| Return to FAQs |
| Also see "History" FAQ section and "Inevitable" FAQ section |
| The Saddam Hussein Sourcebook, updated in 2004. |
1. Isn’t Saddam Hussein "an evil man" who seeks or already has
weapons of mass destruction (WMD)?
|
Yes, he is certainly a brutal dictator in many ways, as we heard again in the President's January 28 State of the Union message and Powell's Feb. 5 UN speech, 2003. After Colin Powell's specific accusations of Al Qaeda links during his presentation to the UN, some sources doubted the links, as CIA and FBI disagreed. Of course, the FBI realizes that there are hundreds in the U.S. with links to Al Qaeda. Hussein was interviewed by a westerner for the first time in years. See the Tony Benn/Hussein interview from Feb. 2, in which he again denies that his nation has any WMD and accuses the U.S. of going after oil. |
Powell said, "leaving Hussein in possession of [WMD] for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11 world."
Replied France's Chirac, "I do not have undisputed proof" that Iraqi still has WMD (Post, 1/10). On January 21 in a "full court press" leading up to the President's State of the Union, the White House released "Apparatus of Lies: Saddam's Disinformation and Propaganda, 1990-2003" which includes few new accusations except Hussein's desire to use westerners as human shields and the deliberate destruction of facilities later blamed on bombing of the first Gulf War. The Blair dossier proved be be plagiarized and outdated (See "Allies/UN" ).
Through early February, the Bush administration attempted to present little proof of his WMD outside of small planes without pilots and aluminum tubes he has tried to import which could be used to enrich uranium or to make conventional artillery rockets. (See Study). Unfortunately for the hawks, AIEA leader Al Baradei challenged the US claim and reported to the UN on Jan. 9 of this "key piece of evidence": "There is no definitive intelligence that it is destined for a nuclear program." Iraqi builder and defector, Adnan Saeed al-Haideri, speaks of contracts to rebuild weapons sites. Powell's UN speech contradicted Al Baradei's evaluation of the aluminum tubes, saying "it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactures to a tolerance that far exceed UN. requirements for comparable rockets." Also see "Was the War Inevitable" FAQ section.
David Albright, physicist, President of the Institute for Science and International Security, and former weapons inspector: "I would not feel comfortable arguing on this [aluminum tube] basis that Iraq has a nuclear program even thought I personally believe it does" (Washington Post, 2/5). As early as September the Washington Post reported that "According to Albright, government experts on nuclear technology who defected from the Bush administration's view told him they were expected to remain silent" (9/19/02).
Also see "Was War Inevitable?" FAQ section.
The New York Times' Maureen Dowd editorializes, "People say the opposite of what they mean...Mr. Tenet [CIA head] says [in his October 7 letter] Saddam is unlikely to initiate a chemical or biological attack against us unless we attack him, and Mr. Bush says Saddam is likely to initiate an...attack so we must attack him. The President says Iraq is linked to Islamic terrorists so we must attack, while the CIA says that Iraq will link up with Islamic terrorists only if we attack." After the September UN speech by Bush, the White House released the 20-page paper "A Decade of Deception and Defiance." Reaction from the executive editor of Iraq Watch, Gary Milhollin, was surprise that it contained little new information: "Given the high priority of knowing what is going on in Iraq, I'm stunned by the lack of evidence of fresh intelligence." concurred Middle East expert Anthony Cordesman, "It's clumsy and shallow when what we need is sophisticated and in-depth...as an overall grade, I'd give it a D-minus" (Washington Post, , 9/12/02).
Also see "Weapons Inspectors" FAQ section.
In late September the U.S. suspended $55 million in aid to Ukraine due to allegations that it sold radar system to Iraq. Belarus was also accused. (Washington Post, 9/25/02).
| Ukraine' s President denies that they sold Iraq any aircraft detection systems: "We have never supplied Iraq with any arms or any weapons at all," said President Kuchma in early November. Senator Kennedy responded to the lack of evidence in general: "I have heard no persuasive evidence that Saddam is on the threshold of acquiring the nuclear weapons he has sought for more than 20 years...And the administration has offered no persuasive evidence that Saddam would transfer chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization." "Poisoning the air" explains how Iraqi orders for the nerve gas antidote are not a sign of a new policy. |  |
Even the conservative Wall Street Journal reported that "senior officials have referred repeatedly to intelligence...that remains largely unverified." Sec. Rumsfeld argues that "everyone knows" Iraq has or is developing WMD. The New York Times reports that experts say, "The administrations troubles are deepened by the fact that there is no single piece of clear evidence that would back up the claims" of Fleisher and Rumsfeld. Paul Krugman (NYTimes) claims that "the administration is...inventing facts as necessary." The Guardian comments that "we have being encouraged to support the war not because Saddam is a threat, but because he is evil." Also see "Inevitable" FAQ section.
 |
However, Tony Blair commented earlier in September, "You can argue about what weapons he has, if any, how many, and if they will ever work. You can argue about whether he will take two months or 10 years to build or acquire a nuclear bomb. But what you cannot argue with is the evidence that Saddam has set up his secret weapons procurement network once again." The CIA's "Iraq's WMD Program" predicted nuclear weapons by 2010 and was released one week before the Congressional vote. |
Tony Blair's September 24 dossier included: "Iraq has...illegally retained up to 20 al-Hussein missiles, with a range of 400 miles, capable of carrying chemical or biological weapons."
On the eve of the President's September UN speech, deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said in an interview "This [WMD] is not something where you can wait until you have clear evidence" (NYTimes/AP, 9/10/03).
Rumsfeld feels that terrorists "will inevitably get their hands on [these weapons] and they will not hesitate to use them." (NYTimes, 5/21/02). In June 2002, Rumsfeld commented, "The regime has had a sizeable appetite for [WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction)]" and when told that Iraq denies building WMD he replied, "Hussein is a world-class liar." Frustrated with the lack of CIA evidence of links to alQaeda or WMD, Rumsfeld in the fall of 2002 admitted that he set up his own intelligence unit within the Pentagon. Established by Defense undersecretary Douglas Feith, its 4-5 members continue to search for information (NYTimes, 10/24/03).
The Christian Science Monitor and other sources feel he a "not a lunatic" and may use WMD if backed into a corner by the U.S. Rumsfeld also began comparing Bush to Churchill and Hussein to Hitler with regards to European appeasement. In August, President Bush called Hussein "a menace to world peace." Believing that the evidence is overwhelming, even before Tony Blair's September 24 dossier, Bush added, "What more do we need to know?" NSC's Rice warned, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Powell's UN discussion of mobile weapons labs or "biological weapons factories of wheels" was a follow-up to General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; "There is evidence to support mobile production capability for chemical and biological weapons" (Post, 9/13/02). Similarly, Wall Street Journal deputy editor quoted UNSCOM in 1999: "'It needs to be recognized that Iraq possesses an industrial capability and knowledge bases, through which biological warfare agents could be produced quickly and in volume, if the government of Iraq decided to do so.' It neds to be recognized, but isn't." Also see "Inevitable" FAQ section.
These weapons allegations seems contrary to logic, according to the director of Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Program and former Weapons Inspector Raymond Zilinskar: "The short processing time [described by Powell] seems suspicious to me...This strikes me as a bit far-fetched" (Post, 2/6/03).
In early September the administration talked of L-29 aircraft, or pilot less drones being tested for possible WMD attacks (Post, 9/5/02).
A special with graphics is The Guardian's "Iraqi Weapons Potential." Also see "Weapons Inspectors" FAQ Section.
2. How badly does
Hussein treat his own citizens? (See
"P.S" FAQ section for post-war mass graves)
Both Bush's State of the Union and Powell's UN speech gave us
further details of his horrible killings and torture. In early December, the Blair government released a 23 page
report and video entitled "Saddam
Hussein: Crimes and Human Rights Abuses", detailing the brutality
of Hussein in varies types of torture, including systematic rape, torture,
gassing, and executions. It reported that "fear is Saddam's chosen
method of staying in power." UK's Jack Straw saw the purpose of the
release "to remind the world that the abuses of the Iraqi regime extend far
beyond its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction." Amnesty
International criticized the timing of the report as a "cold and
calculated manipulation": "Let us not forget that these same
governments turned a blind eye to AI's reports of widespread human rights
violation in Iraq before the Gulf War...They remained silent when thousands of
unarmed Kurdish civilians were killed in Halabja in 1988." Some of which
took place when he was a U.S. ally.
