Bush: Iraq Invasion My Responsibility

[Darkiller]

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday the responsibility for invading Iraq based in part on faulty weapons intelligence rested solely with him, taking on the issue in his most direct and personal terms in the 1,000-plus days since the war's first shots. <!--/summary-->"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said. "As president, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." The president's mea culpa was accompanied by a robust defense of the divisive war.


-----------------------------

All right, it took him two years to recognize what most countries outside of the US believed and was -in large part- the reason why they didn't want to send soldiers out there for a false cause.
THEY WERE NO MASS DESTRUCTION WEAPONS hidden in Irak. Thank you Mr Bush. two years it took.

[GoldenEagle]

I find it so funny when a Frenchman posts about US policy.

[Darkiller]

Just happens to be yahoo.com's top story right now. Can't avoid that buddy.

[sovereignstar]

'bout 12 posts down

[stevew]

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=45330

[GoldenEagle]

Just happens to be yahoo.com's top story right now. Can't avoid that buddy.
Was your personal opinion apart of the yahoo article, buddy?

[McSweeny]

Was your personal opinion apart of the yahoo article, buddy?what's wrong with a personal opinion, buddy?

[Darkiller]

Was your personal opinion apart of the yahoo article, buddy?
My personal opinion ? it is not an opinion whenI'm rephrasing exactly what the text above says which is that they were no mass destruction weapons in Irak. This is based on reports now officially revealed by President Bush, I don't see where my opinion or any one's opinion would come to play in there. These are facts.

Make no mistake, I didn't start this thread to bash at Bush again. Just happy that -at last- the truth is revealed officially regarding the non existing weapons. And as it is mentioned in another thread "props" (ok if you want...) to President Bush for taking responsability (well, for a President, it is the least he can do).
that comment being my opinion. Not the above text.

[SackAttack]

So the question becomes, regardless of the veracity of the allegations of abuse against Hussein...if Bush is admitting that the premise behind the war was a faulty one, then is the current Iraqi government a legitimate one?

[Buccaneer]

Adn when will most countries outside of the US recognize France's complicity and self-interest in Saddam's Iraq?

[GoldenEagle]

All right, it took him two years to recognize what most countries outside of the US believed and was -in large part- the reason why they didn't want to send soldiers out there for a false cause.
THEY WERE NO MASS DESTRUCTION WEAPONS hidden in Irak. Thank you Mr Bush. two years it took.
I am pretty sure this has a Darkiller slant on it. You did not post this to bash Bush? Oh come on. Do you think I am that stupid?

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Adn when will most countries outside of the US recognize France's complicity and self-interest in Saddam's Iraq?



...probably right after we admit our complicity and self-interest in a vast bunch of bad shit we've done in the past few decades. France's foreign policy is horrible, but it's not as if ours has been sunshine and lemonade either Bucc.

[Buccaneer]

Sure, but let's see if the Frenchies admit to that.

[st.cronin]

So the question becomes, regardless of the veracity of the allegations of abuse against Hussein...if Bush is admitting that the premise behind the war was a faulty one, then is the current Iraqi government a legitimate one?

Is legitimate a binary state, or is it a spectrum? Because the current Iraqi government is way more legitimate than the LAST one.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

I'm sure there's plenty of French citizens who have and will if you talk to them. I'm also sure the number of French Presidents who have apologized for helping to fund Saddam number the same amount of US Presidents who have apologized for backing Saddam in the 80's because he was fighting Iran, or have apologized for backing the various Central American dictators we did, etc., etc.

[Buccaneer]

I'm sure there's plenty of French citizens who have and will if you talk to them. I'm also sure the number of French Presidents who have apologized for helping to fund Saddam number the same amount of US Presidents who have apologized for backing Saddam in the 80's because he was fighting Iran, or have apologized for backing the various Central American dictators we did, etc., etc.
And if you keep going back, you will find evidence of every single nation being friends and enemies with every other nation. Pertinent to this discussion is recent history of removing Saddam, which nearly every nation suggested was a good idea, and then not backing up the words with deeds because said nation was too worried about Iraq's oil for their motorscooters.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

..and if you said that removing eighteen other dictators were a good idea, they'd agree with you, but not advisable.

Yeah, was part of their reason _for not_ backing us up selfish? Of course.
Was part of our reason _for_ going in selfish? Of course.

Would the majority of Frenchmen say we are a evil, horrible nation for not joining in WWI or WWII when it first broke out? I don't think so, just as I don't think France are somehow not our Allies anymore just because they disagreed with us on a course of action we took and they didn't. Nothing is completely black and completely white at this skill of international relations between soveriegn countries.

[Buccaneer]

I go back to the wisdom of Ben Franklin when asked about not including abolition of slavery in the founding documents. He said to fight only one battle at a time.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

OK, then to jump from another thread, since it's becoming more obvious that there were no WMD's and no real connection to Bin Laden, why is/was Saddam more evil than the other baker's dozen of sick SOB's that have power somewhere? Why are the Iraqi people more important to free than say, the Sudan?

[Buccaneer]

Location. Location. Location.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

So, the real reason that Saddam was a bad guy, but he was a bad guy in the right place. I disagree that toppling him did anything but further destabilize the Middle East in the long run, but now we're getting somewhere. Hell, if Bush would just come out and say that, I might actually respect him.

[st.cronin]

OK, then to jump from another thread, since it's becoming more obvious that there were no WMD's and no real connection to Bin Laden, why is/was Saddam more evil than the other baker's dozen of sick SOB's that have power somewhere? Why are the Iraqi people more important to free than say, the Sudan?

It's a subtle argument, I know, but as important than whether or not Saddam had WMDs was the fact that he wanted them, and liked to use them. There are other bad guys in the world, yes, but they don't fit those two criteria as well as Saddam did.

[GoldenEagle]

So, the real reason that Saddam was a bad guy, but he was a bad guy in the right place. I disagree that toppling him did anything but further destabilize the Middle East in the long run, but now we're getting somewhere. Hell, if Bush would just come out and say that, I might actually respect him.
I think he attacked some place called Kuwaitt. I could be wrong though.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

The other bad guys 'want' WMD's and would 'use' them if they had them too.

GoldenEagle, there was thing called the Gulf War. We won. At least Bucc's argument makes sense.

[Buccaneer]

I significantly disagree with your assertion about further destabilization in the Middle East. I would say Israel have been breathing easier the past 2 years, allowing them to focus on internal matters; and Iran have been doing nothing but talking shit whereas they could have gotten into another war with Iraq. The other nations, except for Afghanistan which everyone applauded, have too much at stake economically to put up much of a fuss. The Middle East, to put it in historical context, have been in conflict for 6000 years and will continue to be in conflict till the end times. What makes this any different? Or if you are into alternate history, who's to say if things could not have been far worse now?

[st.cronin]

The other bad guys 'want' WMD's and would 'use' them if they had them too.

I assume that is true, but the evidence is (and was) much, much more compelling in Saddam's case. Name another despot who has used WMD's.

The case against invading Iraq was one of two possibles: First being that Saddam didn't have WMD's, or if he did, wasn't going to use them; basically, that he wasn't a threat, and we should wait for him to blow something up before taking decisive action.

The second argument is more compelling, particularly in hindsight: That the probable cost outweighs the possible benefit.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Ah shit. Lost my first try at this. Time to start over.

First, Saddam was a power-hungry sadistic SOB. However, since he was that, he didn't like competition. As a result, the only presence Al-Quaeda had in Iraq was in the Kurdish-dominated no-fly zone in the north he had little effective control over post-Gulf War. Since the invasion, WYSIWYG as far as insurgents from other countries go.

Second, Iran. Iran was slouching slowly toward reform before getting shunted in the Axis of Evil speech. Since then, much like two brothers in fight getting attacked, the country has come somewhat together and hey, elected hard-line leaders. Shocker.

Third, the other countries, while no bunch of liberal democratic leaders have their own problems with fundamentalists. An invading army of the Great Satan in Iraq doesn't help their position at all.

So, I don't know what would have happened if we hadn't invaded. What I do know that every report that has come out since Saddam was topped has indicated that there was no WMD program close to operational and in many cases, there was nothing there.

[Raiders Army]

Bring back the Freedom Fries!!!! I missed them the first time around. :(

[CamEdwards]

Seeing the French criticize President Bush when they have Jacques Chirac in charge of their country tickles my funnybone.

