "support the troops" other than giving it lip service and realizing it is good for winning elections. The rest of the people who use the phrase seem to be parrots.</div>

You are generalizing people, and not giving each opinion the benefit of the doubt- stereotyping people to a large degree. I have no doubt what you have experienced in your own lifetime, but I can tell you that not everyone follows a specific set of beliefs that you think they do - perhaps just many that you have encountered. Why not get to know people a little better before rushing to judgements like that? Peace, Denny.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 12:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>People weren't against the Iraq war when it started. Bush had an approval rating through the roof when he made his "mission accomplished" speech signaling the end of the actual war and the start of rebuilding.

Maybe people will support a quagmire in Afghanistan (ask the Ruskies about that one) because the press won't piss all over it to change public opinion, but it's still a massive mistake.

If we're going to war, it should be for a purpose. Revenge is the worst of all purposes, and rebuilding a nation that was in the stone ages to that same level has already been accomplished. At least in Iraq, we spent $600B (and counting) rebuilding a modern nation with schools and universities and hospitals and natural resources that can support a healthy economy. In Afghanistan, we're putting the heroin exporters back in business, because they have nothing else to build an economy around.

I grew up in the 60s, Vietnam era. I know the anti-war crowd to not support the troops, but rather to throw baggies of urine and feces at them when they returned from duty. I find it difficult to believe that they've truly changed to a position of "support the troops" other than giving it lip service and realizing it is good for winning elections. The rest of the people who use the phrase seem to be parrots.</div>

People for the most part weren't against the Iraq war because they actually believed our government when they started talking about mushroom clouds and reminding people how crazy Sadaam was. When everyone figured out it was all exaggerations or lies then people started to want to get out of there and Bush's rating went down. I don't believe we're in Afghanistan or rebuild or invade (hopefully its just to get the terrorists and get out, but ya never know I suppose). Plus the mujahadeen had the backing of America with the Soviets tried to invade, which country is going to back Al-Qaeda? Iran? Will they give enough resources to make America get out?

 

Didn't we invade Afganastan before heading over to Iraq? No one questioned that invasion either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 28 2008, 01:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Didn't we invade Afganastan before heading over to Iraq? No one questioned that invasion either.</div>

Yep. At that time no one questioned anything really.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 28 2008, 12:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You are generalizing people, and not giving each opinion the benefit of the doubt- stereotyping people to a large degree. I have no doubt what you have experienced in your own lifetime, but I can tell you that not everyone follows a specific set of beliefs that you think they do - perhaps just many that you have encountered. Why not get to know people a little better before rushing to judgements like that? Peace, Denny.</div>

Why don't you ask Al Gore what he went through when he walked through campus at Harvard with his military uniform on?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 28 2008, 02:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 28 2008, 12:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You are generalizing people, and not giving each opinion the benefit of the doubt- stereotyping people to a large degree. I have no doubt what you have experienced in your own lifetime, but I can tell you that not everyone follows a specific set of beliefs that you think they do - perhaps just many that you have encountered. Why not get to know people a little better before rushing to judgements like that? Peace, Denny.</div>

Why don't you ask Al Gore what he went through when he walked through campus at Harvard with his military uniform on?
</div>

I just sent an email to him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 28 2008, 02:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 28 2008, 02:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 28 2008, 12:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You are generalizing people, and not giving each opinion the benefit of the doubt- stereotyping people to a large degree. I have no doubt what you have experienced in your own lifetime, but I can tell you that not everyone follows a specific set of beliefs that you think they do - perhaps just many that you have encountered. Why not get to know people a little better before rushing to judgements like that? Peace, Denny.</div>

Why don't you ask Al Gore what he went through when he walked through campus at Harvard with his military uniform on?
</div>

I just sent an email to him.
</div>

Well good because he always has his labtop on and plugged into his private jet and he takes it with him when he's being driven around in his motorcade.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 03:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>
How about we go to war just so that we can take resources for ourselves? It's not revenge, its domination and control. If our oil costs are going through the roof, why not just take someone else's supply so that it brings our costs down a bit? Seems logical to me.</div>

A lot of liars said we went to war in Iraq to control their oil. The truth is, we were interested in the fair and free flow of their oil, and that the revenues from it not be used to build Saddam and his sons massive palaces while his people starved and were subjected to WMDs.

