From a White House press briefing in January
Q Ari, if Saddam Hussein indeed does have chemical and biological weapons, isn't it the case that we helped get him -- helped him get these weapons with the policies we had in supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would differ with that; no. I think unless you have a specific allegation or a specific company that you'd like to bring to my attention, the answer is no. If you have a specific, I'd like to evaluate it.
Q Well, there was indeed a policy in which we supporting, militarily, Saddam Hussein. Assumedly, also there was a certain transfer of technologies to Saddam to fight the Iranians, and in that process, chemical and biological weapons, or the ability to produce them, could well have been gotten --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you need to back up from the rather generic charge and provide specifics when it comes to chemical and biological. I think if you have that, offer that, I'll do my best to get an evaluation of that. But I don't think you're going to be able to do that in the case of Americans.
[Next question about Israel, and then back to US assistance to Iraq]
Q Two things. Actually, a follow-up to the Iraq-U.S. alliance. The San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday that a number of major American corporations -- including Hewlett-Packard and Bechtel -- helped Saddam Hussein beef up its military in the '80s. And also the Washington Post last month in a front-page article by Michael Dobbs said the United States during the '80s supplied Iraq with cluster bombs, intelligence and chemical and biological agents.
In that same article they reported that Donald Rumsfeld, now Secretary of Defense, went to Baghdad in December '83 and met with Saddam Hussein, and this was at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons almost on a daily basis in defiance of international conventions. So there are some specifics, and the question is, if Iraq is part of the axis of evil, why isn't the United States and these American corporations part of the axis of evil for helping him out during his time of need?
MR. FLEISCHER: Russell, as I indicated, I think that you have to make a distinction between chemical and biological. And, clearly, in a previous era, following the fall of the Sha of Iran, when there was a focus on the risks that were underway in the region as a result of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran, different administrations, beginning with President Carter, reached different conclusions about the level of military cooperation vis-a-vis Iraq.
Obviously, Saddam Hussein since that time has used whatever material he had for the purpose therefore of attacking Kuwait, attacking Saudia Arabia, attacking Israel. And, obviously, as circumstances warrant, we have an approach that requires now the world to focus on the threat that Saddam Hussein presents and that he presents this threat because of his desire to continue to acquire weapons and his willingness to use those weapons against others.
Q So was it a mistake for the U.S. to support Saddam?
MR. FLEISCHER: Russell. Russell.
Q If I could follow-up on it. You and the President have repeatedly said one of the reasons Saddam is part of the axis of evil is because he's gassed his own people. Well, he gassed his own people with our help. You saw the Washington Post article, didn't you, by Michael Dobbs?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that statement is not borne out by the facts. I think that he gassed his own people as a result of his decisions to use his weapons to gas his own people. And I think the suggestion that you blame America for Iraq's actions is way beyond the pale.
Q Who gave him the weapons?
MR. FLEISCHER: David. David.
| WMD |
Fleischer actually answers your question as to why we're not part of the Axis: "I think the suggestion that you blame America for Iraq's actions is way beyond the pale."
Are you really saying that just because the U.S. helped arm Iraq in the past it should do nothing now? You reveal a flaw in your understanding of foreign policy conduct. A past action cannot bind one to a future course of inaction, or vice-versa. Survival in the real world takes a lot more dexterity than that.
At least the U.S. is taking rational action against the son-of-Frankenstein it helped create. The French, also largely culpable for Iraq's use of chemical weapons, just want to keep making money off the deal. Where's the critique of their position? (Or are they simply not George W. Bush?)
Fleischer is right about blaming Iraq for Iraq's actions. I mean, what next - all gun manufacturers really are responsible for the actions of people who use guns to kill people? McDonald's really does owe $5 million to the woman who spilled hot coffee on herself? Cigarette companies really are responsible for people who chain-smoked and kept chaining as they coughed and hacked? The CIA stuffed crack pipes in South-Central L.A. then lit the blowtorch?
A philosophical fallacy underlying current liberal thought has it that no one is really responsible for their actions. When asked why he gassed Kurdish civilians, maybe Saddam should just shout, "Society made me done it!"
As a tangent, this exchange reminds me of the press conference that was on whilst I was at the gym today. I don’t see how people actually make it through those things with a straight face — perhaps the years of conditioning have made them immune to what they sound like. Direct questions get no answers, everything is fudged, dodged, parried (spun, twisted, ho! Ha! whappppppp), but nothing is ever addressed with the maturity and responsibility one should be allowed to expect from one’s governing body.
I’m not sure what it speaks to more: The eternal optimism of Americans that some people still believe this nonsense or the sad statistics about low voter turnout likely caused in part by unceasing obfuscation in the government (and not just this Administration).
Eschew obfuscation now!
(Okay, somebody had to say it.) And I appreciate the "not just this Administration" part.
M----- --
so if North Korea gives nukes to a terrorist group, and the terrorists use them, you wouldn't blame North Korea as well ? I suggest you look up some of the President's comments about nations involved in proliferation. As for what we should do about it -- it's interesting that for the longest time we had no interest in doing anything at all. Heck, Rumsfeld himself was there then, and he didn't say anything. The US government studiously refused to condemn Iraq for its actions at the time. Even now, the CIA's latest assessment was that Saddam was unlikely to use the weapons unless we invaded. No, we're not going in b/c of the weapons of mass destruction. Have you see the adminstrations latest comments ? We're going in b/c we think that an allied Iraq will be the pivot from which we can move the entire middle east in a direction favorable to us. It's an imperial project, not a defensive one. And one that members of the administration wrote about long before 9-11, before Bush's election even.