As for Jesse, it's kind of a moot point now, but in 2003, the argument from the French wasn't "Saddam doesn't have WMD's." The argument was "give the sanctions more time to work." And of course, we now know a senior French diplomat at the U.N. was getting kickbacks from Iraq in the oil-for-food scandal.

The intelligence was wrong, but Bucc's right about the practical matters. You now have Iran sitting right between two fledgling democracies. We know internal tension in Iran is already high. Imagine how much worse it's going to get when Afghanistan and Iraq have functioning democratic governments.

In addition, are you telling me that the expulsion of Syria from Lebanon would have happened without us invading Iraq? What about election reform in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and even Syria. Why should we care? Because we're fighting an enemy who wants to establish a caliphate stretching from Afghanistan to Spain. Theocracies and democracies typically don't work well together.

A bonus to all of this is we got rid of a pain in the ass who'd been existing in a state of war with the United States since the cessation of major combat in the first gulf war. Our guys were being shot at all the time in the no-fly-zone, the Duelfer report states that Hussein was willing to wait for the sanctions to be lifted before he resumed his "full-scale weapons of mass destruction efforts", and was "was pursuing an aggressive effort to subvert the international sanctions through illegal financing and procurement efforts".

What would you have done, President Jesse? Would you have allowed the sanctions to continue, and in doing so, continue to allow Hussein to build his bankroll of illegal funds with which to purchse WMD material? Would you have allowed the sanctions to be lifted, and in doing so, allow Hussein to aquire WMD without fear of reprisal?

[stevew]

It's funny how a certain poster in this thread only pops up when its time for political discussion. Or in this case, when its time to talk down to everyone else who has a differing viewpoint.

[CamEdwards]

Ah shit. Lost my first try at this. Time to start over.

First, Saddam was a power-hungry sadistic SOB. However, since he was that, he didn't like competition. As a result, the only presence Al-Quaeda had in Iraq was in the Kurdish-dominated no-fly zone in the north he had little effective control over post-Gulf War. Since the invasion, WYSIWYG as far as insurgents from other countries go.


We're not engaged in a "Global War on Al Qaeda", we're engaged in (the inappropriately named, IMO) the "Global War on Terror". And Saddam Hussein had no problem harboring terrorists.

Abu Abbas went on Iraqi tv in 2001 to say that with the support of Saddam Hussein, his group, the Palestinian Liberation Front, was going to start committing terrorist acts against Israel. Abu Nidal lived under Hussein's protection for a number of years. Saddam helped fund the Arab Liberation Front, contributing cash for the families of suicide bombers. These are just a few of the non al-Qaeda related ties to terrorism that Hussein had.

There are some interesting ties to al Qaeda as well. A member of Iraqi intelligence captured by Kurdish forces and interviewed by a New Yorker reporter said Ayman al Zawahiri met with Hussein as far back as 1992. At the time, al Zawahiri was the head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (durka durka, Mohammed jihad). Now he's the #2 guy in al Qaeda. Abdul Rahmin Yasin, one of the guys behind the 1993 WTC bombing, received a stiped and a house from the Iraqi government after he managed to escape back to that country.

I could keep going on, but I have to go pick up my daughter from work. There's plenty of evidence that Hussein did not mind using Islamic fundamentalists for his own gain.

[Buccaneer]

And of course, we now know a senior French diplomat at the U.N. was getting kickbacks from Iraq in the oil-for-food scandal.

France's complicity.

People like to argue in hindsight but it becomes pointless to go back to 1991, 1998, 2001 or 2003 when there are ulterior motives the arguments.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

OK, my computer is being stupid and eating my posts. I'll respond later, when I don't have to study for finals. As for Steve, I'm interested in politics. Sue me. I don't have time to make posts on every topic, so I pick my spots. Also, I don't think I talk down most of the time unless I think someone else is being just an idiot, which does happen here sometimes. If Bucc thinks I was talkingdown to him, I apologize.

[Buccaneer]

For the record, I had been in favor of going into Iraq, but not for the reasons given. I am in favor of the goals for that country, but not in the way it has been done. Lastly, I am in favor of bringing the troops home, but also maintaining a presence for a show of strength.

