Its rather a stretch to suggest that Saddam bin Laden was given a “green light” by Ms. Glaspie. More to the point to suggest that America’s view was that we didn’t have a dog in that fight. But clearly no threat of dire consequences was delivered. The subsequent copious shedding of crocodile tears over the fallen Kuwait and the awakening of stern moral duty is a textbook example of the galactic hypocrisy contained in the expression realpolitik.
As to the assassination attempt on Bush the Previous, Seymour Hersh wrote a very interesting article as to that claim. To oversimplify, it is Mr. Hersh’s suggestion that the US took as gospel Kuwaiti Intelligence claims that it was so, something like accusing Arafat of child molestation on the basis of a report from Mossad (Israeli intelligence). You can read the article here: http://www.disinfo.com/pages/article/id2776/pg1/
I believe that April Glaspie essentially told Iraq that the US would not interfere with an invasion of Kuwait. I think that Hussein was subtly gulled into an invasion by Bush Sr. in order to give him an excuse for an easy, poll boosting, economy boosting war.
While such may raise doubts, it can hardly be called a “refutation”. It points out that the blue lips condition is symptomatic of more than one cause, and that is entirely true. To stretch the point to the absurd, they might have succumbed to massive, simultaneous heart attacks.
The only point I am willing to take from Mr. Pelleterre’s account is that the issue is in doubt, and hence falls far short of GeeDubya’s claims of “proof positive”.
Comrade Diogenes’ claim as to the motivation of Bush the Previous for turning on Saddam bin Laden is a head scratcher. As Senor Beef points out, US policy on Saddam bin Laden seems to have turned on a dime at some point. The question of “why?” is somewhat tangential to our debate, but is certainly interesting nonetheless. I, too, doubt that American policy was suddenly siezed by a fit of repentance. Mr Pellettere’s comment about control of water offers a tantalizing suggestion, but little more.
elucidator, you are just grasping at straws now. The eye-witnesses, the intelligence on the ground, Iraq itself, believe that the attack was carried out by Iraq. Moreover, Iran would have no reason to gas them. Iraq would. We have witnesses, motive, and no evidence to the contrary.
Sorry, but until you get better arguments and evidence, it is completely reasonable, rational and correct to believe that Iraq was responsible for the attack.
The only real objection is London’s, which correctly notes that the Kurds are Hussein’s “own people” only in the most techinical sense of the word.
It’s patently silly to put up little snippets and claim that Pelletiere has been “refuted”. Do you understand the technical arguments involved? Have you read Pelletiere’s report and seen the full range of evidence considered?
Like I said unless someone here has the relevant technical background and has read through the different reports no one can say who is correct. Agnosticism is the only reasonable response since both sides have solid credentials. I don’t think anyone here is claiming that Pelletiere is definitely right but for some reason various people , without knowing much about the issue, are intent on pronouncing him wrong.
“Moreover, Iran would have no reason to gas them. Iraq would.” Sigh I am kind of wondering how many times this will have to be repeated:
1)Pelletiere doesn’t say that Iran gassed the Kurds deliberately.
2)He doesn’t deny that the Iraqis used gas.
I realize these are hugely difficult and subtle points . I suppose if we repeat it another 200 times it might begin to sink in.
Oh, I hardly think so. Let us examine the underpinnings of your argument. Eyewitnesses, as I’m sure you know, are the least credible of all, being dependent on observation and subject to all manner of influence, mendacity not the least. The intelligence on the ground? Being what, exactly? Roving bands of CIA agents? CNN? Exactly what comprises this “intelligence on the ground”. Mr. Pelleterre quotes CIA and military intelligence reports he was in a position to be cognizant of. Were you in a better position?
As has been noted, the alleged “confession” of Iraq in this regard is dubious, as is most everything in this entire episode. I suspect that the Iraqi statement might have been intended as an admission of inadvertent responsibility. One of the more unfortunate aspects of gas warfare is unpredictability: its rather lke attaching a time bomb to a weather balloon. Iran had no reason to gas the village? Quite so, but niether did Iraq, when a squad of soldiers with automatic weapons could have achieved the same effect with far more certainty.
You may believe, as you seem determined to, that Iraq is undeniably culpable, without a shadow of a doubt. I suggest that such certainty requires more straw-gasping than my own position, which is simply that the matter is in doubt. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
This conclusion was refuted by Human Rights Watch. The symptoms of blue lips, etc., are entirely indicative of the chemical agents used by Iraq. His conclusion is false.
Morevoer, eyewitnesses in the village itself pin the attack in Iraq.
So we have Kurdish eyewitnesses placing the blame on Iraq. We have US Intelligence placing the blame on Iraq. The one piece of evidence used to discredit the fact that Iraq did it, the bluish extremities, has been found to be meaningless. Now, while it is technically possible that Iran did it, the evidence weighs ridiculously against Iraq.
Furthermore, even if the specific incident at Halabja was committed by Iranians, there are many more incidents of Iraq using chemical weapons against Kurds so as to render the main thrust of the argument “Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds” still true.
“This conclusion was refuted by Human Rights Watch. The symptoms of blue lips, etc., are entirely indicative of the chemical agents used by Iraq. His conclusion is false.”
Um this is just an assertion by HRW. How do you know they have got it right? How do you know the full range of evidence considered by Pelletiere et al? Obviously they aren’t going to be able to describe all of it in a letter or an op-ed piece.
This article gives a good indication of the kind of government resources which backed the work of Pelletiere.
"In time, studies were commissioned from and produced by the military and intelligence communities, which found that both armies had used gas. One report, “Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War,” was prepared by Dr. Stephen Pelletiere and Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Johnson of the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute. Its findings came out of a two-day conference attended by U.S. defense attachés who had served in the Middle East, as well as by military and political analysts from both the CIA and the DIA who had monitored the war. Because neither Iran nor Iraq had allowed reporters or foreign military observers at the front, the report drew on field reports, open source materials, and “signal intelligence”—phone and radio messages sent by the warring armies, and picked up by the National Security Agency. "
As for the NSA being reliable, go check out a copy of Body of Secrets. I read the thing about NSA evidence against Saddam in a Newsweek highlight online somewhere.
Actually, he did it with the cooperation of the US government. There were articles about a year ago saying that, during the Iraq-Iran war, the US provided intelligence to the Iraqis knowing full well it would be used by the Iraquis for the purpose of using poison gas against the Iranians, and the USA was Ok with that. I am not going to search for the articles now but I am sure they can be found without difficulty.
Interestingly, the US also fed information to the Iranians. As did the Israelis, intent to have the two big ME powers beat the living crap out of each other. But that’s just a sidebar and I’m not trying to justify or excuse anything. Just thought it was interesting.
Back to CyberPundit. No, but when the only justification for his assertion is the bluish lips thingie in his response to a critic, we must assume that is Pelletiere’s main thrust. And I have no reason to doubt HRW’s assertion. But if you wish to make the claim that bluish extremities are only found as a result of cyanide based gases used by Iranians, please provide evidence.
As for the Iranians using gas in the same attack, I wouldn’t be surprised. In fact, I certainly agree that both sides probably attacked the village with chemical weapons. But the evidence that Iraq used chemical weapons on the civilians at Halabja is still overwhelming, even if Iran used them as well.
Maybe he doesn’t, but seeing as the Kurds were resident within Iraqi borders and were nominally citizens of Iraq, it’s hard to argue that they *weren’t] Iraqis, and hence “Saddam’s own people.” Much as neither the Kurds nor Saddam would want to admit otherwise.