Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wikileaks Releases Oft-Discussed April Glaspie 1990 Cable from Iraq Before Kuwait Invasiont

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 09:23 PM
Original message
Wikileaks Releases Oft-Discussed April Glaspie 1990 Cable from Iraq Before Kuwait Invasiont
Edited on Sun Jan-02-11 09:28 PM by Hissyspit
Source: Jeremy Scahill

From Twitter:

Wikileaks releases oft-discussed April Glaspie cable from Iraq in 1990 before Kuwait invasion


Read more: http://213.251.145.96/cable/1990/07/90BAGHDAD4237.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sonoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. One of the biggest under-reported stories, ever.
Fucking James A Baker III set it all up.

Little fucking Jimmy. Had to eat standing up while the Captain berated him incessantly - and they only spoke Latin in the house. He only sat down to take a shit and was only allowed to lie down to sleep.

Little fucking Jimmy. One sister killed herself and the other married Harry Whittington, Dick fucking Cheney's face-shot.

Little fucking Jimmy.

Why has no one ever interviewed Ms Glaspie?

Sonoman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nenagh Donating Member (657 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Geeze, Sonoman...
I nearly had an out of body experience reading your precis of that family's life and the connection to Henry Whittington..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
20. You should consider writing a book with little bio snapshots of repukes.
Handy info that cuts thru the crap. I never knew this about 'Jimmy', explains a lot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marasinghe Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
32. to paraphrase Jon Stewart: the "III" stands for the 3 K's baker'd like to use in his name -
but that would make it too obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. Poppy, Baker and Glaspie were not honorable
and the double-dealing never stopped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueMTexpat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. I see nothing in that cable to indicate that Ms Glaspie was not honorable. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thanks_imjustlurking Donating Member (462 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
31. *She* could have been set up.
I haven't read the cable yet, but that's sort of what I've always thought. Damage done and then she disappeared.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sonoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. She was set up.
See #1

Sonoman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #18
35. please accept my apology - re Glaspie
I had only read - many times and many places - how she had greenlighted Saddam invading Kuwait.

I was wrong.

http://www.juancole.com/2011/01/glaspie-memo-vindicates...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. Wasn't there some communication at the time
that indicated that the US would look the other way if Saddam would invade Kuwait? I read thru this and didn't make out that this was that document. Do you know what I am referring to? It's been a long time but I seem to remember that our govt lead Saddam to believe one thing and then we cried 'foul' and used that action to justify our invasion. If it is in this, could you point it out to me? I did read it thru one time only but just not seeing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi (Chedli Klibi, Secretary General of the Arab League) or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.

-----------------------

The Wiki goes on to say a lot more that makes Glaspie's positions and statements perhaps seem a little better than this excerpt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I think this is it
paragraph 30 NOTE: ON THE BORDER QUESTION, SADDAM REFERRED
TO THE 1961 AGREEMENT AND A "LINE OF PATROL" IT
HAD ESTABLISHED. THE KUWAITIS, HE SAID, HAD TOLD
MUBARAK IRAQ WAS 20 KILOMETERS "IN FRONT" OF THIS
LINE. THE AMBASSADOR SAID THAT SHE HAD SERVED IN
KUWAIT 20 YEARS BEFORE; THEN, AS NOW, WE TOOK NO
POSITION ON THESE ARAB AFFAIRS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Martin Eden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
33. If that's it, then it's not quite what it was cracked up to be.
Taking no position on a 30-year-old dispute over a 20 kilometer "line of patrol" is not the same as sending a message of taking no action in response to an armed invasion ... there were much more significant disputes at work here.

On the other hand, that cable gives no indication that the United States would respond as it did to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. If Bush Senior was indeed interested in preventing the war that ensued, he would have made sure Saddam understood what our response would be. I strongly suspect his administration wanted the invasion to happen so they could flex their military muscles in the Middle East and establish bases there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. You and I are on the same page
I asked about it down below - composing my reply no doubt while you were posting.

Jeez, you live during a period of history, kept up at the time and now all these years later the nits and gnats of fact make you itch in places you can't reach to scratch!

Going to read more of the replies you received. Thanks for also asking about this discrepancy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Good replies so far...
And yes, I too feel I should remember this better than I do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. I beleive she said that to Saddam's face--that the US would have no position on
that particular matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sonoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
37. It's on video.
It aired a couple of times.

Sonoman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueMTexpat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
19. That has always been the "spin" that was put on the meeting in order
Edited on Mon Jan-03-11 12:08 AM by BlueMTexpat
to make a sacrificial goat of Ms Glaspie, who was not a Bush appointee but a career Foreign Service Ambassador. According to the cable itself, her response was much more generalized.
I do think it is clear, however, that Saddam was very nervous about his US support, that "some" (likely the predecessors to our better-known Neocons) were not happy about the Iran-Iraq War being over, that he was understandably unhappy about Kuwait's slant drill actions in violation of OPEC, that he was actually trying many things with those who later betrayed him (Mubarak, Fahd. etc.) to defuse the situation, and that he was genuinely concerned not only about the plight of the Palestinians (at the time much less harrowing than it is currently) but also about people in his own country who would suffer because the oil prices were being held artifically low by the actions of Kuwait and the UAE.

