Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein:

The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/#docs

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82

Edited by Joyce Battle

February 25, 2003

Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism.

Video Clip: "Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein," Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983. [Windows Media Video (WMV). Opens in Windows Media Player] (Iraqi television; courtesy CNN)

I guess we remedied that error.

Remember. . . the US is responsible for everything that happens in the world.

Eg. The Soviet Union didn't invade Afghanistan because it was an "evil empire". . . No! They were provoked by Carter. Its America's fault, stupid.

...the US is responsible for everything that happened in the world since the beginning of time.

Death of the dinosaurs? Nuclear winter, caused by the US' unilateral use of nooooooclear weapons in WWII!

The Ice Ages? The US left all the doors open while running their air conditioners!



The Great Meteor Crater in Arizona? Due to US militarization of space!

The Great Potato Famine? Bio warfare, researched and subsidized by CIA!

I could go on and on. It's all so OBVIOUS!

With the laugh of a hyena...after the kill, during the feast. Enjoy the gore

garnished with profit. Laugh it up.

I thought at least YOU had a sense of humor.

Guess not.

There is nothing funny about pain or death.

The results of U.S. cut throat imperialism

are not amusing to any human.

You laugh it up.

...is the Left's propensity to blame everything on the United States.

How that applies to your fantasy of US imperialism is obvious to no one but you.

...have no evidence they will turn to some tactic to disparage the damaging evidence against their masters.

In this case hyperbole. Derision. And nothing else.

No refutation of the facts.

No questioning of the Party Line.

They do not think; they type.

...yawn...

...I'm sorry; you said something?

"Notice that when the Shills have no evidence they will turn to some tactic to disparage the damaging evidence against their masters."

I've noticed that. Like dismissing articles because they are from the "corporate press", or things reported on "corporate TV" or "corporate radio", or taking what can only be described as conspiracy theories and treating them as though they were fact rather than theory. Yeah, we see it here all the time.

You can always tell how free a press is by how

tightly it marches in lockstep together to the

pentagon tune.

Is...is that true?

Have you been doing what you accuse others of doing?

I'm shocked...yes, SHOCKED...that there is even the slightest hint of double standards in use here at Indymedia!

/sarcasm off

"Notice that when the Shills have no evidence they will turn to some tactic to disparage the damaging evidence against their masters."

I've noticed that. Like dismissing articles because they are from the "corporate press", or things reported on "corporate TV" or "corporate radio", or taking what can only be described as conspiracy theories and treating them as though they were fact rather than theory. Yeah, we see it here all the time.

Here's a fact for you, FAIR Fairness and accuracy and reporting, did a 2 week study of the major corporate media news program's coverage of the Iraq war. They discovered that 93 percent of the guests were current or retired goverment officials and Generals, including Richard Pearl who is presented as a neutral observer but is getting rich,( as a defense contractor lobbiest ), from the same war he is also getting paid to anaylize.

How can any of you Necons sit there with a straight face and say that Fox News is fair and balanced. This is not consperacy ! These are the facts that all you neocon facisist never want to face up to. I challange any one of you nazies to explain away this conflict of intrest between the hawks like Pearl and Cheny who is profiting from Halliburton and George Schultz who was CEO of Bectell.

Its a revolving door from the Government to Corporate Lobbiest. You know all of Bushes Cabinate are nothing but former and current Corporate Lobiests. Come on man pull your head out of your ass and wake up and smell the fucking MOAB bunker busting cluster bombs!

Dionges Bush Admirer, Dave all you fucks are either paid CIA hacks or your really stupid. We on the left know about all the ignorant flag wavers, they sit there wave the flag and yell go USA! What the fuck does that mean. To them its like there at a football game and they are chearing on their team. Their little pea brains can't comprehend what their goverment is really up to!

Who is Dionges?

We have Diogenes, and he's on our side.

sorry its late and you know after staring at a computer all day tring to make a living selling widgits i got my names mixed up.

Wavy,

When a statement is made like "Notice that when the Shills have no evidence", I'm pointing out that evidence IS presented, it's just that you and others like you don't accept the evidence because its "corporate press". On the other hand, when we reject your "evidence" because it's from a source we regard as unreliable, you claim we're "turn(ing) to some tactic to disparage the damaging evidence". You want a one-way street where your "evidence" is accepted as fact and the oppositions "evidence" is disregarded. If you really want debate, as you claim to do, then it's a two-way street, and the oppositions evidence cannot be simply dismissed because it's from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or the corporate press.

So all you out there who have mentioned this, don't claim you want debate and then form debate only around those sources and evidence you regard as being accurate, because the ax swings both ways and your opposition has every right to dismiss evidence just as you're doing.

Some sources are ripe with conflicts of interests.

And you're correct, we do decide on our own, what

constitutes information.

Sometimes you have to do the research and think about

what makes sense.

It's called analysis.

Sorry, I'm too much of an idiot to figure this out. I am a conservative.