[T]he government ...has condemned him after a trial at which the former Iraqi mass murderer was formally forbidden from describing his relationship with Donald Rumsfeld, now George Bush's Secretary of Defence. Remember that handshake? Nor, of course, was he permitted to talk about the support he received from George Bush Snr, the current US President's father.
But on 25 May 1994, the US Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs produced a report entitled "United States Chemical and Biological Warfare-related Dual-use exports to Iraq and their possible impact on the Health Consequences (sic) of the Persian Gulf War".
[T]he report informed Congress about US government-approved shipments of biological agents sent by American companies to Iraq from 1985 or earlier. These included Bacillus anthracis, which produces anthrax; Clostridium botulinum; Histoplasma capsulatum; Brucella melitensis; Clostridium perfringens and Escherichia coli. The same report stated that the US provided Saddam with "dual use" licensed materials which assisted in the development of chemical, biological and missile-system programmes, including chemical warfare agent production facility plant and technical drawings (provided as pesticide production facility plans).
Yes, well I can well see why Saddam wasn't permitted to talk about this. John Reid, the British Home Secretary, said that Saddam's hanging "was a sovereign decision by a sovereign nation". Thank heavens he didn't mention the £200,000 worth of thiodiglycol, one of two components of mustard gas we exported to Baghdad in 1988, and another £50,000 worth of the same vile substances the following year.
We also sent thionyl chloride to Iraq in 1988 at a price of only £26,000. Yes, I know these could be used to make ballpoint ink and fabric dyes. But this was the same country - Britain - that would, eight years later, prohibit the sale of diphtheria vaccine to Iraqi children on the grounds that it could be used for - you guessed it - "weapons of mass destruction".
[W]ould the Americans and British dare touch a trial in which we would have not only to describe how Saddam got his filthy gas but why the CIA - in the immediate aftermath of the Iraqi war crimes against Halabja - told US diplomats in the Middle East to claim that the gas used on the Kurds was dropped by the Iranians rather than the Iraqis (Saddam still being at the time our favourite ally rather than our favourite war criminal). Just as we in the West were silent when Saddam massacred 180,000 Kurds during the great ethnic cleansing of 1987 and 1988.
The odd thing is that Iraq is now swamped with mass murderers, guilty of rape and massacre and throat-slitting and torture in the years since our "liberation" of Iraq. Many of them work for the Iraqi government we are currently supporting, democratically elected, of course. And these war criminals, in some cases, are paid by us, through the ministries we set up under this democratic government. And they will not be tried. Or hanged. That is the extent of our cynicism. And our shame. Have ever justice and hypocrisy been so obscenely joined?
Source: "This was a guilty verdict on America as well" by Robert Fisk - The Observer (U.K.) - 06 November 2006
[Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad] Allawi has made control over his old rival Hussein a loud demand of his appointed government, which sits in uneasy reliance on 135,000 U.S. troops and must answer to the world's largest American embassy in all important matters.
Such a plan must be tempting for the United States. A show trial under Allawi would be designed to get Hussein out of the way as quickly and quietly as possible, which might save the U.S. some embarrassment. After all, in an open, unbiased trial the old dictator, if he still has his wits about him, could talk about his cooperation with the Reagan and Bush administrations during the 1980s, when he committed many of the alleged crimes -- including the use of poison gas -- for which he will be brought to trial. He might even discuss his two visits back then with Donald H. Rumsfeld. But even though a fair public trial might prove uncomfortable for our government,…
There is no good argument for not trying Hussein under international law, as has been done with former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. A fair public trial would reveal the crimes of Hussein as well as the machinations of those U.S. officials and agencies that aided him.
Source: "Born under a cloud of irony - The new, free Iraq may officially be in the hands of a former terrorist." by Robert Scheer - Creators Syndicate 06.29.04
To say that Saddam Hussein was evil is to say that a puppet is evil while ignoring the puppet-master. Saddam was a puppet of so called "neo-cons" in the Reagan and Bush I administrations. If you want to get rid of the "evil", get rid of the neo-cons and their corporate controllers.
The main claim used to justify the invasion of Iraq (not counting the lies about WMDs and nuclear weapons) was that Hussein was evil and his overthrow was worth the price of the invasion. The example most often sited to illustrate Hussein's evil nature is that "he gassed his own people."
Keep in mind that he got the "gas" from Reagan and Bush I with their full knowledge of what he was doing with it.
What changed between then and the Gulf War? Certainly the war wasn't triggered by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The American ambassador to Iraq under Bush I had already told Hussein that the U.S. had no vested interest in Kuwait and that a skirmish between the two was of no consequence to the U.S.
What did Hussein do that led to his eventual capture in a "spider hole" in December 2003? Maybe someday history will reveal the answer.
View the Rumsfeld/Hussein clip
Rumsfield meets Hussein in the 1980s
Source: