You can thank Rumsfeld and Reagan for Saddam's proliferation

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Rumsfeld's Handshake Deal with Saddam
By NORMAN SOLOMON

Christmas came 11 days early for Donald Rumsfeld two years ago when the news broke that American forces had pulled Saddam Hussein from a spidery hole. During interviews about the capture, on CBS and ABC, the Pentagon's top man was upbeat. And he didn't have to deal with a question that Lesley Stahl or Peter Jennings could have logically chosen to ask: "Secretary Rumsfeld, you met with Saddam almost exactly 20 years ago and shook his hand. What kind of guy was he?"

Now, Saddam Hussein has gone on trial, but such questions remain unasked by mainstream U.S. journalists. Rumsfeld met with Hussein in Baghdad on behalf of the Reagan administration, opening up strong diplomatic and military ties that lasted through six more years of Saddam's murderous brutality.

As it happens, the initial trial of Saddam and co-defendants is focusing on grisly crimes that occurred the year before Rumsfeld gripped his hand. "The first witness, Ahmad Hassan Muhammad, 38, riveted the courtroom with the scenes of torture he witnessed after his arrest in 1982, including a meat grinder with human hair and blood under it," the New York Times reported Tuesday. And: "At one point, Mr. Muhammad briefly broke down in tears as he recalled how his brother was tortured with electrical shocks in front of their 77-year-old father."

The victims were Shiites -- 143 men and adolescent boys, according to the charges -- tortured and killed in the Iraqi town of Dujail after an assassination attempt against Saddam in early July of 1982. Donald Rumsfeld became the Reagan administration's Middle East special envoy 15 months later.

On Dec. 20, 1983, the Washington Post reported that Rumsfeld "visited Iraq in what U.S. officials said was an attempt to bolster the already improving U.S. relations with that country." A couple of days later, the New York Times cited a "senior American official" who "said that the United States remained ready to establish full diplomatic relations with Iraq and that it was up to the Iraqis."

On March 29, 1984, the Times reported: "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name." Washington had some goodies for Saddam's regime, the Times account noted, including "agricultural-commodity credits totaling $840 million." And while "no results of the talks have been announced" after the Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad three months earlier, "Western European diplomats assume that the United States now exchanges some intelligence on Iran with Iraq."

A few months later, on July 17, 1984, a Times article with a Baghdad dateline sketchily filled in a bit more information, saying that the U.S. government "granted Iraq about $2 billion in commodity credits to buy food over the last two years." The story recalled that "Donald Rumsfeld, the former Middle East special envoy, held two private meetings with the Iraqi president here," and the dispatch mentioned in passing that "State Department human rights reports have been uniformly critical of the Iraqi President, contending that he ran a police state."

Full diplomatic relations between Washington and Baghdad were restored 11 months after Rumsfeld's December 1983 visit with Saddam. He went on to use poison gas later in the decade, actions which scarcely harmed relations with the Reagan administration.

As the most senior U.S. official to visit Iraq in six years, Rumsfeld had served as Reagan's point man for warming relations with Saddam. In 1984, the administration engineered the sale to Baghdad of 45 ostensibly civilian-use Bell 214ST helicopters. Saddam's military found them quite useful for attacking Kurdish civilians with poison gas in 1988, according to U.S. intelligence sources. "In response to the gassing," journalist Jeremy Scahill has pointed out, "sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most U.S. technology. The measure was killed by the White House."

The USA's big media institutions did little to illuminate how Washington and business interests combined to strengthen and arm Saddam Hussein during many of his worst crimes. "In the 1980s and afterward, the United States underwrote 24 American corporations so they could sell to Saddam Hussein weapons of mass destruction, which he used against Iran, at that time the prime Middle Eastern enemy of the United States," writes Ben Bagdikian, a former assistant managing editor of the Washington Post, in his book The New Media Monopoly. "Hussein used U.S.-supplied poison gas" against Iranians and Kurds "while the United States looked the other way."

Of course the crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime were not just in the future when Rumsfeld came bearing gifts in 1983. Saddam's large-scale atrocities had been going on for a long time. Among them were the methodical torture and murders in Dujail that have been front-paged this week in coverage of the former dictator's trial; they occurred 17 months before Rumsfeld arrived in Baghdad.