He and his Bathe party tortures and kills his enemies. Defectors estimate the killing of 1500 civilians in the first two months of 2002. Their favorite poison is slow-acting thallium. Other abuses are described by Salman Rushdie in "A Liberal Argument For Regime Change." The BBC's new site "Saddam's Iraq: Key Events", traces his rise in 1957 through inspectors in 2002.
Hussein also uses Iraq's 150 major tribes to ally with him by giving them favors, especially after 1991 when the Gulf War ended.
Back in 1982 after an assassination shootout attempt, Hussein limited his travel. As punishment, hundreds were arrested and residents of the town of Dujail were evicted, relocated, and their village was razed.
3. Can the U.S. deter Hussein as they deterred a nuclear armed Soviet Union during the Cold War?
 |
Kenneth Pollack, Former CIA analyst of the Iraqi military and author of the fall 2002 book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, comments in "Why Iraq Can't Be Deterred": "Proponents of deterrence argue that Mr. Hussein will not engage in new aggression, even after he has acquired nuclear weapons, because he is not deliberately suicidal and so would not risk an American nuclear response. But what they overlook is that Mr. Hussein is often unintentionally suicidal--that is, he miscalculates his odds of success and frequently ignores the likelihood of catastrophic failure." Pollack concludes, "Mr. Hussein's continued survival is far more attributable to luck than it is to any prudence on his part." |
Pollack recognizes that some think his greatest mistake was "to invade Kuwait before he had a nuclear weapon, because then the U.S. would never have dared to oppose him. In fact, he was "one of the very few intelligence officials to warn his superior in the first Bush administration about Saddam's imminent invasion of Kuwait." In the Washington Post, Pollack adds, "If you think the result of inspections process will be ambiguous, then the best time to strike is now...You should make a crisis now because you are not going to have any better cause for a crisis in six months. It is a fantasy to think the inspectors will come up with a smoking gun." Also see Pollack's NPR Interview.and a book review For more on Pollack, see "Should We?" FAQ section.
Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune argues that Saddam Hussein has been deterred since 1990. Any move now would be met with an overwhelming force. "We don't need to ask" if he will be deterred. He is not "too crazy for us to control." Even with nukes, deterrence has worked with aggressive China and the USSR during the Cold War. A similar Op-Ed (Knoxville New Sentinel Jan 24) felt that Bush should "remind us why we shouldn't just keep Saddam bottled up and under surveillance until the aging tyrant dies or is eased from power. He can't live forever."
"Mad he is not. He is paranoid--not paranoid crazy," believes a U.S. expert on psychological profiles of Hussein (Gerald Post, George Washington University, WashPost, 12/15/02).
4. Hasn’t Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons before?
How did the U.S. react?
 |
Yes, during the war with Iran, Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran and on
"his own people", though he doesn't consider Kurds "his
people". The attacks killed about 5000 Kurds
in just 30 minutes in Halabja in March, 1988. He at first blamed Iran and also attacked other villages deemed to be
sympathizing with Iran. These attacks included mustard gas, and nerve
agents like sarin and VX.
Fourteen years later, Kurdish villages still
remember. During 1988 Iraqi security forces murdered about 100,000
Kurds by various means.
|
Since the U.S. was his ally at this time, and Germany and probably the U.S. had helped Iraq develop these weapons, the reaction was "thunderous silence" (Out of the Ashes). Some Senate Democrats in 1988 tried to condemn Iraq but the effort went nowhere in Congress ("Iraq Chemical Arms Condemned, but West Once Looked the Other Way", NYTimes, 2/13/03).
As Amnesty International reminded us in December, the U.S. and Britain "remained silent when thousands of unarmed Kurdish civilians were killed in Halabja in 1988." "We believed," says a former U.S. official in Baghdad, "that Iraqis were using mustard gas all through the war" with Iran.
Author and Middle East expert Dilip Hiro has explored this period when "US turned a blind eye to poison gas." In an October speech in England, Clinton said the U.S. "had a lot to answer for" in WMD buildup in Iraq and the U.S. raised "hardly a peep" when the weapons were used on the Kurds (NYTimes, 10/2/02).
Nicholas Kristof talks of Rumsfeld "cozying up" with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s when the U.S. was "shipping him seven strains of anthrax" (2/25). A different approach is expressed by British foreign secretary Jack Straw who admits the the west's policy toward Iraq in the '80s "smacked of hypocrisy and did not take account of Saddam's true horror." To repeat that mistake "defies logic" (The Guardian, 2/21).
Bill Keller, also of The New York Times, reported that after the horrific attack on Kurds, a State Department document concluded "with some spine-tingling diplomatic detachment, 'human rights and chemical weapons use aside, in many respects our political and economic interests run parallel with those of Iraq.'" Concludes Keller, "The Bush administration's enthusiasm for human rights would be more believable if it were less selectively applied." Of course, the current president was not yet in office. President Bush is right that Hussein has used chemical weapons; "but only against people or a government (unlike us) who could not respond in kind. He is unlikely to use WMD unless his grasp on power is void of hope." For more on Keller, see "Columnists For War" FAQ section.
A controversial January 31, 2003 New York Times op-ed by Stephen Pelletiere suggested "We cannot say with any certainty that Iraq chemical weapons killed the Kurds". As a senior political analyst for the CIA during the Iran-Iraq War, he recalls that the Defense Intelligence Agency originally blamed Iran, enemy #1 at the time. Each side used gas against each other around Halabja in March 1988. Responds Jonathon Taranto in the Wall Street Journal, "How desperate is the New York Times to keep Saddam Hussein in power? Today the 'paper of record' runs an op-ed piece that actually seeks to minimize Saddam's human right violations...Everyone's always picking Sadamm, the poor baby."
Saudi Arabia backed Iraq's nuclear program until its August 1990 invasion of
Kuwait. PBS's Wide
Angle: "Saddam's Ultimate Solution" (8/22/02) describes how Iraqis
were trained near Berlin. For a brutally
detailed description of the chemical attacks and their effects on the Kurds, see "Lessons
of Iraq's Mass Murder" (Washington Post, 6/2/02) and Christian
Science Monitor (5/13/02). The New Yorker
from March 25, 2002, pp. 52-75, is not available online.
5. What are Saddam Hussein’s
goals? What does he say in rare interviews?
 |
His goal is to stay in power, in a glorified manner. Some call him a "master survivor". He reminds Iraq that he was born in Tikrit as Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti, "home nine centuries ago to the great Saladin, the Islamic victor in the Crusades" (Time, 5/4/02). Those with power and access to him are the "Tikriti Clan." John Burns comments in the Times (12/27/02), "...echoes of his dream can still be heard in his wistful, rambling discourses...that evoke the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, and Saladin and Nebuchadnezzar, Mesopotamian heroes who seized Jerusalem from the Crusaders 800 years ago, and from the Jews 1700 years before that." The LA Times Robin Wright suggests that the Old Testament reference to "burning fiery furnace" may be the site of Kirkuk." Wright quotes a Senior U.S. official on the importance if Kirkuk, "Taking Baghdad will determine the outcome of the war. Sorting out Kirkuk [with hundreds of thousands of Kurds, Turkomen, and Assyrians expelled by Hussein since 1991] will determine what happens afterward." |
"There is one thing Saddam Hussein cares about more than nuclear or biological weapons and that is staying in power" (Jessica Matthews, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 2002). Others argue that he will never give up his WMD because they help to control the Kurds and the 60% Shiia. "WMD are tied into his sense of survival and his sense of identity", help him win wars, stay in power, threaten neighbors, and lead the Arab world, but his "spectacular misjudgments" make him hard to predict. http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4611470-102273,00.html
Brent Scowcroft comments on Hussein's motivation. Others see his "instinct for self-preservation." For example, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich) concurs: "Does he love himself more than he hates us?....Probably yes". A CIA analyst adds, "Like many tyrants, he expects to die in his bed of old age." "Saddam is a man whose whole existence is about control and his own perception of his image," says a British defense source.
