posted on July 7, 2004 07:18:11 PM new
EAG- still no response to my question posed to you. all you can do is accuse me of mumbo jumbo. you are no different than the republicans in office. you refuse to answer any claims you make.
Linda - I'll be happy to answer you tomorrow afternoon once I get to my own computer that works properly. The laptop at home is giving me problems with typing, and since it isn't my laptop, I cannot change the settings regarding how sensitive the mouse is. I keep losing my cursor spot as I type and it is frustrating. I'm sure it is just a Conservative consipiracy against me. lol. This would also explain why I end up editing my messages all the time. Sometimes only partial postings show up so I have to correct the problem.
[ edited by rustygumbo on Jul 7, 2004 07:19 PM ]
posted on July 7, 2004 07:26:08 PM new
Here's the survey done in 2003 that I referred to. National Journal. And they require you to join to view their site.
---
Judging by National Journal's congressional vote ratings, however, Kerry and Edwards aren't all that different, at least not when it comes to how they voted on key issues before the Senate last year. The results of the vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5. But Edwards wasn't far behind: He had a 2003 composite liberal score of 94.5, making him the fourth-most-liberal senator.
National Journal's vote ratings rank members of Congress on how they vote relative to each other on a conservative-to-liberal scale in each chamber. The scores, which have been compiled each year since 1981, are based on lawmakers' votes in three areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. The scores are determined by a computer-assisted calculation that ranks members from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other, based on key votes -- 62 in the Senate in 2003 -- selected by National Journal reporters and editors.
The fact that Kerry and Edwards had such similar scores in 2003 is striking, because during the course of their Senate careers, their ratings have often placed them in different wings of their party.
Kerry has compiled a generally more liberal voting record. After winning election to the Senate in 1984, he ranked among the most-liberal senators during three years of his first term, according to National Journal's vote ratings. In those years -- 1986, 1988, and 1990 -- Kerry did not vote with Senate conservatives a single time out of the total of 138 votes used to prepare those ratings.
Edwards, on the other hand, had a moderate voting record during the first four years following his election to the Senate in 1998. The results positioned Edwards comfortably apart from Senate liberals, but not so far to the right that he locked arms with centrist Republicans. His consistent moderation placed Edwards among the center-right of Senate Democrats. But once Edwards decided to run for president and abandoned his bid for a second Senate term, his record moved dramatically to the left in 2003.
Last year, Kerry, Edwards, and other congressional Democrats who were seeking the presidency, including Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, missed many votes. To qualify for a score in National Journal's vote ratings, members must participate in at least half of the votes in an issue category. Of the 62 Senate votes used to compute the 2003 ratings, Kerry was absent for 37 votes and Edwards missed 22.
As a result, in the 2003 vote ratings, Kerry received a rating only in the economic policy category, earning a perfect liberal score. Edwards received ratings in the categories of economic and social issues, also putting up perfect liberal scores.
A separate analysis showed that of the votes that Kerry cast in the two categories in which he did not receive scores in 2003 -- social policy and foreign policy -- he consistently took the liberal view within the Senate. Edwards did not receive a score in the foreign-policy category; he sided with the liberals on five votes in that area, and with the conservatives on one vote. On foreign policy, Kerry and Edwards -- both of whom supported the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq -- last year joined most Senate Democrats in voting that half of the U.S. reconstruction aid to Iraq be provided as loans, a provision that ultimately was dropped.
posted on July 7, 2004 07:33:13 PM new
fenix - now that there is not this sense of emergeny, are these thing not being putt put back up for bid?
There have been many contracts awarded, so I'm not sure which ones you are referring to. BUT Hallburton has bid on and won contracts to do business in Iraq. I've read about their winning the bids.
posted on July 7, 2004 07:44:56 PM new
fenix - I also wanted to mention, from what I read about those contracts...that Hallburton makes no more the 2-5% over cost of the requirement being purchased. That's not unreasonable especially when one looks at what they have to pay to employee people willing to be over there, risking their lives to supply the troops needs.
Our soldiers have their lives on the line....I don't begrudge them any amount it takes to supply their needs.
======================
rusty - Funny you should mention your mouse....I've been having the exact same problem and was blaming it on the liberals. The darn thing doesn't want to make my 'hand' go where I want it to. But I'll have to wait for my son to show me how to fix it. I already tried new batteries and that didn't help. So.....I CAN identify with your frustration.
posted on July 7, 2004 08:16:47 PM new
reamond: "his experience was?"
What his experience WAS has nothing to do what his is his experience now IS. That is a pretty lame arguement from you reamond.
I am no fan of Cheney so if you think you can exploit some virtue in me to argue for him: forget it.
That was a simple statement about experience. And in my opinion, John Edwards is not going to get a free ride on Charm alone. We cant go back to Camelot, no matter how lovely his family his.
While we all adulate and postulate over the 4 richest men in government, the middle east continues not to like us, they don't like where its going for them; and they are over there praying and planning how they will show the world their dissatisfaction once again. It's really not going to make one hill of beans who is in office when that goes down.
So if faith is the food that feeds in time of famine, then if the Kerry/edwards ticket is deserving of the American public's faith, they need to show they know what they are talking about.
............
spelling, before the prof catches me!
[ edited by neroter12 on Jul 7, 2004 09:14 PM ]
posted on July 7, 2004 08:24:15 PM new
rustygumbo, if you come back I just want to say that Jackson Miss. does have the best Gumbo and blues in the whole country. I wounder how long Bear1949 and Linda_K would last in a Jackson Juke. Ha Ha.
posted on July 7, 2004 08:59:01 PM new
I do my gambling in Mississippi, bigpeepa and I could survive anywhere just fine.
---------------
neroter - I'm impressed. And am concerned for those exact reasons.
-------------
We don't hear what his 'plan' is....only that he's mentioned he'll send more troops over there - when they're already bitching about how 'short' we are on troops and how we're overusing them/taking advantage of them now....and he'll supposedly get help from all our supposed allies, who won't help now because he thinks he can change the minds of countries who don't have troops to send...or won't because the terrorists have shown Spain what they'll do should they decide to help out.
kerry's absolutely FANTASTIC with his criticizism on everything that's being done wrong - but tremendously short on viable solutions.
posted on July 7, 2004 08:59:03 PM newWhat his experience WAS has nothing to do what his is his experience now IS. That is a pretty lame arguement from you reamond.
What i slame is youtr position, if Bush and Cheney can come in with NO experience then why is it an issue with Edwards ?
BTW, what Cheney's experience IS, is to make one big mess of our foreign policy and adventures.
posted on July 7, 2004 09:03:59 PM new
It doesnt matter reamond. Cheny's been around defense contractors CIA, FBI. And although Michael Moore would have us believe that cheny and everyone else on capital hill spends 9/10th's of their time on the golf course, I'm sure he's has to sit in long boring meetings about it all - where Edwards has not.
posted on July 7, 2004 09:18:16 PM new
reamond, you forgot the part about sitting in meetings and and if not reading a 1200 page 'briefing' on it - having some schmuck do it and tell you whats in it at least.
Where has Edwards been in on this?
Sorry, but he needs to read and get up to speed on it all if the public would think him capable of being president. Thats a fact. There is really nothing to argue. You can put down cheney all you want to.
posted on July 7, 2004 09:18:47 PM new
reamond - You OBVIOUSLY didn't read my link....that spells out in DETAIL his function in our government.
No...you'd rather focus on only on the 5 year period of time when, as CEO of Hallburton - UNDER THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, he turned the company's revenue around to record profits. Proving he's also a very good business man. From 1995 - 2000 he worked for Hallburton....the rest of his life was spent in civil service to his country.
That's a hel* of a lot more experience than what Edwards has to offer.
posted on July 7, 2004 09:21:02 PM new
By-the-way....where are all those kerry/Edward supporters who are singing the praises of what accomplishments kerry has made in his 20 year political service?
