and thanks in large part to bloggers.
Daily Kos is reporting on a Pentagon briefing paper dug up by Thing Progress. It’s from 1995.
It speaks for itself:
IRAQ’S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS — IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIRSTRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION
AT THIS TIME). APPARENTLY, THIS TIME IRAQ DID NOT USE NERVE GAS AS THEY DID IN 1988, IN HALABJA (GEOCOORD:3511N/04559E), IRAQ, BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF POSSIBLE RETALIATION FROM THE UNITED STATES (U.S.) LED COALITION. THESE REPORTS OF POSSIBLE WP CHEMICAL WEAPON ATTACKS SPREAD QUICKLY AMONG THE KURDISH POPULACE IN ERBIL AND DOHUK.…
COMMENTS: 1. (SOURCE COMMENT) – IRAQ USED WP IN ERBIL AND DOHUK BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE KURDS TO PANIC AND FLEE FROM THE AREA.
If it’s good enough for Saddam to use, it’s good enough for the United States as well!
Apparently, one administrations definition of “chemical weapons” is very different from anothers.
Update: I edited the post to more accurately reflect the source… the fact remains the same. This Administration has lost what moral authority it has ever had.
Remember, back in the days after September 11… when the whole world was grieving. Shocked. Stunned. Devastated by the attacks and collapse of the World Trade Centers. It truly was a turning point in my life, and I do not doubt in the lives of many others around the world.
That day seems so incredibly far away now… at least in terms of my sympathy towards this Administration.
Update 2 I just found this, lurking on Google.
Q
You have said you’ve been eye witness of the use of white phosphorus during American bombing in Iraq.
A [Marine Jimmy Massey]:
Yes, we use it in the missile ogives launched by helicopters and in the bullets shot by the artillery.
Sound familiar?
Let me remind you.. from above “THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS”
Edit I’m not thrilled with the title I picked… of course Bush won’t be impeached for this.. he should be, but he won’t.. so perhaps I should have called it “Stick a fork in Iraqis, they’re cooked by Saddam and Bush…” Too harsh? OK… how about “You could stick a fork in it… but the WP burned clean through”… OK.. that’s harsh too.
Lets just call it “Fucking Hypocrit US Administration”. Ya, I like that. Short and to the point.
Update 3
Some will argue:
In [The Lefts] world, there is no difference between US military and the regime of Saddam Hussein—between humiliation and rape rooms ; between the sanctioned use of WP against entrenched terrorists and the use of nerve agents and WP on Kurdish civilians; between fighting to free a people and fighting to keep them subjugated.
This is the worst kind of justification. This is justification based on “we mean better” rather than.. “we ARE BETTER”.
We’re not talking about legality. We’re not talking about intent. We’re talking about morals… and by using White Phosphorous on Iraqi insurgents… just as Saddam used it on Kurdish rebels in 1991… the US Administration is lowering themselves to Saddam level of morality.
Just as, by sending Canadian Maher Arar to Syria to be tortured they (and potentially Canadas’ CSIS) lower themselves to the level of the Syrian government… just as, by allowing torture at Abu Graib, Gitmo and others to take place without responsibility flowing up the command….
I need to do nothing to engage in “moral relativism”.. this Adminstration has balanced it all out for me.. at the lowest common denominator.
Actually, it’s based on no such thing. Your argument assumes that I think the deeds themselve coequal. I don’t. I think they are different.
And so the justification is based on those actual differences, not on our attitudes toward what we’re doing.
You should do a Google search for Massey too, while you’re at it.
Sorry, your posts were automatically moderated because you are new…
I assume you’re speaking of this comment of yours in your original post:
“between the sanctioned use of WP against entrenched terrorists and the use of nerve agents and WP on Kurdish civilians;”
Let’s break down your comment shall we?
#1: “Entrenched Terrorists” … you can call them terrorists if you like, but according to the ICRC and the US Armed Forces, they are enemy combatants… and as such are to be treated as any other combatant on the field… no matter what label you wish to put on them.
#2 “the use of nerve agents and WP”
Saddam did not use nerve agents on civilians in ’91 … he relented because he knew he would get whacked. Instead, he chose a different “weapon” one that would have the same psychological effect because of its’ physical effects, as well as his history of chemical weapon use.
#3 “on Kurdish civilians”.
The Pentagon paper says:
“Kurdish rebels stepped up their struggle against iraqi forces in northern iraq. During the brutal crackdown that followed the kurdish uprising, iraqi forces loyal to president saddam ((hussein)) may have possibly used white phosphorous (wp) chemical weapons against kurdish rebels and the populace in erbil ”
Notice the sections that I have emphasized.
Yes… Saddam used WP against civilians thus automatically setting himself up for possible war crime (though again, WP is not officially a chemical weapon).
The “Kurdish Rebels” on the other hand are effectively the same as the “terrorists” in Fallujah. They are resistance fighters in the eyes of the ICRC.
So, the Pentagons assertion, in 1995 that the “chemical weapons” White Phosphorous was possibly used against Kurdish Rebels effectively equates the actions of Saddam Hussein in 1991 with the action of US Forces in Fallujah. What’s more, the psychological memory factor of both Husseins’ actions in 1988 and of US use in the both wars of Depleted Uranium, cluster bombs, and likely rumours of chemical weapons would have likely combined and had EXACTLY the same effect on both the insurgent and population remaining in Fallujah as Saddams threats against Erbil and Dohuk.
The only difference is the moral “high ground” that the US Administration claims to have… which is.. of course.. absolutely false.
And I am aware of the “technical” definition of chemical weapons.. which is that the use of the toxicity of WP is what would make it a “chemical weapon”. However, according to this Pentagon briefing, the use of it as a weapon fired by “artillery” and “helicopter gunship” in and off itself, was enough for this person to call it a Chemical Weapon. These are exactly the same methods that the US military used in Fallujah.
Hell, they might have even being using the same artillery pieces. Iraq used standard 155mm howitzers, I believe.
From Tell me a Secret… link on the blogroll at left under Iraqi blogs.
“I knew about the use of chemical weapons in Falluja, because simply everyone in Iraq knows, and everyone that was in Falluja knows it, and I remember them describing it to me too.
one of my friends, a very brave Iraqi girl that was working on her own to evacuate civilians from inside Falluja during the fight ( yes, of course there were civilians inside the city ) told me that an American soldier asked her specifically not to eat or drink anything inside the city, you know what that means?
yah, I guess you do.”