Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: Ukraine: The Truth [View all]

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
55. Anything to add, besides sideshow, NuclearDem?
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 10:58 AM
Apr 2015


Annals of Government - (How the US Armed Iraq)

In the Loop: Bush's Secret Mission

By Murray Waas and Craig Unger
The New Yorker Magazine - Originally published November 2, 1992
Posted to the web November 14, 2002

Introduction

This article, originally published in New Yorker Magazine, provides a clear picture of the direct involvement of the United States in arming Iraq, providing Saddam Hussein with technology, weapons, intelligence and funding - even in contravention of American law - enabling Iraq to amass the nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that threaten the world. While the US does not openly acknowledge its role in arming Iraq, it now prepares to go to war against a monster of its own creation...

Since this article provides an excellent in-depth analysis of the US's dysfunctional Middle East policy dating back to the administrations of Presidents Reagan and Bush, it also provides the best perspective from which to view the Pollard case. As long as the US acknowledges no responsibility for its role in arming Iraq, Jonathan Pollard will continue to be buried alive in prison by successive American administrations fearing exposure and embarrassment.

***

In late July, 1986, William J. Casey, then the Director of Central Intelligence, sat down with George Bush, then the Vice-President of the United States, in an out-of-the-way study that Casey maintained on the third floor of the old Executive Office Building, the rococo structure adjoining the White House. Casey had something he wanted Bush to do.

For many years, both Bush and Casey had moved easily in the worlds of foreign policy and Republican politics, and Bush had once held Casey's job. But their relationship was never entirely comfortable. Casey, gruff and perpetually disheveled, was the product of public and parochial schools in Queens and on Long Island - his father was a Tammany Hall pension bureaucrat - and of Fordham. Bush, elaborately friendly in manner, was the offspring of Connecticut gentry. Like his father, an investment banker who served in the Senate, Bush attended Yale and was tapped for Skull and Bones. Casey made millions on his own as a stock speculator; Bush, with family help, grew moderately prosperous in the oil business before his political rise in Houston. Both men held high posts under Richard Nixon, but Nixon himself treated Casey as an equal and Bush condescendingly. It was under Gerald Ford that Bush was appointed to the job Casey now held.

The two men were different in more than background. Casey was part of the rising conservative movement, the historic antagonist of Bush and his ancestors within the Republican Party. In the Cold War, Casey believed not in containment but in what in the late forties and early fifties had been called rollback. He saw every stirring in every corner of the world through an unchanging ideological prism. Bush, by contrast, was a consummate pragmatist. As Casey knew, Bush was capable of rapidly adopting new positions if expediency or advancement seemed to demand it. He had done so on the issue of recognizing China under Nixon, and he had done so on abortion and on economic policy when he became Ronald Reagan's running mate. According to someone who knew both men, Casey had originally distrusted Bush's lack of conviction. Lately, however, he had begun to see Bush's pragmatism in a new light. Whatever vision the Vice-President might lack, he was a man of immense personal discipline, and he understood accommodation as a way to achieve goals. Moreover, during his service as permanent representative to the United Nations, as chief of the United States liaison office in China, and as director of the C.I.A., he had mastered the arts of compartmentalization and secrecy. "Casey knew there was nobody in government who could keep a secret better," a former high-level C.I.A. official who worked with Casey has told us. "He knew that Bush was someone who could keep his confidence and be trusted. Bush had the same capacity as Casey to receive a briefing and give no hint that he was in the know."

Now, in 1986, Casey, seventy-three years old and suffering from prostate cancer, said he needed Bush to run a covert errand. Iran was proving recalcitrant in secret negotiations to exchange arms for hostages who were being held in Beirut by terrorists with links to Iran, so Casey had dreamed up a scheme for forcing Iran's hand. It requires someone of authority to convey a message to Iran's enemy Saddam Hussein, the President of Iraq, indirectly and without leaving fingerprints. Vice-President Bush was the ideal courier. He was about to visit the capitals of countries in the Middle East in order to "advance the peace process" between Israelis and Arabs, as he told the New York Times. But if he accepted Casey's assignment he would also be there to advance the war process; that is, to heat up the war between Iran and Iraq, with an incendiary message from Washington to Baghdad - escalate the air war and escalate the bombing deep inside Iranian territory.

Casey's reasoning was that if Saddam Hussein could be induced to order his fastidiously cautious Air Force to attack Iran in strength, Iran would be forced to turn anew to the United States for missiles and other weapons of air defense. The United States would then use its enhanced leverage to get better terms from the Iranians for the release of the hostages. (Casey may have been particularly concerned about the plight of one of the hostages, the Lebanon C.I.A. station chief William A. Buckley.) And for Casey there was another enticement as well, according to two Reagan Administration officials whom he frequently confided in; by bringing off this scheme, he would be manipulating two rival policy factions in the Administration.

