It's the fall of 1983. Michael Jackson is riding high with Thriller; Ronald Reagan is obsessed with a red menace in the jungles of Central America; humiliated U.S. troops have just slouched out of Beirut following a series of suicide bombings, and America's newest nemesis, the Ayatollah Khomeini is locked in a vicious conflict with America's soon-to-be ally, the secular 'socialist' dictator Saddam Hussein. The fight is vicious indeed.
In November 1983 U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz receives an intelligence report describing how Hussein's troops are resorting to "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" against the Iranians.
A month later, Ronald Reagan dispatches a special envoy to Baghdad on a secret mission. The identity of the envoy is intriguing. He's not a diplomat or a member of Reagan's cabinet - he's a private citizen, the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. On Dec. 20, the envoy meets with Saddam Hussein. But he is not there to lecture the dictator about his use of weapons of mass destruction or the fine print of the Geneva Conventions. He is there to talk business under orders from high. Reagan had just signed a secret order instructing his charges to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war.
The envoy informs the Iraqi leader that Washington is ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a recently declassified State Department report of the conversation, and that Washington would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West." Iraqi leaders later describe themselves as "extremely pleased" with the visit.
The envoy was Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the CEO of pharmaceutical giant Searle.
The meeting is widely considered to be the trigger that ushered in a new warming of U.S.-Iraq relations, which allowed the shipment of dual-use munitions, chemical and biological agents and other dubious technology transfers. But for years what exactly was said between Rumsfeld and Hussein in that now infamous meeting has been shrouded in secrecy.
No one knew, until last week.
In a new investigative report from the Institute for Policy Studies entitled Crude Vision: How Oil Interests Obscured U.S. Government Focus On Chemical Weapons Use by Saddam Hussein released last week, researchers Jim Vallette, Steve Kretzmann, and Daphne Wysham expose the real reason Donald Rumsfeld was sent to Baghdad: Hewas sent by Reagan himself to pressure Saddam Hussein to approve a highly lucrative oil pipeline project from Iraq to Jordan.
Examining recently released government and corporate sources, the researchers document for the first time how a close-knit group of high-ranking U.S. officials (including Sec. of State Shultz and Attorney General Edwin Meese) worked in secrecy for two years attempting to secure a billion dollar pipeline scheme for the Bechtel corporation. The Bush/Cheney administration now eyes Bechtel as a primary contractor for the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure.
Bechtel's pipeline would have carried a million barrels of Iraqi crude oil a day through Jordan to the Red Sea port of Aqaba.
"The men who courted Saddam while he gassed Iranians are now waging war against him, ostensibly because he holds these same weapons of mass destruction" said Jim Vallette, lead author of the report. "They now deny that oil has anything to do with the conflict. Yet during the Reagan Administration, and in the years leading up to the present conflict, these men shaped and implemented a strategy that has everything to do with securing Iraqi oil exports. All of this documentation suggests that Reagan Administration officials bent many rules to convince Saddam Hussein to open up a pipeline of central interest to the U.S., from Iraq to Jordan."
I find the timing particularily convenient. Saddam nixed the pipeline deal in late 1985 and the first "official" arms shipment to Iran (Iran/Contra) went through in January 1986. (According to Reagan's own statements on the matter.)
I asked this question last fall when the military buildup in the Gulf became public. Why now?
135,000 Germans killed as compared to 120,000 Japanese. Funny that few people agonize over that.
And here comes Baghdad:
Pressures to bring the war - and the Iraqi regime - to a quick end are now so intense that General Franks is not even waiting for the 4th infantry division to join the battle, although it is probably the best mechanized division in the American army. Having been rerouted from Turkey, its troops have only just started arriving in Kuwait, and will not be ready to fight for another two or three weeks. Yet, in the desperate hope of a quick victory, the US is pressing ahead with the attack on Baghdad. There is clearly immense anger, frustration and impatience at Iraq's continued resistance to the invasion. Arabs were not meant to behave like this! They should have surrendered or run away! In its arrogant expectation of a decisive outcome, America may once again have created mirages in the sand. * Secondly, the US is adjusting its military means to cope with the new situation. Reinforcements are being flown in and greater firepower - giant bunker-busting munitions and carpet-bombing by B-52s - is being used to attempt to destroy Iraq's Republican Guard divisions defending the capital. As a direct consequence of the new strategy, the toll of Iraqi civilian casualties is rising rapidly. The trumpeted 'concern' to avoid civilian deaths is now being abandoned by a desperate United States.
It could be worse: it could be Seattle (an earthquate caused by Juan de Fuca plate movement could cause a Tsunami AND erupt that little ol' volcano they have just outside the city).
Not to mention the potential strength of the next "Big One" in the Seattle/Vancouver area. 8 Million people, suddenly swimming...
Congress, you may recall, was panicked by envelopes of anthrax and facing threats of political reprisal, passed the PATRIOT Act overwhelmingly over a year ago, with two copies of the 342-page act printed for the perusal of 535 members. Most who voted for it had no idea the extent of the new, extra-judicial wiretap powers granted to law-enforcement in the bill, secret searches of homes and businesses, or the virtually all-encompassing definition of "terrorism, or the amount of data-sharing license given to federal, and even state and local agencies.
Not to mention that this major piece of legislation was somehow drafted in only 33 days from the instigating incident (9/11) and passing in congress (10/25). Good thing all those congress critters were running so scared from the anthrax. Someone might have had an independent thought otherwise.
Where did they determine that anthrax came from anyway?
So not speaking out against the secret police coming to intimidate you, not speaking out against censorship and not speaking out against a war fueled by corporate greed somehow makes one a Saddam lover? I hope they come for you next. Narrow minded, neo-conservative attitudes lead to fun things, like fascism.
pompous adj. 1. Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious: pompous officials who enjoy giving orders. 2. Full of high-sounding phrases; bombastic: a pompous proclamation. 3. Chracterized by pomp or stately display; ceremonious: a pompous occasion.
ass 1. Any of several hoofed mammals of the genus Equus, resembling and closely related to the horses but having a smaller build and longer ears, and including the domesticated donkey. 2. A vain, self-important, silly, or aggressively stupid person.
In his rare interview with Dan Rather, President Saddam Hussein talked of Allah and Islam when asked about his exile, defeat and death. Likewise, President Bush in a press conference told of the divine mission he has been entrusted with to save America and chase evil from the world. Osama bin Laden in his tapes always invokes religion in his fatwas to kill infidels.
yes, but maybe they wouldn't be ignorant/illiterate hateful people either. and maybe those in power wouldn't misuse religious text to get said illiterate peoples to do their bidding
Ya, I agree. Those religious zealots have got to go.
The planet where we use a question mark at the end of a question.
Yes, but was that a hopeful question mark or a cynical question mark?
BTW - Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11th. You know that?
I know that and you know that. Does George? Does the American public?
Sept. 11th isn't an excuse for us to become tyrants also.
Yes, it was. The USA PATRIOT Act, a major piece of legislation with wide ranging impact on American society, drafted and passed into law in 33 days, without public debate and without printed copies for the legislators.
The current war is (among other things) a goad to the terrorists to attack Americans in America, thereby enabling the quick and easy passage of PATRIOT 2.
And the one thing that "you whiny conservative righties" don't seem to understand, is that by waging this war, you are not defending yourself, but instead helping Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations as much as you can!
Follow the bouncing ball:
1) Start war in Iraq to incite terrorists. 2) Terrorists attack and kill Americans. 3) PATRIOT 2! Emergency measures, suspend the constitution, disband Congress. 4) Ultimate power!
Wait. You are talking about history here. Two things: 1) To know about this would require education. This is not something that Americans hold as a high priority. They would rather spend money on more important things like tanks, bombs and planes. 2) It's history. No one ever learns from history. No one.
Frankly, Congress has abdicated its power. And the courts are standing up to the out-of-control Executive branch.
For example, when the federal court said "I think you should release the names of the detainees," and Ashcroft told them, "I don't care what you say, we're not gonna do it anyway." That's an out-of-control Executive branch.
The DoJ was later ordered to release the names of the detainees. Doesn't sound to me like Ashcroft is really into the spirit of his job, which should be to keep the Oval office in check, not help it to run roughshod over the rights of Americans.
From Ex Parte Quirin (thanks for the link, it was interesting reading).
After denial of their applications by the District Court, 47 F.Supp. 431, petitioners asked leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court. In view of the public importance of the questions raised by their petitions and of the duty which rests on the courts, in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty, and because in our opinion the public interest required that we consider and decide those questions without any avoidable delay, we directed that petitioners' applications be set down for full oral argument at a special term of this Court, convened on July 29, 1942. The applications for leave to file the petitions were presented in open court on that day and were heard on the petitions, the answers to them of respondent, a stipulation of facts by counsel, and the record of the testimony given before the Commission.
Here we have the accused (not convicted) in open court, with counsel, arguing their case.
the duty which rests on the courts, in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty
This is the part that has changed. The USSC today seems to have no sense of this duty, allowing the Executive branch of the US government to pretty much get away with whatever it wants.
The US PATRIOT act is itself an interesting document. Written in less than 33 days, passed into law with no public discussion and no written copies available to lawmakers. Is this responsible lawmaking?
Slashdot Mirror
At least he's got the balls to post using an ID.
Great post. Too bad you posted AC. No one will ever see it.
This is a repost.
It's the fall of 1983. Michael Jackson is riding high with Thriller; Ronald Reagan is obsessed with a red menace in the jungles of Central America; humiliated U.S. troops have just slouched out of Beirut following a series of suicide bombings, and America's newest nemesis, the Ayatollah Khomeini is locked in a vicious conflict with America's soon-to-be ally, the secular 'socialist' dictator Saddam Hussein. The fight is vicious indeed.
In November 1983 U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz receives an intelligence report describing how Hussein's troops are resorting to "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" against the Iranians.
A month later, Ronald Reagan dispatches a special envoy to Baghdad on a secret mission. The identity of the envoy is intriguing. He's not a diplomat or a member of Reagan's cabinet - he's a private citizen, the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
On Dec. 20, the envoy meets with Saddam Hussein. But he is not there to lecture the dictator about his use of weapons of mass destruction or the fine print of the Geneva Conventions. He is there to talk business under orders from high. Reagan had just signed a secret order instructing his charges to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war.
The envoy informs the Iraqi leader that Washington is ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a recently declassified State Department report of the conversation, and that Washington would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West." Iraqi leaders later describe themselves as "extremely pleased" with the visit.
The envoy was Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the CEO of pharmaceutical giant Searle.
The meeting is widely considered to be the trigger that ushered in a new warming of U.S.-Iraq relations, which allowed the shipment of dual-use munitions, chemical and biological agents and other dubious technology transfers. But for years what exactly was said between Rumsfeld and Hussein in that now infamous meeting has been shrouded in secrecy.
No one knew, until last week.
In a new investigative report from the Institute for Policy Studies entitled Crude Vision: How Oil Interests Obscured U.S. Government Focus On Chemical Weapons Use by Saddam Hussein released last week, researchers Jim Vallette, Steve Kretzmann, and Daphne Wysham expose the real reason Donald Rumsfeld was sent to Baghdad: Hewas sent by Reagan himself to pressure Saddam Hussein to approve a highly lucrative oil pipeline project from Iraq to Jordan.
Examining recently released government and corporate sources, the researchers document for the first time how a close-knit group of high-ranking U.S. officials (including Sec. of State Shultz and Attorney General Edwin Meese) worked in secrecy for two years attempting to secure a billion dollar pipeline scheme for the Bechtel corporation. The Bush/Cheney administration now eyes Bechtel as a primary contractor for the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure.
Bechtel's pipeline would have carried a million barrels of Iraqi crude oil a day through Jordan to the Red Sea port of Aqaba.
