The Ethical Price CNN Paid

[WillyJ]

Sure Bet. .




The CIA had been supplying Saddam with both the science and materials for chemical weapons and procurring conventional weapons for him to use against Iran during the war between the 2 countries for a couple years. .

(Remember, Ayatollah Kohmeni was in charge of Iran, and this was after they had taken our hostages. . . but before that we had supported the Shah of Iran against Iraq because although The Shah had secret police and brutalized, tortured, and killed his own people just like Saddam did, he took our money instead of the Soviets so we supported him. . and after he fell we couldn't publicy back Saddam after being against him before that. . )

According to Declassified Documents released a couple years ago, in 1983 the Reagan administration was aware of all this, and although they knew Saddam was using chemical weapons on a "daily basis" supported him because the idea of Iran winning the war was worse then what Saddam was doing; and also keeping the oil from Iraq flowing was a over-riding priority. . .

. . . to this end, Reagan sent his Deputy Secretary of Defense to Iraq to meet with Saddam and assure him we supported him, and to help open up new avenues for him to sell his oil to finance the war, and to pressure our allies to sell him both conventional weapons and materials for his chemical weapons. .

Saddam then used chemical weapons to suppress the Kurdish uprising- the Kurds used the opportunity of Saddam being distracted by fighting Iran to mount a campaign to over-throw him, but because our govenment's priority was Iran not winning the war, after much inner criticism and worry,we gave our silent aproval and Reagan once again sent his Deputy Secretary of Defense to reassure Saddam we supported him and would do all we could to make sure he got both the weapons and intelligence he needed to defeat Iran. .


Now, who was that Deputy Secretary of Defense who met with Saddam and other Iraqi officials we are now hunting?

Why, it was Donald Rumsfeld.


This isn't some liberal media commie smear. . it's right there in blak and white in documents generated by the Reagan administration themselves that were (legally) hidden from the public for "national security" reasons but were declassified under the "Freedom of Information Act" a couple years ago. .

Here are a couple links, including one that has links to the actual declassified documents. .


Link 1
Link 2
Link 3


You see, while I have always agreed Saddam was a brutal dictator and have supported ousting him, I've also been critical of how Bush and his people have deceived the American people into thinking that this situation was the fault of Clinton, "the UN", "France" "the liberal media" or "misguided ignorant appeasers" when Saddam was fully supported for years and through some of his most brutal acts by some of the very people acting so self-rightous about the situation now. . . (not Bush himself, but those like Rumsfeld in his cabinet). And for CNN or any other network to carry a press conference where Rumsfeld shakes his pudgy little fist and calls Saddam brutal and then looks so sad and offended about what Saddam did to "those poor Kurds" and not tell the American people that he knew all about it 20 years ago when it happened and personally was part of supporting and facilitating it makes me sick to my stomach. . .

Oh, and since I'm taking a break from researching all this- let me add another criticism I've had about this action is that all along the Bush people never seemed to have a cohesive plan to achieve al their stated goals beyond the military operation- or at least if they did they weren't sharing it with the Ameican people or even Congress . . . "Liberating the Iraqi People" is a real nice slogan, but I think we're starting to see just who we've liberated. . and to also see who and what Saddam's admittedly brutal rule was suppressing all these years, and why President(s)Reagan, Bush1, and Clinton weren't so quick to eliminate him. . .

Would anyone have been willing in advance to support spending (at least) 70+ billion dollars of our tax money and lose 100+ American lives if they'd known that an anti-American, radical fundamentalist Islamic government headed by an Ayatollah would replace Saddam?

Well, if you took a democratic vote there right now, that's what the majority would want, and considering the known facts of situation that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. . I'm a house painter and I knew that. .

