The answer seems to be: yes. There’s no excuse for George Galloway meeting with Uday Hussein, but frankly he was just following in the footsteps of the right’s beloved Donald Rumsfeld.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Is Michelle Malkin Really That Stupid?
January 25th, 2006
43 Comments
(Hmm. I wonder who’s got the Rossyln Carter/John Wayne Gacy picture.)
Nevertheless, Rummy was dispatched by his President – in the early 80’s while the bloody Iran/Iraq war was going on.
Bush-hating, anti-Iraq war left winger Galloway was cuddling up to Uday in 1999 – for what purpose?
Dugger
Why was Rummy there?
Galloway was there because he’s anywhere he can find the oxygen of publicity.
I gotta admit, at least Rummy had a purpose.
Albeit a purpose that involved funding and propping up a power mad dictator that we would eventually call a threat to humanity, but a purpose none the less.
Well, he wasn’t gassing his own people at the time of this meeting. He wasn’t even gassing Iranians for that matter either. In fact, he had not been in power all that long when that picture was taken, and still somewhat of an unknown entity. You can go to George Washington U’s archive of declassified gov’t docs and read all about that photo, including Rumsfelds report after the meeting in question. What you will find is that OW’s comparison is not apt in any way. This post is simply political propaganda, and an attempt at the age old tactic of guilt by association.
Allow me to redact my statement about gassing Iranians. I just went back and re-read the GWU page regarding this photo. He was.
In case anyone is interested, here’s the link:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
I’d rather not have the USA supporting a man who was, I quote, “gassing his own people”.
quote? So you don’t believe he was?
…same as it ever was.
Lesser of two evils. You’d rather Rumsfeld have visited Ayatollah Khomeini?!?
I read at the link, “In mid-September 1980 Iraq attacked, in the mistaken belief that Iranian political disarray would guarantee a quick victory.”
Hmm…, who else could have made such an irresponsible mistake?
By Oliver’s logic concerning Rumsfeld’s meeting with Hussein in 1983, this meeting should have never occurred in 1943.
As cited, retracted, and then semi-cited by nawoods the GWU link has a sizeable document history of U.S. / Iraq history. And, if you do read the record, there IS guilt by association: The Reagan Administration knew of the gas attacks, publicly denounced it yet continued to work with the Hussein regime.
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend…”
Brandon,
C’mon, it was a war. And as Bush has shown us, the rules don’t count during a war.
ZING!
The basic excuse for Rumsfeld’s activities then and now is IOKIYAR. It is also the reason why it doesn’t matter what anybody in the GOP or in the Cheney Administration does.
OT: Yes, Ms Maglalang IS that stupid.
Let’s see … so far blogs have dug up photos of Howard Dean posing with a gay porn star, Roosevelt sitting next to Stalin, Clinton shaking hands with Ken Lay …
Is anyone else getting tired of this nonsense by now?
Why is it that 80% of OW’s posts are filled with logical fallacies and can be countered quite successfully by the first commenter to the post?
Why is it that OW’s site request comment moderation – meaning that 75% of what I post is never accepted (and we’re not talking obscene language or offensive commentary – it’s just the opinions and perspective that he doesn’t like)?
Why is it better to visit a madman AFTER YOU KNOW HE’S A MADMAN than to visit a madman when you think he MIGHT be a madman (but in comparison to the theocratic nutjobs he’s fighting, he might seem sane)?
Why do I continue to visit this site?
(answer: the humor. I really like OW and think he’d be a cool guy to sit down and have a beer with… seriously. But the guy just doesn’t think through some things.)
Yeah, you know what, we knew Hussein was a nutter when we made that deal. The fate of the world was actually up in the air when FDR was sitting with Stalin. It just isn’t equivalent, and the thing is… you guys know it.
And I remove posts that attack me or others personally for no good reason, I honestly don’t care if someone disagrees with me because I’m quite assured of my beliefs, I just think there needs to be some common courtesy when you’re on my virtual porch.
How can we forget Bush’s pictures with the tyranical human rights abusing President of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov or his hand-holding lovefest with the human-rights abusing and dictatorial member of the House of Saud.
Of course, the Right concern about George Galloway is bizarre given the President’s antics in destroying America’s credibility on issues of democracy and morality.
Come on, Oliver, why are you busting on Rumsfield? Chemical weapons don’t sell themselves, don’cha know? Why are you against ‘Merkin jobs.
“the Right concern about George Galloway is bizarre given the President s antics in destroying America s credibility on issues of democracy and morality.”
F**king ‘A’ man!
Another wee bit of difference to consider: Rumsfeld’s meeting w/ Hussein was 25 YEARS AGO while Galloway’s tete-a-tete with Uday was only 6. Gee, I wonder if in those 19 years, it became somewhat impolitic to mingle w/ the Hussein family (even moreso than in Rummy’s time)…
I guess I’m not sure I get the point. Galloway’s a dick. And what? Vote him out office? Oh wait… Put him in jail? No… Ridicule him? Sure, but what’s that got to do with the price of beans in America?
Seriously, help me out here. Is it just a red herring to distract us from the spying scandal? Or is there a legitimate reason that we’re all bitching about this?
Seriously?
Because George Galloway did this six years ago, it automatically means that every liberal throughout history has always thought it was okay to meet with Uday, and give him everything he wants!
This has been today’s lesson in Reich Wing Logic 101.
Actually Rummy had a couple of meetings with him. One was on THE VERY DAY that news that Saddam had gassed his own people hit the papers. Of course, the Reagan administration when ahead and resumed chummy relations with Saddam anyway.
Read the records -no spin there…
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
….read it..
Dammit all…..
Re: SaveFarris’s comment: “Lesser of two evils. You d rather Rumsfeld have visited Ayatollah Khomeini?!?” Exactly!!!
Bush the First, (and anybody with more than half a brain) realized that, though a despot, Hussein was the most secular leader in the region, hence anathema to Shiite fundamentalists and their terrorist offspring such as Al Qaeda. Which is why his removal was virtually the last thing Bush the Lesser, would have done if he were truly concerned about waging a war on terror(ists).
Excellent comment SF!
Rumsfeld’s visit to Hussein in the 80s was the very manifestation of realpolitik which Chimpy W. McBushitler is turning away from in the 21st century. Back in the ’80s, the Left had the idealism of the spread of democracy (unless democracy meant the overthrow of some communist, tin-pot dictator in Latin America). But hey, it was admirable… It WAS BAD for Rumsfeld to meet with Saddam. In FACT, IT WAS SOOOO BAD THAT it was incumbent upon us to remove Saddam – because we played some part in his consolidation of power.
Now that Bush has reversed course, away from realpolitik, the Left wishes that Saddam was back in power (or perhaps that it could’ve been done in a “kindler, gentler” way).
The only reason for Galloway’s visit is that he’s a dork… oh, and for money, because while he’s a Leftist, he’s a greedy leftist. (Wonder how the catsuit will work in prison.)
Really?
You mean we no longer make nice with tyrants who would do something like, say, boil political prisoners alive?
If yo’ure referring to Karimov in Uzbekistan, you should note that we haven’t exactly been cheering them on:
Where you have diplomatic influence to force a change, use it.
It seems that Mr. Karimov is now favoring Beijing & the USSR over the US.
But hey, Chimpy W. McBushitler is evil…
And if you bring up the word rendition, I’ll smack you… b/c you’d bitch if we kept the “detainees” on US bases, so you can’t bitch when we send them back to their country of citizenship.
Point of clarification, please.
Who is “we”?
Rendition.
Do your worst, big stuff.
If yo ure referring to Karimov in Uzbekistan, you should note that we haven t exactly been cheering them on:
Nooo. Not at all….
http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/us-and-uz.htm
(it’s got pictures too!!)
And if you bring up the word rendition, I ll smack you& b/c you d bitch if we kept the detainees on US bases, so you can t bitch when we send them back to their country of citizenship.
You mean like these guys?
Deported Terror Suspect Details Torture in Syria
(Canadian citizen) Link
Man sues CIA over torture claims
(German Citizen)Link
Do you have contemept for your readers or are you just too lazy or too stupid to research?
Realpolitik? Not George.
Oh, I see.
It’s only “realpolitik” if you pretend it’s not happening?
Feh.
Dueling WaPo articles, okay..
Here you go:
Would these words ever come out of Henry Kissinger’s mouth?
You seriously can’t state that this is a move out of the playbook of realpolitik.
Realpolitik would’ve suggested Rice keep her trap shut and visit Karimov and shake his hands… (ala Rumsfeld in the 80s).
That is not what happened here.
from the WaPo article you linked to:
This is called using diplomacy… when you’re friendly to a regime, you don’t invade. You pressure them, etc. Realpolitik would’ve recommended that we not say word one about this issue, since it’s in our best interest to keep Mubarak (or whoever had the reins of authoritay) in power – because realpolitik prefers the devil you know, especially if it’s controlling the madman you suspect is out there. Since Bush has influence (trade, aid programs, etc), they deal with the situation diplomatically, which will take some time.
Or are you calling for the invasion of Egypt?
we = UK (with assistance / cooperation from US):
No, it happened here.
from the WaPo article you linked to:
This is called using diplomacy… And note the lack of the word Bush in the paragraph… it’s almost as if the administration when you’re friendly to a regime, you don’t invade. You pressure them, etc. Realpolitik would’ve recommended that we not say word one about this issue, since it’s in our best interest to keep Mubarak (or whoever had the reins of authoritay) in power – because realpolitik prefers the devil you know, especially if it’s controlling the madman you suspect is out there. Since Bush has influence (trade, aid programs, etc), they deal with the situation diplomatically, which will take some time.
Or are you calling for the invasion of Egypt?
You mean, like this?
Oh yeah, she’s that stupid.