Kakki wrote: "Which ambassador and when? I really want to go back and find the Congressional Record on all this. It may still not convince some people, but it may show others that so much that is being alleged all these years later is total revisionist history."
I'll jump in here. The ambassador Randy was thinking of was April Glaspie, and the promises allegedly occurred in maybe July of 1990 (Randy? Is this right?). I'm somewhat uncertain, because I admit to not following the buildup to the first war on Iraq as closely as I should have, and I was living in Latin America at the time. However, I must tell you that that provided a most interesting vantage point from which to which to see these events develop. I'm not sure the specific dealings of the ambassador, whoever it may have been, would be in the Congressional Record. I can tell you, as one with some experience in negotiations, albeit on a much smaller scale, that the most salient and interesting points of such pre-agreement discussions often do not find their way into the official record of an event. RE: "revisionist history": are you saying that that can only be practiced after the fact, and by those you regard as being on "the other side"? I may be reading you wrong, but it appears that way. I'd argue broadly that "revisionist history" can indeed be practiced as events are actually unfolding, if people are not told the complete truth by a government about what is happening for reasons other than those of pressing national security. And that may have been done during "Iraq I" by the very government you appear to so revere. Kakki also wrote: "The same arguments go around and around all the time. Some see nothing but nefarious motives in their country and some of its leaders, while others like myself look at what is asserted and just can't make the connection." Yes, the arguments do go round and round--on both sides. What bothers me about this discussion in the last several days is the attempt to discredit those on the left by those I would place as clearly on the right. "The other side" is ignorant. "The other side" is in the minority. "The other side" sees nothing but nefarious motives in their country and some of its leaders, while the writer, by contrast, is able to look at the "facts" and correctly discern that there is "no connection." Of course, another possibility exists. That is that some of those on the left, who do happen to see nefarious motives on the part of their country and some of its leaders **in this particular instance,** have looked at the facts and correctly determined that there IS a connection. A lot of this is simply a matter of interpretation. Obviously, the prism from which one views the world to start with has quite a lot of impact on one's final conclusion. As for the motives for our unprecedented preemptive strike, I will break ranks from many other liberals on this one and state that I'm not sure that it *is* mainly "about oil," although oil certainly has got to play a large role in the overall equation. I think it very possible that many in this administration honestly believe that it's in the U.S.'s best interests to topple Iraq's government by force in order to bring what they hope will be stability to the middle East. And the answer to the oft-posed question "why now?", even though we have no smoking gun linking Iraq with Al Quaida (in my opinion) would be, with some legitimacy: "because September 11 happened. The rules have changed. We can't be too careful." Now reasonable people can disagree forever about whether a preemptive strike will in fact bring stability to the region, or deescalate a situation that already closely resembles a powder keg. Reasonable people, especially those who know Latin American history, can disagree about whether the United States has any right to go about instituting "regime change" in any country other than its own. Reasonable people can disagree about whether, by launching an attack now without truly giving the inspections a chance or waiting for full-fledged UN support, the United States is not starting down the slippery slope to a very, very dangerous precedent which, some day, may be used against us by an entity who, like us right now, simply can. But do me a favor (and Kakki, know that this is not so much directed at you as to others on the list who have posted on this topic recently). Be honest about the motivation. If it's about the U.S. throwing its might around (or, alternately, "wielding its moral authority") to bring stability to the region, then say so. DON'T tell me it's mainly about liberating innocent Iraqi children, because I will simply never believe it. Those innocent Iraqi children have been suffering for years and years, at the hands of a man *we* helped bring to and keep in power, and we didn't care a flying f*** about it. Period. And there's no evidence of a sudden blinding conversion on our parts now. Please. Mary P. P.S. Obviously, all the above is based on my own views and conclusions. I am well aware that some of you may have looked at the same evidence and reached conclusions that are very different.