[Buccaneer]

OK, my computer is being stupid and eating my posts. I'll respond later, when I don't have to study for finals. As for Steve, I'm interested in politics. Sue me. I don't have time to make posts on every topic, so I pick my spots. Also, I don't think I talk down most of the time unless I think someone else is being just an idiot, which does happen here sometimes. If Bucc thinks I was talkingdown to him, I apologize.
I actually thought he was referring to Darkiller, which shows up occassionally like a bad weed.

[Glengoyne]

It's funny how a certain poster in this thread only pops up when its time for political discussion. Or in this case, when its time to talk down to everyone else who has a differing viewpoint.That could be anybody.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Ah. Well, I do have the tendency to pop up in political threads for my above stated reasons. But not to talk down to people...well OK, in certain cases, but she's banned now. :-)

[Dutch]

That could be anybody.

But could it be anybody with a candlestick or with a wrench?

[MrBigglesworth]

Adn when will most countries outside of the US recognize France's complicity and self-interest in Saddam's Iraq?


Dude, they were right, we were wrong. I know the cognitive dissonance hurts, but you have to deal with it sometime.

[GoldenEagle]

The other bad guys 'want' WMD's and would 'use' them if they had them too.

GoldenEagle, there was thing called the Gulf War. We won. At least Bucc's argument makes sense.
My point is that none of those countries have attacked another sovereign nation. Iraq, under the Saddam regime, attacked another county. They also had launched chemical weapons before. There is no denying that. Since he had a history with launching weapons, we could say that he had more than the potential to do it again.

I hope that makes sense enough for you. If not, I can try to put it in liberal tounge.

[kiwiLB57]

Love how Darkiller lit the fire then wandered off. Hope he is just retrieving his popcorn (or whatever they eat in France when wanting to munch on something whilst watching some entertainment).

Top job whichever side of the fence you are on.

[Darkiller]

Love how Darkiller lit the fire then wandered off. Hope he is just retrieving his popcorn (or whatever they eat in France when wanting to munch on something whilst watching some entertainment).

Top job whichever side of the fence you are on.I'm a PR consultant remember ? ;)
lol

jokes aside, I really don't want to lit a fire.
And furthermore, I agree wholeheartedly with SackAttack's reaction when he says " so the question becomes, regardless of the veracity of the allegations of abuse against Hussein...if Bush is admitting that the premise behind the war was a faulty one, then is the current Iraqi government a legitimate one? "

I think the US did right going there to change the goverment in place. However, they mishandled the public's opinion image with faultry documents to help convince the people of America of the well founded of their actions...to "legitimize" them.

this is what stinks. The rest (making sure Saddam never reigns) was obviously what had to be done and glad the US made it happen.

[Bee]

Oh come on. Do you think I am that stupid?

Dude...you're from Mississippi, it was probably a pretty safe bet...


;)

[flere-imsaho]

And of course, we now know a senior French diplomat at the U.N. was getting kickbacks from Iraq in the oil-for-food scandal.

Documents obtained by CNN reveal the United States knew about, and even condoned, embargo-breaking oil sales by Saddam Hussein's regime, and did so to shore up alliances with Iraq's neighbors.

The oil trade with countries such as Turkey and Jordan appears to have been an open secret inside the U.S. government and the United Nations for years.

The unclassified State Department documents sent to congressional committees with oversight of U.S. foreign policy divulge that the United States deemed such sales to be in the "national interest," even though they generated billions of dollars in unmonitored revenue for Saddam's regime.


Source. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/02/iraq.oil.smuggle/)

[flere-imsaho]

It's a subtle argument, I know, but as important than whether or not Saddam had WMDs was the fact that he wanted them, and liked to use them. There are other bad guys in the world, yes, but they don't fit those two criteria as well as Saddam did.

Pakistan

Has allowed WMD technology secrets to be sold on the black market
Local leaders very likely to harbor Al Qaida leaders
Human Rights violations up the ying-yang
Government run by a dictator who gained power in a military coup



Known to be active on the WMD black market
Threatens to attack neighbors with WMD and otherwise
Led by a dictator who's quite possibly loony


The Bush Admin wanted to remove Hussein primarily to secure America's state in Middle East oil for the next century. If someone wants to be at least honest and go ahead and say that, I could at least respect them for that.

[flere-imsaho]

What about election reform in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and even Syria. Why should we care? Because we're fighting an enemy who wants to establish a caliphate stretching from Afghanistan to Spain. Theocracies and democracies typically don't work well together.