What I know is a LOT of those people who demonstrated at the '68 convention are now working as democratic party operatives, and that people are still parroting the democratic party talking points. As if they share some WWW site for talking points and memorize them.
</div>

Well, we should definitely go take Afghanistan's oil(and Iraq's while we're at it. They owe us so much money for disposing of this guy that used to be in charge). I would love to see my energy costs go down here at home. For Afganistan, they're probably even easier to bribe than the Iraqi's.

To the people from the 68' convention, to each his own, I guess.

I hate parrots. They are so annoying.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 28 2008, 03:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well good because he always has his labtop on and plugged into his private jet and he takes it with him when he's being driven around in his motorcade.</div>

Must be nice. I envy that guy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 03:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Think on this: Saddam had MIGs and SCUDs and Silkworms and AK47s, not US made weapons. Those are the weapons used against us in Afghanistan, too, as well as RPGs made by the same manufacturers. Israel interdicts shiploads of similar weapons going into Gaza often enough, if you've followed the news. In other words, there's plenty to be had via the black market.</div>


The US gave Saddam ~$5 billion in loans prior to the first Gulf War. This included loans for military purposes against Iran. Iraq was getting military hardware from both the US and Russia (I'm assuming that is where they bought the Russian-made equipment). Times have changed, obviously.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Reagan Played Decisive Role in Saddam Hussein's Survival in Iran-Iraq War


WASHINGTON - As Americans mourn the passing of president Ronald Reagan, almost forgotten is the decisive part his administration played in the survival of Iraq's president Saddam Hussein through his eight year war with Iran.

US soldiers now fighting the remnants of Saddam's regime can look back to the early 1980s for the start of a relationship that fostered the rise of the largest military in the Middle East, one whose use of chemical weapons set the stage for last year's war.


Reagan played decisive role in Saddam Hussein's survival in Iran-Iraq war
Reagan, determined to check arch-foe Iran, opened a back door to Iraq through which flowed US intelligence and hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees even as Washington professed neutrality in Baghdad's war with Tehran.

It was complemented by French weaponry and German dual-use technology that experts say wound up in Iraq's chemical and biological warfare programs.

Donald Rumsfeld, then Reagan's special Middle East envoy, is credited with establishing the back channel to Saddam on a secret trip to Baghdad in December 1983.

Washington had plenty of motives to help Saddam stave off an Iranian victory. Not only was the United States still smarting from the 1980 hostage-taking at the US embassy in Tehran, but its embassy and a marine barracks in Beirut had been struck with truck bombings earlier in 1983.

In fact, the United States had begun to tilt in favor Baghdad even before Rumsfeld's arrival in Baghdad.

In February 1982, the State Department dropped Baghdad from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, clearing the way for aid and trade.

A month later, Reagan ordered a review of US policy in the Middle East which resulted in a marked shift in favor of Iraq over the next year.

"Soon thereafter, Washington began passing high-value military intelligence to Iraq to help it fight the war, including information from US satellites that helped fix key flaws in the fortifications protecting al-Basrah that proved important in Iran's defeat in the next month," wrote Kenneth Pollack in his recently published book "The Threatening Storm."

Economic aid poured into Iraq in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of loan guarantees to buy US agricultural products, indirectly aiding the war effort.

Sales of UH-1H helicopters and Hughes MD-500 Defender helicopters were approved by Washington. Though sold as civilian aircraft, nobody objected when they were quickly converted for military use.