I am no Saddam apologist. But I truly hate what Bush I and Baker did - and they did it knowingly and deliberately. I really do not believe that Ambassador Glaspie was ever knowingly a part of their plans or actions.

There is an excellent four-part HBO/BBC production "House of Saddam" that is really worth watching just to give you an idea of how totally screwed over both Gulf Wars were (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saddam ). But then our whole ME relationship is FUBAR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. Thank you
Edited on Mon Jan-03-11 06:17 AM by rosesaylavee
Found the link to the 4 episodes on the link you provided... http://tv-dump.org/shows/House.Of.Saddam /

Will take a look at them - thank you for providing more information on this - helps to round out an understanding of the time. I don't know when our ME policy has ever been appropriate or healthy. Possibly only briefly during the Carter administration. The attraction of the 3 religions involved I think has destined that area to be perpetually FUBAR.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. There seems to be a lot in that letter.
What is the background?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
8. I always read that the ambassador said the US wouldn't get involved in how Iraq dealt with Kuwait...
....regarding their slant drilling of oil over the border with Iraq. But section 30 of this cable says,

"30. NOTE: ON THE BORDER QUESTION, SADDAM REFERRED
TO THE 1961 AGREEMENT AND A "LINE OF PATROL" IT
HAD ESTABLISHED. THE KUWAITIS, HE SAID, HAD TOLD
MUBARAK IRAQ WAS 20 KILOMETERS "IN FRONT" OF THIS
LINE. THE AMBASSADOR SAID THAT SHE HAD SERVED IN
KUWAIT 20 YEARS BEFORE; THEN, AS NOW, WE TOOK NO
POSITION ON THESE ARAB AFFAIRS."

So she meant it was the establishment of borders, if I'm not completely sideways about the significance. I thought that since the ambassador said we wouldn't get involved if Iraq invaded Kuwait - Saddam took that to mean we'd be hands off however he dealt with Kuwait.

More information such as these leaks always leads to more questions.

K&R


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
29. It certainly isn't as clear as people have led us to believe, is it?
Yes, I had always heard the line that she had wink-wink-nudge-nudge said that the U.S. had no opinion on his proposed aggression toward Kuwait, suckering him into launching a war that we could then shriek "foul" about and attack, thus stealing his oil.

This doesn't seem to sustain that premise at all, but shows some rather more insidious bits of calumny on our part. The Iran-Iraq war is shown here to be not just a convenience for us, but rather something done with our approval and to some extent done to curry our favor. Hussein's subsequent feeling of being left out on a limb is somewhat justified.

What's truly amazing here is Saddam's seeming naivete: did he really think that we'd support ANY policy that would drive up world oil prices? Holy shit; does he not "get" the concept of raptor capitalism at its purest?

When reading this, it's the stuff of great historical drama; that meeting would be VERY suitable to dramatization...

One great thing about transparency is that it shows things to often be different than they truly are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Martin Eden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. "that meeting would be VERY suitable to dramatization"
The revelations courtesy of Wikileaks could very well form the basis of a major motion picture based on historical fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
9. Excellent. Next let there please be info re: Susan Lindauer.
Edited on Sun Jan-02-11 09:59 PM by bleever

(Pertaining to the second Iraq war, that is.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Andy Card's cousin, whose back-channel diplomacy was viciously torpedoed by the Bush administration right before the Iraq war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
12. One excerpt:
AT THIS POINT, SADDAM LEFT THE ROOM TO TAKE
AN URGENT CALL FROM MUBARAK. AFTER HIS RETURN,
THE AMBASSADOR ASKED IF HE COULD TELL HER IF
THERE HAS ANY PROGRESS IN FINDING A PEACEFUL WAY
TO DEFUSE THE DISPUTE. THIS WAS SOMETHING PRESIDENT
BUSH WOULD BE KEENLY INTERESTED TO KNOW. SADDAM
SAID THAT HE HAD JUST LEARNED FROM MUBARAK THE
KUWAITIS HAVE AGREED TO NEGOTIATE.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. The cable was created on July 25, 1990 and Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990
Edited on Sun Jan-02-11 10:19 PM by eleny
Over the years sources allege that Kuwait refused to negotiate while other sources assert that Saddam cut off negotiations and swiftly invaded.

There's reason to question every assertion - as we probably always should.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kgnu_fan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
14. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
16. Ah, yes ... the Poppy Bush wink . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TroubleMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
17. I read the whole thing - what an interesting piece of history.

20 years later, there's absolutely no reason - zero, zilch - for this to still be classified. I'm astounded to think how much real history is being lost under the veil of secrecy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
21. K&R! Keep 'em comin'! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 03:55 AM
Response to Original message
22. recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
24. This thread is why DU is important...
Thank you HS for posting this info. The discussion here has helped to round out my understanding this cable. Wonder if it would be helpful to others if we had a place to store the Wikileak discussions here on DU? For future reference? Wonder if there is a way to do that effectively.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amyrose2712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 06:27 AM
Response to Original message
25. K&R! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dballance Donating Member (460 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
26. Yet Another Reason Bush and Cheney Should be Prosecuted
The county they invaded was no threat at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrdmk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
27. Here is what I remember from that period of time
Both radio and TV (air-wave media) had interviews with the pro-war proponents and the anti-war proponents were not to be seen. Now if you read section one of the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post every day, it was clear facts were being distorted by the differing countries and other interested parties. Yes, the facts were there in the print media if you took the time to put the pieces together.

The air-wave media did such a good job of presenting the distorted facts, they were considered by me to be just a bunch of cheer-leaders for war, even PBS!

Besides shaking-up the middle east with a war, taking Iraq out of the oil market seem to be an ulterior motive at the time. Iraq had the second biggest oil reserves at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. I protested that war (Desert Shield\Storm) every day, same as I protested Operation Iraqi Liberation
this time around.

Here is what I remember from the time: Bush 41 took no strong stand against the Iraqi cross-border incursion into Kuwait until AFTER he met with Margaret Thatcher in Colorado. It was strange at the time that for the first few days Bush seemed to take no strong, clear stance. After he met with Thatcher, however, the U.S. line suddenly hardened and fake satellite evidence was manufactured purporting to show that Hussein was on the verge of invading Saudi Arabia (became pretext for Desert Shield), followed by false and perjured testimony before Congress that Iraqi troops were killing Kuwaiti babies by jerking them out of their incubators (became pretext for Desert Storm).

But I've often wondered if, when the final definitive history of this shameful episode is written, exatly what part Thatcher and the Brits will be seen to have played in getting the U.S. to police the Brits' former colonial possession(s).

I have begun to measure my life by protest periods when a Bush is in office, interspersed with 4-8 years of rest while a Democrat is in office. Not that Clinton's or Obama's imperialism is any less disgusting than either of the Bush's, mind you, but the Dems veil their imperialism inside the velvet glove of democracy and self-determination for all, whereas the Repukes just show the steel fist of imperialism with no pretense about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrdmk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #30
38. There was never perjured testimony before Congress
<snip>
Suffer the Little Children

Every big media event needs what journalists and flacks alike refer to as "the hook." An ideal hook becomes the central element of a story that makes it newsworthy, evokes a strong emotional response, and sticks in the memory. In the case of the Gulf War, the "hook" was invented by Hill & Knowlton. In style, substance and mode of delivery, it bore an uncanny resemblance to England's World War I hearings that accused German soldiers of killing babies.

On October 10, 1990, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus held a hearing on Capitol Hill which provided the first opportunity for formal presentations of Iraqi human rights violations. Outwardly, the hearing resembled an official congressional proceeding, but appearances were deceiving. In reality, the Human Rights Caucus, chaired by California Democrat Tom Lantos and Illinois Republican John Porter, was simply an association of politicians. Lantos and Porter were also co-chairs of the Congressional Human Rights Foundation, a legally separate entity that occupied free office space valued at $3,000 a year in Hill & Knowlton's Washington, DC office. Notwithstanding its congressional trappings, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus served as another Hill & Knowlton front group, which - like all front groups - used a noble-sounding name to disguise its true purpose.80
<end of snip>

<snip>
MacArthur also noticed another telling detail about the October 1990 hearings: "The Human Rights Caucus is not a committee of congress, and therefore it is unencumbered by the legal accouterments that would make a witness hesitate before he or she lied. ... Lying under oath in front of a congressional committee is a crime; lying from under the cover of anonymity to a caucus is merely public relations."82

In fact, the most emotionally moving testimony on October 10 came from a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name of Nayirah. According to the Caucus, Nayirah's full name was being kept confidential to prevent Iraqi reprisals against her family in occupied Kuwait. Sobbing, she described what she had seen with her own eyes in a hospital in Kuwait City. Her written testimony was passed out in a media kit prepared by Citizens for a Free Kuwait. "I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital," Nayirah said. "While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."83
<end of snip>

link to PR Watch: http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html


Nayirah's was the daughter of Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwaiti's ambassador to the U.S.A., she was not in the country at the time when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The whole media event was a scam!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Wow, that's really something. I guess 'perjury' must satisfy certain
Edited on Mon Jan-03-11 09:30 PM by coalition_unwilling
jurisprudential burdens that, say, 'lying' does not have to.

Just out of curiosity, do you remember Thatcher and Bush 41 meeting in Colorado followed by Bush coming out and taking a hard line?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrdmk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. No! If you have any further information, please share it...
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Oy, an assignment! (J/K). Well, this was a memory I had of Bush 41
and Thatcher meeting and then the U.S. line suddenly changing and becoming harder. But I will have to go back and check now to make sure I'm not suffering from false memory sysndrome. I'll try to check it out tomorrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
28. That page does not load
Here in cubicle country
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Oct 19th 2014, 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC