Wednesday, July 06, 2016

Who backed Saddam in real time? Iraq Inquiry and more

He killed mostly Kurds & Shiites who are now US allies against ISIS, inc. many relatives of the current Iraqi govt

Can we get a body count from you, Liz?

Since you know everything, how about you give us the numbers?

Oh, wait, you don't know everything.

Saddam Hussein was installed by the US government.

He was their 'mad dog.'

And the US government tolerated it when he carried out attacks on this group or that group.

That's a reality Liz Sly is apparently very uncomfortable with.

We all know about April Glaspie, right?

Or do we not?

Is that forgotten history?

April Glaspie was the US Ambassador to Iraq (appointed in 1989).  From Wikipedia:

Glaspie had her first meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, on July 25, 1990. In her telegram from July 25, 1990, to the Department of State, Glaspie summarized the meeting as follows:
Saddam told the ambassador July 25 that Mubarak has arranged for Kuwaiti and Iraqi delegations to meet in Riyadh, and then on July 28, 29 or 30, the Kuwaiti crown prince will come to Baghdad for serious negotiations. "Nothing serious will happen" before then, Saddam had promised Mubarak.[1]
At least two transcripts of the meeting have been published. The State Department has not confirmed the accuracy of these transcripts, but Glaspie's cable has been released at the Bush Library and placed online by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation.
One version of the transcript has Glaspie saying:
Later the transcript has Glaspie saying:
Another version of the transcript (the one published in The New York Times on 23 September 1990) has Glaspie saying:
When these purported transcripts were made public, Glaspie was accused of having given tacit approval for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which took place on August 2, 1990. It was argued that Glaspie's statements that "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts" and that "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" were interpreted by Saddam as giving free rein to handle his disputes with Kuwait as he saw fit. It was also argued that Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait had he been given an explicit warning that such an invasion would be met with force by the United States.[2][3] Journalist Edward Mortimer wrote in the New York Review of Books in November 1990:
In September 1990, a pair of British journalists confronted Glaspie with the transcript of her meeting with Saddam Hussein, to which she replied that "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait."[4]

As for the victims being US allies, I don't believe the League of Righteous is a US ally.

In fact, a number of Tehran backed Shi'ite militias do not define themselves as US allies.

Donald Trump is not someone I'm going to vote for, as I've said repeatedly.

But some of the so-called outrage over him is just people being stupid.

Jeremy Diamond (CNN) quotes Donald stating, "He was a bad guy -- really bad guy. But you know what? He did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights. They didn't talk. They were terrorists. Over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism."

Trump's point is that Iraq was calmer under Saddam Hussein.

You can agree with that or not.

But don't act as if it's an extreme view.

In western political science, it's a debated view but it's not an extreme view.

This is usually followed by the assertion that "he was contained."

I'm not arguing that point, I'm not arguing against that point.

I have better things to do.

But I'm getting really tired of people inventing outrage over Trump.

He says many things that are outrageous (which is nothing new with him).

But his point here appears to be there was less of what the US government identifies as terrorism in Iraq under Saddam.

In that, he is correct because the US did not define those actions that Saddam carried out as acts of terrorism in real time.

al Qaeda did not have a base in Iraq when Saddam was in charge.

That is also fact.

On Donald Trump and this issue:

As a diplomats I tried to keep away from this but as an Iraqi & a victim of Saddam's ethnic cleansing of us Failys I say get your facts 1st.

In America, you can say whatever you want.

And that would be the start and end of my thoughts on Lukman Faily's Tweet . . .

Except that when Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to Iraq makes a statement in defense of Sunni civilians, the Shi'ite militias and various cabinet ministers begin verbally attacking and threatening the ambassador publicly.

So if that's the practice in Iraq, maybe Faily should learn to stay away from such topics?

If not, then he certainly needs to denounce the next round of attacks on the Saudi Ambassador or else just put "hypocrite" on his Twitter account.

Let's stay with Tweets.

Barbara Slavin.

One of the few to defend Ned Parker to Haider al-Abadi's face.

I give her applause for that.

I'm not linking to her Tweet yesterday linking to Voice of America.  If we had an active Congress, Voice of America would have to draw up new guidelines.

When we had a real Congress, they weren't allowed to broadcast within US borders.

(Because they are a propaganda outlet, not a news outlet.)

So Barbara linked to VOA and insisted (or maybe VOA did -- it's hard to be clear in a Tweet -- and sorry, I'm not giving VOA traffic by clicking on their links) that it's important now more than ever that we pay attention to Iraq because "we broke it."


That's not reason to pay attention.

If I visit Barbara's home and break her vase on an end table, I seriously doubt, four years later, she wants me hanging around and wants me saying I'm there because I broke her vase.

We covered this terrain in December 2004 with "Should This Marriage Be Saved?"

If the point is 'breaking' something means we have to fix it, no.

In that 2004 piece, I think I used a white rug as an example and stated if you ruined it, I just wanted you to leave.

The danger with the 'breaking means' argument is that it can be -- and has been -- used to justify continuing war and occupation.

I have no idea if Barbara Slavin meant it that way or not, it was a Tweet.

But that argument -- advanced most infamously (and incorrectly) by Colin Powell -- must always be rejected.

Especially in the 21st century when we are seeing never ending wars.

The Iraq Inquiry Report has been published online.

THE TELEGRAPH OF LONDON offers the following bulletin points at the top of Leon Watson's report:

  • Sir John Chilcot has delivered his scathing report
  • 'No imminent threat from Saddam Hussein', he says
  • War 'was not the last resort'
  • Certainty over WMD 'was not justified'
  • Tony Blair set UK on path to war at least 8 months before
  • Planning for post-war Iraq was 'wholly inadequate'
  • Tony Blair issues defiant response
  • Read the executive summary and Sir John's statement in full

Great Britain's SOCIALIST WORKER is updating their coverage regularly at this link -- scroll down for their earlier coverage.  And also make a point to check out IRAQ INQUIRY DIGEST throughout the day.

If we did a "Syria snapshot," I'd be ripping apart FPIF for posting an article that's calling for war -- asking that the United Nations lead it is still calling for war.

It appears to be  FPIF's 'answer' to what would happen if Hillary were president (they believe that she would launch a war).

This 'better' bad war doesn't exist.

It's an argument many cowards and idiots and stooges made with regards to Iraq.  Or have we already forgotten that as well?

The following community sites updated:

  • The e-mail address for this site is