But the rest, as far as I can tell, is accurate.

Thomas wrote: “It was also not known that Hussein was doing that (committing acts of genocide against the Kurds) when the money ($1 billion from Bush Sr. to Saddam) was lent. The ugliness, as you call it, was discovered in the aftermath of the first Gulf War”

Where are you getting this information from? This is spectacularly wrong. The Gulf War began on August 2, 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The first news reports of the Halabja gassing occurred just one week after the incident on March 22, 1988 in the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, and the New York Times. On March 31, 1988, the conservative Washington Times newspaper published an article about the incident called “Grisly Revival of Gas” by Ken Adelman. In fact, virtually every major paper on the planet covered it. On March 23, 1988, Nightline actually showed film footage of the carnage.

In May of 1988, the US Foreign Relations Committee sent a team to Turkey to interview Iraqi Kurdish refugees and assess reports of Saddam’s use of chemical weapons. Their report affirmed the chemical attack at Halabja that left more than “4,000 people dead” as well as other incidents of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. This is more than two years before the first Gulf War.

In response to Halabja, the US Senate passed (unanimously) the “Prevention of Genocide Act” on September 8, 1988. It would have cut off from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil. Reagan immediately announced his opposition to the Bill, and worked to stop its passage through the House. He succeeded. The Bill died there.

Later, in October 1989, when most international banks had cut off loans to Iraq, President Bush Sr. signed National Security Directive 26 mandating closer links with Iraq and $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees. Obviously, Bush Sr., at this point, was well aware of Saddam’s … ummm … genocidal tendencies. Your assertion that Saddam’s atrocities were not known is completely false.

Thomas also wrote: “Later, Hussein continued his genocidal ways while being closely monitored with photo survelance during Clinton;s term(s), who did NOTHING except issue stern warnings about it.”

Saddam continued to be a brutal, murderous thug after the first Gulf War, but not at quite the same horrific levels as before the war, especially in regards to the Kurds. After some initial horrors right at the end of the war when the US was slow to protect the Kurdish population, things have been relatively quiet in the northern Kurdish-controlled part of Iraq. The No-Fly Zone, insituted by Bush Sr. and maintained under Clinton, was quite successful in protecting the Kurds. They were basically living under defacto self rule.

And finally Thomas wrote: “I’m sure ?linton would have put together an online petition to get Saddam to stop, but Gore wasn’t through inventing the internet yet.”

I’m not interested in partisan sniping and related sarcastic bullshit. I never said I supported Clinton or Gore. I was addressing some or your assertions which are absolutely and completely false.

Thanks.

Later, Hussein continued his genocidal ways while being closely monitored with photo survelance during Clinton;s term(s), who did NOTHING except issue stern warnings about it. I’m sure he would have put together an online petition to get Saddam to stop, but Gore wasn’t through inventing the internet yet.

Be careful of your own “misinformation”.
Thanks.

You are wrong. Saddam began to use chemical weapons against the Kurds in April of 1987. The mass killing in Halabja happened on March 16, 1988, at the start of George HW Bush’s term as president. Six months later, the Bush I administration lent Hussein a billion dollars. The fact is Hussein committed his worst atrocities before the first Gulf War when he was a trusted friend of the US. And we did nothing about it. Ugly, but true.

Please do not spread misinformation.
Thanks.

Personally, I’d focus on getting Osama next; We got Saddam, so we know our troops CAN find a leader in hiding. After that’s I’d head into the Sudan; Another place where genocide and ritual female mutilation holds sway.

The problem is, without a REASON, even one that later proves to be unreliable, we’re entering into a conflict with another set of standards based off extremist religion. As I’m not trying to get approval rating from the world or even my own country, I’d say blow the current regime to hell and let God sort them out. But Bushie already has a black eye for the WMD debauchle in Iraq, so running at that windmill would be political suicide for the ‘Pubs; And for both sides, it’s about having the puppet chair of power in the next election. The two party system isn;t about doing what’s right; It’s about doing what it takes to make sure your party wins the next election. Hence my vote for Nader.