I want to go back a ways because it looks like I missed a good discussion while I was on vacation.
I posted on May 2 about the comments of Harry Reid which I viewed as treasonous. Stay Poof then masterfully steered the following posted comments into an indictment of American policy in Iraq, stating the following about Saddam:
when did he try to assassinate the pres? was it before or after we had invaded his country?
Um...before. We only kicked him out of Kuwait in 1991. We didn't invade Iraq until 2003.
Poof then went on to say:
actually, the Iraqi government sent a guy to the US embassy to find out what the Bush admin's response would be if Iraq invaded Kuwait, and was told something to the effect of, "we have no official policy on that" That statement was interpreted to mean that Bush/the US didn't care one way or the other if Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Poofy then quoted the NY Times and New Republic to back up his statement, to which Kevin replied:
schooled. Nice work.
Now, I'm not saying that the Times has ever had a problem with journalistic integrity, but I didn't trust the sources Poof was using. I, like Jack, figured I would have heard more about this if their reporting was accurate. I decided to check it out for myself and I found this now declassified NSC report on the meeting. That's the full text there.
So here's my take on the Glaspie issue:
First- The NY Times and New Republic printed Glaspie's words out of context at a time when the meeting between her and Saddam was considered classified.
Second- NOTHING she stated even implied giving Saddam a "go ahead" to invade Kuwait. Only a madman like Saddam could interpret a statement like "We are neutral in your territorial dispute," to mean, "Go ahead and invade and annex the other guy."
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Delayed Response.
TrackBack URL for this entry: