APRIL 22, 2004 – As we head into
this election season during which 9/11 will be a central issue, it
is an appropriate time for us at The Moderate Independent to provide
for you a simple reality that neither side – Democrat or Republican
– is willing to share with you.
While both sides are simply intent to
say 9/11 occurred because there are evil people on the planet who
hate us because we love freedom, or because they are crazy religious
nutcases, there is no truth to either of these claims. 9/11 – and
both Gulf Wars – specifically occurred as a result of specific
things our government did – such as telling Saddam we would not hold
it against him if he invaded Kuwait.
Yes, you read right. Before invading
Kuwait – the incident that led to the first Gulf War, which led us
to put troops on Saudi soil, which led Osama to declare war against
us, which led to 9/11, and which also all led to the current Iraq
War – before Saddam ever invaded Kuwait, back when he was our ally,
he asked us if we would mind if he invaded Kuwait.
You must be wondering how such an
astounding event has gone unmentioned in the press – and maybe you
doubt it a bit. So let us right up front document this simple fact
UPI reported on Novermber 9, 1990:
"The straight talk coming from the
White House (condemning Saddam for invading Kuwait) is in sharp
contrast to the ambiguous, sometimes misleading messages given
to Saddam before the Aug. 2 invasion of Kuwait.
"Just before that invasion -- and perhaps contributing to
Saddam's decision to undertake it -- there was a series of limp
declarations by U.S. officials that may have misled Saddam.
"One of those messages, delivered in late July by U.S.
Ambassador April Glaspie to Saddam in a private meeting, said
that the United States did not take a position ''on Arab-Arab''
disputes. Saddam understood that to mean that the United States
would not react to his invasion of Kuwait."
Look at these simple facts. Saddam asked
us ahead of time what we thought about the possibility of him
invading Kuwait. It was not a surprise invasion. He had been our
ally in the Iran/Iraq War, had just won a great victory for us by
finally defeating Iran, and he wanted one part of Kuwait that he
felt he was owed as a result of all he had done during that war.
And even so, he didn’t just go take it,
he didn’t launch out without care to what we thought. He asked.
Saddam Hussein asked us if he could have
a piece of Kuwait.
And our response? Did we tell him, "You
do that and we would attack you," or, "That would break
international law," or, "We would consider that an act of war we
would respond to?"
Nope. George H. W. Bush sent our
ambassador over there, and had her say that we do, "…not take a
position ''on Arab-Arab'' disputes."
In other words, go ahead Saddam, we have
no position either way. We don’t care. America has "no position."
That is between you and your Arab neighbors. We won’t get upset, we
don’t consider it right or wrong. We won’t care if you do it.
So, Saddam did.
Saddam felt he deserved it for all he
had done for us in the Iran/Iraq War.
As he said during that exchange with
Ambassador Glaspie (see link to full transcript below:)
"Iraq came out of the war burdened
with $40 billion debts..."
Massive debt, and massive sacrifice had
been incurred by the Iraqis on America’s behalf, Saddam stated:
"…you know you are not the ones who
protected your (Arab) friends during the war with Iran, (Iraq
did.) I assure you, had the Iranians overrun the region, the
American troops would not have stopped them, except by the use
of nuclear weapons. I do not belittle you. But I hold this view
by looking at the geography and nature of American society into
account. Yours is a society which cannot accept 10,000 dead in
one battle (as we suffered.)"
And, as is the reality, he said we
should be grateful, as he and the Iraqi Army defeated one of our
biggest enemies for us:
"You know that Iran agreed to the
cease-fire not because the United States had bombed one of the
oil platforms after the liberation of the Fao. Is this Iraq's
reward for its role in securing the stability of the region and
for protecting it from an unknown flood?"
Saddam laid all of this out to our
Ambassador, and all she said in return was:
"I have direct instruction from the
President to seek better relations with Iraq… we have no opinion
on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with
Kuwait…The instruction we had during this period was that we
should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is
not associated with America. James Baker has directed our
official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction."
So, less than a week after this
conversation, Saddam rolled into Kuwait. And this invasion led to
the first Gulf War.
It just gets better from there. It was
to fight this resulting war that we put our troops in Saudi Arabia.
It was this putting of troops on the holy soil of Saudi Arabia that
caused Osama – until then a friend and ally we had built up and
trained – to turn against us.
So let’s sum up so far. President Bush,
Sr. told Saddam we didn’t care one way or the other if he invaded
Kuwait. So, Saddam did. As a result we launched a war. We used this
war as a reason to put troops on Saudi soil. This turned Osama
against us. And that… directly led to 9/11.
It’s all very simple and documented.
These are the simple facts and the
reality. We already knew that the Reagan/Bush administration had
built Saddam and Osama into the monsters they became – with American
Now, add to this the fact that a game
played by the first Bush administration directly turned both Saddam
and Osama into enemies. Bush, Sr. picked the fight, tricked Saddam
into thinking it would be okay to go into Kuwait, and then stabbed
Saddam in the back.
As the Los Angeles Times reported on
Februrary 5, 1991, "If Washington's relationship with Iraq smacked
of appeasement before the invasion, they argue, the fault should lie
with top policy-makers, not the ambassador." (see reference for
The simple reality is, America never had
to fight the first Gulf War, never had to suffer 9/11, did not have
to end up stuck in a massive War On Terror, and certainly never had
to end up in the current mess in Iraq. Period.
Even after the absurd policies of
funding and training and building up the butcherous Hussien and bin
Laden, we never had to have them as enemies or fight wars against
It was only because George H. W. Bush
chose to pick a fight with them by lying to Saddam, creating an
excuse for us to set up a military foothold in Middle Eastern
countries other than Israel, that we have had to fight two Iraq
wars, suffer 9/11, and fight this War On Terror.
The stupid comments that, "They attack
us because they hate freedom," or, "They attack us because we are
rich and they are jealous," or, "They attack us because they are
crazy religious fanatics," or, "Islam is the problem."
9/11, both Gulf Wars have happened, the
War On Terror exists because George H. W. Bush played a game and
picked fights with people he had built up. He had trained Osama in
terrorist-style guerilla warfare, and so he used it against us.
The Democrats don’t say this simple
reality because they are eunuchs. The Republicans are incapable of
saying anything honest or actually caring about America – they will
tell any lie at this point just to make Democrats sound bad and
increase their hold on power.
In the meantime, the simple reality is
that thousands and thousands of Americans are dying at home and
abroad – in fact, people all over the world are dying – because of
games played by previous Republican administrations – and for no
Here are some references for you:
UPI, as reported in Washington News,
November 9, 1990, "A New Form Of Psychological Warfare," by Jim
Los Angeles Times, February 5, 1991,
U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ MUZZLED BY WASHINGTON;
APRIL GLASPIE MET WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN SHORTLY BEFORE HIS ARMY
INVADED KUWAIT. NOW SHE IS A BUREAUCRATIC NON-PERSON, AND -- SOME
FEAR -- A SCAPEGOAT AS THE ADMINISTRATION'S PREWAR POLICY IS
Here is a link to a copy of the complete transcript of the
discussion a week before the invasion of Kuwait between Hussein and