Or mention what great things Edwards has done for this country in his 6 years as a Senator....two of which he's been out campaigning most of the time.
posted on July 7, 2004 09:21:59 PM new
I have to sign off. I'll see if I can sneak back in the middle of the night to sprinkle my moon dust on everyone that might be sleeping. lol.
sorry gotta go. (oh brother, now I am supposed to say when I am coming and when I am going? pfffsttt.)
posted on July 7, 2004 09:24:45 PM new
neroter - I know...but you just gotta laugh when we're accused of posting in the middle of the night - sneaking....like we're doing it so no one will notice.
posted on July 7, 2004 09:32:46 PM new
Linda says,"We don't hear what his 'plan' is....only that he's mentioned he'll send more troops over there - when they're already bitching about how 'short' we are on troops and how we're overusing them/taking advantage of them now"
YES, linda, like the generals ON THE GROUND have said from before they even went in, they need more troops and they didn't get them from bush! Kerry LISTENS to the experts, the soldiers who are THERE and HE wants to help them! HE supports the TROOPS.
She says, "....and he'll supposedly get help from all our supposed allies, who won't help now because he thinks he can change the minds of countries who don't have troops to send...or won't because the terrorists have shown Spain what they'll do should they decide to help out."
One of the most nonsensical, convoluted sentences I've ever read but once again linda runs around a corner so fast she ran into her own butt! A Rightie who finally admits that those "allies" bushy bragged about are best described as "supposed".
"who won't help now because he thinks he can change the minds of countries who don't have troops to send"
posted on July 7, 2004 09:41:32 PM new
Bush was asked how Cheney differed from Edwards....of course, he had to think a while and finally replied..."he could be President."
posted on July 7, 2004 11:01:44 PM new
ok I am back. dropped dh to work and may have a minute to hang out a bit.
reamond: if your only point is 9/11 was on bush's watch - whose watch was it when the first attack happened on the wtc? or the cole?
Do you agree there is a famine of faith in this country for honest politicians? A hunger for leadership we can and should trust? If not, look at the public with the Reagan funeral. Where did that come from?
If you can agree to the above statement, than even though it appears I am trying to poo-poo their bounce,(which on some level I might very well be doing for the benefit of the dwarft-minded on this board)- but if you read my words I said: the man needs to study. Even Kerry remarked they have four months to pull this together. In so many words I said he better burn some midnight oil inbetween jetting on planes and kissing off babies foreheads (why did that one clip look to me like a gambler kissing off his lucky coin? I suppose I now count myself among the most jaded and cynical.) But without knowledge, looks and charm are not not going to be enough to get by. Everybody thinks its a given he will carry the south -well, even the southerners want to know he knows what he's talking about. The days of them being waylayed by simple charm is long over too.
posted on July 7, 2004 11:09:28 PM new
fenix - Here's the information I read on Hallburton....on many different sites. I'm sure anyone who's really interested in verifying the facts can use their own sources to see the dates of the contracts are true.
-----------
Halliburton's "Sweetheart" deals in Iraq
If you are a slave to the normal sources of news, you probably are under the belief that Halliburton, former employer of our esteemed vice president, has been awarded a myriad of ?no-bid? contracts for work in Iraq. You may also be under the impression that this is why we went to war with Iraq, to line Halliburton's, and by proxy, the Friends of Bush', pockets.
Leading the attack is California Democrat Henry Waxman, but it was quickly picked up and amplified by all manner of traditional media.
Some facts for you:
In the early 1990s, the Army Corps of Engineers decided they needed to retain a US company under a long term contract to provide random services to the Army as needed. The Army needed a method to get things done on short notice without having to go through the exhaustive government procurement and bidding process for every project. This was dubbed ?Logistics Civil Augmentation Program?, or LOGCAP.
In 1992 Halliburton won the bidding process for this contract, and lost it in 1997 to Dynacorp.
Despite having lost the contract in 1997, *Halliburton was awarded a no-bid contract by the Clinton administration* to conduct work needed by US Peacekeepers in the Balkans because it made little sense to change contractors in mid-stream. Halliburton already had boots on the ground, and had experience doing what the Army needed them to do.
*In fact, Halliburton became one of the Clinton administration's favorite outsourcing contractors, doing work for them in Haiti and Somalia, as well as Bosnia.*
In 2001, Halliburton was again awarded with the LOGCAP contract, after the requisite bidding process.
In the months leading up to the current conflict in Iraq, Halliburton was asked (under LOGCAP) to formulate a contingency plan to deal with Iraqi oil fires, should Saddam Hussein repeat his crimes of the first Gulf War by setting his oil wells on fire.
Halliburton had put out 350 such fires in Kuwait, so they seemed the logical choice to turn to for such advice. "To invite other contractors to compete to perform a highly classified requirement that Kellogg Brown & Root [Halliburton] was already under a competitively awarded contract to perform would have been a wasteful duplication of effort," said the commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, Lt. General Robert Flowers.
In February of 2003, on the eve of hostilities, Halliburton was tapped to implement the contingency plan it had created, under the LOGCAP contract. "Only [Halliburton], the contractor that developed the complex, classified contingency plans, could commence implementing them on extremely short notice?, wrote Lt. General Flowers.
Not knowing how many oil wells would be set ablaze by Saddam, the Army estimated the value of this contract at ?between $0 and $7 Billion? (the fires in Kuwait had cost $2.5B to extinguish). The actual value of the contract is now estimated to be around $600M, but the detractors still cling to the $7B number when attacking the administration about it.
So what are we to conclude by this episode? *If you check the facts, it was the Clinton administration that awarded work to Halliburton outside of the standard bidding process, not Bush*.
Did the Clinton administration send US troops into harms way in Somalia and the Balkans just to line Halliburton's pockets, as the Bush administration is now being charged with doing? Or are such charges reserved only for Commanders-In-Chief who don't subscribe to your particular ideology?
posted on July 7, 2004 11:50:04 PM new
Linda, every thing she says to me or about me is so absurd.
I find it funny she values HER anonymity so highly, but she is the first to travel far and wide to get up everybody's else azz here. I wonder if the Enquirer Canadian branch is hiring? They might want to take helen on too for her photoshop abilities.
I will laugh at it because she doesnt have a clue who or what fire she is playing with. All strung out on this ACE thing.
I dont even think about him. Outta sight outta mind. But if forced into thinking about it - der comandant <click salute > and forced to following her train of thought to this - he is probably around.
What do I know or care? He is a poster on a message board. If comes back great if he doesnt I'm rolling on which she cant seem to get her mind to do.
So Linda maybe you've figured it out - If I'm crazy, its like a fox - and I'll see her spinning in circles trying to catch up with me. If I'm on drugs, she should be near comatosis any time soon with her own looping locquity.
posted on July 8, 2004 05:35:30 PM new
Well, two days have gone by and EbayAuctionGuy still can't tell me why Dick Cheney is the best Vice President ever. Hmmm. Did I scare off EAG??? I mean, can EAG hang with the big boys? It appears to not be the case. Another one bites the dust.
Linda- I'm back and ready to type. Now, first let me just let you know that as I mentioned before, I would consider myself as an ultra-liberal, not Kerry or Edwards. That title should be reserved for those true to the left. I voted for Ralph Nader during the last election. I do not believe it was a mistake to do so, because as a registered Green Party voter, I felt Ralph Nader most closely represented my views regarding issues such as the Environment, Woman's rights, Gay Marriage, Corporate Tax Cuts, and the two party system in general. At that time, I was all for the changes proposed by Ralph Nader. In fact, I am still for those changes that I believe are needed. I don't necessarily think that John Kerry is the entire answer to the current problems that the present Administration has created. I think Kerry is a pretty large bandage. I really want to see a legitimate third party become involved in the political process in Washington, but at the same time, every single 3rd party has missed the mark because they only see in the short term.
I do believe Kerry/Edwards are the better candidates. For one, Kerry has served his country and did it with honor. Edwards was too young to be drafted, and he choose to seek a career in Law. Bush has some gaping holes in his military service, and until those records are accounted for, I have to wonder what is really hidden there. Cheney dodged the draft repeatedly using every excuse under the moon to get out of serving his country.
Bush and Cheney are businessmen who do not have stellar business records behind them, unless you consider running repeated businesses into the ground as a success story. To add to that, I don't trust the Bush family. They have too many ties to dishonest people across the world, not for them to be corrupt. You really can't befriend people like the Bin Ladens, Manuel Noriega, or Saddam Hussein and be a trusted individual. I would hope that any decent human being wouldn't look the other way when a country such as Saudi Arabia lacks rights for women, tortures their prisoners, etc. Noriega was responsible for the torture and murder of so many people in Panama, yet the Bush family turned the other way until Noriega's ego went beyond what George Sr. was willing to accept. The United States have gone to bat so many times against oppression, yet the Bush family has accepted those who choose to participate in this.
Unfortunately, I don't have time now to continue this blog, so I will finish tomorrow. I have to close the store and get ready to head on out.
posted on July 8, 2004 06:52:01 PM new
rusty- Thank you for your partial reply. I look forward to the second chapter.
I do believe Kerry/Edwards are the better candidates.
Of course, we disagree on this point.
For one, Kerry has served his country and did it with honor.
We do not see this in the same light either. Kerry tried to avoid serving in VN by joining up where he wouldn't be sent, it didn't work out that way. So he somehow injures himself in his 4 month brief stay - read what HIS OWN superiors said about him - and does what most leaders don't do .. uses some old, unused military law to get himself out of danger and back home....leaving his crew behind. Very unlike the heros who were *seriously* injured, and demanded they be sent back to their unit.
Comes home...sides with our enemies along with Jane Fonda, calls our democracy a farce, says our still-fighting soldiers are committing war atrocities. Imo, he should have been tried for treason.
Edwards was too young to be drafted, nope....he COULD have served for 2 years. He was 18 in 1971...our troops where still there fighting until 1973.
He's no different than what the left accuse Cheney of doing, going to school.
Bush has some gaping holes in his military service, All, unprovable accusations that have been used against him since he ran for governor and again i 2000. Think if they can't be proved by this time, the left might stop already. The telling factor....and the truth is he was given an honorable discharge. period....the military doesn't give out honorable discharges unless one served honorably. It's only a political weapon.
Cheney dodged the draft repeatedly using every excuse under the moon to get out of serving his country[/i].
I don't know how old you are and what information you're going on....but it was VERY common, during the VN war for boys to get deferments for being married, having children, going to college, etc. Cheney did NOTHING illegal nor different than many did. Another fact is that 2/3 of those who served in VN were volunteers...not drafties. And in this case, Cheney is comparable to Edwards.
Besides, there is NO requirement that an elected official serve his country to be elected....if there were the 'draft dodger' clinton never would have become president. He's worse than Cheney, imo, as he and kerry both were war protesters....clinton fled to England....Cheney took a legal route.
Bush and Cheney are businessmen who do not have stellar business records behind them,
You're joking about Cheney. For 5 years he successfully ran Halliburton and increased their business [I believe] almost 5 fold. That's pretty successful. [and it was from 1995-2000]. His other years were spent in government work in 4 different administrations. VERY successful.
On Bush....he may not have had much success in business...I'm not real familiar with all his business dealings....but he was a successful governor of Texas. BUT more important to me is how he *proved* himself following 9-11. We finally had a leader willing to quit talking and go after those who wish to destroy our country. That's the biggest reason he gets my FULL support. Plus he supports a strong military...unlike the dem party who reduced funding 7 out of their 8 years they were in charge. Allowed 5 attacks against our Nation's interests....and did almost nothing. Resulting in Binladen calling us Paper Tigers....meaning no willingness to fight. I hold clinton's inactions as part of the cause of 9-11. It was all set up and planned during his administration. AND he had two chances to 'take' Binladen and he didn'. Too much lawyering,imo...not enough back bone.
