Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: George Bush had a good heart [View all]polly7
(20,582 posts)53. How do you justify 'intervention' for something that happened in
1988 and was ignored because Hussein was tipping the balance against Iran?
The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.
U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.
"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.
According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.
U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.
"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.
According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran?wp_login_redirect=0
Intervention means to me, the act of intervening. Obviously, no-one did. You don't get to claim you are decades later.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
144 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
George W. Bush was and continues to be a man of surprisingly inconsiderable intellect...
Gravitycollapse
Sep 2013
#4
You said that in a much nicer way than I would have, but you nailed it.
Arkansas Granny
Sep 2013
#67
Yesterday, heard a snip of some right wing radio guy actually complaining
Laura PourMeADrink
Sep 2013
#72
They liked Bush because he spoke their language (in words of 7 letters, or less)
Frustratedlady
Sep 2013
#105
He was hilarious, though, like when he was looking for WMDs under a couch in the Oval Office
deutsey
Sep 2013
#84
It is a common myth that GWB assisted the fight against AIDS in Africa.
Gravitycollapse
Sep 2013
#14
Are you shitting me? You think Reagan was a bastion of pure intentions?
Gravitycollapse
Sep 2013
#15
"Reagan was mostly sincere in his philosophy." - Ummm...No. Actually, hell no.
Gravitycollapse
Sep 2013
#19
Bush executed a lot of people in Texas. He didn't show any compassion at all.
avaistheone1
Sep 2013
#30
A mixed bag for you, I guess. But you're not in Iraq so that means nothing, really. nt.
polly7
Sep 2013
#47
You would be in good company if you did go. Lots of good actual Democrats got the hell out
Number23
Sep 2013
#125
Bush was a spoiled, deranged, lying, RW fundy sociopath who slaughtered peasants
Zorra
Sep 2013
#116
george bush so did NOT have a good heart...didn't fool me once, twice or never..
Tikki
Sep 2013
#117
Bush was never qualified/thoughtful enough to be President. His heart is irrelevant
ecstatic
Sep 2013
#118
WTBloodyH?!?! Bush was an EVIL, EVIL MAN. He thought it was GREAT, e.g., when a poor woman told him
WinkyDink
Sep 2013
#129
I agree with you, GW Bush has a good heart. But unfortunately even some people that
bluestate10
Sep 2013
#132