ECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades — not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition — thanks to United Nations sanctions — Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

Stephen C. Pelletiere was Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000 and is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."

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

looks pretty official to me....

ANother lie uncovered...

start looking for another reason

why we are wasting BILLIONS

rightwingers.

But where did the gas come from. Obviously from the american military machine since our own dictator wanna-be("This would be easier if I were dictator" a George(Little Boy Emperor) Bush quote) has already amassed the greatest and deadliest military arsenal that history has ever seen. And american politicians are still sooooo insecure. Booga Booga. George Bush picks up the Pentagon hot-line,"General, there are some men in the Middle Eastern desert on camels. Jeez better go to Def-Con One. They might try to ride over here." Booga Booga

I gassed the frickin' Kurds because they called me a cheap labor conservative one time too many! You're next!

"But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story. "

Chemical Ali boasted on video that he wasn't afraid to use chemical weapons. You leftists defend these brutal killers that willingly massacre their own people. That makes me sick.

In my opinion, anyone that defends attrocities such as Hussein's gassing of the kurds, are themselves accomplices.

Fifth column leftists such as the author of this article should be tried and executed for the genocide committed against the kurds, just like the nazis were at Nuremburg.

"looks pretty official to me....

ANother lie uncovered...

"

For gullible, undiscerning shill of the day.

Doesn't take much to make you jump does it.

what a riot.

fresca is calling someone ELSE a shill.

FROTFLMAO!!

This guy isnt credible---just look

Stephen C. Pelletiere was Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000 and is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War

I only believe

1 draft dodgers

2 drug addicts

3 people with nazis in their family

YOU GUYS JUST DONT GET IT

FUCKING PAID SHILLS!!!!!

So how come you guys are buying into his smack? Normally, you leftists wouldn't trust a thing a CIA guy would say. But since it agrees with the regular crap you guys like to spew, you're all over it.

Personally, I think this guy is just trying to cash in on the liberal bookworms and their thirst for conspiracy.

Either that, or he's a deep cover CIA shill performing a black op, trying to lull the liberals into complacency.

""Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War "

Absolutely. The author of such a fine piece like this must be beyond reproach. Especially when he's disputed admitted history.

I brought this issue up a few times last year.

Cyanic responce not blister agents.

Iran not Iraq

War colledge findings.

gets it. He/she knows that Pelletieres article undermines one reason for the war on saddam, but is not prepared to admit, having invested too much defending Bushs invasion. Further proof is frescas hysteria.

HOW MANY CIVILIANS WERE KILLED BY CLUSTER BOMBS?

The Pentagon says 1: Iraq Body Count says at least 200.

An independent research organisation has published detailed evidence of at least 200 civilians killed by coalition cluster bombs since the start of the Iraq War (full details at www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial.htm).

The Pentagon has admitted only one recorded case of a civilian death from cluster munitions in Iraq this year. This extraordinarily low number has been greeted with widespread incredulity. Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth has condemned it as a "whitewash". Amnesty International has called for an independent investigation to be held into coalition use of cluster munitions. So far, however, such critics have not been able to draw on a firm counter-estimate of the numbers so far recorded killed.

To begin to fill this informational vacuum an international research team yesterday published the world's first comprehensive numerical analysis of cluster-related deaths.

Since the start of hostilities Iraq Body Count has been building up a meticulous and exhaustive compilation of every reported civilian death in Iraq caused by coalition military action. It has based its work on corroborated reports in key media sources published worldwide. The research team has updated its estimates on a daily basis by adding to a constantly growing on-line data-base (www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm) which now reports over 100 separate incidents involving up to 2700 civilian deaths in total.

Among these incidents are included reliable reports of at least 200 civilian deaths due to cluster bombs, with up to a further 172 deaths which were probably caused by cluster bombs. Of these 372 deaths, 147 have been caused by detonation of unexploded or "dud" munitions, with around half this number being children.

Many of the press reports from which the data have been extracted contain graphic eyewitness details of injuries and mutilations confirmed by doctors as being typical of cluster bombs, including dismemberment and decapitation, and the riddling of the body with deep shrapnel wounds.