A May 9, 1984 memo unearthed by the National Security Archive, a Washington research organization, noted that US policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program also was reviewed.

The memo said its "preliminary results favor expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities."

By March 1985, the United States was issuing Baghdad export permits for high tech equipment crucial for its weapons of mass destruction programs, according to Pollack.

US allies also were active in Iraq.

"By 1982, Iraq accounted for 40 percent of French arms exports," wrote Pollack. "Paris sold Baghdad a wide range of weapons, including armored vehicles, air defense radars, surface-to-air missiles, Mirage fighters, and Exocet anti-ship missiles."

"German firms also rushed in without much compunction, not only selling Iraq large numbers of trucks and automobiles but also building vast complexes for Iraq's chemical warfare, biological warfare, and ballistic missile programs," he wrote.

The aid came despite clear evidence as early as mid-1983 that Iraq was using chemical weapons on Iranian forces.

Washington said nothing publicly, but noted "almost daily" Iraqi use of chemical weapons in internal reports.

"We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons," a November 1, 1983 State Department memo said. "We also know that Iraq has acquired a CW production capability, primarily from western firms, including possibly a US foreign subsidiary."

It said "our best present chance of influencing cessation of CW use may be in the context of informing Iraq of these measures."

Washington did not publicly denounce Iraqi use of chemical weapons until March, 1984 after it was documented in a UN study.

The Reagan administration opened full diplomatic relations with Baghdad in November, 1984. Iraqi chemical attacks continued not only on Iranian forces but also on Kurdish civilians, notably at Hallabja in 1987.

For its support, Pollack wrote, Washington got a bulwhark against Iran, cheap oil and Iraqi support for peace negotiations with Israel.

But when the Iran-Iraq war ended, Baghdad was left with huge debts and a large and menacing military looking for easy prey.</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>U.S. and Iraq's Weapons (LA Times-23 Feb 93)

* From: Nathaniel Hurd <nhurd@DELETETHISemail.com>
* Subject: U.S. and Iraq's Weapons (LA Times-23 Feb 93)
* Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:58:11 -0400 (EDT)

Source: Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe

Copyright 1992 The Times Mirror Company
Los Angeles Times
View Related Topics
February 23, 1992, Sunday, Home Edition
SECTION: Part A; Page 1; Column 5; National Desk
LENGTH: 3506 words
HEADLINE: BUSH SECRET EFFORT HELPED IRAQ BUILD ITS WAR MACHINE;
PERSIAN GULF: DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT 9 MONTHS BEFORE HUSSEIN'S INVASION OF KUWAIT THE PRESIDENT
APPROVED $1 BILLION IN AID. OBJECTIONS FROM OTHERS WERE SUPPRESSED.

SERIES: BUSH AND AID TO IRAQ: First of three parts. Next: Reagan and Bush administrations pressure
the Export-Import Bank.

BYLINE: By DOUGLAS FRANTZ and MURRAY WAAS, SPECIAL TO THE TIMES; Frantz is a Times staff writer and
Waas is a special correspondent.

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

BODY:
In the fall of 1989, at a time when Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was only nine months away and Saddam
Hussein was desperate for money to buy arms, President Bush signed a top-secret National Security
Decision directive ordering closer ties with Baghdad and opening the way for $1 billion in new aid,
according to classified documents and interviews.

The $1-billion commitment, in the form of loan guarantees for the purchase of U.S. farm
commodities, enabled Hussein to buy needed foodstuffs on credit and to spend his scarce reserves of
hard currency on the massive arms buildup that brought war to the Persian Gulf.

Getting new aid from Washington was critical for Iraq in the waning months of 1989 and the early
months of 1990 because international bankers had cut off virtually all loans to Baghdad. They were
alarmed that it was falling behind in repaying its debts but continuing to pour millions of dollars
into arms purchases, even though the Iran-Iraq War had ended in the summer of 1988.

In addition to clearing the way for new financial aid, senior Bush aides as late as the spring of
1990 overrode concern among other government officials and insisted that Hussein continue to be
allowed to buy so-called "dual use" technology -- advanced equipment that could be used for both
civilian and military purposes. The Iraqis were given continued access to such equipment, despite
emerging evidence that they were working on nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction.

"Iraq is not to be singled out," National Security Council official Richard Haas declared at a
high-level meeting in April, 1990, according to participants' notes, when the Commerce Department
proposed curbing Iraqi purchases of militarily sensitive technology.

Invoking Bush's personal authority, Robert Kimmitt, undersecretary of state for political affairs,
added: "The President doesn't want to single out Iraq."

And the pressure in 1989 and 1990 to give Hussein crucial financial assistance and maintain his
access to sophisticated U.S. technology were not isolated incidents.

Rather, classified documents obtained by The Times show, they reflected a long-secret pattern of
personal efforts by Bush -- both as President and as vice president -- to support and placate the
Iraqi dictator. Repeatedly, when serious objections to helping Hussein arose within the government,
Bush and aides following his directives intervened to suppress the resistance.

The White House declined to comment Saturday.

In the case of the $1 billion in commodity loan guarantees, for instance, senior Bush aides, armed
with the presidential order -- NSD 26 -- insisted that the credits be approved despite objections
by officials in three government agencies. These officials warned that aid was being diverted to
buy weapons in violation of American law, that the loans would not be repaid and that earlier
assistance efforts were plagued by financial irregularities.

Bush's involvement began in the early 1980s as part of the so-called "tilt" toward Iraq initiated
by then-President Ronald Reagan to prop up Hussein in his war with Iran. Hussein's survival was
seen as vital to U.S. efforts to contain the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and thwart Iran's bid
for dominance in the Middle East.

Many in the American government, including Presidents Bush and Reagan, also hoped that U.S. aid
would gradually cause Hussein to moderate his ways and even play a positive role in the Middle East
peace process.

But classified records show that Bush's efforts on Hussein's behalf continued well beyond the end
of the Iran-Iraq War and persisted in the face of increasingly widespread warnings from inside the
American government that the overall policy had become misdirected.

Moreover, it appears that instead of merely keeping Hussein afloat as a counterweight to Iran, the
U.S. aid program helped him become a dangerous military power in his own right, able to threaten
the very U.S. interests that the program originally was designed to protect.

Clearly, U.S. aid did not lead Hussein to become a force for peace in the volatile region. In the
spring of 1990, as senior Administration officials worked to give him more financial aid, the Iraqi
leader bragged that Iraq possessed chemical weapons and threatened to "burn half of Israel." Nor
did he change his savagely repressive methods. In the summer of 1988, for example, he shocked the
world by killing several thousand Kurds with poison gas.

Even today, the Iraqi nuclear and chemical weapons programs carried forward with the help of
sophisticated American technology continue to haunt U.S. and United Nations officials as they
struggle to root out elements of those programs that have survived the allied victory in the
Persian Gulf War.

What drove Bush to champion the Iraqi cause so ardently and so long is not clear. But some evidence
suggests that it may have been a case of single-minded pursuit of a policy after its original
purpose had been overtaken by events -- and a failure to understand the true nature of Hussein
himself.

"When the Iran-Iraq War ended and Iran was really flat on its back, there should have been some
immediate kind of repositioning of U.S. policy so you wouldn't give Saddam this signal that we were
backing him as the big shot in the region," said William B. Quandt, a Middle East expert at the
Brookings Institution.

"We missed so many cues. Saddam wasn't behaving as you might expect an exhausted, war-weary leader
to behave. He was showing that he had just won a war and he was a power to be reckoned with and he
concluded that the Americans were not too upset about that," Quandt said.

Much of the blame for failing to perceive Hussein's expansionist ambitions and the dangers of
building him up has fallen on mid-level officials and on agencies such as the Commerce Department,
which approved the sale to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of American technology, and the Agriculture
Department, which authorized a total of $5 billion in loan guarantees.

However, classified documents from several agencies and interviews over the last two months
demonstrate that it was foreign-policy initiatives from the White House and State Department that
guided relations with Iraq from the early 1980s to the eve of the Persian Gulf War -- and that Bush
and officials working under him played a prominent role in those initiatives.

For example:

* In 1987, Vice President Bush successfully pressed the federal Export-Import Bank to provide
hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for Iraq, the documents show, despite staff objections that
the loans were not likely to be repaid as required by law.

* After Bush became President in 1989, documents show that senior officials in his Administration
lobbied the bank and the Agriculture Department to finance billions in new Iraqi projects.

* As vice president in 1987, Bush met personally with Nizar Hamdoon, Iraq's ambassador to the
United States, to assure him that Iraq could buy more dual-use technology. It was three years later
that National Security Council officials blocked the attempt by the Commerce Department and other
agencies to restrict such exports.

* After Bush signed NSD 26 in October, 1989, Secretary of State James A. Baker III personally
intervened with Agriculture Secretary Clayton K. Yeutter to drop Agriculture's opposition to the $1
billion in food credits. Yeutter, now a senior White House official, agreed and the first half of
the $1 billion was made available to Iraq at the beginning of 1990.

* As late as July, 1990, one month before Iraqi troops stormed into Kuwait city, officials at the
National Security Council and the State Department were pushing to deliver the second installment
of the $1 billion in loan guarantees, despite the looming crisis in the region and evidence that
Iraq had used the aid illegally to help finance a secret arms procurement network to obtain
technology for its nuclear weapons and ballistic-missile program.

An Agriculture Department official cautioned in a February, 1990, internal memo that, when all the
facts were known about loan guarantees to Iraq, the program could be viewed as another "HUD or
savings-and-loan scandal."

Of the $5 billion in economic aid provided to Iraq over an eight-year period, American taxpayers
have now been stuck for $2 billion in defaulted loans.

Washington's supportive policy toward Iraq began in 1982. Hussein was in the second year of his war
with Iran and the conflict was not going well for Baghdad. The Reagan Administration, while
officially neutral, decided to help Iraq as a means of containing the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

U.S. relations with Iraq had been severed in 1967 after the Arab-Israeli war, but the biggest
obstacle to renewed ties was the fact that Iraq was on Washington's official list of countries
supporting international terrorism. That meant that most forms of U.S. aid were prohibited by law.

The State Department responded by removing Iraq from the terrorism list in February, 1982, an
action opposed by some within the Administration. Four former officials said in interviews that
there was no evidence that Iraq's support of terrorists had waned.

"All the intelligence I saw indicated that the Iraqis continued to support terrorism to much the
same degree as they had in the past," said Noel Koch, then in charge of the Pentagon's
counterterrorism program. "We took Iraq off the list and shouldn't have. . . . We did it for
political reasons."

The assertion was supported by a secret 1988 memo in which Deputy Secretary of State John Whitehead
wrote, "Even though it was removed from the terrorism list six years ago, (Iraq) had provided
sanctuary to known terrorists, including Abul Abbas of Achille Lauro fame."

Almost immediately after Iraq was dropped from the list, Washington provided loan guarantees to
enable it to buy such American commodities as rice and wheat through the Agriculture Department's
Commodity Credit Corp.

Two years later in 1984, Bush personally pressed the federal Export-Import Bank to guarantee $500
million in loans so that Iraq could build a controversial oil pipeline, according to classified
government documents.

And throughout much of the period from 1982 to the end of the Reagan Administration, efforts were
made to funnel arms as well as economic aid to Baghdad -- sometimes through the Pentagon and
sometimes through U.S. allies in the Middle East. Some of the specific arms plans failed to work
but government sources said that significant quantities of arms did reach Baghdad as a result of
U.S. efforts.

