PDA

View Full Version : Rumsfeld backed Saddam even after chemical attacks




zimv20
Dec 24, 2003, 03:16 AM
link (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=475931)


Rumsfeld backed Saddam even after chemical attacks

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington

24 December 2003

Fresh controversy about Donald Rumsfeld's personal dealings with Saddam Hussein was provoked yesterday by new documents that reveal he went to Iraq to show America's support for the regime despite its use of chemical weapons.

The formerly secret documents reveal the Defence Secretary travelled to Baghdad 20 years ago to assure Iraq that America's condemnation of its use of chemical weapons was made "strictly" in principle.

The criticism in no way changed Washington's wish to support Iraq in its war against Iran and "to improve bi-lateral relations ... at a pace of Iraq's choosing".

Earlier this year, Mr Rumsfeld and other members of the Bush administration regularly cited Saddam's willingness to use chemical weapons against his own people as evidence of the threat presented to the rest of the world.

Senior officials presented the attacks against the Kurds - particularly the notorious attack in Halabja in 1988 - as a justification for the invasion and the ousting of Saddam.

But the newly declassified documents reveal that 20 years ago America's position was different and that the administration of President Ronald Reagan was concerned about maintaining good relations with Iraq despite evidence of Saddam's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and Kurdish rebels.

In March 1984, under international pressure, America condemned Iraq's use of such chemical weapons. But realising that Baghdad had been upset, Secretary of State George Schultz asked Mr Rumsfeld to travel to Iraq as a special envoy to meet Saddam's Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz, and smooth matters over.

In a briefing memo to Mr Rumsfeld, Mr Shultz wrote that he had met Iraqi officials in Washington to stress that America's interests remained "in (1) preventing an Iranian victory and (2) continuing to improve bilateral relations with Iraq".

The memo adds: "This message bears reinforcing during your discussions."

Exactly what Mr Rumsfeld, who at the time did not hold government office, told Mr Aziz on 26 March 1984, remains unclear and minutes from the meeting remain classified. No one from Mr Rumsfeld's office was available to comment yesterday.

It was not Mr Rumsfeld's first visit to Iraq. Four months earlier, in December 1983, he had visited Saddam and was photographed shaking hands with the dictator. When news of this visit was revealed last year, Mr Rumsfeld claimed he had "cautioned" Saddam to stop using chemical weapons.

When documents about the meeting disclosed he had said no such thing, a spokesman for Mr Rumsfeld said he had raised the issue with Mr Aziz.

America's relationship with Iraq at a time when Saddam was using chemical weapons is well-documented but rarely reported.

During the war with Iran, America provided combat assistance to Iraq that included intelligence on Iranian deployments and bomb-damage assessments. In 1987-88 American warships destroyed Iranian oil platforms in the Gulf and broke the blockade of Iraqi shipping lanes.

Tom Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive, a non-profit group that obtained the documents, told The New York Times: "Saddam had chemical weapons in the 1980s and it didn't make any difference to US policy. The embrace of Saddam and what it emboldened him to do should caution us as Americans that we have to look closely at all our murky alliances."

Last night, Danny Muller, a spokesman for the anti-war group Voices in the Wilderness, said the documents revealed America's "blatant hypocrisy". He added: "This is not an isolated event. Continuing administrations have said 'we will do business'. I am surprised that Donald Rumsfeld does not resign right now."



vwcruisn
Dec 24, 2003, 03:34 AM
how low wil they go. our current "leaders" really are the scum of the earth. how anybody could ever support them is just beyond me. i guess ignorance is bliss.

Stelliform
Dec 24, 2003, 07:35 AM
....

IJ Reilly
Dec 24, 2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Stelliform
Ever think that Rumsfeld is being positioned as a fall guy for the administration? If he gets enough negative PR, they can drop him and people will think, good they got rid of that Rumsfeld!

I'd be very surprised to see Rumsfeld back for a second Bush administration, assuming there is one. But in fact, these examples of crass hypocrisy can't be pinned entirely on Rumsfeld -- he is, after all, peddling the administration's policies.

The hypocrisy, btw, isn't so much the US coddling Saddam with the one hand and then demonizing him with the other. What's so hypocritical is this ugly pretense of adopting a human rights-based foreign policy, when clearly its philosophical opposite number -- realpolitik -- is the actual basis for the Bush policy. It's really quite perfectly Machiavellian to pretend morality while behaving cynically.

zimv20
Dec 24, 2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Stelliform
Ever think that Rumsfeld is being positioned as a fall guy for the administration? If he gets enough negative PR, they can drop him and people will think, good they got rid of that Rumsfeld!

is there a sizable number of people who like bush but dislike rumsfeld?

mactastic
Dec 24, 2003, 12:57 PM
Just wait till Saddam starts telling his version of this story in court with a high-paid lawyer.

zimv20
Dec 24, 2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Just wait till Saddam starts telling his version of this story in court with a high-paid lawyer.

why do i get the feeling he won't make it that far?

Stelliform
Dec 24, 2003, 10:43 PM
....

zimv20
Dec 24, 2003, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Stelliform
this isn't the only behind the scenes political work ever done in Washingtion. (And yes I am including the 8 years before Bush....)

reagan?

;-)

IJ Reilly
Dec 24, 2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Stelliform
We all know that the political climate is so extremely different in the middle east now than it was 20 years ago. Everybody seems to forget how much we hated the Iranians back then.

What not everyone forgets is how much the Iranians hated the United States, and more importantly, why. So it seems the political climate in the Middle East isn't so extremely different now then it was 20 years ago. We keep paying the price for choosing allies carelessly.

Stelliform
Dec 25, 2003, 10:28 PM
.....