Authors John Sloboda and Hamit Dardagan said "Public concern about the possible misuse of these savagely indiscriminate weapons is rapidly mounting. Our research reveals the shocking disparity between what the world's press has already reported and what the Pentagon is prepared to admit. Those who are genuinely concerned about civilian casualties, and interested in minimising them, can no longer plead ignorance.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press.htm

"An independent research organisation has published detailed evidence of at least 200 civilians killed by coalition cluster bombs since the start of the Iraq War "

So what's your point. This is a war. People die. Who cares how.

okay either way, the kurds were killed by Iraq intentionally, or they were killed in a crossfire by an Iraqi gas attack, or they were killed in a crossfire by an Irani gas attack right?

lets address an important point. where did Iraq get its chemical weapons from?

if indeed they got their chemical weapons from third parties (US among others), what makes those particular third parties who criticize the attack so righteous? so righteous as to claim that such an attack itself justifies a war against Saddam?

nice to see yu expose your uncaring self. But if i was to say, sept 11, 2000 + killed who cares...what would you think?

I think that the important point to realize here is the trimming of "excuses" for the war in Iraq.

The above right wing idiots love to cloud the issues at hand and introduce "new" evidence for the war.

WE HAVE THESE KNOWN FACTS:

1. Saddam/Iraq was NEVER linked to 9-11

2. Iraq has NO weapons of mass destruction

3. Iraq might NOT have been responsible for gassing the kurds.

==The US went to war AGAINST the UN's security council recommendations, to defend the world against this "madman" Saddam Hussain who sponsored terrorism within his borders and committed atrocious human rights violations.

ALL LIES



We find this is the correct answer for the war....

1. Oil

>>Iraq might NOT have been responsible for gassing the kurds.
The Holocaust denier types move on to the logical "Step 2".

are you equating Saddam to Hitler?

then according to neocon logic.....

You just lost the argument

SUKKKKKAAA!!!!!!!

And it makes certain sources of this news wire discomfort, particularly irritated. The weasels don't like it.

Who benefits?

Always a good question. Much disinformation spent here attempting to deny the real process of theft murder and repression growing now upon the world. These are interesting times.

"WE HAVE THESE KNOWN FACTS:

1. Saddam/Iraq was NEVER linked to 9-11

2. Iraq has NO weapons of mass destruction

3. Iraq might NOT have been responsible for gassing the kurds.

"

Where to even start with this beautiful mess.

Excuse me sheepdog while I indulge in a little "disinformation".

1. Remains to be seen. More accurately, it is a FACT that depending on who you talk to Iraq may or may not be linked to 9-11. Of course it is a FACT that certain ahem, people don't even believe that we were attcked at all from without on 9-11.

2.Iraq may or may not have WMD at this very moment. The FACT is that WMD were most certainly in Iraq up until the very recent past. No eveidence of their complete destruction exists. Beyond that, the worst sort of WMD still exists throughout Iraq. These are commonly referred to as Islamic Terrorists. Exponentially worse than DU.

3. In that very exciting high school manner of "Can we REALLy know anything?" way I suppose this may be a fact. However in the manner of "All evidence, admissions, accounts and globally accepted history" this statement is patently ridiculous. Please see the FLAT EARTH THREAD for a subject more in line with your particular psychosis.



Thank you.

Goodnight.

Go Sox.

let me just say I quiver with warm fuzzies when you cackel and spray like that. It's kinda cute.

thank you for your further accolades. touched I am in a sensitive understanding way. How is life inside your Iron lung? Do you remember being able to jump on frogs? Was it fun?

I Must run, so don't go anywhere.

Your welcome. Whatever I can do to help, just let me know.

Believe me. Life is great around here. The real world is actually a pretty fine place and there is much to enjoy and feel good about.

You should really try to leave your cave of fear and give it a try. Your fantasy world of oppression, demons and unseen nefarious forces must be a very lonely place. (except for a few shriveling comrades you seem to have here)

And again. Go Sox!

I have to chuckle when I hear the stale old thumb-sucking, bed-wetting, liberals saying "We're only there for oil". What do they mean? Are we lining up our VLCC's at the dock to steal the oli? Are we carting it away in wheel barrels? No. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people and we have stated this time and time again. Now we're finding mass graves of hundreds of thousands of innocent people murdered by the regime. What do you say now Liberals?

Sometime the Truth is tough to take