The true Iraq appeasers

[bd]

In a speech to the American Legion, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld continued his attack on critics of the administration’s Iraq war policy.

Rumsfeld compared critics of his policies to people “in the decades before World War II” who believed Hitler “could be appeased” and “argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated — or that it was someone else’s problem.” People critical of his current efforts, according to Rumsfeld, “have still not learned history’s lessons.”

Rumsfeld added, “any moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.”


Well here is where the hypocrites, appeasers, and the generally delusional people who run our country are exposed.

So now anyone who disagrees with this idiotic policy of the Bush adminstration which has no end in sight is compared to those who would have appeased Hitler.

Rummy is himself a liar and appeaser as the article below proves.

PETER W. GALBRAITH
The true Iraq appeasers
By Peter W. Galbraith | August 31, 2006

"IN HIS MOST recent justification of his Pentagon stewardship, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reached back to the 1930s, comparing the Bush administration's critics to those who, like US Ambassador to Britain Joseph P. Kennedy, favored appeasing Adolf Hitler. Rumsfeld avoided a more recent comparison: the appeasement of Saddam Hussein by the Reagan and first Bush administrations. The reasons for selectivity are obvious, since so many of Hussein's appeasers in the 1980s were principals in the 2003 Iraq war, including Rumsfeld.

In 1983, President Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, then in the third year of a war of attrition with neighboring Iran. Although Iraq had started the war with a blitzkrieg attack in 1980, the tide had turned by 1982 in favor of much larger Iran, and the Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might actually lose. Reagan chose Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984. Inconveniently, Iraq had begun to use chemical weapons against Iran in November 1983, the first sustained use of poison gas since a 1925 treaty banning that.

Rumsfeld never mentioned this blatant violation of international law to Hussein, instead focusing on shared hostility toward Iran and an oil pipeline through Jordan. Rumsfeld apparently did mention it to Tariq Aziz, Iraq's foreign minister, but by not raising the issue with the paramount leader he signaled that good relations were more important to the United States than the use of poison gas.

This message was reinforced by US conduct after the Rumsfeld missions. The Reagan administration offered Hussein financial credits that eventually made Iraq the third-largest recipient of US assistance. It normalized diplomatic relations and, most significantly, began providing Iraq with battlefield intelligence. Iraq used this information to target Iranian troops with chemical weapons. And when Iraq turned its chemical weapons on the Kurds in 1988, killing 5,000 in the town of Halabja, the Reagan administration sought to obscure responsibility by falsely suggesting Iran was also responsible.

On Aug. 25, 1988 -- five days after the Iran-Iraq War ended -- Iraq attacked 48 Kurdish villages more than 100 miles from Iran. Within days, the US Senate passed legislation, sponsored by Claiborne Pell, Democrat of Rhode Island, to end US financial support for Hussein and to impose trade sanctions. To enhance the prospects that Reagan would sign his legislation, Pell sent me to Eastern Turkey to interview Kurdish survivors who had fled across the border. As it turned out, the Reagan administration agreed that Iraq had gassed the Kurds, but strongly opposed sanctions, or even cutting off financial assistance. Colin Powell, then the national security adviser, coordinated the Reagan administration's opposition.

The Pell bill died at the end of the congressional session in 1988, in spite of heroic efforts by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts to force it through by holding up a raft of administration nominations.

The next year, President George H.W. Bush's administration actually doubled US financial credits for Iraq. A week before Hussein invaded Kuwait, the administration vociferously opposed legislation that would have conditioned US assistance to Iraq on a commitment not to use chemical weapons and to stop the genocide against the Kurds. At the time, Dick Cheney, now vice president, was secretary of defense and a statutory member of the National Security Council that reviewed Iraq policy. By all accounts, he supported the administration's appeasement policy.

In 2003, Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfeld all cited Hussein's use of chemical weapons 15 years before as a rationale for war. But at the time Hussein was actually doing the gassing -- including of his own people -- they considered his use of chemical weapons a second-tier issue.

The Reagan and first Bush administrations believed that Hussein could be a strategic partner to the United States, a counterweight to Iran, a force for moderation in the region, and possibly help in the Arab-Israel peace process. That was, of course, an illusion. A ruthless dictator who launched an attack on his neighbor, Iran, who used chemical weapons, and who committed genocide against his own Kurds was never likely to be a reliable American ally. Hussein, having watched the United States gloss over his crimes in the Iran war and at home, concluded he could get away with invading Kuwait.

It was a costly error for him, for his country, and eventually for the United States, which now has the largest part of its military bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire. Meanwhile the architects of the earlier appeasement policy now maintain the illusion that they have a path to victory, if only their critics would shut up."

Peter W. Galbraith, a former US ambassador to Croatia, is author of ``The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End."

Desperation again rears its ugly head.

American dissenters to a war founded on deceit and lies are likened to Nazi appeasers by presidential appointees who cannot or will not remember their own history.

Is this the kind of country you are proud of?

The people running this country and this war are sick, un-American slime. Their only comparison is Hitler and his Nazi fascist regieme.

bd

[JakeUSA]

I'm a little confused, so let's go slow. This article clearly enumerates the reasons that the U.S. shouldn't have been in bed with Iraq in the past during its war with Iran, and demonstrates how the Republicans defeated a Democrat attempt to impose sanctions on Iraq. I think I get that part. Where you start to lose me is where, when sanctions were imposed on Iraq, it became the position of many on the left that the U.S. was evil for indirectly killing so many poor Iraqis through their trade sanctions. And now, when we finally gave Saddam what he so justly deserved by deposing him, we are headed in the wrong direction? There just seem to be a few contradictions here, you know, a few loose ends between the position of the left and the positions stated in this article bashing Rumsfeld. I mean, hey, if you want to use propaganda, by all means, do so. But I fully expect all of the propaganda that you post to support the same positions without contradictions. That's not too much to ask, is it? And also, I know the Iraq War has not yet ended, but isn't it a little ridiculous to call it an endless war after just 3 1/2 years? I mean, lots of wars have lasted longer than that. The war between the Albanian muslims and the Serbian Christians has been ongoing for over a millenium. Now that's endless.
P.S. Have you ever done or said anything that you later contradicted by your own words or actions like our dear friend Donald?

[jeff221]

And now, when we finally gave Saddam what he so justly deserved by deposing him

I'm sorry, I thought we were going after Weapons of Mass Destructions? I didn't see the part about "giving Saddam what he deserves" in the first set of discussions...

Bush & His administration have LIED to us regularlly over his reign.... You may argue whether Iraq war is NOW legitimate, but you cannot argue the fact that they lied about the reason for orginally going on...

Chaney shoots a guy in the face (way to be Gun Safe, dip sh*t) and waits until he can sober up before talking to local athorities.

Bush states without question "no one could have anticipated the breech of the levy's" yet they have VIDEO of the engineers stating that a Cat 5 Hurricane could very well breech the levy's..

So, with such a history of not getting the truth from anyone in this administration, why do you even listen to any of the additional lies they spread..

Iran is a threat... they will soon have Weapons of Mass Desctructions.... Wait a minute, didn't we try this one already? Hmmm.. If it worked the first time, try try again...

[JakeUSA]

No, sir, I am sorry. I was inferring from the artilce which lists Saddam's war crimes against the Iranians and the Kurds that he was a bad guy and deserved to be overthrown. Bush lying and Cheney being a bad shot really have nothing to do with the point I'm making. Whether he lied or not, I really don't care. Show me a modern politician that doesn't lie. Is it wrong? Yes. Do I agree with it? No. Do I personally lie? No. I look at the present situation and realize that it is more important to finish this thing out (or clean up the mess, however you want to look at it) than it is to place blame. We can play the blame game afterwards, okay? We'll set up a playdate just so we can go back and forth about who's at fault. And as far as Cheney goes, yeah he screwed up. Do you bird hunt? I'll bet if you do you could name at least one person you know off the top of your head that has been peppered by birdshot. Did he violate numerous rules of safe gun handling and hunting? Yes. Should his Hunter's Education card be revoked? Probably. Do I really care about this, either? I was merely pointing out that the propaganda "news" article bd has posted makes one point for the left while unmaking the other. This is my opinion, and I welcome yours.

[bd]

Originally Posted by JakeUSA

P.S. Have you ever done or said anything that you later contradicted by your own words or actions like our dear friend Donald?

Yes but I'm not the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America. He has a few more resources than I do to prevent him from making these types of contradictions...... if he's truly sincere about what he says in public.



bd

[shockwayve3000]

here we go again, i can tell this has the ability to turn into another liberal / republican bit again....no one is perfect...overall I am proud to say that Bush is my President, Rumsfeld has my respect as the administration for the most part, agree with everything, no, most everything yes. "As goes America, so goes the rest of the world," Dr. Hilton Sutton, (need more info, look this guys web site up, he'll clue you in on alot). America needs to stay the course, America is the #1 threat to the war we are in, once we are out, then they will concentrate more on the Jewish nation, then continue to dominate who they can, (which will not happen). America needs to stick with it, stay Isreal's #1 friend and protector not sway to the U.N. or anyone else who would say otherwise. WHY CAN"T PEOPLE SEE WHAT IS TRYING TO TAKE PLACE. Bush's support was way up after 911 but then people forgot what it was like to see those towers fall and all the innocent people that were killed and decided it would be better to leave well enough alone...you tell me, what do you suggest we do? what are your rescources telling you? what are your answers? why do you think everything is going to be hunky dorey when we pull out? tell me, alot of talk about how bad Bush sucks as president, they're liars, etc, what exacly should they do, i'm hearing alot of what they should do, but not to much on the why and what would make it better? what i am hearing is mindless critisism with no real offer of a solution. What is your "plan for America, what do you know that the President know's what are your agents telling you, what are your battle captains telling you about what they are finding and what's going on? THEY ARE NOT, your info is comming from CNN or some other left wing organization. Come on bro, answer these questions directly, each one I have asked, cuz critism without real solutions is just stupidity....let me have it!

[bd]

Originally Posted by shockwayve3000

here we go again, i can tell this has the ability to turn into another liberal / republican bit again....no one is perfect...overall I am proud to say that Bush is my President, Rumsfeld has my respect as the administration for the most part, agree with everything, no, most everything yes. "As goes America, so goes the rest of the world," Dr. Hilton Sutton, (need more info, look this guys web site up, he'll clue you in on alot). America needs to stay the course, America is the #1 threat to the war we are in, once we are out, then they will concentrate more on the Jewish nation, then continue to dominate who they can, (which will not happen). America needs to stick with it, stay Isreal's #1 friend and protector not sway to the U.N. or anyone else who would say otherwise. WHY CAN"T PEOPLE SEE WHAT IS TRYING TO TAKE PLACE. Bush's support was way up after 911 but then people forgot what it was like to see those towers fall and all the innocent people that were killed and decided it would be better to leave well enough alone...you tell me, what do you suggest we do? what are your rescources telling you? what are your answers? why do you think everything is going to be hunky dorey when we pull out? tell me, alot of talk about how bad Bush sucks as president, they're liars, etc, what exacly should they do, i'm hearing alot of what they should do, but not to much on the why and what would make it better? what i am hearing is mindless critisism with no real offer of a solution. What is your "plan for America, what do you know that the President know's what are your agents telling you, what are your battle captains telling you about what they are finding and what's going on? THEY ARE NOT, your info is comming from CNN or some other left wing organization. Come on bro, answer these questions directly, each one I have asked, cuz critism without real solutions is just stupidity....let me have it!

Bush's support was way up after 911 but then people forgot what it was like to see those towers fall and all the innocent people that were killed and decided it would be better to leave well enough alone...you tell me, what do you suggest we do?

Sure every good American, including myself, was behind our president when he was sending troops to Afghanistan to find and destroy the people who attacked us. Then he got sidetracked, lied to us and took us into this war for profit in iraq.

How is Iraq better off now than it was before we occupied it?

Bush and his people have already demostrated that they only listen to the intelligence that supports their plan.

For all practical purposes the Bush policy has turned Iraq into a terrorist state and it has become more like Iran than a country we were supposed to bring democracy to AFTER we were welcomed with flowers and the whole thing was over in a couple of weeks.

It ain't working. I don't know the answer. But this ain't working.

bd

[JakeUSA]

It ain't working. I don't know the answer. But this ain't working.

It does seem that way, although you must realize that the violence you see on television and in the newspapers is pretty well consolidated into a few parts of the country, while in other areas such as the North life is more peaceful than it has been in decades. I'll tell you the answer to finishing the engagement in Iraq: take the kid gloves off. I hate the comparison of Iraq to Vietnam, but one major similarity is the fact that our military is being hobbled by politicians and legislation. Commanders are so afraid of being caught up in the next Abu Ghraib or Haditha scandal that they are restricting their combat leaders from doing what is necessary to locate and kill those responsible for all of the brutal attacks on civilians that are occuring over there. War is hell, and some things that must be done to win may seem atrocious to the folks back home. But they must be done. The other similarity and the cause of such a high incidence of PTSD among our troops in Vietnam and this war is the fact that coming home from one war can sometimes be coming home to another. We need to get behind the men and women that are fighting this battle, take unnecessary constraints off of them, and let them win it. And when they return, they should be treated as heroes for fighting, bleeding, and dying on behalf of their nation and their countrymen, whether you support the cause they were fighting for or not.

[shockwayve3000]

Originally Posted by JakeUSA

It does seem that way, although you must realize that the violence you see on television and in the newspapers is pretty well consolidated into a few parts of the country, while in other areas such as the North life is more peaceful than it has been in decades. I'll tell you the answer to finishing the engagement in Iraq: take the kid gloves off. I hate the comparison of Iraq to Vietnam, but one major similarity is the fact that our military is being hobbled by politicians and legislation. Commanders are so afraid of being caught up in the next Abu Ghraib or Haditha scandal that they are restricting their combat leaders from doing what is necessary to locate and kill those responsible for all of the brutal attacks on civilians that are occuring over there. War is hell, and some things that must be done to win may seem atrocious to the folks back home. But they must be done. The other similarity and the cause of such a high incidence of PTSD among our troops in Vietnam and this war is the fact that coming home from one war can sometimes be coming home to another. We need to get behind the men and women that are fighting this battle, take unnecessary constraints off of them, and let them win it. And when they return, they should be treated as heroes for fighting, bleeding, and dying on behalf of their nation and their countrymen, whether you support the cause they were fighting for or not.

I agree 100%......war is war and is not predictable, if anyone ever thought it would be an in and out deal, they thought wrong, we cannot put this situation into a box or catogorize it, get a plan and stick with it until circumstances arise that cause you to deviate to another plan, if this happens, we cant get torqued and blame the Commander in Chief or his Admin. becuase of the variable factors, to even consider this is a "get rich plot" is absurd. War cost money. JakeUSA makes a great point about media coverage, I got a buddy that lives in Isreal, he was watching a news cast that showed absolute carnage behind the reporter, the caption under him named the "city he was reporting from", my buddy lived in that city and said it was an absolute falsehood. We need to be carefull and filter what and from where are rescources are comming from. Again, good post from Jake USA.

[CyberOtaku]

Originally Posted by shockwayve3000

we cant get torqued and blame the Commander in Chief or his Admin. becuase of the variable factors

Interesting, every job I have ever worked (and expect to work) I would lose after repeated failures. Yet apparently the president is so far above the rest of us, he is beyond reproach. Never question your leaders, hmm... [sarcasm]how patriotic[/sarcasm].