-Caveat Lector-
NO REAL SADDAM TRIAL in 2004:
CRUCIAL HISTORY the AMERICANS Now Desperately Want Saddam Quieted About
"Without the full history-as embarrassing as that record might be to
the last five U.S. presidents-the American people cannot judge whether
the nation's security will be enhanced or endangered by Bush's decision
to put the United States on its own aggressive course of action."
Journalist Robert Perry, 23 February 2003
Missing U.S.-Iraq History
By Robert Parry | 12.16.03
As a correspondent for the Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s, Robert
Parry broke many of the stories now known as the Iran-Contra Affair. His new
book is Lost History.
With all the hoopla surrounding the capture of Saddam Hussein-"caught like a
rat," read the Chicago Tribune headline-it is time to take a step back and
consider the full story of the Saddam Hussein and his long time relationship
with the U.S. government, beginning in 1959, when the CIA put Saddam on its
covert operations payroll in a plot to assassinate then Iraqi Prime Minister
Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.
In almost all of the instant histories that filled the news pages and the
airwaves after his capture, the relationship between Saddam and successive U.S.
presidential administrations has been ignored. National Public Radio, the
Washington Post, the New York Times, all ignored the documented fact that for
the decade of the '80s, Saddam was a key U.S. ally in the Middle East.
What follows is an article by investigative reporter Bob Parry, in which he
fills in some of the missing pieces. It originally appeared February 23, 2003,
before the war started, on Consortiumnews.com. As a correspondent for the
Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s, Robert Parry broke many of the
stories now known as the Iran-Contra Affair. -Joel Bleifuss
Before George W. Bush gives the final order to invade Iraq-a nation that has not
threatened the United States-the American people might want a few facts about
the real history of U.S.-Iraq relations. Missing chapters from 1980 to the
present would be crucial in judging Bush's case for war.
But Americans don't have those facts because Bush and his predecessors in the
White House have kept this history hidden from the American people. When parts
of the story have emerged, administrations of both parties have taken steps to
suppress or discredit the disclosures. So instead of knowing the truth,
Americans have been fed a steady diet of distortions, simplifications and
outright lies.
This missing history also is not just about minor details. It goes to the heart
of the case against Saddam Hussein, including whether he is an especially
"aggressive" and "unpredictable" dictator who must be removed from power even at
the risk of America's standing in the world and the chance that a war will lead
to more terrorism against U.S. targets.
For instance, George W. Bush has frequently cited Saddam Hussein's invasions of
neighbors, Iran and Kuwait, as justification for the looming U.S. invasion of
Iraq. "By defeating this threat, we will show other dictators that the path of
aggression will lead to their own ruin," Bush declared during a speech in
Atlanta on Feb. 20.
Leaving aside whether Bush's formulation is Orwellian double-speak-aggression to
discourage aggression-there is the historical question of whether Presidents
Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush actually encouraged Saddam's
aggressions for geopolitical reasons or out of diplomatic incompetence.
Carter's 'Green Light'?
This intersection of Saddam's wars and U.S. foreign policy dates back at least
to 1980 when Iran's radical Islamic government held 52 Americans hostage in
Tehran and the sheiks of the oil-rich Persian Gulf feared that Ruhollah Khomeini
's radical breed of Islam might sweep them from power just as it had the Shah of
Iran a year earlier.
The Iranian government began its expansionist drive by putting pressure on the
secular government of Iraq, instigating border clashes and encouraging Iraq's
Shiite and Kurdish populations to rise up. Iranian operatives sought to
destabilize Saddam's government by assassinating Iraqi leaders. [For details,
see "An Unnecessary War," Foreign Policy, January/February 2003.]
On Aug. 5, 1980, as tensions mounted on the Iran-Iraq border, Saudi rulers
welcomed Saddam to Riyadh for the first state visit ever by an Iraqi president
to Saudi Arabia. During meetings at the kingdom's ornate palaces, the Saudis
feted Saddam whose formidable Soviet-supplied army was viewed as a bulwark
against Iran.
Saudi leaders also say they urged Saddam to take the fight to Iran's
fundamentalist regime, advice that they say included a "green light" for the
invasion from President Carter.
Less than two months after Saddam's trip, with Carter still frustrated by his
inability to win release of the 52 Americans imprisoned in Iran, Saddam invaded
Iran on Sept. 22, 1980. The war would rage for eight years and kill an estimated
one million people.
The claim of Carter's "green light" for the invasion was made by senior Arab
leaders, including King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, to President Reagan's first
secretary of state, Alexander Haig, when Haig traveled to the Middle East in
April 1981, according to "top secret" talking points that Haig prepared for a
post-trip briefing of Reagan.
Haig wrote that he was impressed with "bits of useful intelligence" that he had
learned. "Both [Egypt's Anwar] Sadat and [Saudi then-Prince] Fahd [explained
that] Iran is receiving military spares for U.S. equipment from Israel," Haig
noted. "It was also interesting to confirm that President Carter gave the Iraqis
a green light to launch the war against Iran through Fahd."
Haig's "talking points" were first disclosed at Consortiumnews.com in 1995 after
I discovered the document amid records from a congressional investigation into
the early history of the Reagan administration's contacts with Iran. At that
time, Haig refused to answer questions about the "talking points" because they
were still classified. Though not responding to direct questions about the
"talking points," Carter has pooh-poohed other claims that he gave Saddam
encouragement for the invasion.
But before the U.S. heads to war in 2003, both Carter and Haig might be asked to
explain what they know about any direct or indirect contacts that would explain
the Saudi statements about the alleged "green light." Saudi Arabia's longtime
ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar also might be asked to give a
complete account of what the Saudi government knows and what its leaders told
Saddam in 1980.
[Haig's "top secret" talking points have been posted on the Web for the first
time here.]
Reagan's Iraqi Tilt
Through the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, as first one side and then the other
gained the upper hand, the Reagan administration was officially neutral but
behind the scenes tilted from one side to the other.
When Iran appeared to be winning in 1982, Reagan and his advisers made a fateful
decision to secretly supply Saddam's military, including permitting shipments of
dual-use technology that Iraq then used to build chemical and biological
weapons. Tactical military assistance also was provided, including satellite
photos of the battlefield.
While congressional inquiries and press accounts have sketched out some of these
facts over the years, the current Bush administration continues to plead
ignorance or question the reliability of the stories.
Last September, for example, Newsweek reported that the Reagan administration in
the 1980s had allowed sales to Iraq of computer databases that Saddam could use
to track political opponents and shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" that
could help produce anthrax and other biological weapons. [Newsweek issue dated
Sept. 23, 2002]
Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va,, asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about the
Newsweek story at a Senate hearing on Sept. 19. "Did the United States help Iraq
to acquire the building blocks of biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq war?"
Byrd inquired. "Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of reaping what we
have sown."
"Certainly not to my knowledge," Rumsfeld responded. "I have no knowledge of
United States companies or government being involved in assisting Iraq develop
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons."
So even the current U.S. secretary of defense-who served the Reagan
administration as a special envoy to the Middle East in 1983-84 and personally
met with Saddam-says he doesn't know about this secret history. Promises of
further investigation last September also haven't brought answers to Byrd's
questions.
Senior Bush's Advice
Beyond those "dual-use" supplies, other unanswered questions relate to whether
then-Vice President George H.W. Bush urged Saddam to use greater ferocity in
waging his war with Iran, advice that led the Iraqi air force to bomb civilian
centers in Tehran and other Iranian cities in 1986.
A lengthy article by Murray Waas and Craig Unger in the New Yorker in 1992
described the senior Bush passing on advice to Saddam, through Arab
intermediaries, for this more aggressive bombing campaign. Yet the historical
question has never been settled. The senior Bush has never been subjected to a
careful questioning, though it is true that Saddam did intensify his air
campaign after Bush's trip.
The answer would be relevant now as the younger Bush asserts that Saddam's
penchant for military aggression justifies a new war. If Bush's father actually
was counseling Saddam to be more aggressive, that's a fact that the American
people ought to know.
Waas and Unger described the motive for the Reagan administration's tactical
advice as a kind of diplomatic billiard shot. By getting Iraq to expand use of
its air force, the Iranians would be more desperate for U.S.-made HAWK
anti-aircraft missile parts, giving Washington more leverage with the Iranians.
