This information came out during hearings in 1994 over Gulf-War syndrome (GWS), notably the Riegle Report.

Other countries, most notably Europeans countries which protestsed agaisnt the Iraq War the loudest supplied Iraq much more, even primary items. That effort even continued after the Gulf War as revealed thru investigation into Oil for Food episode.

The only way to truly proove that a US supllier’s items were used to make Iraqi weapons, would be to either find the Iraqi reciepts or to examine the chemical signatures within the weapons themselves. Barring a recorded converstaion or document discussing the intent to provide Iraq WMDs the issue of dual purpose items allows credible doubt. To me there’s more evidence that Saddam was reposnsible for 9-11 than “Rumsfeld” supplied Iraq WMDs, there’s evidence but simply “not enough to convince everybody”.

United States openly condemned the use of CW by Iraq.

Saddam had CW long before Rumsfeld met him.

Saddam did not use BW in any war.

Rumsfeld did not condemn the use of poison gas when he talked to saddam,that’s the only thing he “admitted”.

None of this is new. It’s all documented. Why all the denial?
Reagan worked with Saddam because he was at war with Iran
same as why he worked with Bin Laden (Taliban name or not) because they were fighting the Russians. No one knew at the time that it would later bite us in the ass. It was an honest mistake. I said so. But to later pretend that we didn’t make that mistake is dishonest. To torture people to confess to something because it meets your political or financial objectives is evil.
Why would you defend this? It’s not about politics, it’s about right and wrong.
Is there nothing that is more important than political ideology?

PS: you may attack me all you want, but it doesn’t change what happened.

Mark: look it up. Do your own homework. Be objective about it. Don’t just pick my arguments apart, find out the truth, whether you like it or not. Then tell me Rumsfeld had no connection whatsoever to Saddam.

PSS: another thing, why defend Rumsfeld at all? He was terrible at his job. Even by Bush standards he was horrible and was fired. Where exactly do you guys draw the line?

why not go to my website and listen to the music instead?

United States didn’t give iraq such weapons.

“chemical weapons, including anthrax”