Joe, thanks for the link.
Regarding your post of Fri Apr 25, 2003 6:50 am that I reproduce here for reference:
Quote:JM: I really liked what you wrote, especially this: Quote:
Quote:Also, it seems that some in this thread have argued that the U.S. is as much to blame as Iraq because the U.S., simply put, gave them WMD (or precursors, etc.), as if that argues towards...what? Then, when the U.S. sees the evil of its ways and tries to correct what that argument implies as a bad situation turned worse, the U.S. is suddenly a bad guy...again. From this one can only draw the lesson that if one has a history of aiding a fellow nation (As France and Russia actually has by selling Iraq armaments) and that nation "goes south" then one must convert to UN obstructionism to cover up the initial mistake while letting the problem bloom.
And I ask this: Have you ever, in any speechs or statements by this administration or the former Bush administration, seen such an admission of fault, that, in your words, the US had seen 'the evil of it's ways.'? My position from the beginning has been that the US ought to accept publicly at least some of blame for this particular tyrant's success, even for his invasion into Kuwait with glaspie's green light. (I've begun to doubt that Ms. Glaspie gave Saddam a green light, the more I think about it the more I've come to believe that she doesn't have a thought in her head. See this:
http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm) (Opps, that link has Tariq Assiz defending her honor..... who can believe him?) Anyway, I think the US would be better off by being forthright, a position that would confound the few friends we have left, but give no comfort to those who truly oppose our interests. Joe
Firstly, let me state that my phrase "evil of its ways", referring to U.S. actions, was meant to be facetious. I should have placed it in quotes and I apologize for the omission.
My answer to your initial question is: No, I have never seen any apologies from any U.S. administration for its actions involving Saddam's Iraq nor do I expect any to be forthcoming for the simple reason none are due.
It is helpful regarding any U.S. actions favoring Iraq in the past to view them through the lenses of Realpolitik and Rasion d'tat. These doctrines have been used by nation states for hundreds of years to advance their security and well-being. In the time frame you refer to, the U.S. felt threatened by Iraq's neighbor Iran and used these concepts in an attempt to establish a Balance of Power in the area. Any carefully measured help that we could give Iraq could conceivably weaken Iran. The situation involving the U.S. and Iran/Iraq war is analogous to that of Britain and various warring factions on the European continent. The thought being: let the belligerents fight it out and bleed each other out. Thus weakened these states become much easier to deal with. It's a nasty tricky business but if done correctly and in a balanced way is an excellent use of "Diplomacy by other Means". Thus, the Iraqis and Iranians get their war and the U.S. is presented with more fertile diplomatic ground when hostilities conclude.
Therefore the U.S. need not apologize. After all, Saddam used the same type of situation when he set various members of his enemy's camp (in the form of the UN) against each other thereby trying to buy himself more time. Unfortunately, Saddam didn't understand that using this tactic depends upon the two nations in disagreement (France/U.S.) being relative equals, thus his error.
The second reason no apology is needed is simply that Saddam had free will in this instance. Saddam had access to enough information through current media and past history to come to a decision regarding his actions, he chose poorly. Even taking into consideration Ambassador Glaspie's "misinformation" or "misinterpreted information", Saddam could have demanded checking a second source for verification at State or otherwise. Even conceding that, when the U.S. administration told Saddam explicitly to leave Kuwait he chose not to do so. This past knowledge that Saddam possessed, as to what U.S. action would be, is a further argument that the blame for this latest conflict ultimately rests on Iraq.
Further, ultimately, the responsibility for a tyrannical government lies with the people it governs not any outside nation. Witness that now that the Iraqis are "free" they themselves want their liberators to leave...immediately. They say they can rule "themselves".
Respectfully,
JM
Totally inadvertent, I assure you ... no subtext whatsoever 
more mindless than thoughtless, if you would. I suppose I ought to apologize to both you and dafdaf. For those folks who get a kick out of such things, I'm sure I'll make similar mistakes ... I really have a knack for that sort of thing 