Iran's need to protect their cities from Iraqi air attacks gave impetus to the
Reagan administration's arms-for-hostage scheme, which later became known as the
Iran-contra affair. [See The New Yorker, Nov. 2, 1992.]
Another 'Green Light'?
The devastation from the Iran-Iraq war, which finally ended in 1988, also set
the stage for the Gulf War of 1990-91. The eight-year war had crippled the Iraqi
economy and left Saddam's government deeply in debt.
Having been egged on by the oil-rich sheikdoms to blunt the revolutionary zeal
of Iran, Saddam felt betrayed when Kuwait wouldn't write off Iraq's debts and
rejected a $10 billion loan. Beyond that, Saddam was furious with Kuwait for
driving down world oil prices by overproducing and for slant-drilling into Iraqi
oil fields. Many Iraqis also considered Kuwait, historically, a part of Iraq.
Before attacking Kuwait, however, Saddam consulted George H.W. Bush's
administration. First, the U.S. State Department informed Saddam that Washington
had "no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait." Then, U.S.
Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab
conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."
As Foreign Policy magazine observed, "the United States may not have intended to
give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did." [Foreign Policy,
Jan.-Feb. 2003]
While Glaspie's strange diplomacy drew some congressional and press attention
during the previous Gulf crisis, the full context of George H.W. Bush's
relationship with Saddam-which might help explain why the Iraqi dictator so
disastrously misread the U.S. signals-has never been made explained.
A Clinton Cover-up?
Beyond that missing history of U.S.-Iraq relations, there's the secondary issue
of cover-ups conducted by the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W.
Bush.
Democratic sources say Clinton heeded personal appeals from the elder Bush and
other top Republicans to close the books on the so-called "Iraqgate"
investigation-as well as probes into secret Reagan-Bush dealings with Iran-soon
after the Democrat defeated Bush in the 1992 election. Some Democrats say
Clinton agreed to shelve the investigations out of concern for national security
and the country's unity. Others suggest that Clinton was tricked by the wily
elder Bush with promises that a pullback on the Iran-Iraq investigations might
win Clinton some bipartisanship with the Republicans in Congress, a tantalizing
prospect that turned out to be a mirage.
Whatever the reasons, Clinton's Justice Department did bail out the Reagan-Bush
team in the mid-1990s when more disclosures about the secret dealings with Iraq
flooded to the surface. Perhaps the most important disclosure was an affidavit
by former Reagan administration official Howard Teicher that was filed in
connection with a criminal trial in Miami in 1995. The Teicher affidavit was the
first sworn public account by a Reagan insider of the covert U.S.-Iraq
relationship.
Teicher, who served on Reagan's National Security Council staff, traced the U.S.
tilt to Iraq to a turning point in the war in 1982 when Iran gained the
offensive and fears swept through the U.S. government that Iran's army might
slice through Iraq to the oil fields of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
"In June 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not afford
to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran," Teicher wrote in his affidavit. Teicher
said he helped draft a secret national security decision directive that Reagan
signed to authorize covert U.S. assistance to Saddam Hussein's military.
"The NSDD, including even its identifying number, is classified," Teicher wrote
in 1995.
The effort to arm the Iraqis was "spearheaded" by CIA Director William Casey and
involved his deputy, Robert Gates, according to Teicher's affidavit. "The CIA,
including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved
of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and
vehicles to Iraq," Teicher wrote.
In 1984, Teicher said he went to Iraq with Rumsfeld to convey a secret Israeli
offer to assist Iraq after Israel had concluded that Iran was becoming a greater
danger. "I traveled with Rumsfeld to Baghdad and was present at the meeting in
which Rumsfeld told Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz about Israel's offer of
assistance," Teicher wrote. "Aziz refused even to accept the Israelis' letter to
Hussein offering assistance because Aziz told us that he would be executed on
the spot by Hussein if he did so."
Another key player in Reagan's Iraq tilt was then-Vice President George H.W.
Bush, according to Teicher's affidavit.
"In 1986, President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling him
that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran," Teicher wrote. "This
message was delivered by Vice President Bush who communicated it to Egyptian
President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam Hussein.
