Ted Re...CIA operatives under Bush Sr. encouraged Shiite Muslims and Kurds to revolt. Since the CIA operatives were on Bush Sr.'s watch, Bush Sr. is held responsible.
That is an absurd statement. That would be true only if GB changed standard CIA policy, in force since Hungry; which was that the CIA couldn't offer troops or arms outside the scope of the CIA. In addition, GB maintained a strict policy of not even speaking to any group of any country, lest that country think the US was trying to subvert it.
From Al's original post.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19684005
"Baghdad Rules"
by William Norman Grigg
In the CIA’s lexicon, they are called the "Budapest Rules" — the operational guidelines that permit covert operations to "destabilize" totalitarian regimes as long as no explicit assurance of active U.S. support is given to opposition groups.
And in that post there is this.
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."
Just where do you get in those paragraphs, that GB cosied up to the opposition leaders. Here is another source.
dodgeglobe.com
On March 3, an Iraqi tank commander returning from Kuwait fired a shell through one of the portraits of Saddam in Basra's main square, igniting the southern uprising.
A week later, Kurdish rebels ended Saddam's control over much of the north.
But although Bush had called for the rebellion, his administration was caught unprepared when it happened.
The administration knew little about those in the Iraqi opposition because, as a matter of policy, it refused to talk to them. Policy-makers tended to see Iraq's main ethnic groups in caricature: The Shiites were feared as pro-Iranian and the Kurds as anti-Turkish.
You will note that although this was written from a anti Bush stance, this author states as soldier returning from the war started it. He makes no mention of CIA, or GB's encouragement. Also note that GB had a strict policy of not talking to opposition groups. Period. If you have links showing the CIA did encourage the riot, with GB's okay, bring em on. If you can't show a connection, drop it. It is certain GB had no official policy supporting the opposition groups, and right now, if CIA operatives promised US help, they did so on their own.
To me, the main reason for the blame game in Iraq, is that the opposition groups felt the US would help them, because GB spoke openly against Saddams actions in Kuwait; and in the Arab world, there is a saying, " the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Therefore, since Saddam was GB enemy, GB would surly consider them a friend. And friends don't stand by while your enemy is murdering them. Unfortunately, in modern politics, it happens that ways sometimes. |