You're aware that in the recent elections in Egypt the fundamentalist Islamic parties gained much more power than previously, to the complete detriment of the non-Mubarak secular parties? So that now, the new government will be Mubarak vs. the radical Islamists?

Can you not see how our intervention in the Middle East has made selling their message to the masses that much easier?

[flere-imsaho]

My point is that none of those countries have attacked another sovereign nation.

So what was the Korean war, then? What exactly is happening between Pakistan & India in Kashmir? Is Robert Mugabe completely innocent of fomenting inter-state tensions in southern Africa? Have the problems in the Sudan not caused related problems in neighboring countries?

Iraq, under the Saddam regime, attacked another county. They also had launched chemical weapons before.

Arguably, the United States, under the Bush regime, has attacked two sovereign countries. The United States has also used weapons its own defense department categorizes as chemical weapons. Oh, the irony.

I hope that makes sense enough for you. If not, I can try to put it in liberal tounge.

Please do, because you're not getting your point across the way you're doing it currently.

[Crapshoot]

My point is that none of those countries have attacked another sovereign nation. Iraq, under the Saddam regime, attacked another county. They also had launched chemical weapons before. There is no denying that. Since he had a history with launching weapons, we could say that he had more than the potential to do it again.

I hope that makes sense enough for you. If not, I can try to put it in liberal tounge.

If you recall the primary target of the Chemical Weapons (and you don't, because you haven't done your research) - it was Iran - during the Iraqi-Iranian war. Who on earth helped supplied those (and other) weapons to Iraq in the first place ? Or is that a selective memory on your part ? Blaming the French (as Cam and others try to do) is a reflexive action of many on the right, without admitting the US's own culpability in getting Saddam to where he was.

[Crapshoot]

Seeing the French criticize President Bush when they have Jacques Chirac in charge of their country tickles my funnybone.

As for Jesse, it's kind of a moot point now, but in 2003, the argument from the French wasn't "Saddam doesn't have WMD's." The argument was "give the sanctions more time to work." And of course, we now know a senior French diplomat at the U.N. was getting kickbacks from Iraq in the oil-for-food scandal.

The intelligence was wrong, but Bucc's right about the practical matters. You now have Iran sitting right between two fledgling democracies. We know internal tension in Iran is already high. Imagine how much worse it's going to get when Afghanistan and Iraq have functioning democratic governments.

In addition, are you telling me that the expulsion of Syria from Lebanon would have happened without us invading Iraq? What about election reform in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and even Syria. Why should we care? Because we're fighting an enemy who wants to establish a caliphate stretching from Afghanistan to Spain. Theocracies and democracies typically don't work well together.



Aha, now this is creative Cam. Electoral reform in Egypt ? The biggest opposition group was not allowed to stand, and Mubarak was rubber stamped, again - and damned if the Americans want the Muslim Brotherhood to come to power in any case - a fact you know about as well as I. Democracy, except when the Islamists come to power (see Algeria for the previous case study). And pray, what electoral reform has actually happened in Syria ? Bashir is still in charge, and is worried more along the ethnic grounds in his country and attempting to cement his father's power base (which will be interesting to watch). You're grasping for straws. And if you think fixing the secretarian mess that Saddamn (bastard that he was) kept a lid on in Iraq is going to be easy - well, Iraq well end up as a Islamic nation in some form, sooner or later.
Huntington had this part right - Christianity and Hinduism are the only two religions which generally delinate between state and church - for the Orthodox, Ceasar as God, For Islam - God is Ceasar. Its a strong line in the sand.

You know, in a screwed up sense, this is why I like JIMGA- totalitarian that he is, he doesn't bother to disguise his goals (misguided as they are) in the shrouds of "Democracy" and what not - there's no pretense that policy actions are justified for goals beyond realpolitik.

[Glengoyne]

If you recall the primary target of the Chemical Weapons (and you don't, because you haven't done your research) - it was Iran - during the Iraqi-Iranian war. Who on earth helped supplied those (and other) weapons to Iraq in the first place ? Or is that a selective memory on your part ? Blaming the French (as Cam and others try to do) is a reflexive action of many on the right, without admitting the US's own culpability in getting Saddam to where he was.The U.S. certainly did not supply Saddam with Chemical weapons.