"Similar strategic operational military advice was passed to Saddam Hussein
through various meetings with European and Middle Eastern heads of state. I
authored Bush's talking points for the 1986 meeting with Mubarak and personally
attended numerous meetings with European and Middle East heads of state where
the strategic operational advice was communicated."
Teicher's affidavit represented a major break in the historical mystery of U.S.
aid to Iraq. But it complicated a criminal arms-trafficking case that Clinton's
Justice Department was prosecuting against Teledyne Industries and a salesman
named Ed Johnson. They had allegedly sold explosive pellets to Chilean arms
manufacturer Carlos Cardoen, who used them to manufacture cluster bombs for
Iraq.
Red-Faced Prosecutors
Prior to trying the Teledyne case, Clinton's Justice Department declared that
its investigation "did not find evidence that U.S. agencies or officials
illegally armed Iraq." But the review noted, curiously, that the CIA had
withheld an unknown number of documents that were contained in "sensitive
compartments" that were denied to the investigators. Despite that denial of
access, the Clinton investigators expressed confidence in their conclusions.
Two weeks after that exonerating report, however, Teicher's affidavit was filed
in federal court in Miami, embarrassing senior Justice Department officials.
After taking the word of former Reagan-Bush officials and agreeing not to
examine the CIA's "sensitive compartments," the Justice Department officials
looked gullible, incompetent or complicit.
They took their fury out on Teicher, insisting that his affidavit was unreliable
and threatening him with dire consequences for coming forward. Yet, while
deeming Teicher's affidavit false, the Clinton administration also declared the
document a state secret, classifying it and putting it under court seal. A few
copies, however, had been distributed outside the court and the text was soon
posted on the Internet.
After officially suppressing the Teicher affidavit, the Justice Department
prosecutors persuaded the judge presiding in the Teledyne-Johnson case to rule
testimony about the Reagan-Bush policies to be irrelevant. Unable to mount its
planned defense, Teledyne agreed to plead guilty and accept a $13 million fine.
Johnson, the salesman who had earned a modest salary in the mid-$30,000 range,
was convicted of illegal arms trafficking and given a prison term.
Before a U.S. invasion of Iraq begins, former President Clinton might be asked
whether he was approached by George H.W. Bush or a Bush emissary with an request
to drop investigations into Reagan-Bush policies in the Middle East.
Teicher, who has since 1995 refused to discuss his affidavit, could be given a
congressional forum to testify about his knowledge. So could other surviving
U.S. officials named in Teicher's affidavit, including Gates and Rumsfeld.
Foreign leaders mentioned in the affidavit also could be approached, including
former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Mubarak and Aziz.
Junior Bush's Hidden Records
George W. Bush also has some questions he should answer before missiles start
crashing into Baghdad. When he took office in 2001, one of his first acts as
president was to block the legally required release of documents from the
Reagan-Bush administration.
Then, after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as a stunned nation rallied around
him, Bush issued an even more sweeping secrecy order. He granted former
presidents and vice presidents or their surviving family members the right to
stop release of historical records, including those related to "military,
diplomatic or national security secrets." Bush's order stripped the Archivist of
the United States of the power to overrule claims of privilege from former
presidents and their representatives. [For details on Bush's secrecy policies,
see the New York Times, Jan. 3, 2003]
By a twist of history, Bush's order eventually could give him control of both
his and his father's records covering 12 years of the Reagan-Bush era and
however long Bush's own presidential term lasts, potentially a 20-year swath of
documentary evidence.
As the junior Bush now takes the nation to war in the name of freedom and
democracy, he might at least be challenged to reverse that secrecy and release
all relevant documents on the history of the Reagan-Bush policies in the Middle
East. That way, the American people can decide for themselves whether Saddam
Hussein is an aggressive leader whose behavior is so depraved that a preemptive
war is the only reasonable course of action.
Or they might conclude that Saddam, like many other dictators through history,
operates within a framework of self-preservation, which means he could be
controlled by a combination of tough arms inspections and the threat of military
retaliation.
Without the full history-as embarrassing as that record might be to the last
five U.S. presidents-the American people cannot judge whether the nation's
security will be enhanced or endangered by Bush's decision to put the United
States on its own aggressive course of action.
In These Times - 16 Dec 2003
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