At one point in 1982, for example, a proposal was put forward to trade four American-made howitzers
to Iraq for a Soviet T-72 tank, according to classified documents. The T-72 was of particular
importance according to a secret July, 1982, report by the Defense Intelligence Agency, because it
was protected by a new type of armor, which might prove invulnerable to American firepower. A
second plan in 1983 would have allowed Iraq to buy $45 million worth of 175-millimeter long-range
guns and ammunition in exchange for turning over a Soviet tank.

Pentagon officials also reported to then-Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger "that Iraqi
officials said it might be possible to exchange a (Soviet Hind) helicopter for permission to buy
100 Hughes helicopters" equipped with TOW missiles, according to a secret Pentagon memo.

For various reasons, each of these deals fell through. The helicopter transaction was scrapped
after the late Richard Stillwell, a retired general who was then deputy undersecretary of defense,
objected to working with an Iraqi-sponsored arms trafficker with a reputation for questionable
dealings.

"While I fully recognize the value to the U.S.A. of obtaining an MI-24 HIND, I recommend against
pursuing this particular deal because . . . the potential for causing embarrassment to the U.S.
government is too great," Stillwell wrote in a top-secret memo for Weinberger in 1983.

In a recent interview, Weinberger refused to discuss any of the proposed exchanges. Although
low-level Pentagon operatives saw the arms swaps or sales to Iraq as a means to obtain Soviet
technology, two officials say that Weinbeger saw it as a pretext to begin covert and direct arms
shipments to Iraq. But Weinberger did acknowledge being part of a faction in the Reagan
Administration that favored Iraq over Iran. "Many of us thought it would be better if Iraq won,"
said Weinberger, now a lawyer in private practice.

A number of classified State Department cables also describe proposals in 1982 and 1983 by William
Eagleton, the senior U.S. diplomat in Baghdad, to funnel arms to Iraq through allies in the Middle
East. "We can selectively lift restrictions on third-party transfers of U.S.-license military
equipment to Iraq," he said in an October, 1983, cable.

Although initially rejected, other documents and interviews with former U.S. officials indicate
that the policy was pursued on a covert basis with Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait and that arms were
transferred to Iraq.

"There was a conscious effort to encourage third countries to ship U.S. arms or acquiesce in
shipments after the fact," said Howard Teicher, who monitored Middle East policy at the National
Security Council in the Reagan Administration. "It was a policy of nods and winks."

While the American rationale was that Hussein was a buffer against Iran, classified records show
U.S. support for his regime continued unabated after the official cease-fire in the Iran-Iraq War
was signed in August, 1988, and after Iraq's chemical weapons attack on the Kurdish villages on
July 19, 1988.

In fact, in August, 1988, Deputy Secretary of State Whitehead recommended in a secret policy memo
that "there should be no radical policy changes now regarding Iraq."

The pro-Iraq strategy was embraced by Bush when he became President. His Administration continued
to encourage the transfer of U.S.-supplied arms to Iraq from Arab allies, according to interviews
and classified documents.

In NSD 26, he said, "Access to the (Persian) Gulf and the key friendly states in the area is vital
to U.S. national security." Included among those states was Iraq, and Bush ordered federal agencies
to expand political and economic ties with Baghdad.

NSD 26 came at the height of attempts by the Agriculture Department and other agencies to slash the
largest U.S. aid program to Iraq -- the commodity loan guarantees.

Set up to help U.S. farmers increase exports, the program guarantees repayment of bank loans to
foreign governments for purchases of American commodities. If the foreign government defaults on
the loan, U.S. taxpayers pick up the tab.

Regulations require the Agriculture Department to allocate guarantees on the basis of the receiving
country's agricultural needs, its market potential and the likelihood that the loans will be
repaid. Classified documents show, however, that foreign-policy considerations played a decisive
role in allocating credits to Iraq.