"The men who courted Saddam while he gassed Iranians are now waging war against him, ostensibly because he holds these same weapons of mass destruction" said Jim Vallette, lead author of the report. "They now deny that oil has anything to do with the conflict. Yet during the Reagan Administration, and in the years leading up to the present conflict, these men shaped and implemented a strategy that has everything to do with securing Iraqi oil exports. All of this documentation suggests that Reagan Administration officials bent many rules to convince Saddam Hussein to open up a pipeline of central interest to the U.S., from Iraq to Jordan."
I find the timing particularily convenient. Saddam nixed the pipeline deal in late 1985 and the first "official" arms shipment to Iran (Iran/Contra) went through in January 1986. (According to Reagan's own statements on the matter.)
I asked this question last fall when the military buildup in the Gulf became public. Why now?
CNN?
They did bomb Dresden.
135,000 Germans killed as compared to 120,000 Japanese. Funny that few people agonize over that.
And here comes Baghdad:
Pressures to bring the war - and the Iraqi regime - to a quick end are now so intense that General Franks is not even waiting for the 4th infantry division to join the battle, although it is probably the best mechanized division in the American army. Having been rerouted from Turkey, its troops have only just started arriving in Kuwait, and will not be ready to fight for another two or three weeks. Yet, in the desperate hope of a quick victory, the US is pressing ahead with the attack on Baghdad. There is clearly immense anger, frustration and impatience at Iraq's continued resistance to the invasion. Arabs were not meant to behave like this! They should have surrendered or run away! In its arrogant expectation of a decisive outcome, America may once again have created mirages in the sand.
* Secondly, the US is adjusting its military means to cope with the new situation. Reinforcements are being flown in and greater firepower - giant bunker-busting munitions and carpet-bombing by B-52s - is being used to attempt to destroy Iraq's Republican Guard divisions defending the capital. As a direct consequence of the new strategy, the toll of Iraqi civilian casualties is rising rapidly. The trumpeted 'concern' to avoid civilian deaths is now being abandoned by a desperate United States.
It could be worse: it could be Seattle (an earthquate caused by Juan de Fuca plate movement could cause a Tsunami AND erupt that little ol' volcano they have just outside the city).
Not to mention the potential strength of the next "Big One" in the Seattle/Vancouver area. 8 Million people, suddenly swimming...
The Cascadia Megathrust Event is due.
Congress, you may recall, was panicked by envelopes of anthrax and facing threats of political reprisal, passed the PATRIOT Act overwhelmingly over a year ago, with two copies of the 342-page act printed for the perusal of 535 members. Most who voted for it had no idea the extent of the new, extra-judicial wiretap powers granted to law-enforcement in the bill, secret searches of homes and businesses, or the virtually all-encompassing definition of "terrorism, or the amount of data-sharing license given to federal, and even state and local agencies.
Not to mention that this major piece of legislation was somehow drafted in only 33 days from the instigating incident (9/11) and passing in congress (10/25). Good thing all those congress critters were running so scared from the anthrax. Someone might have had an independent thought otherwise.
Where did they determine that anthrax came from anyway?
So not speaking out against the secret police coming to intimidate you, not speaking out against censorship and not speaking out against a war fueled by corporate greed somehow makes one a Saddam lover? I hope they come for you next. Narrow minded, neo-conservative attitudes lead to fun things, like fascism.
Try again.
pompous
adj.
1. Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious: pompous officials who enjoy giving orders.
2. Full of high-sounding phrases; bombastic: a pompous proclamation.
3. Chracterized by pomp or stately display; ceremonious: a pompous occasion.
ass
1. Any of several hoofed mammals of the genus Equus, resembling and closely related to the horses but having a smaller build and longer ears, and including the domesticated donkey.
2. A vain, self-important, silly, or aggressively stupid person.
I'll leave it to you to put it together.
In his rare interview with Dan Rather, President Saddam Hussein talked of Allah and Islam when asked about his exile, defeat and death. Likewise, President Bush in a press conference told of the divine mission he has been entrusted with to save America and chase evil from the world. Osama bin Laden in his tapes always invokes religion in his fatwas to kill infidels.
yes, but maybe they wouldn't be ignorant/illiterate hateful people either. and maybe those in power wouldn't misuse religious text to get said illiterate peoples to do their bidding
Ya, I agree. Those religious zealots have got to go.
Posted by timothy on Monday March 31, @08:33PM
from the after-all-rpm-is-better dept.
I'll let you know when it gets here.
I just found a site that explains a lot.
The US military just made a casualty of the truth.
Ever heard of tongue in cheek? Man, everyone is so serious around here.
The planet where we use a question mark at the end of a question.
Yes, but was that a hopeful question mark or a cynical question mark?
BTW - Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11th. You know that?
I know that and you know that. Does George? Does the American public?
Sept. 11th isn't an excuse for us to become tyrants also.
Yes, it was. The USA PATRIOT Act, a major piece of legislation with wide ranging impact on American society, drafted and passed into law in 33 days, without public debate and without printed copies for the legislators.
The current war is (among other things) a goad to the terrorists to attack Americans in America, thereby enabling the quick and easy passage of PATRIOT 2.
We are going to war with Iraq for the freedom of the people, not the plunder. Right?
Just curious what the weather is like on the planet where you live.
And the one thing that "you whiny conservative righties" don't seem to understand, is that by waging this war, you are not defending yourself, but instead helping Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations as much as you can!
Follow the bouncing ball:
1) Start war in Iraq to incite terrorists.
2) Terrorists attack and kill Americans.
3) PATRIOT 2! Emergency measures, suspend the constitution, disband Congress.
4) Ultimate power!
Of course I could be wrong.
Wait. You are talking about history here. Two things:
1) To know about this would require education. This is not something that Americans hold as a high priority. They would rather spend money on more important things like tanks, bombs and planes.
2) It's history. No one ever learns from history. No one.
OK, I'll play. Name three independent, objective and accurate sources of information available on the Internet.
Please note that when the Chinese were essentially holding U.S. Navy personnel hostage, that America did not go to war.
It's called pragmatism. The US and China in a war would be too evenly matched. Much better to go up against someone who has no chance of beating you.
Don't you hate it when your comments are soooo far over the heads of the moderators?
Ahhh, forget it.
I don't know if all of his books sucked that bad
Yes.
Frankly, Congress has abdicated its power. And the courts are standing up to the out-of-control Executive branch.
For example, when the federal court said "I think you should release the names of the detainees," and Ashcroft told them, "I don't care what you say, we're not gonna do it anyway." That's an out-of-control Executive branch.
The DoJ was later ordered to release the names of the detainees. Doesn't sound to me like Ashcroft is really into the spirit of his job, which should be to keep the Oval office in check, not help it to run roughshod over the rights of Americans.
You think he wasn't present when they were being formulated?
Pettyness aside;
From Ex Parte Quirin (thanks for the link, it was interesting reading).
After denial of their applications by the District Court, 47 F.Supp. 431, petitioners asked leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court. In view of the public importance of the questions raised by their petitions and of the duty which rests on the courts, in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty, and because in our opinion the public interest required that we consider and decide those questions without any avoidable delay, we directed that petitioners' applications be set down for full oral argument at a special term of this Court, convened on July 29, 1942. The applications for leave to file the petitions were presented in open court on that day and were heard on the petitions, the answers to them of respondent, a stipulation of facts by counsel, and the record of the testimony given before the Commission.
Here we have the accused (not convicted) in open court, with counsel, arguing their case.
the duty which rests on the courts, in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty
This is the part that has changed. The USSC today seems to have no sense of this duty, allowing the Executive branch of the US government to pretty much get away with whatever it wants.
The US PATRIOT act is itself an interesting document. Written in less than 33 days, passed into law with no public discussion and no written copies available to lawmakers. Is this responsible lawmaking?
You mean the 352 page document that was somehow written in 30 days and passed into law with no printed copies available and no public discussion? Yes.