Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons' - FOI documents reveal!!

page: 1
24
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Wow. This was released today.


US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night.
As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.
The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.
They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.


Gonna hunt down said FOI documents, and see whats been uncovered, but is this being covered much in the US? I can't say I am surprised considering Rumsfeld is responsible for unleashing Aspartame on the world when he was in charge at Searle pharmaceuticals. Just good to see that he may well pay for all the misery and heartache his actions have caused and will continue to cause for years to come (unless aspartame is declared by the FDA to be the poison that it is!)

But I just had a lightbulb moment after reading the last few sentences....


The newspaper says: 'The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.'
At the time of his meeting with Saddam, Mr Rumsfeld was working for Searle - a company which dealt only in medicinal pharmaceuticals.
Both he and Searle made all their money from the distribution of a cardiovascular drug.
Under no circumstances did he or Searle have any connection to the production of chemicals which would have been sold to Saddam.
And no one in the US has ever suggested that Mr Rumsfeld had any personal interest at stake in the Iraq meetings.


Hang on - MONSATO owned Searle pharmaceuticals at the time ....surely the fact that insecticides were being sent to Iraq and Rumsfeld was the boss at Searle (Monsato's sister) isn't a coincidence?

link to story
edit on 5 3.1414 by taketheredpill because: (no reason given)
edit on 5 3.1414 by taketheredpill because: The plot thickened somewhat...
edit on 5 3.1414 by taketheredpill because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by taketheredpill
 


is that why TPTB never found WMD ,,cause they were stamped "Rumsfeld"
was this before or after the deal with Iran to trade weapons so they wouldnt release the hostages until after Reagan got elected
edit on 5-3-2014 by Blowback because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Hmmm.Strange...He makes no mention of it here....

youtu.be...
edit on 5-3-2014 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-3-2014 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:13 AM
link   
I thought it was common knowledge that this country provided these weapons to Iraq at that time.As for Rumsfeld being involved,is anyone really surprised by this?



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by taketheredpill
 


Well they were quite good buddies as far as I remember. The question I have is where did Saddam hide them all?




posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:25 AM
link   
yes it is out in mainstream american news. from 2002! the daily mail clearly notes the Washington Post as the source. but it's sort of old news.

you have to use a paid search to go back beyond 2004 on the Washington post site, but here is a reprinted version

www.propagandamatrix.com...


also from 2002
www.cbsnews.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by taketheredpill
 


He is the definition of everything that is wrong with government, I personally think he was involved in 9/11 too..........

edit on 5-3-2014 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublimecraft
 


what the hell....that was the story that I just spoke about, yet was released today apparently.....I'm a bit confused.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Bassago
reply to post by taketheredpill
 


Well they were quite good buddies as far as I remember. The question I have is where did Saddam hide them all?



He hid them in plain sight, as only America was looking for them and had no intention of finding what they themselves had sold to Iraq until they NEEDED to as an excuse to invade.

The whole scenario is sickening.

America in the 80's armed and funded the nation that 20 years later it would destroy for having the very same weapons that they, America, had sold them 20 years earlier...The American government takes hypocrasy to a whole new level.
edit on AM3Wed20141972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by taketheredpill
 


nah, its the daily mail that tends to republish old news as new news once the general sleeping public forgets about events the way they happen. maybe it is a good thing to bring it to the surface for new readers.

even thought the means may be somewhat untruthful once the reader discovers it is old news. daily mail is too sensational for my tastes and is mostly paraphrased refarted news more than any actual reporting.
edit on 3/5/2014 by bladdersweat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   

taketheredpill
reply to post by Sublimecraft
 


what the hell....that was the story that I just spoke about, yet was released today apparently.....I'm a bit confused.


Don't be confused..........welcome to the world of political propaganda.

The media relies on collective short-term memories (not directed at you OP) and/or lack of knowledge of world events and the factual history thereof.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublimecraft
 

I was gonna say, I thought this was relatively old news or common knowledge.

Not just chemical weapons, conventional as well.

Why not? Saddam was CIA.

It was kinda funny when people were calling for Saddam's head. Saddam was just a soldier. The actual leadership was in Washington D.C.

Exclusive: Saddam key in early CIA plot.


While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublimecraft
 


what the hell? you just paraphrase what i essentially wrote AND got all the stars for it! yes, your words are more eloquent, but whatevers, i'm going to bed. bleh



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:48 AM
link   
I'm not surprised by this at all. And don't forget that when the first Iraq war occurred, it was not because Iraq invaded Kuwait, it was because Kuwait was slant-drilling into Iraq and stealing Iraq's oil, and Iraq sent the troops in to stop it. And who backs Kuwait again ?

The second Iraq war was based on several lies about WMD and involvement in 9/11. Afghanistan was invaded under the pretence that Osama was there. He was found in Pakistan, "killed", "dumped at sea", yet the Afghan war goes on ?

It's funny how we make the same mistakes over and over, yet expect a different outcome each time. Oh sorry, that's a definition of insanity...................



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:06 AM
link   
This interview is old but still relevant.


Washington (CNN) -- If the Bush administration had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it probably wouldn't have decided to invade in 2003, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said



"No question it was the big one," he said. Asked if the United States would not have invaded if the administration hadn't believed Iraq had the weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld said: "I think that's probably right."



"My goodness, every year the Congress was stuffing $10 billion down the Pentagon's throat that we didn't want," Rumsfeld said. "There's no question that there's money there."

edition.cnn.com...

It's those milk tankers I tell ya!



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   

bladdersweat
reply to post by Sublimecraft
 


what the hell? you just paraphrase what i essentially wrote AND got all the stars for it! yes, your words are more eloquent, but whatevers, i'm going to bed. bleh


I simply replied to the OP, I did not read your post until after I posted my reply.

If it's any consolation, I gave each of your posts here a star - credit where credit is due.




posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:19 AM
link   

DarksideOz
it was not because Iraq invaded Kuwait, it was because Kuwait was slant-drilling into Iraq and stealing Iraq's oil,


is there any evidence for that claim? Iraq made that claim, did they show any evidence for it?
www.nytimes.com...
edit on 5-3-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:24 AM
link   
You only have to look at that rum-face and you know he is a crook.
Maybe he was over there selling "Farming equipment" & "Machine tools"




posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Ive been saying this for years. The Kurds, who were victims of Saddams chemical weapons have also been saying and showing it.

Yet the majority of Americans, ATSers and even mainstream media still claim that "Saddam had no WMD".
edit on 2014 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by taketheredpill
 


The one thing we can all agree on is the duplicity of politicians both sides of the Pond. Both our countries sell arms to the rest of the world so when they can be used against our own troops, because suddenly the 'poodle' state turns, they wimp and bring up all sorts of disengenuous why the 'poodle' should now be tamed - always at the cost of the lives of our young men and women, never their own kin.





top topics
 
24
<<   2 >>

log in

join