CONTINUED...

http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2002/111402.htm



Go Empire.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Ukraine: The Truth [View all] Octafish Apr 2015 OP
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Must read! malaise Apr 2015 #1
Fracking Planet Earth for Fun and Profit Octafish Apr 2015 #3
True. The juggernaut is American. elias49 Apr 2015 #2
The juggernaut is corporate... Orsino Apr 2015 #4
Keeps getting updated and repackaged, ready for October roll-outs. Octafish Apr 2015 #5
Hillary Clinton Calls For Greater Military Assistance And Financial Aid For Ukraine Octafish Apr 2015 #47
The article reveals nothing except the childish, escapist fantasies of the author. DetlefK Apr 2015 #6
No need for ad hominem. Gary Leupp is a professor of history. The guy tells the truth as he sees it. Octafish Apr 2015 #8
No need for appeal-to-authority. And my argument still stands. DetlefK Apr 2015 #9
No appeal to authority. He's the author of the article. Octafish Apr 2015 #11
Oi. That's my point: It seems he intentionally left information out of the discussion. DetlefK Apr 2015 #12
Right. Like the time you wrote me: 'Don't worry your pretty little head off.' Octafish Apr 2015 #15
I don't remember why I wrote that. I guess it was sarcasm. DetlefK Apr 2015 #17
So that's why you want to 'argue' what Leupp left out. Octafish Apr 2015 #19
Sigh. What the... Are you serious? DetlefK Apr 2015 #24
"Professor of history" NuclearDem Apr 2015 #32
You try to make it sound like a bad thing. Octafish Apr 2015 #35
I'm not making anything sound bad. NuclearDem Apr 2015 #36
His title is Professor of History. Octafish Apr 2015 #37
...and you left out that he specializes in Tokugawa era Japanese history. NuclearDem Apr 2015 #38
Professors of history know how to write accurately about history. Octafish Apr 2015 #39
Let me fix that: NuclearDem Apr 2015 #42
Fix all you want. You're still doing all you can to discredit Leupp. Octafish Apr 2015 #44
Who the hell is discrediting anybody? NuclearDem Apr 2015 #46
Key Words 4Q2u2 Apr 2015 #52
Putin didn't lie America into war on Iraq. Octafish Apr 2015 #53
No shit! NuclearDem Apr 2015 #54
Anything to add, besides sideshow, NuclearDem? Octafish Apr 2015 #55
So, answer me this, Octafish. NuclearDem Apr 2015 #57
Once Again 4Q2u2 Apr 2015 #58
Our President now is Obama 4Q2u2 Apr 2015 #56
You sound like I have to be a John Bircher to make sense. Octafish Apr 2015 #59
Significant parts of Europe are American pawns since the end of WW2 malaise Apr 2015 #10
And Russia is pissed that its former pawns rather join NATO. DetlefK Apr 2015 #14
Please explain then why Ukrainian fascists killed upwards of 250,000 Ukrainian Jews during KingCharlemagne Apr 2015 #16
What? That has nothing to do with what I said. DetlefK Apr 2015 #18
Anti-soviet partisans didn't have much choice. NuclearDem Apr 2015 #33
Even that is giving it too much credit. It's the latest apologia for Putin's war of aggression. stevenleser Apr 2015 #21
Victoria Nuland? Is that you? MattSh Apr 2015 #25
I'm her even more evil identical triplett. The other two are amateurs when it comes to villainy. DetlefK Apr 2015 #27
The Nuland Corollary. You win. Tommy_Carcetti Apr 2015 #49
Does it matter if NATO's expansion is aimed at invading/weakening Russia or is a decision by small pampango Apr 2015 #7
Great question. All people should be protected from authoritarianism. Octafish Apr 2015 #13
Bingo. NuclearDem Apr 2015 #30
STill waiting for the commie hordes to burst into Ukraine like i was told was imminent 6 mos ago. KG Apr 2015 #20
I've begun to hide under my desk Oilwellian Apr 2015 #23
One thing I've noticed in watching debates on foriegn policy.. Xolodno Apr 2015 #22
President Obama is trying for peace. Others in government, not so much. Octafish Apr 2015 #40
thanks for the post guillaumeb Apr 2015 #26
NATO is a tool of Empire. If you are in the 'Ownership' class, you got a piece of it. Octafish Apr 2015 #41
over 700 military bases all over the world-spends more on its war budget than the rest of the world EX500rider Apr 2015 #60
Dueling citations? guillaumeb Apr 2015 #64
Lie. Rinse. Repeat. Tommy_Carcetti Apr 2015 #28
I'll help with the debunking of the oft repeated nonsense.. EX500rider Apr 2015 #29
And a lot of that money was spent on humanitarian type aid like vaccinations. It's been in the okaawhatever Apr 2015 #31
No opinion at all. Leupp quotes Nuland's own words. Octafish Apr 2015 #45
Except he insinuates that the $5 billion was invested explicitly for regime change in 2014. Tommy_Carcetti Apr 2015 #48
Just because that's what you want to argue doesn't make it the point of Leupp's essay. Octafish Apr 2015 #50
Leupp's words. Tommy_Carcetti Apr 2015 #51
You apparently missed the leaked documents out of the Kremlin BainsBane Apr 2015 #34
'I continue to be stunned at how people who oppose war by the US work so hard to justify Russian war Octafish Apr 2015 #43
You're sick of warmongering for the US BainsBane Apr 2015 #61
How nice of you to imply I'm pro-Russia when it comes to warmongering. Thank you, no. Octafish Apr 2015 #62
"Don't worry if you can't think how it applies to the present situation in Ukraine:" NuclearDem Apr 2015 #63
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Ukraine: The Truth»Reply #55