So our options now is either we make a long term commitment there in both dollars and soldiers lives to suppress the will of the majority of the Iraqi people and make sure that doesn't happen. . or else we cut and run and let the Shi'ite fundamentalist majority take over the country. . just like Osama bin Laden has called for for years and Saddam had brutally surpressed by any means necessary to protect his rule. . see, bin Laden has consistently called Saddam the "infidel" and encouraged his overthrow because Saddam did business with the West and did not run his country as a repressive Islamic Theocracy- hence the ludicrous nature of Bush's claims Saddam helped finanace and support al Qaida in any way- the Shi-ites we've "liberated" are the bin Laden supporters, not Saddam)

And as I've also said all along- this is an extremely complicated issue, and we the American people have not gotten anything near the whole story/truth by the people who have asked us to support spending our tax money and risking our soldiers lives to carry it out. . and neither have we been fully informed by the media.

History has shown us that the press and the American people holding our elected officials (no matter what party) accountable for their actions and thier credibility is the only thing that keeps them in check. . and when we put blind-faith in them, they abuse that trust. .

Whether this action in Iraq will turn out in a way that will make our country and the world at large a better, safer place and will ultimately give the Iraqi people a better life is still far from being known. .. but I believe when a President stands up and asks the Amercian people to support a war he owes us the truth about both the reasons and the reasonable risks, benefits, and goals . . and to reassure us that he has thought everything through.. . and I just don't believe that has happened here.

 

[CRB#33]

Willy, that was an excellent post.

While I'm happy Saddam is gone, I'm very fearful about what happens now.

I made a post a month or so before the war asking, "What's going to happen AFTER the war?"

It didn't get too many responses. Not too many seemed to care beyond getting Saddam out.

As far as CNN, I wonder too how many lives he actually saved compared to how many were lost because of their silence.

 

[Geoff_M]

So I guess we also have blood on our hands from the millions of Soviet citizens killed by Stalin during his reign because we gave him our support during WW II.

Would anyone have been willing in advance to support spending (at least) 70+ billion dollars of our tax money and lose 100+ American lives if they'd known that an anti-American, radical fundamentalist Islamic government headed by an Ayatollah would replace Saddam?

Well, if you took a democratic vote there right now, that's what the majority would want, and considering the known facts of situation that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. . I'm a house painter and I knew that. .

There is no basis in fact to support this idea that a majority of Iraqis want a Iran-like theocracy. No polling has been done. As a counter-point to this "everybody knows" idea, this morning NPR aired a story via the BBC from a reporting in Karbala in the midst of the millions strong Shiite pilgrimage that is now underway. The reporter talked to a number of pilgrims (presumably fairly strong believers) and asked them what shape they wanted their new government to assume. The opinions ran the length of the political spectrum. The reporter said he found no single overriding political desire in the crowd he talked to. He also found both small groups protesting the American presence in Iraqi... and others thanking the US and welcoming our presence.

The bottom line is the Iraqi people are now flexing their new found freedoms of expressing their political thoughts. They've got a lot of soul searching to do as they figure out what's next. As for Iraq transforming into "another Iran", don't count on it. There has been a good deal of disillusionment with the concept of clerical rule in Iran in recent years. Reformers that have sought to limit the power of the Ayatollahs are gaining ground as the percentage of the popluation that was alive during the rule of the Shah continues to decline.

 

[fklhou]

Good post WillyJ

 

[WillyJ]

Geoff,

I think you make a valid point in saying that not all Shi'ites want a theocracy, and although I could argue that the historical record showing a theocracy is exactly what the Shi'ites have called for for decades is a more reliable indicator of their mind-set then some random interviews by a reporter, I certainly can agree with you 100% that this is an ongoing process and it's impossible to predict what kind of government the majority will eventually want and how they will see us in the future. .


But considering the majority of the people in Iraq are fundamentalist Shi'ites (as opposed to the two significant minority groups the Kurds and Sunni Muslims) and historically the Shi'ite branch of Islam has shown little tolerance for Western influence and culture (Iran is a perfect example of this- the govenment has been headed by Shi'ite Muslims since Kohmeni, and although offically tolerent of other religious beliefs, they consider America the "Great Satan" and all Western influence is violently discouraged) I don't feel like it's unreasonable to assume that while it's not certain, it's definitely more likely they'll want to establish a fundamentalist theocracy is left to their own devices rather then a Western-type democracy. .

Having said that, and admitting there is no way to know for sure what the majority in Iraq will want once the situation stabalizes. . my question has been and still is this: is the Bush administration willing to accept another Iranian-type government to be established in Iraq if that is the ultimate will of the Iraqi people, or will they insist on and force some kind of western democracy on the Iraqis whether they want it or not and keep our troops there to enforce it as long as necessary even if it's years and years?

It's a very fundamental, legitimate question and even Republican leaders close to Bush like Sen. Richard Lugar have expressed much frustration and bewilderment because even this far into the operation we have not been given an answer, and at least publicly the Bush administration has not given any indication they have even seriously considered the question- rather they have worked under the (in my opinion misguided) assumption that every culture in the world yearns for an American-type democracy and all we need to do is get rid of the people who've been preventing it and step back and allow one to spring up. . .

What happens if that doesn't occur in Iraq? What's our policy?


I've heard people say that the Iraqi people will be better off with Saddam gone no matter what happens in the future, but that just isn't true. . . as I mentioned before, the Shah of Iran was a pretty Saddam-like dictator, but I don't think the Iranian people have been better off since the Ayatollah Khomeni replaced him. . and should that be allowed to occur in Iraq, I seriously doubt too many Americans will see "Operation Iraqi Liberation" as a success. .

 

[Geoff_M]

Willy,

Saying "What the Bush Administration will accept in Iraq" assumes that we will enforce our will on the people of Iraq if we are displeased with their choice. This would be classical "Imperialism" and I don't see us engauging in that in Iraq.

I don't see an extreme anti-Western Islamic government popping up out of the ashes of the Ba'athist regime. Again, even Iran has started to moderate its stance in recent years. I can't see the Shi'ites turning the clock back to 1979 in Iraq.

The D&G'ers said that after the Taliban were defeated in Afghanistan that it would implode into civil war. So far what they have is something that resembles a representative government. Now, many of those same people are predicting dire things in Iraq. We'll see, but I don't think their predictions will come true in this case either.... though I suppose they're bound to be right sooner or later.

 

[DawnCt]

Originally posted by jenjie

Dawn I hope you can survive CNN! Better yet stay away from it, just enjoy the cruise!

I am a news junkie so I couldn't stay away from the news but it was indeed painful. An endless litany Hennie Penney crying the "Sky is falling". Fortunately I had it on only when I was in the cabin, which wasn't often. On a wonderful note. My brother got home from an "undisclosed country" the night before we left.

 

[WillyJ]

Willy,

Saying "What the Bush Administration will accept in Iraq" assumes that we will enforce our will on the people of Iraq if we are displeased with their choice. This would be classical "Imperialism" and I don't see us engauging in that in Iraq

Rumsfeld today said there was no way the US would allow a Iran-type theocracy to develop in Iraq . . and that we would only accept a democracy.

Here's a link: Rumsfeld: Clerics won't run Iraq


Classic imperialism? No, and it isn't about liberation, WMDs or even "stealing oil" either. . . this is the first step in the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wofowitz plan of world-wide imperialism, or as one well known Clinton-loving, left-wing, America-hating radical calls it, Empire Building. . Pat Buchanan article


Syria and/or Iran will be next. . . they already have the publicity machine going for those.. . and then it will be on to the big one with North Korea, the only country they see as a true military threat.


But you don't need to take my word for it- as I said before, they were nice enough to write it all down for us. . . the first time by Cheney and Wofowitz 1992 (it leaked to the press and George H. had to come out and denounce it) , then with with Rumfeld in a postion paper in 1998, then in a more polished "blueprint" in 2000 before Bush was elected. . . and all way before 9/11.


Here's the entire final document if you or anyone else is interested, but I'll warn you in advance it's 91 pages long and in a PDF file so you'll need an Adobe reader and a lot of time and patience to read it: Project for the New American Century


I read it awhile ago, and if you don't feel like trying to plow through the whole thing, this is a pretty good summary by the editor of the Atlanta Constitution : The President's Real Goal in Iraq


Oh, and last night on NBC Tom Brokaw interviewed President Bush and at one point asked him how long he expected us to be in Irag:

Brokaw: 2 years?

Bush: 2 years. . maybe less. . who knows?


Obviously not him, nor does he care much anymore. . this was just the warm-up. .