In late October Hussein released thousands of Iraqi prisoners from prisons; is it a PR move or an attempt to gain more support in the coming war? In a 1995 election he earned 99.96% of the vote, but on October 15 he won in a landslide--100% turnout and 100% voting yes. Hussein's speech (in full text) followed the vote. He is also trying to downplay the kicking out of some U.S. media. Amazingly, Hussein's email has been hacked; evidently, he doesn't read his email regularly. In January 2003, the talk of Hussein leaving heated up. There was talk of his family going to Algeria. But he would not feel safe around people he couldn't trust.
Despite being a fan of the BBC, Hussein has not traveled outside his county since the 1980s and rarely speaks with western journalists or officials. He also "obsessively" watches CNN, Sky (UK), and Al-Jazeera (The Guardian, 2/24).
Journalist Tony Benn of the UK interviewed Hussein on February 2, 2003, and caught the Iraqi leader in a contradiction: "Let me tell you, my friend--and through you the world--that Iraq has never possessed [WMD]. And those we had, we never used. And even when we used them it was purely in self-defense." Hussein also again said that Iraq has "no relationship with alQaeda" and "we do not hate the British people."
"Why Tony Benn is an ass" looks at the "useful idiot" label once used by Communist leader Lenin: "So their willingness to be Saddam's propagandist, in the face of everything that is known about him, is worse that idiotic and may not even by very useful either." It doesn't help the anti-war cause.
 |
Hussein's interview with Dan Rather was on February 24, less than a month before war would begin. Rather was the first American journalist to interview Hussein in 13 years. The Guardian analyzes how Rather pulled it off. http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4613570-103680,00.html |
The Texas-born Rather, at CBS news since 1962, was criticized by the White House for not allowing the White House to counter Hussein point by point on the 60 Minutes program. As it turns out, Bush spoke live just two hours before 60 Minutes. Hussein proclaimed defiantly, "I was born here in Iraq...We will die here." He also challenged President Bush to a debate: "I am ready...to conduct a direct dialogue, a debate, with your President. I will say what I want, and he will say what he wants." Replied Fleisher, "This is not about a debate. This is about disarmament and complying with the world's instructions that Iraq disarm" (Time, 3/10).
The Saddam Hussein interview with Rather (3 hours and 17-page transcript) included discussions of Al-Samoud missiles, alQaeda, asylum, first Gulf War, Hussein's view of the American people, and the proposed debate. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/26/60II/printable542151.shtml
The
clash between the network and the White House was apparent when the CBS
news president replied, "Air Fleisher has access to the American public and
we report the white House position on key issues every single day" (NYTimes and The
Guardian, 2/27). http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4614489-103681,00.html
Said Fleisher, "if its all lies, why put it
on in the first place." One network executive siad the White
House "was incredibly heavy-handed" (WashPost, 3/3).,
as CBS
and the White House became mad at each other. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31034-2003Mar2?language=printer
|
Another goal of Hussein's is lasting fame. For instance, the huge Mother of All Battles Mosque [his name for the Persian Gulf War] with the Koran written inside with 29 liters of his blood. John Burns, New York Times reporter often on the ground in Iraq, describes the mosque building program "that no Arab leader has undertaken since the days of the great Abbasid caliphs who ruled the Arab world from Baghdad." until 1258. Even larger is The Mosque of Saddam the Great, "whose outer minarets are 43 meters high, for the 43 days of American bombing" ("Hussein Obsession: An Empire of Mosques", 12/15/02). |
6. Does Hussein really pay the families of
Palestinian suicide bombers? What is the connection to Hamas?
Sadly, yes. This has been known for a while, though the Chicago
Sun-Times reported on April 4, 2002 that the new "reward" has been
increased from $5000 to $25,000. Hussein evidently gives money to the family of any
Palestinian (child, civilian) who dies in the Intifada and $25,000 for each
house destroyed by Israel in Jenin and other towns. The Washington Post
reports that U.S. ally Saudi Arabia holds "phone-a-thons" to raise similar funds.
Could militant Islamic groups use suicide bombings within the U.S.? Also
see "Allies/UN FAQ section, #8. on Israel. Time magazine and
others conclude that "money is hardly a significant factor in...the conflict"
(3/10). President Bush felt that getting rid of Hussein "will deprive
terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training and
offers rewards to families of suicide bombers." Replied Matthew
Rothschild of The Progressive, "If Bush thinks that Palestinian
suicide bombers engage in their unjust, bloody acts simply to get monetary
reward from Saddam for their families, he's kidding himself" (April,
2003).
On January 10, 2003, a new Hamas-Hussein alliance was suggested, as Abdal Aziz Rantisi, a Hamas leader, said publicly that Iraq should train and outfit cells of suicide attackers with "thousands of highly explosive belts" to fight American and British troops in the coming war. "Blow yourself up against the American army...Bomb them in Baghdad" (Post, 1/10/03)..."because all Muslims are targeted by the USA" (Chicago Tribune, 1/11/03). Hamas operates in numerous Middle East nations, including Lebanon.
In March the Washington Post reported that Palestinians received $245,000 in checks, part of $35 million paid "to the kin of Palestinians killed in Gaza Strip and West Bank since September 2000 (3/13/03).
7.
Why does the Iraqi government hate us?
Though President Bush has said "they hate us for our freedoms", The
Guardian argues that "they [Middle Easterners] actually hate us for the
Sykes-Picot Treaty ending the Ottoman Empire...for Arthur James Balfour...for
Americans steadfast support of what they perceive as corrupt and cruel
regimes...and for its bland indifference to the injustice suffered by the
Palestinians." (Also see "PS" FAQ
section.) The U.S., as chief sponsor of the UN
sanctions since the Gulf War, has been responsible for the death of 700,000
Iraqi children and civilians (UN, Unicef, WHO, Doug Cassel). The economy cannot recover under
sanctions. Lately, The U.S. bombs Iraq at least every
week Finally, the Iraqi
government is obviously upset that the U.S. is planning "regime
change." An Iraqi expert believes "The Iraqi people hate Saddam, but
they blame the US for their problems. Nobody likes foreign troops marching
through their country, especially the Iraqis" (Judith Kipper, Centre for
Strategic and International Studies). Other U.S. delegations to Iraq report that
the Iraqi people don't hate Americans, just our leader's sanctions policy and
ongoing threats of war. Hussein himself explains his aggravation in
his own words. (Also please see "Sanctions"
FAQ Section)
8. Who
are the other major players in the Iraqi government? (also
see "If Not Hussein" FAQ section)
 |
Aside from Hussein's sons, the #2 man is Izzat Ibrahim. The Vice President is Yassin Ramadan, Tareq Aziz (at left) is the Deputy Prime Minister and Christian, and the Foreign Ministry is headed by Naji Sabri. All three have been in the news lately. These and others are described in The Guardian's "Hussein's Inner Circle." Hussein's ambassador to the UN writes an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times "Iraq States Its Case": "It is my belief that the American people are not aware of this history [of weapons inspectors as spies]." For more details on spies, see "Weapons Inspectors" FAQ Section and "Post Saddam" section for the "52 cards" information. |
9. Has Saddam Hussein
threatened the U.S.?
No, despite our hostile, pre-emptive threats toward him. His
general threats are in response to a U.S. invasion. Hussein calls on God to
"smite them with your wrath and smash them with your destructive blow, for
they are a group of criminals" (NYTimes, 1/7/03). In a reference
to the brutal Mongol invasion of Baghdad, the center of Arab learning and
culture for hundreds of years, Hussein warned, "The people of Baghdad have
resolved to compel the Mongols of this age to commit suicide on its walls"
(The Guardian, 1/17/03 and NYTimes, 1/18/03).
Iraqi V.P. Ramadan called on Arabs to "strike Americans interests in the Middle East" in the event of an American attack on Iraq (NYTimes/Reuters, 9/11/02). In January Ramadan threatened to "deploy thousand of suicide bombers...and they will be used not only in Iraq" (WashPost, 2/3/03).
"But What if the Iraqis Strike First?" (WashPost,
1/23/03) describes Patriot missiles for U.S. defense and smallpox inoculations
for U.S. troops.
10.
Should Saddam Hussein be tried for war crimes? (Also
see PS FAQs)
This war crime ideas, used in former Yugoslavia and earlier in
Nuremberg against Nazis, was floated in late October. The core group would
be Hussein and one dozen other leading Iraqis.