Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas

New York Times ^ | Aug 18, 2002 | PATRICK E. TYLER

[The Raven]

What in the world does this have to do with the price of eggs? The Times has gone off the deep end.

Why can't they just come out in plain English and say "we don't like war and we don't like Republicans?" This is simply Sunday morning talk show propaganda.

I remember this time period well......The Wall St Journal was running editorials called "Yellow Rain" and the NY Times was in denial. They need to go back and read their own editorials.

[Cold Heat]

What is with these people?

Everyone knows we sided with Iraq due to Iran. How could they know Saddam was going to use gas agaist the kurds. This is absolutely beyong the pale.

[Cold Heat]

beyong=beyond,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,BTW I'll be these are the same un-named military souces they have been using for the rest of their bull sh*t!

Let's see if we can find out the names of these dingbats and put out some good info about their motivations.

[Cold Heat]

souces=sources......( can't seem to get my (r)key to connect with my finger. Must be a sleep deprivation problem)

[The Raven]

This belongs on the editorial page.

[Russell Scott]

Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified

How about the identity of one? I guess if an editor at the Times dresses up as an officer, you can call him an officer.

Yep, Saddam's favorite newspaper, The New York Slime, the National sEdition.

Hey New York. How much longer are you going to support a newspaper that tries to protect the type of people that killed 3,000 of your friends and neighbors?

[Cold Heat]

I believe this Tyler fellow is the same one who broke the so-called major story about the Bush Admin. splitting up on the Iraq policy.

He has been a thorn in the admin side for a while.

[SubMareener]

A number of D.I.A. officers who took part in aiding Iraq more than a decade ago when its military was actively using chemical weapons, now say they believe that the United States should overthrow Mr. Hussein at some point. But at the time, they say, they all believed that their covert assistance to Mr. Hussein's military in the mid-1980's was a crucial factor in Iraq's victory in the war and the containment of a far more dangerous threat from Iran.

Here is the critical point. We picked the less bad side in a conflict that needed to end with Iran not spreading the Islamic revolution.

The Times' decision to run this as a news story, shows the Liberal, hate-America-first bias at the Times. But what did we expect?

[faulkner]

The US actually sold Iraq the chemical precursors for Iraq's chemical weapons, which may ironically be used against America's own soldiers.

[faulkner]

the flow of chemical precursors to Iraq

Who sold Saddam these chemical precursors? The USA.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

News flash: FDR supported Stalin against Hitler.

News flash: Clinton called Red China our 'strategic partner' and gave Red China our top nuclear missile technology in exchange for campaign cash, along with unprecedented foreign access to our military secrets and tours of our war rehearsals, even how our planes handle dog fights.

News flash: Jimmy Carter and Clinton both supported North Korea's 'peaceful' nuclear program, even though it was reported at the time that North Korea was developing ICBMs.

News flash: Truman was the greatest proliferator of atom bomb technology the world has ever seen, in the naive quest to help the world build atomic power plants.

News flash: It's boring as sin to read about what 'evil things' the GOP has done, but quite interesting to read about what the DNC has done. And that is why conservative media is gaining ground.

Followup on Reagan's Support of Iraq: Reagan, like any skilled diplomat with any brains, pitted one enemy against the other. And conservatives should be proud of him. I was on the wrong side back then. I didn't like Reagan at the time. But I think the world of him now. Freegards....

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

How could they know Saddam was going to use gas agaist the kurds.

It doesn't even matter. FDR did the same thing with Stalin. Stalin was a known butcher at the time FDR helped him. And FDR went too far, did he not? The USSR, thanks to US help, conquered and exploited almost all of Eastern Europe. It was a miracle that the USSR didn't conquer the Serbs as well.

Here's another thing to consider. Clinton personally led a civilian murdering war against the Serbs. He bombed bridges during rush hour, bombed a TV station [some free speech advocate, huh?]. And he bombed other civilian targets as well, deliberately. What difference does it make whether you use nerve gas or a bomb? Killing is killing. Our military was used in an evil way in Kosovo, based on a slanderous hoax about a 'mass grave' in Kosovo, and the slander of 'ethnic cleansing'.

[Lion's Cub]

*Grin* I love to see these airheads in panic mode. I find it reassuring. :)

[The Raven]

>>Who sold Saddam these chemical precursors?

What's your point?

[The Raven]

>>Reagan, like any skilled diplomat with any brains, pitted one enemy against the other.

I remember somebody asked a Reagan official who was going to lose the Iran/Iraq war and he said "Who cares"

[The Raven]

This is getting more coverage tha it desrves.....must be a pre-election DNC stategy.

[The Raven]

>>How about the identity of one?

There are libs in State and the military. There are libs everywhere for that matter.

[John W]

I think its worse than that.Its another part of the "leave Iraq alone" propaganda machine thats in full bloom now,including some Republicans and conservatives.While I would like to think at least those folks have legitimate concerns,I think something else is going on and I think Saudi Arabia is at the root of it.If we start with Iraq theres a chance the Saudi princedom could be in line there somewhere and there are probably some American connections there that the naysayers would prefer to continue as is and not be revealed.Just an opinion.

[bushfamfan]

Can I ask someone with knowledge on the issue-why is the press allowed to get away with slanderous material? Why are they allow to print misleading, untruthful, vindictive, unnamed sources-that turns out to be untrue, and get away with it? There has to be some accountability and I think you have to file suits and take them to account. The NY Times is a particular hit piece towards Bush. They are anti-American "America is so bad" and push these kind of pieces and I'm sick of them just keep on running their hit pieces and nothing happens. Oh, yeah, "they're a respectable paper"*sarcasm*. I'd have them officially labeled for what they are and have them repeatedly labeled the liberal rag they are and declare their lies in public constantly. They need to be called liars for what they are.

[The Raven]

Good read on this is Ann COulter's Slander