Bush has proved binladen wrong. HE can be counted on to defend this country....unlike the democratic party, who appears to me to side with our enemies....against what our elected Congress and House decided needed to be done and voted to do.
I don't trust the Bush family. Same way I feel about kerry. Too much of an Internationalist....sides with countries like France etc - past allies who are against our actions....willing to ONLY use our military IF the UN gives it's approval...and it's clear to see how worthless they are. They have no inforcement of any kind.....corruption flourishes within their ranks and I don't ever want to see our nation only able to function IF the UN approves. We didn't fight England for our freedom to turn it over to the UN.
Not knowing how you felt about clinton....but when you mention corruption...his name comes to my mind. HIS whole political life was surrounded by corruption....here in Arkansas and in the WH. 15 people who served him were indited. No one in the Bush administration has been indited.
You really can't befriend people like the Bin Ladens, Manuel Noriega, or Saddam Hussein and be a trusted individual.
I think you're confused. Bush REMOVED saddam from power...he didn't befriend him. And I think I can safely state....saddam wouldn't consider Bush a friend.
I would hope that any decent human being wouldn't look the other way when a country such as Saudi Arabia lacks rights for women, tortures their prisoners, etc. hmmmmm....Again, not knowing where you stand on our government going into countries who are doing things we don't approve of...but some on the left here think we never should....are you saying you think Bush should have 'taken care of rights fo SA women, muslim women all over the world? Did clinton?
The United States have gone to bat so many times against oppression, yet the Bush family has accepted those who choose to participate in this.
I see giving freedom to Iraq as liberating a country....going to bat against oppression, while removing a threat right after we had been handed 9-11 and it's aftermath. Action and freeing Iraq's oppressed.
By the way....I too would like to see a strong third party...hasn't happened in my lifetime...probably won't any time soon. And I too voted for Nader in 2000 as a protest vote. Because of his GREAT leadership, because of his support for a strong military, because of his moral character....HE has my vote this time.
posted on July 8, 2004 10:31:41 PM newI think you're confused. Bush REMOVED saddam from power...he didn't befriend him.
The current Bush did, but his father and Reagan DID befriend Saddam... But then, that doesn't count by your standards: everything is Clinton's fault, right?
Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
By: John King, March 2003
What follows is an accurate chronology of United States involvement in the arming of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war 1980-88. It is a powerful indictment of the president Bush administration attempt to sell war as a component of his war on terrorism. It reveals US ambitions in Iraq to be just another chapter in the attempt to regain a foothold in the Mideast following the fall of the Shah of Iran.
rming Iraq and the Path to War
A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no exception. Below are some relevant dates.
September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]
February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]
1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]
November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]
November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]
Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan's Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]
July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]
January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]
March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]
Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]
February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]
April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]
August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]
August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]
August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]
September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]
September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15]
December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]
July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]
August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]
July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]
August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]
June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." [5]
July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]
February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]
August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]
This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on July 8, 2004 11:51:59 PM new
bunni - I'm fully aware of what the administrations you mentioned did....and the reasons why.
Something I don't think many here could ever understand. Things change....at different times our actions are directly related to what is MOST important to do. Different presidents act according to what they feel, at that time, is in our best interests.
Like befriending saddam when we were having MAJOR problems with Iran.
But blaming this President for any actions taken by another president, whether his father or not, is uncalled for. We're not dealing with the same problems we were during the Reagan administration - [communism] nor during the Carter administration [Iran and their religious leaders - holding American's hostage] - Nor during Bush1's admin....dealing with Iraq and their invasion...murdering the Kurds.
Unlike clinton who did almost nothing when are interests were attacked....and refused binladen...we're dealing now with the aftermath of 'pretending' it will all just go away if we ignore it. Well...it didn't go away...it resulted in 9-11.
carter let our hostages be held for 444 days.
Re-elect President Bush!!
The darn thing doesn't want to make my 'hand' go where I want it to. But I'll have to wait for my son to show me how to fix it. I already tried new batteries and that didn't help. So.....I CAN identify with your frustration.