Today, inside the corporate media frame, history can be supremely relevant when it focuses on Hussein's torture and genocide. But the historic assistance of the U.S. government and American firms is largely off the subject and beside the point.

A photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand on Dec. 20, 1983, is easily available. (It takes a few seconds to find via Google.) But the picture has been notably absent from the array of historic images that U.S. media outlets are providing to viewers and readers in coverage of the Saddam Hussein trial. And journalistic mention of Rumsfeld's key role in aiding the Iraqi tyrant has been similarly absent. Apparently, in the world according to U.S. mass media, some history matters profoundly and some doesn't matter at all.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Good article, Chad.

I think you'll probably hear mansons crickets chirping with this one. Most of those items have been brought up at one time or another with little or no response. I mean, what could the rebuttal possibly be?
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
I guess we shoudl all be fighting the Japs....

Pearl Harbor day was yesterday

According to this author's premise, you are always in agreement or in a war against some other country/leader
 

JCDunkDogs

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 5, 2002
956
5
0
L.A. Area
Chadman said:
A photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand on Dec. 20, 1983, is easily available. (It takes a few seconds to find via Google.)

I found the live video shot. Its on the Fahrenheit 911 DVD.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
We seem to get in bed with the wrong guys every once in a while. But why we waited 20 years is a good question. Anyone here think we didn't know all these years the killing going on in Iraq. Then in 91 when Bush 41 had a chance to end it. We didn't.
Then Bush 43 even offered Saddam a free pass out of Iraq before we started to bomb in 2003. So when folks try to say we were really worried about all those deaths. Well it don't look like we were to concerned.
 

CHARLESMANSON

Hated
Forum Member
Jan 7, 2004
2,651
15
0
90
CORCORAN, CA
Gee that's funny. I looked at Master Capper's link and found this....(here's your crickets Kosar)

The U.S. Embassy in Tehran was invaded and "the U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory in the Iran/Iraq war would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq."

Well that explains the handshake, but it does not explain the hypocracy of the MadJack's liberals.

On one hand you liberals make such a stink about the handshake that happened in 1983. But when I mention the mass genocides that took place in the late 1980's and 1990's, I am told "That was a long time ago". What a bunch of hypocrites.

Statute of limitations on Handshake = none

Statute of limitations on Genocide = 15-20 years (DJV QUOTE)


I'll let you hypocritical liberals get back to your anti-Bush crybaby fest.
 
Last edited:

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
I didn't hear this same guy bitching about us stopping Hussein when he invaded Kuwait and that was only 6-7 years removed!!!
 

CHARLESMANSON

Hated
Forum Member
Jan 7, 2004
2,651
15
0
90
CORCORAN, CA
Good thread Chadman.....

your hero NORMAN SOLOMON co-wrote this book ---

?Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in News Media,?

Then I noticed that Norman Solomon since then has writen articles in liberal slanted publications such as............The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Newsday, New York Times, Boston Globe, Miami Herald, USA Today, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, CNN, MSNBC, International Herald Tribune, Canada?s Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star!!!!!!!!!!!!

:mj07: :mj07: Why not just show some of Cindy Sheehan's articles?? We have at least heard of her.
 
Last edited:

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Charlie how you twist your B S. No one said it was the American people that thought it was OK what Saddam did. It was those in power here that looked the other way. If it was so important why didn't Bush 41 end it in 91. Oil maybe. Or he just didn't give a chit.
 

ChrryBlstr

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 11, 2002
7,407
54
48
Hoosier country
good LOVE Christmas break!!! :)

liberal slanted publications = Canada?s Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star

WOW....that's what i call a stretch....lol

speak not what you know nothing of....*s*
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
So, what is your point, Chuck? That liberals should immediately dismiss any print document that appears in a conservative newspaper, and vice-versa? I don't think you allow for that, do you? Again, just because someone has a position that differs from you does not immediately discredit what they write.

You continually dismiss anything that you don't agree with by saying "liberal bias", "left-wing lunatic", etc., and avoid dealing with the issues. If everyone continues to do this, and not talk about the substance of the commentary, then we'll never get anywhere. Well, you do deal with some of the issues by posting the same comments made by liberals out of context over and over again, to be "fair". But anything meaty that discredits this administration is glossed over or simply not even read by you because of where it appears.

I would have to guess that you would have dismissed Bob Woodward during the Watergate timeframe as a liberal, and now support him as a conservative.

Because a story appears in a newspaper of any lean is not a reason to dismiss it's content. But you do it every day here. It's easier than dealing with what it says, of course.

Agree with me, or you are wrong. What a narrow, dark, sad world you live in.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
i guess,based on this logic, we shouldn`t have supported stalin in ww2.......

right?....was he not a murderous monster?....

wouldn`t you say that having destroyed the nazis, mussolini, imperial japan, the soviets, milosevic, the taliban and saddam,that america and its "right-wing" supporters(lol) are, it seems to me, the greatest defenders of freedom in practice in this world......

right?

nobody denies.that the defense of the west has involved mistakes...or tough choices,i`d say......2 of those being supporting stalin during ww2......and saddam vs fundamentalist iran and the ayatollah khomeini....



yes we allowed russia to occupy parts of eastern europe and germany after ww2.....a mistake....the alternative at the time?...ww3?

but by the same token,you could say that we made up for it by bringing an end to the soviet unuion and taking down saddam...

france and germany on the other hand...never made up for their support of saddam, which continued until his downfall in 2003, and even to some extent, beyond that...

have we made mistakes?...of course...we`re human...but,what country has done more good in this world?....

if there`s to be a power in this world,what other country in this world is better suited to hold this power?.....i`m not being condescending...it`s a serious question....

if your idea of realistic,solid and effective foreign policy is to only be allied with free countries,then i would say that you live in la la land....

or hollywood...
 
Last edited:

BetterUp

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 4, 2005
123
0
0
dr. freeze said:
I didn't hear this same guy bitching about us stopping Hussein when he invaded Kuwait and that was only 6-7 years removed!!!

A program aired on network TV in spring of 1990.
The title was "A line in the sand"
Actual footage from Saddam Huesiens office shows a conversation with several high ranking state dep. officials.

Saddam: "The Kuwaities are stealling my oil and if does not stop I will invade their country."

United States: (A woman April something was her name): "That is none of our business"

3 months later we invaded Iraq and for years jounalist and politicians in Wash. joked about how easy it was to lure Saddam into Kuwait.

Learn to read between the lines for the truth.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,486
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
I read well enough to know its pretty tough to quote people when you don't even know who your quoting :)

--next time pull your quotes out of context and (as you say) not out of your ass--or use spell check to make look remotely accurrate anyway.

oh I forgot--we are suppose to read between the lines;)
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
If any of you folks who staunchly defend the right wing will stand up and at least admit the double standard hypocracy here, i will commend you.

double standards and hypocracy are nothing new - we've always looked our relatively short term interests - it not even a knock on the republicans more than the dems.

just admit and you won't look so partisan. really not worth it to be defensive on this issue. it's simply too obvious.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
if saddam had been left to his own devices...as many democrats had wanted....then,the next conversation would have been:

"The Saudi`s are stealling my oil and if it does not stop I will invade their country."

you can debate the iraq war till the cows come home....but,removing saddam from kuwait was a no-brainer...unless you`re such an extreme pacifist that you`d rather ride bicycles and and heat your homes with dry brush...

if this notion that you never get involved unless someone literally attacks the country had been adhered to throughout history,then the europeans would have ignored hitler(wait a minute...they did!)


then the israeli`s would have let saddam build his nuclear reactor in the early 80`s...and he`d have gone "hot" long before this....(thankfully,they didn`t)

and then you`d have 2 scenarios...

1)either saddam controls at the very least 25% of the world`s oil(much more,if he takes saudi arabia).....

2)you have a major nuclear confrontation thanks to the french and saddam...

but,the fun`s just starting....thankfully,saddam won`t ever be able to ever use nuclear power to close the straights of hormuz...but,iran will be able to...possibly....very shortly...

and the duplicitous europeans?....again asleep at the wheel...trying to play both sides against the middle...3/4 of a century of cowardice...

hopefully,if iran ever uses some future nuclear capability to close the straights of hormuz, that europe will bear some of the brunt of that economic catastrophe....

the e.u`s motto should be.... "first the U.S....THEN US"....
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top