Thanks Folkiedave, you rode a perfect race to bring Horse B in ahead of the pack, I'd've won money on it.

"As George said (paraphrase): "The difference between my visit to Saddam and Rumsfeld's was that I was there to plead for peace and he was there to sell arms". – Folkiedave.

Now this is just a perfect example of one of Gorgeous George's myths. The meeting notes transmitted to Washington after Donald Rumsfeld's meeting with Saddam Hussein on 20th December, 1983 have been declassified and are in the public domain. I have read them, and it is plainly obvious from your paraphrasing that neither yourself, nor Gorgeous George have gone through a similar exercise.

Glad to see that you are beginning to come away from Rumsfeld being an important member of Reagan's administration, I suppose that you had no other choice really, all evidence supported the opposite view to your own - irrespective of what many believe. I am not really all that interested in what many believe to be true I'd rather run on substantiated fact.

"Of course I know Rumsfeld was not a member of the administration but there exists quote after quote showing Rumsfeld was far more than a messenger boy. All of which you seem to ignore." – Folkiedave

But if you knew that he was not a member of the administration why on earth did you say rather adamantly that he was?

- "... how on earth, if he was unofficial did he get the power to speak for the US government?"

The answer of course Folkiedave was that during his period as President Reagan's Special Middle-East Envoy, Donald Rumsfeld was NEVER given the power to speak on behalf of the US Government.

Your example Folkiedave – "My pay cheque came from Sheffield College until I retired. It doesn't mean I didn't have unpaid work." – And I bet that in the course of that unpaid work you were fully authorized to make binding commitments, professional, financial and contractual, on behalf of those you were carrying out the work for – I would somehow doubt it, unless of course those you were doing unpaid work for, were complete and utter idiots.

Out of Government Service, Donald Rumsfeld did rather a lot:

- Gilead Sciences Pharmaceutical Company: Chairman (1997-2001)
- General Instrument Corporation: Chairman and CEO (1990-1993)
- G.D. Searle Pharmaceutical Company: CEO/Chairman/President (1977-1985)
- Bechtel: Involved in Iraq-Bechtel Negotiations on a Pipeline Project in the 1980s
- Gulfstream Aerospace: Former Director
- Tribune Company: Former Director
- Metricom, Inc.: Former Director
- Sears, Roebuck, and Co.: Former Director
- ASEA Brown Boveri: Former Director

While engaged in those tasks detailed above he was also very busy with other things "on the side". The shareholders of the companies he was working for at the time wouldn't have minded at all, Rumsfeld was after all a very astute and successful businessman. Here are some of the things that he did "on the side":

- Member of the President's General Advisory Committee on Arms Control (1982-1986);
- Special presidential envoy on the Law of the Sea Treaty (1982-1983);
- Senior adviser to the President's Panel on Strategic Systems (1983-1984);
- Member of the U.S. Joint Advisory Commission on U.S.-Japan Relations (1983-1984);
- Special presidential envoy to the Middle East (1983-1984);
- Member of the National Commission on Public Service (1987-1990);
- Member of the National Economic Commission (1988-1989);
- Member of the Board of Visitors of the National Defense University (1988-1992);
- Member of the Commission on U.S.-Japan Relations (1989-1991);
- Member of the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission (1999-2000).

Now somewhere in that lot, Folkiedave is the over-riding consideration that worked in Donald Rumsfeld's favour, and was quite clearly taken into account when President Reagan was casting around to find his "Special Envoy", it sticks out like a dogs bollocks. It shouts to the roof that this is a guy that Saddam & Co., WILL want to talk frankly to.

"When challenged to say whether or not he agreed with private contractors claiming immunity from being prosecuted for negligence resulting in the death of American citizens - from Teribus, first irrelevant bluster, then silence."

Point 1 - Why on earth do I have to say - when challenged - whether I agree or not to anything connected with the actions of others? Answer to that Folkiedave is that I do not. But both WLD and I pointed out to you that it is fairly normal practice and as such should not be seen as being so surprising.

Point 2 - Now let's take a look at this irrelevant bluster of mine. When you first brought up the topic you laid the charge against Blackwater that, "Blackwater are being sued by American families of American soldiers they killed. They argue immunity. Not that they didn't do it, just that they can get away with it." (The word according to Folkiedave). I responded with, "Blackwater didn't kill any American soldiers, the truth is that some American servicemen died when an aircraft being operated by Blackwater crashed - Accident Folkiedave, nothing more, nothing less,..."   Now then Folkiedave I know that you believe that this is irrelevant bluster, because it doesn't run true to what you would like to believe. So just tell us Folkiedave, exactly how did those American servicemen die? Did Blackwater blow them up with explosives or artillery? Did Blackwater personnel shoot them? Poison them? Strangle them? Stick knives into them? Or did they die as the result of a plane crash as I have previously stated amid all this irrelevant bluster of mine.

"When referred to documents detailing the sales of chemical weapons - testified by a Senate Committee - from Teribus, silence."

There have been no sales of chemical weapons to Iraq by the United States of America. Again like Rumsfeld being a senior member of Reagan's Administration with authorisation to speak on behalf of the government of the United States of America, this myth might be something that you and your fellow travellers want to believe but the evidence is very much against it.

Were dual purpose items sold to Iraq by US companies and others? Yes they most certainly were – "the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licensed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential military uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, which at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-rich Gulf region. But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq often obtained supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies about the products' intended use."

The reason Iraq was invaded was because it was found, by the United States of America and others to be in material breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 1441, and in breach of the terms and conditions of the ceasefire agreement signed by Iraq at Safwan in 1991. Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Regime were invited to stand down, they were given 48 hours to do so, they declined and the forces of the coalition led by the USA invaded to remove Saddam from power and enforce the terms and conditions of the outstanding UNSC Resolutions against Iraq encapsulated within UNSC Resolution 1441.

If you are going to mention one of the reasons, Folkiedave, please refer to all the others, Iraq was not invaded because of a single issue – please don't try to present a case that implies otherwise.