The Great Appeaser
by Alan Bisbort

Oct. 14, 2002 -- HARTFORD (APJP) -- We've heard a lot about appeasement in the past two or three months. That is, anyone in the Congress who dares to thwart, or even question, the war aims of Bush Jr. has been called an "appeaser." Sen. Trent Lott-whom history will reveal to be one of the vilest politicians of any party ever elected in America-even went so far as to ask, "Who's the enemy here...President Bush or Saddam Hussein?"

Often added to these outrageous charges is the name of Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who signed a peace pact with Adolf Hitler at Munich in Sept. 1938. This, in effect, allows Bush and his McCarthyite goons to call his opponents Hitler sympathizers and never be challenged on that score. God forbid, however, that anyone, as the brave German minister recently did, return the favor by pointing out that Bush's recent actions in regards to Iraq are very similar to those employed by Adolf Hitler as he consolidated his power in the late 1930s. The media went crazy trying to spin that one in Bush's favor, but the last thing anyone dared do was examine what it was the German minister actually said, or to check the historic record to verify if it was the truth.

What's good for the gander, then, is not good for the goose.

Let's examine the historic record for the truth about appeasement. First, Neville Chamberlain. When the British Prime Minister returned from Munich on Sept. 30, 1938, he had just signed an "accord" with the German dictator. This was not, as it has been portrayed, an act of cowardice on Chamberlain's part. It was a calculated gamble made by a sick old man (Chamberlain would die in 1940). Chamberlain realized that Great Britain was ill prepared for war, and the populace-up until this "Munich crisis"-was isolationist and relatively complacent about the troubling specter of fascism. What is also lost when the Munich "appeasement" is resurrected is the fact that France signed the same accord, right alongside Chamberlain. France, too, was ill-prepared for war.

When Chamberlain addressed the nation from the steps of 10 Downing Street, he famously called the Munich pact "peace with honour" and "peace for our time." Then he suggested that the British people "Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

Unfortunately, Hitler was the better gambler, or card shark. He woke the British and French from their collective slumber in September 1939, when, in two successive weeks, he invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland. France and Great Britain were drawn into the war. The United States-the country now egging France, Great Britain and Germany into attacking Iraq-did not enter the fray until more than two years later. Only when the Japanese sneak-attacked Pearl Harbor-essentially what we're planning to do to Iraq-did the American people wake up from their nice quiet sleep.

But there's another, much more relevant act of appeasement that must be examined here. In fact, it has a direct bearing on the current impasse with Saddam Hussein. That act of appeasement occurred on July 25, 1990. On that date-eight days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait-the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, was summoned to the presidential palace by Saddam Hussein. War drums were being beaten in Baghdad and Iraqi troops were massed at the border to Kuwait. George H.W. Bush, democratically elected President of the U.S., had instructed Glaspie to find out what it would take to please Saddam, to try to thwart his rather obvious intentions.

ABC News and the New York Times obtained copies of the transcript of the meeting between Glaspie and Hussein, at which the Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz was also present. The Times ran the transcript in its September 23, 1990 edition. The most telling exchanges are excerpted herein (I encourage anyone interested in this matter to obtain a copy of the Times for that day; the story appeared on Page 9A).

These exchanges make sickeningly clear that Bush Sr. was the Great Appeaser of Saddam. His spinelessness in the face of this aggressive dictator's clearly aggressive agenda, is on the record. It cannot be denied. And yet, the media continues to ignore this very salient evidence when the possibility of an Iraqi invasion is raised in 2002.

Ambassador Glaspie -- I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not confrontation -- regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?

Saddam Hussein -- As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

Ambassador Glaspie -- What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein -- If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

Ambassador Glaspie -- We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. 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. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

Given essentially a green light from Bush Sr. (and James Baker, who later led the theft of the American Presidency for Bush Jr. in Nov. 2000), Saddam invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990. This is the truth, a historically verifiable series of events. The truth about the Bushes' motives, on the other hand, is impossible to surmise. All of the pertinent records have been destroyed or hidden. And God knows how many secret meetings that the Bushes, or their factotums, held with Saddam prior to Glaspie's ghastly chinwag. We simply will never know...unless the parties involved step forward before World War III is unleashed.

My own personal theory is that, once Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bush realized he looked utterly spineless and clueless. He was probably in shock. All the other dictators he'd ever sucked up to as CIA head, VP and Prez always did exactly what the U.S. wanted them to do. How dare Saddam break with that ignoble tradition? Simultaneously, as Bush Sr. organized his war plans, he began rethinking along these lines: "Hmm, maybe we can work this thing where I use the American military to beat this guy and the Bush family and their friends get their hands on all of his oil."

The fact that Bush, Sr. baited, then switched on him, probably explains why Saddam has personalized this thing against the Bushes (and vice versa). He was told it was OK if he invaded Kuwait. I mean, gosh, he asked permission and everything. The bottom line, then: This is not a war between the United States and evil. It's between oil partners who've had a falling out. And your sons and daughters and mine will die in order for the Bushes to settle this score and get their hands on that oil.

All because of the Great Appeaser, George H.W. Bush.

Alan Bisbort is a columnist for the Hartford Advocate. His more recent book is "Famous Last Words" (Pomegranate).