The Iraqis themselves raised the idea of U.S. guarantees for food aid in 1983, a time when U.S.
officials feared that Hussein might be overthrown because of food shortages caused by the Iran-Iraq
War.

Before the year was out, the first $402 million in Agriculture Department loan guarantees was
approved for Iraq. In 1984, the amount rose to $513 million and it eventually reached $1.1 billion
in 1988.

As the guarantees increased, so did concerns. The primary forum for airing these anxieties was a
little-known, interagency organization called the National Advisory Council.

Advisory Council documents show that beginning in 1985, a number of members representing the
Federal Reserve Board, Treasury Department and the Export-Import Bank counseled or voted at
different times against increases of aid to Iraq. They feared that Iraq was not credit-worthy and
would not be able to repay the billions owed.

Their concerns intensified when on Aug. 4, 1989, FBI and Customs Service agents raided the Atlanta
branch of an Italian bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, and uncovered $4 billion in unauthorized
loans to Iraq, including $900 million guaranteed by the Agriculture Department program.

Nevertheless, top Bush Administration officials, including Secretary of State Baker, discounted the
protests in the interagency group and sought another $1 billion in loan guarantees for Iraq in the
fall of 1989, to be given in two installments.

By early 1990, Iraq had used the first $500 million and was asking for the second installment. The
NSC and the State Department pressed to have the aid released.

Again there was resistance. Iraqi officials had been implicated more deeply in the growing Banca
Nazionale affair and government analysts were more skeptical about Iraq's ability to repay its
growing foreign debt because it was spending so much on arms.

"In the worst-case scenario, investigators would find a direct link to financing Iraqi military
expenditures, particularly the Condor missile," Paul Dickerson, head of the Agriculture Department
program that aided the Iraqis, wrote in a Feb. 23, 1990, memo to his superior.

Condor was an Iraqi effort to develop an intercontinental missile capable of delivering a nuclear
warhead. While Dickerson later told a congressional committee that he was only speculating about
the Condor, his warning reflected growing evidence that the Agriculture aid had gone for military
uses.

Then on March 27, 1990, the U.S. Customs Service thwarted an effort by Iraq to obtain American-made
triggers for nuclear weapons. And in a speech that same month, Hussein issued his threat to "burn
half of Israel." Publicly, at least, President Bush promised a crackdown on exports to Iraq, saying
that "nuclear proliferation . . . continues to pose serious threats to U.S. interests, as well as
the interests of our friends in the region."

On April 16, 1990, CIA Director Robert M. Gates, then deputy national security adviser, chaired an
interagency meeting to discuss Iraqi policy. At that meeting, Commerce Undersecretary Dennis Kloske
presented a variety of proposals to restrict licenses of high-tech technology with potential
military uses to Iraq. The proposals were rejected.

On June 8, Kloske also sent a classified memo to Gates recommending a limited proposal to tighten
up controls of exports to Iraq for technology with ballistic-missile applications. That proposal
was rejected as well.

Hussein had also begun his campaign of overt threats against Kuwait, accusing his tiny neighbor of
economic warfare and vowing to retaliate.

Yet as late as July 9, 1990, April Glaspie, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, assured Iraqi officials
that the Bush Administration was still trying to get the second $500 million released, according to
a classified cable.

Only on Aug. 2, 1990, did the Agriculture Department officially suspend the Agriculture Department
guarantees to Iraq -- the same day that Hussein's tanks and troops swept into Kuwait.

Aid on the Eve of War

Classified documents obtained by The Times show a long-secret pattern of personal efforts by Bush
-- as President and as vice president -- to support and placate Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Here
are some of the key incidents:
1984

* June: Vice President Bush telephones the president of the Export-Import Bank and helps persuade
him to approve $500 million in loan guarantees so Iraq can build an oil pipeline.

1987

* Late February: Vice President Bush telephones the new president of the Export-Import Bank and
successfully lobbies for Iraq to receive $200 million in new loan guarantees from the federal
agency.

* March 2: Vice President Bush meets with Iraqi ambassador Nizar Hamdoon and tells him that two
requests by Iraq for sensitive American technology had been approved over objections from the
Defense Department.

1988

* Aug. 19: Iraq and Iran sign official cease-fire ending 8-year war.

1989

* Early October: President Bush signs a secret national security directive ordering U.S. agencies
to expand political and economic ties with Iraq.

* Oct. 31: Secretary of State James A. Baker III telephones Agriculture Secretary Clayton K.
Yeutter and persuades him to reverse Agriculture's position and approve $1 billion in new loan
guarantees to Iraq.

* Nov. 8: The $1 billion is approved despite concerns by the Treasury Department and Federal
Reserve about a growing scandal involving Iraq and the Agriculture credits.

1990

* April 19: White House National Security Council thwarts efforts by Commerce Department to stem
the flow of U.S. technology to Iraq.

* July 9: April Glaspie, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, assures officials in Baghdad that the Bush
Administration is still trying to obtain the release of the second $500 million of the $1 billion
approved in November.

* Aug. 2: Iraq invades Kuwait and the Agriculture Department officially ends loan guarantees to
Iraq that have amounted to $5 billion since 1983.</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 03:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Saddam was more than crazy, he was a vicious torturer and mass murderer. There were no exaggerations or lies.

Think on this: Saddam had MIGs and SCUDs and Silkworms and AK47s, not US made weapons. Those are the weapons used against us in Afghanistan, too, as well as RPGs made by the same manufacturers. Israel interdicts shiploads of similar weapons going into Gaza often enough, if you've followed the news. In other words, there's plenty to be had via the black market.

As for patience, the situation in Iraq proves we have little. Put more of our guys with bullseyes on their backs in Afghanistan and you'll be seeing a similar kind of death toll there.</div>

So it wasn't an exaggeration when Bush said "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Inspections showed that there were no WMD. Then again that doesn't answer whether or not those stockpiles could have been moved. There are and will remain to be lots of questions on whether or not going into Iraq was correct to do in the first place but most citizens and officials do not believe it was.

Are you someone that believes the surge worked in Iraq? If it worked in Iraq then why wouldn't a surge in troops work in Afghanistan?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Man, read your own articles.

We didn't send $.01 to Saddam, and never did. (What is a loan guarantee?)</div>

I do, you didn't. 1 penny, huh? It's pretty obvious that you stopped reading at some point. Here are some highlights...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In the fall of 1989, at a time when Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was only nine months away and Saddam
Hussein was desperate for money to buy arms, President Bush signed a top-secret National Security
Decision directive ordering closer ties with Baghdad and opening the way for $1 billion in new aid,
according to classified documents and interviews.

The $1-billion commitment, in the form of loan guarantees for the purchase of U.S. farm
commodities, enabled Hussein to buy needed foodstuffs on credit and to spend his scarce reserves of
hard currency on the massive arms buildup that brought war to the Persian Gulf.</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><u>Much of the blame for failing to perceive Hussein's expansionist ambitions and the dangers of
building him up has fallen on mid-level officials and on agencies such as the Commerce Department,
which approved the sale to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of American technology, and the Agriculture
Department, which authorized a total of $5 billion in loan guarantees.</u></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Their concerns intensified when on Aug. 4, 1989, FBI and Customs Service agents raided the Atlanta
branch of an Italian bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, and uncovered $4 billion in unauthorized
loans to Iraq, including $900 million guaranteed by the Agriculture Department program.</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Of the $5 billion in economic aid provided to Iraq over an eight-year period, American taxpayers
have now been stuck for $2 billion in defaulted loans.</div>


That's a bit more than 1 penny, my friend. We helped Saddam become the monster that we cursed him for becoming, financially and otherwise.