Look who Saddam invited for high tea.
Just click below…
[thumb=A]rumsad.JPG[/thumb]
Secretary Of Defence Rumsfeld’s illustrous career.
You dont think he was sightseeing in Iraq back in 1983 do ya :D?
From 1977 to 1985 he served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G.D. Searle & Co., a worldwide pharmaceutical company. The successful turnaround there earned him awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981).
- Member of the President’s General Advisory Committee on Arms Control – Reagan Administration (1982 - 1986);
- President Reagan’s Special Envoy on the Law of the Sea Treaty (1982 - 1983);
- Senior Advisor to President Reagan’s Panel on Strategic Systems (1983 - 1984);
- Member of the U.S. Joint Advisory Commission on U.S./Japan Relations – Reagan Administration (1983 - 1984);
- President Reagan’s Special Envoy to the Middle East (1983 - 1984);
Re: The Saddam in Rumsfeld’s Closet
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
Look who Saddam invited for high tea.
[/QUOTE]
No, this can't be.... i thought Sad-damn was one of the most dangerous men on the planet, was building nuclear arsenals which will annihilate Israel and the western world....
Yesterday's ally, today's foe - rather all too quickly.
Seems to me that people are (trying) to make something out of nothing. It's been well reported that the U.S. teamed with Iraq during the 1980's. Breaking: Stalin and the U.S. were allies during WWII.
During the election of Bush, there was a poll and I remember how American muslims favored Bush by a huge margin to Gore. I really donot understand what is that the guppies posting want to say? You guys really want to support and justify Saddam? American policy is so awful that it is unberable? Which countries policy do you guys favor? I am frankly mystified. It is always a negative chorus: we don't like this we don't like that; OR it is fantasia land and day dreaming conquests and winning and humbling all opponents into total silence! So, name one country's policy you guys support that should be viewed as a model to proceed! I seriously wonder if part of our problem (in Pakistan) isn't that we have a hard time making a distinction between pragmatism and idealism. There is a time to be pragmatic and there is a time to be idealistic and the balancing the two is what is known as politics that actually acheives something.
Its all about respecting International Law and Justice for all of Humanity, this unfortunately IS NOT a part of the 'BUSH Doctrine' which advocates military intervention in preference to diplomacy. Many Political analysts believe that the ultimate goal of Bush & Co is for Global Domination even it means a defunct UN.
Old lahori, Millions of people today are in OPPOSITION to Bush's stance on Iraq.. Do they have to SUPPORT the US in everything it does ???
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dil he Pakistani: *
Its all about respecting International Law and Justice for all of Humanity, this unfortunately IS NOT a part of the 'BUSH Doctrine' which advocates military intervention in preference to diplomacy. Many Political analysts believe that the ultimate goal of Bush & Co is for Global Domination even it means a defunct UN.
Old lahori, Millions of people today are in OPPOSITION to Bush's stance on Iraq.. Do they have to SUPPORT the US in everything it does ???
[/QUOTE]
No they don't have to support the US. Constructive alternatives is one thing. As far as I can see Bush and Powell are playing Good Cop Bad Cop routine pretty will in negotiating with the SC in UN. I don't see any global domination in the offing. Are muslims on the receiving end where idiots like Falwell can get up and make asinine statements? Yes. But what is our reaction the world over? Example: In Pakistan Musharaff is trying to position Pakistan to take advantage of the actual situation on the ground, and he seemingly doing that despite the constant din of a sell-out from the true beleivers!!! Look Saddam is a lost proposition, what are we opposing and why? Simply saying that US is behaving non-idealistically and grabbing a lion share of the resources gets us where? Which country is behaving like an angle? Iranians who are apparently cutting deals with the Americans? Saudis? Who? So how about formulating a practical and realistic policy and attitude that says that we are going to be part of this world, or are we all going to start dreaming of a Khalifa?
I have just finished listening to Bush's speech. He has laid out the case for Americans well. It does not matter what the french, the russians, the british, or anyone thinks. If the Congress authorises force to be used if necessary, and if the President deems it necessary then Americans will support him. American security will not be turned over for approval by the russians or the french. If they want to come along fine, if not then they can stay and watch from the sidelines.
I think the message tonight was to Saddams Generals that US means business and it would be best for one or more of them to take care of the problem. Let us see.
The response, as covered by CNN.com, in part, is as follows:
Bush’s delivered his speech one month before voters go to the polls in mid-term elections, and the issue has divided Bush’s Democratic opposition.
Former vice presidential nominee Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut, and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, have said they support a White House-backed resolution authorizing Bush to take action against Saddam if he concludes that diplomatic efforts have failed.
But Sen. John Edwards sharply criticized the administration’s approach to the issue.
“We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone, which may be the easy way to achieve our short-term ends – but will never result in long-term security,” Edwards, D-North Carolina, said in a speech to a Washington think tank.
In place of the “purpose without arrogance” Bush promised in his inaugural address, he said, Bush is displaying "arrogance without purpose."
Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt are all considered potential Democratic presidential candidates. Others Democratic senators, including Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, and Robert Byrd, D-W.Virginia, say the administration has not demonstrated that Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States.
Byrd said Bush needs to tell Americans “what exactly is the United States planning to do.”
“Rather than hearing more about Saddam Hussein – we knew enough about him – what we need to hear from the president are answers to our questions about what he plans to do in Iraq,” Byrd said. “We need to know why the president is demanding that Congress act now.”
Re: The Saddam in Rumsfeld’s Closet
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
...Look who Saddam invited for high tea....
[/QUOTE]
What a shocker.
Rumsfeld must have enjoyed the Falafel for him to return the next year :)
Something out of nothing huh? More like exposing one of the greatest hypocrisies of the US tirade over Iraq.
Here we have Rumsfeld the leading proponent of going after Saddam, and the one who never fails to tell us of how Saddam has used chemical weapons. Did he not know of such facts, when he visited his “team partner” in 1983 and 1984? Well read on, and see how Rumsfeld was caught out by CNN over these little known about meetings, and note what he says about Saddam using chemical weapons:-
*MCINTYRE: Well, let me take you back about 20 years ago. The date, I believe, was December 20th, 1983, you were meeting with Saddam Hussein. I think we have some video of that, of that meeting. Tell me what was going on during this meeting.
RUMSFELD: Where did you get this video? From the Iraqi television…
MCINTYRE: This is from Iraqi television.
RUMSFELD: When did they give it to you? Recently or back then?
MCINTYRE: No, we’ve dug this out of the CNN library.
RUMSFELD: I see. Isn’t that interesting? There I am.
MCINTYRE: So what was going on here? What were you thinking at the time?
**RUMSFELD: Well, Iraq was in a battle, war with Iran. And the United States had just had 241 Marines killed. And President Reagan asked me to take a leave of absence from my company and serve as a temporary special envoy, and I traveled throughout the Middle East for a period of months. And we were trying to get the Syrians to get out of Lebanon and stop killings Americans at the Marine barracks. And among other things, we believed that it would be helpful if Saddam Hussein’s Iraq would behave in a way in that region that would be helpful to our goals with respect to Syria and the terrorist threat that existed. And we decided it was worth having me go in and meet with him.
In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter or fact, and discussed a host of other things.***
Poor Rumsfeld must have sweating when the CNN reporter pulled up that video? 
Stalin and the U.S. were allies during WWII.<<<<
UTD, Pakistan was breast feeding Taliban until not too long ago. May be they still do, who knows?
Exactly. And that was just last year. But somehow what US did 20 years ago is more indicative of hypocrisy. 
It’s all about a nation protecting its own interests. Always has been, always will be.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
Poor Rumsfeld must have sweating when the CNN reporter pulled up that video? :)
[/QUOTE]
I seriously doubt that.
Brings a whole new meaning to the term Axis of Evil.
Rumsfeld looks quite happy there doesn't he?
Who post that picture?? WHO! WHO! WHO!.... Don't you know its a big fat lie. That is not Rumsfeld in the picture.. You guys&gals need to have your head examined....
OK I am sorry it is Rumsfeld but that is not Saddam in that picture, can't be its not possible :D
He does doesn’t he? You know he made a secod trip to see Saddam in 1984, on the very day a UN report was released that Saddam had used chemical weapons.
Read on…
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm
**The Saddam in Rumsfeld’s Closet **
by Jeremy Scahill
“Man and the turtle are very much alike. Neither makes any progress without sticking his neck out.”