[Glengoyne]

...

...The United States has also used weapons its own defense department categorizes as chemical weapons. Oh, the irony.

I believe that is an overstatement of several degrees.

The chemical agents we're talking about are essentially Nerve gas and Poison Gas. The U.S. hasn't used anything approaching Chemical Weapons. Incendiary Rounds may be classified at some level as a chemical weapon, but are in a whole different category than what we are really talking about when Chemical and Biological Weapons are concerned.

[st.cronin]

Pakistan

Has allowed WMD technology secrets to be sold on the black market
Local leaders very likely to harbor Al Qaida leaders
Human Rights violations up the ying-yang
Government run by a dictator who gained power in a military coup



Known to be active on the WMD black market
Threatens to attack neighbors with WMD and otherwise
Led by a dictator who's quite possibly loony


The Bush Admin wanted to remove Hussein primarily to secure America's state in Middle East oil for the next century. If someone wants to be at least honest and go ahead and say that, I could at least respect them for that.


That still puts Pakistan way, way behind Saddam on any list of dangerous bad guys.

The oil thing ... I don't really understand that, other than that our economic interests make the region strategically important - the region has always been strategically important, even before oil was discovered. If I actually thought that the invasion would secure more oil for the country, I would have said so loudly and been way more gung-ho about the war than I even was. If you think that was the case, then why in the world would you be AGAINST the war? I mean talk about anti-american leftism... that's borderline treasonous, arguing against foreign policy because it's economically advantageous???

[flere-imsaho]

The U.S. certainly did not supply Saddam with Chemical weapons.

Not true. Again, a simple google search will give you plenty of links to objective sources that show through declassified documents that the U.S. facilitated Hussein's acquisition of chemical weapons in the 1980s.

[flere-imsaho]

That still puts Pakistan way, way behind Saddam on any list of dangerous bad guys.

You say this, yet you don't support it. Maybe you don't want to admit that Musharraf of 2005 sounds a lot like Hussein of 1980?

I mean talk about anti-american leftism... that's borderline treasonous, arguing against foreign policy because it's economically advantageous???

When the result of our misadventure in Iraq is an anti-American theocracy in Iraq and a decreased willingness of OPEC states to work with the U.S. due to Islamist domestic pressures, we'll see what the true economic impact of this foreign policy has been.

[st.cronin]

You say this, yet you don't support it. Maybe you don't want to admit that Musharraf of 2005 sounds a lot like Hussein of 1980?



I believe the only support I need is the fact that Saddam has used WMD's. Show me somebody else who has, and maybe you'll be in the same ballpark.

I really don't know what you're trying to convince me of. That there are bad guys in the world? Ok. That some of them are potentially worse than Saddam? Ok.

And from whence comes this myth that the Middle East was a bastion of stability before we invaded Iraq? Come on... it's bad now, it was bad then, it will be a bad place probably for a very long time. Are we supposed to do nothing about that, other than wait for some big bombs to go off? It appears that George Bush doesn't have all the answers, but who, exactly, does?

[st.cronin]

Democracy, except when the Islamists come to power (see Algeria for the previous case study).

Well, when you consider that Islamists denounce democracy as 'godless' you have to admit it's a philosophical muddle.

[MrBigglesworth]

The Bush Admin wanted to remove Hussein primarily to secure America's state in Middle East oil for the next century. If someone wants to be at least honest and go ahead and say that, I could at least respect them for that.
I go back and forth between the oil argument (Ann Coulter said it best, "Why not go to war for oil? We need oil!") and just an out of touch sense of idealism.

[Glengoyne]

Not true. Again, a simple google search will give you plenty of links to objective sources that show through declassified documents that the U.S. facilitated Hussein's acquisition of chemical weapons in the 1980s.Huge Huge Huge difference between that statement and your previous claim.

[MrBigglesworth]

Huge Huge Huge difference between that statement and your previous claim.
Really? The orginal claim:
Who on earth helped supplied those (and other) weapons to Iraq in the first place ?

Not true. Again, a simple google search will give you plenty of links to objective sources that show through declassified documents that the U.S. facilitated Hussein's acquisition of chemical weapons in the 1980s.
What is the huge, huge, huge difference between helping supply weapons and facilitating the acquisition of weapons? :confused: