Poor 'Jebbie'. In his frantic zeal to attack me, he forgot to finish reading my posts! Typical leftie. Always with personal attacks first, never facts. Jebbie implies that barrels labeled SARIN and VX were given to Saddam by Reagan. Pathetic lie. Never happened. Typical household chemicals can be combined to make poisons; so Jebbie thinks Safeway deals in WMD!! Iraq was sold fertilizers, old Jebbie. Common the world over.

I read your posts and actually re-read them. They were no more truthful the second time than the first. I never mentioned anything about barrels of sarin or VX. I merely stated that the Reagan administration had given Iraq WMDs and also training in their use. We also supplied up to date targeting information from our satelites to the Iraqis so those weapons could be used more effectively.

=="On March 3, 1984, the Reagan State Department intervened to prevent a U.S. company from shipping 22,000 pounds of phosphorous fluoride, a possible chemical weapons precursor, to Iraq."== Ah. Caught you in a lie, Jebbie.

Actually, Reagan took steps to remove Iraq from the list of terrorist states. He also took steps to stop UN efforts to condemn Saddam's use of WMDs in its war with Iran. (See below)

Jebbie mentions photos of Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam. Well, Einstein, that happened in 1984, not 1990. Rumsfield was on a mission to the middle East, visiting various countries. Iran and Syria had blocked the oil flow to the West. He met Saddam to resolve this problem. Iran, not Iraq, attacked our embassy. Remember?? Jebbie seems to justify the invasion and destruction of Kuwait by Iraq because Kuwait was supposedly taking oil from Iraqi fields. Bull! The Rumaila oil field was on a shared border. We could say Iraq was stealing Kuwaiti oil. Wow. Jebbie really prefers Saddam! Any more lies, old Jebbie?

Google - April Glaspie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

also...

"In March 1984, the U.N. secretary-general submitted an experts' report to the Security Council on Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The Dutch and British representatives to the U.N. circulated a resolution condemning the use of chemical weapons (without specifically blaming Iraq) but the United States took no significant actions to support its allies. The State Department did meet with Nizar Hamdoon, Iraq's ambassador to the United States, to discuss how the Security Council might handle the issue in a way that would cause the fewest objections in Baghdad. The Iraqis did not want the Security Council to adopt a resolution on the matter (which could have been legally consequential) and asked instead for U.S. support in limiting any Security Council action to a statement by the council's president. The Reagan Administration obliged and the Iraqis got the outcome they desired. At the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the Reagan Administration went a step further and actively opposed a resolution condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons." - -Peter W. Galbraith, The End of Iraq

I'll stand by my statements. I wonder if my RWA friend will stand by his and supply more information about those tons of yellowcake that we allegedly found in post-invasion Iraq. He might also explain why, if we did find all that yellowcake, why the Bush administration didn't use that information to counter accusations that there were no WMDs or nuclear materials found after the invasion. One would think those "tons of yellowcake" would have kept Fox busy for weeks but...no where was this story to be seen. Why? If we found all that stuff, why does anyone think Bush finally admitted that we had not found any WMDs and that there was an "intelligence failure" which led him to believe it existed? Yellowcake? LOL

I've attached a video at my signature. Readers may look at it and make up their own minds about who is and who is not stretching the truth here.

MSM types are legends in their own minds. They're full of self-importance, self-righteousness, self-regard. They think that the Great Unwashed desperately needs the benefit of their incomparable wisdom.

Bullshit.

I'm glad Greenwald quoted that great article by Lewis Lapham in Harper's--"Elegy for a Rubber Stamp," about the late Saint Tim of Russert. Russert, like his MSM fellows, was nothing but an overpaid, underskilled, Establishment-serving hack.

big scoop

yawn

Why do you say that? Are you the poor bastard that's got to dig the grave then?

Londonlad: I hope your post made sense to you; it doesn't to me. Iraq did NOT follow the terms of the 1991 armistice. It continued attacks on U.S. jets. It intruded into the no-fly zone. It had a terrorist training camp in the northeast. It continued to support the terrorists against Israel. It played games with WMD. Bingo! Your little arguments are finished. (Do you really still want Saddam in charge??!)

According to you, the people in nations convicted by a 'court' should have a 'War Crimes Tax' imposed on them. Right. This happened after World War I to Germany, remember?? The reparations were so high that it helped led to Hitler, the Nazis, and to World War II. Should all Russians pay a tax for Stalin?? Do you ever think about what you write?? For God's sake, at least research and think through what you write!

In your short list of links as to where to go to get the real dirt and lowdown at the Race Track of Life don't forget this one:

Top 25 Censured Stories for 2009

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2009/

This problem goes deep. This problem goes all the way back, according to Noam Chomsky to the 17th century in England and the civil war between the king and parliament. The war wasn't the problem, it was the that ‘The self-described ‘men of quality’ were appalled as a ‘giddy multitude of beasts in men’s shapes’ rejected the basic framework of the civil conflict raging in England between king and parliament. They rejected rule by king OR parliament, and called for government ‘by countrymen like ourselves, that know our wants, not by knights and gentlemen that make us laws, that are chosen for fear and do but oppress us, and do not know the people’s sores’. America could be said to stand for the most complete rejection of this demand, and the most ruthless examplar of how it is denied, at home and abroad, while maintaining a mythology of equity and justice for public relations purposes-also at home and abroad. In the 20th century, Woodrow Wilson developed a framework of ‘Wilsonian Idealism’. According to its principles, abroad, ‘it is Washington’s responsibility to ensure that government is in the hands of the ‘good, though but a few’ while at home it is necessary to safeguard a system of elite decision making and public ratification, ‘polyarchy’ in the terminology of political science’. Understanding this makes it clear why it is that none of the neo cons expresses a scintilla of remorse for the horrific mess they’ve created and the lawlessness they’ve embraced. They believe they have acted to protect stability and order, i.e. the status quo, and that history will vindicate them. Their beliefs may make them unelectable but their complete control of the mainstream media has usually made that a minor problem.

Walter Lippman who had worked for Wilson on the Committee on Public Information creating war time propaganda found the idea of a power elite which was essentially unaccountable to the masses to be the norm. James Madison agreed. ‘Power must be delegated to ‘the wealth of the nation’, ‘the more capable set of men’, who understand that the role of government is to ‘protect the minority of the opulent against the majority’. That's why the Chuck Todds of this world have no shame. They want to be part of the minority of the opulent and it all makes perfect sense to them. That's why David Gregory said holding the government accountable for its actions and its decisions wasn't his job. He was just telling the truth. His job is to protect the elites and the status quo and he knows it. I now believe that no one will really understand what the west has become or what to do about it until the last mainstream media outlet goes bankrupt and closes down.