—Donald Rumsfeld
Five years before Saddam Hussein’s now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations.
That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld’s December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years. He met Saddam and the two discussed “topics of mutual interest,” according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. “[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world,” Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. “It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems.” Just 12 days after the meeting, on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that the United States “in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be ‘contrary to U.S. interests’ and has made several moves to prevent that result.”
In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: “Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded… Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination.”
The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers. “Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists,” the U.N. report said. “The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent known as Tabun.” Prior to the release of the UN report, the US State Department on March 5th had issued a statement saying “available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons.” Commenting on the UN report, US Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick was quoted by The New York Times as saying, “We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We’ve made that clear in general and particular.”
Compared with the rhetoric emanating from the current administration, based on speculations about what Saddam might have, Kirkpatrick’s reaction was hardly a call to action. Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department “evidence.” On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, “American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.” A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. In November of that year, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US were fully restored. Two years later, in an article about Rumsfeld’s aspirations to run for the 1988 Republican Presidential nomination, the Chicago Tribune Magazine listed among Rumsfeld’s achievements helping to “reopen U.S. relations with Iraq.” The Tribune failed to mention that this help came at a time when, according to the US State Department, Iraq was actively using chemical weapons.
Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan’s Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article: “First on Hussein’s shopping list was helicopters – he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell “Huey” helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983… Nonetheless, the sale was approved.” In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department—in the name of “increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market”—pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam “transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military.”
In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they “believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs.” In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House. Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq’s ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq’s use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special. Eight years later, Donald Rumsfeld signed on to an “open letter” to President Clinton, calling on him to eliminate “the threat posed by Saddam.” It urged Clinton to “provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish.”
In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position to draw the world’s attention to Saddam’s chemical threat. He was in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the State Department that it had “available evidence” Iraq was using chemical weapons. But Rumsfeld said nothing. Washington now speaks of Saddam’s threat and the consequences of a failure to act. Despite the fact that the administration has failed to provide even a shred of concrete proof that Iraq has links to Al Qaeda or has resumed production of chemical or biological agents, Rumsfeld insists that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
***But there is evidence of the absence of Donald Rumsfeld’s voice at the very moment when Iraq’s alleged threat to international security first emerged. And in this case, the evidence of absence is indeed evidence. ***
Forgive me, but is there a specific reason that posts from particular Guppies are being deleted - while trying to put aside all my own personal biased political views, i just read one post by CM that seemed to make perfect, logical sense to me and seemed to fit right in with the main discussion in this thread.
>>In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of [Rumsfeld's] visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: "Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers..."<<
With what face do today's opponents of the Iraqi regime, call for Saddam's ousting? What sort of message do they think they are sending to the rest of us - how gullible are we to believe that Hussein was only born a dictator with his orders to invade Kuwait. Hussein was a dictator long before then and, in fact, his order to invade Kuwait was one of the lesser evils he has committed in his political record. On the very day that Rummy went to Iraq to enjoy a few samosas with Sad-damn, mustard gas was reported to be used against Iranian soldiers. Champion of human rights and freedom? Yeah my foot.
i am sick and tired of hearing who bad and evil Sad-damn is with nary a word of how cozily Rummy and Sad-damn both were during the 1980s. IMHO, not in Baghdad, but there is a rather urgent imperative for a regime change and it starts in Washington.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
On the very day that Rummy went to Iraq to enjoy a few samosas with Sad-damn, mustard gas was reported to be used against Iranian soldiers. Champion of human rights and freedom? Yeah my foot.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. He knew when he went to Baghdad in 1984 that Saddam had used chemical weapons, and thats why he felt the need to "cautioN him about the use of chemical weapons". Now we see Rumsfeld blowing hot over Saddam using chemical weapons, but then we (as we see in the picture) he was shaking hands and enthusisatically smiling when meeting Saddam. Even though he knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons.
Shameless hypocrisy.
All these claims of shameless hypocrisy ring rather hollow. As stated many times before, ALL governments act in their own nation's interests. US presidents shook hands all the time with Kremlin leaders while they oppressed Eastern Europe. Arafat shakes the hands of Zionist baby-killers. Pakistan became part of the alliance to defeat the Taliban after they had spent the previous 10 years nurturing them and putting them in power. etc etc