Donald Rumsfeld the RAT!

[musiclover]

Since some new guy comes in here and starts a thread about moral reasons of starting an unprovoked war in Iraq, I thought may be some morality can be brought to bear on the unsavory characters of Prez. Bush and his administration.

 

Here's one:

 

Wanna see the CURRENT defense secy. shaking hands with Saddam?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm

 

 

Bush Jr's dad even wanted to be close friends with Saddam:

In fact, his first year in office, President Bush signed a secret executive order, National Security Directive Number 26. It called for even closer ties between the United States and Iraq.

 

 

No moral scrupels were needed by Bush Jr.'s daddy dearest? Only Bush Jr. knows about morals and how to get rid of "axis of evil"?? I wonder where he got his education in morals, not from his daddy-prez for sure!

An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran.

 

 

Look what else Donny Rumsfeld---the guy who likes to smirk at press and give snide remarks and behave in COMPLETELY UNDIPLOMATIC and UNCIVILIZED manner---has been up to. This is not some old history. This is the same guy who is at the helm of Defense again. Can you expect such unsavory fellows to do the right thing by morality? How can anyone even trust these guys. :angry: :rolleyes:

 

According to the St. Petersburg Times article, U.S. officials continued sending weapons of mass destruction to Saddam even after hearing that Iraqi forces had used such weapons in the Iraqi town of Halabja in March 1988. In a February 3, 2003, article entitled “Reaping the Grim Harvest We Have Sown” in the Sydney Morning Herald, author Anne Summers cites a Washington Post report stating that after Rumsfeld visited Saddam Hussein in 1983 as President Reagan’s special envoy, “U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses” despite express warnings from the U.S. State Department that Iraq was engaged in “almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]” against Iran in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol.

 

 

So now you wonder whether the U.S. would let Saddam be had by those people whom he hurt the most...Iraqis themselves. And as you know, Iraqis want an open trial, so that the whole world can know about this grand-terrorist. But will the U.S. allow such a thing to happen?

 

Donny Rumsfeld seems to have had memory loss about his involvement in providing Saddam with the WMDs not so long ago....

Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown?” [u.S. Senator Robert] Byrd asked Rumsfeld after reading parts of a Newsweek article on the transfers. “I have never heard anything like what you've read, I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt it,” Rumsfeld said. He later said he would ask the Defense Department and other agencies to search their records for evidence of the transfers.

 

Another episode of the U.S. hiding its naked butt from the public view, and from the morality-judgment that we all can make.

 

The second episode involved Saddam Hussein’s delivery of his weapons report to the United Nations shortly before President Bush invaded Iraq. U.S. officials hijacked the report before it could be released to the public and excised the parts in which Saddam detailed who exactly had furnished him with the WMD. According to the Sydney Morning Herald article by Anne Summers:

 

What is known is that the 10 non-permanent members had to be content with an edited, scaled-down version. According to the German news agency DPA, instead of the 12,000 pages, these nations — including Germany, which this month became president of the Security Council — were given only 3,000 pages. So what was missing? The Guardian reported that the nine-page table of contents included chapters on “procurements” in Iraq’s nuclear program and “relations with companies, representatives and individuals” for its chemical weapons program. This information was not included in the edited version.

 

 

Finally:

If U.S. officials insist on retaining control over Saddam’s case, what are they going to charge him with — “misleading President Bush into mistakenly believing that he still possessed the weapons of mass destruction that the president’s father gave him”? Given that Iraq never attacked or threatened to attack the United States and given that Saddam and Reagan-Bush were allies during the entire 1980s, what other offense against the United States could they conceivably charge him with during that period of time?

 

and the knock-out:

If U.S. officials relinquish control over Saddam’s case to the Iraqis or to an international tribunal of independent (i.e., non-U.S. or British) judges, there’s a good possibility that Saddam will be charged with employing chemical weapons both against Iran and his own people. But how do they explain the failure to indict the U.S. officials who furnished him with those weapons in the first place? How do U.S. officials prevent the tribunal from permitting Saddam to testify to the world about such matters in an open (i.e., non-secret) proceeding?

 

Moreover, who can doubt that Saddam will use his trial to charge the United States and the United Nations with crimes against humanity arising out of the brutal 12-year economic embargo against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people — an embargo that U.S. officials continually justified on the claim that Iraq still possessed the weapons of mass destruction that U.S. officials had delivered to him during the 1980s? After all, don’t forget that two high UN officials resigned their positions on moral grounds arising out of the massive number of deaths that the sanctions were producing year after year.

 

 

For full-er details on the U.S. morals--or lack there of--do kindly read this, and many such others that I may be able to furnish:

 

Saddam’s Capture Means Trouble for U.S. Officials

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0312f.asp

[musiclover]

And I'm not forgetting how Gen. Augusto Pinochet, of South America (Peru, is it?) was caught in Spain and was going to be put on trial for the crimes he committed during his brutal and ruthless dictatorship, which, was fully supported by the moral-know-it-all, USA.

 

But I thought let's focus on just Iraq for the moment :sneaky:

[Sternly]

And I'm not forgetting how Gen. Augusto Pinochet' date=' of South America (Peru, is it?)[/quote']

 

It's Chile, not Perú! C-H-I-L-E; CHILE!

[musiclover]

oh yep, I knew I made a mistake there. Sorry! :embarrased:

[Sternly]

Nevermind. I just can give an opinion about the other thing, because I barely know something about the theme! About 'Personalities' like Rumsfeld, Saddam and Bush itself I don't know a thing :/

[musiclover]

sounds fair enough. If you don't know much than you shouldn't comment either. :-)

but well we all have our opinions.

[Sternly]

sounds fair enough. If you don't know much than you shouldn't comment either.

 

That sounded so encouraging! :rolleyes:

[Rain]

musiclover wrote:

sounds fair enough. If you don't know much than you shouldn't comment either.

 

 

That sounded so encouraging!

:lol: :lol: Yes musiclover, that will lighten up anyones day.

[musiclover]

:embarrased:

 

that wasn't meant for Sternly.

That was a comment meant for mr.cool...the guy who started the 'iraq war' thread....because he doesn't know much of anything and just gives flames. :rolleyes:

[Sternly]

ah, I'm an ignorant too! So you killed two bird with one shot! :lol:

[musiclover]

sorry Sternly, I didn't mean it in any hurtful way.

[Sternly]

Don't worry, it didn't hurt me! The Thurth is not painful, or shouldn't be! :/

[musiclover]

:(

[Sternly]

SMILE! Yours was a constructive critic! :lol:

[Professor Peedston]

thank you for detailing just how laughable the idea that we went to war in iraq on moral grounds is.

 

me laughing at the idea: :lol:

[musiclover]

Weapons-finding chief can't find weapons. So plans on leaving the job.... :lol:

:rolleyes:

 

Chief of Weapons Hunt in Iraq May Leave

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20031218/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_weapons_hunt

 

Allegations of an active Iraqi effort to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and to foster ties with terrorist networks were key to the administration's case for war.

 

 

But predicted stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons did not quickly materialize after the war, defying the expectations of Kay and others in the U.S. intelligence community.

[Professor Peedston]

ha. yeah i saw that.

 

he finally realized he's not going to find something that only exists in the minds of dick cheney, donald rumsfeld, and gw. :smug:

[musiclover]

he finally realized he's not going to find something that only exists in the minds of dick cheney, donald rumsfeld, and gw.

 

good one!

:lol: :lol:

[Rain]

he finally realized he's not going to find something that only exists in the minds of dick cheney, donald rumsfeld, and gw.

I saw a unicorn... A REAL ONE I TELL YOU!!!