Al Re...We discussed this ad nauseum last fall, and I believe no one then came up with any proof GB senior incited any riots. Did the CIA hope that would happen, Yes. Did GW senior promise any help, not sure; and I bet you can't prove it either.
That sentence is what I posted. In reply you posted this.
The betrayal of Saddam’s domestic opposition by its supposed allies in the U.S. government began with a speech by President George Bush delivered on February 15, 1991, while the air campaign in the Gulf War was still raging. In remarks that were translated into Arabic and broadcast into Iraq by the CIA, Mr. Bush urged "the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step down."
Here is the transcript of that speech, and the part which includes the phrase that reporter is talking about. By the way GB was talking to employees of a Ratheon plant in Mass., he was not talking to any representative of Iraq, or its people.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/gb910215.htm
Earlier today, maybe your hopes were lifted; maybe mine -- mine were -- and I think some hopes were lifted in downtown Baghdad with the statement. And I expressed earlier on regret that that Iraqi statement that first gave rise to hopes, in fact, turned out to be a cruel hoax. Not only was the Iraqi statement full of unacceptable, old conditions, Saddam Hussein has added several new conditions.
Let me state once again: Iraq must withdraw without condition. There must be full implementation of all the Security Council resolutions. And there will be no linkage to other problems in the area. (Applause.) And the legitimate rulers, the legitimate government must be returned to Kuwait. And until a credible withdrawal begins, with those Iraqi troops visibly leaving Kuwait, the coalition forces, in compliance with United Nations Resolution G78, will continue their efforts to force compliance with all those resolutions -- every single one of them. (Applause.)
Compliance with the resolutions will instantly stop the bloodshed. And there's another way for the bloodshed to stop, and that is for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations. (Applause.)
We have no argument with the people of Iraq. Our differences are with that brutal dictator in Baghdad. (Applause.)
I included four paragraphs to put that sentence in context. You will note that GB was talking about ways to avoid the war, to drive Iraq out of Kuwait.
The first was for Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions and withdraw completely out of Kuwait. The second way, GB continued, would be if the Iraqi military and the people took matters into their own hands, and force Hussein, the dictator to step aside.
Ecuse me for being dense here, but just exactly where does GB encourage the people to revolt, by themselves, against Saddam. GB very clearly said, that a way to stop the war, was for the military, and the people, to oust Saddam, and stop the war. GB also clearly included the words "by themselves" in that sentence. Just how do you conclude that meant the US would help??? Thirdly, GB only said that that was one way the war could be avoided. GB said nothing about hoping these people revolting after the war.
This reporter,you and the far left are taking that line out of context, twisting his words, omitting others, and concluded GB encouraged the people to revolt, and that the US would help., when a simple reading of the text shows that to be an un-abased lie. Why do you feel that twisting speeches and facts, makes you believable????
Saddam was rescued by what seemed an unlikely ally — the U.S. government.
Crushing the Kurds
For reasons that were never adequately explained, Saddam’s military was permitted to keep its fleet of helicopter gunships after the Gulf War ceasefire. This gave his military a decisive advantage when the Iraqi government’s counter-offensive against the rebels began on March 28th.
In this part, the reporter claims that because GB didn't take away Saddams gunships, GB aided Saddam. That is an incredible stretch. Where is it shown, that GB was supposed to take away his gunships, if they weren't used in the Kuwaiti theater, or promised to anybody he would if the Kurds or shites revolted. . In order to get UN approval, all GB was allowed to do, was free Kuwait under the terms of the UN resolution. If you think GB should have done more, take it up with the UN.
Secondly, the revolters knew, at the time they revolted, that Saddam still had his gunships, and they knew, under the UN resolution, GB couldn't help. The revolt leaders made the decision to go ahead anyway. They made a mistake, why is it GB fault?
Two days before Saddam mustered his forces to put down the revolt, U.S. presidential spokesman Marlin Fitzwater pointedly declared that "it is good for the stability of the region that [Iraq] maintain its territorial integrity" — a statement that precluded support for independence-minded Kurds and Shi’ites.
Of course, GB wanted Iraq to stay a whole state. That was US and UN policy before, during and after the 91 Gulf war. GB help the insurgents break up Iraq, would have been goin g against UN resolutions; and we all know the great lengths the Bushes go to honor UN resolutions. Then there is this part.
Shortly after the end of the Gulf War, Talbani visited Washington, DC to solicit help from the Bush Administration. When Peter Galbraith, who at the time was staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, attempted to arrange a meeting between Talbani and White House officials, he was (in Galbraith’s words) "angrily rebuffed." Why was Talbani spurned?
That is incredible chutzpa. Here the author tells us, shortly after the war, which means before the revolt, Talbani goes to Wash, to get help for the revolt, and GB slammed the door in his face. Call me stupid, but just how does this infer GB offered to help the revolutionaries. In our parts of the country, slamming a door in ones face, is a blunt way of saying, get lost; I want no part of you; and here the author is trying to spin it into something else. Get a life. Read the signs you idiot. Slamming a door in ones face in no way implies co-operation.
The U.S. foreign policy establishment was determined to leave Saddam in charge of Iraq. "
that is an out an out lie. Earlier in the piece the author says this. Because, as a CIA deputy later explained, U.S. policy at the end of the Gulf War was "to get rid of Saddam Hussein, not his regime."
What doesn't this idiot understand. US policy was to leave the Baathist regime in charge, not Saddam. Just how does twisting facts, and fabricating lies prove anything. This is just another leftist, hit piece. |
