Bush's buildup went on inexorably through tYear, Bush offered a meeting of Baker and Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi foreign minister, in Geneva. Hishe Christmas holidays. In the first week of the New (^)
ground rules made the meeting pointless even before it happened: "No negotiations, no
compromises, no attempts at face-saving and no rewards for aggression." [fn 72] Bush was showing
more of his hand now; the buildup was approaching what he, if not the generals, thought enough to
start bombing Iraq.
The Tariq Aziz-Baker talks in Geneva went on for six hours on January 10, with no result. Baker
was an Al Capone in striped pants; Tariq Aziz expressed himself with great dignity. Tariq Aziz had
made clear that since Israel was in reality an integral part of Bush's Gulf coalition, it could not be
exempt from retaliation if Iraq were to come under attack. For Bush, when millions of lives were atstake, the issue of greatest moment was a letter full of threats which Tariq Aziz had read, but
refused to accept, and had left lying on the table in Geneva. (In this letter, which was later released,
Bush was revealed as a megalomaniac who warned Saddam "we stand today at the brink of war
between Iraq and the world," as if Bush were the chief executive of the entire planet.) Here was a
new focus for Busreporters asked. A surfeit of thyroxin coursed through Bush's apoplectic rage: he had been insulted by this Arab! What about that letter, theh's veins:
Secretary Baker also reported to me that the Iraqi foreign minister rejected my letter to Saddam
Hussein, refused to carry this letter and give it to the president of Iraq. The Iraqi Ambassador here
in Washington did the same thing. This is but one more example that the Iraqi government is notinterested in direct communications designed to settle the Persian Gulf situation.
But this was a -this was a - a total stiff-arm. This is a total rebuff.
The letter was not rude; the letter was direct. And the letter did exactly what I think is necessary atthis stage. But to refuse to even pass a letter along seems to me to be just one more manifestation of (^)
the stonewalling that has taken place. [fn 73]
The gods were laughing.
The United Nations Security Council resolution, with its approaching artificial deadline which Bush
had demanded, plus the failure of the Baker-Tariq Aziz meeting, on January 9 became the tools of
the White House in obtaining a Congressional resolution for war. Bush was careful to stress his
view that he could wage war without the Congress, but that he was magnanimously letting them
express their support for him by approving such a motion. On this same day, the Kremlindespatched troop contingents to seven Soviet republics where nationalist movements were gaining (^)
ground.
The Congressional debate provided many eloquent pleas, generally from Democrats, for delaying
military action in order to save Americans from useless slaughter. But these pleas were almostalways vitiated by a failure to recognize the equal claim to humanity of the Iraqi population; the (^)
Democrats who urged continued reliance on sanctions were in effect calling for an equal or greater
genocide prolonged over time. One exception was Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon, who voted
against the Bush war resolution and the Democrats' sanctions resolution on the grounds that he
opposed the entire military deployment in the Middle East; Hatfield argued for a peacefulsettlement using diplomacy alone. This Republican defection in the name of high principle may (^)
have attracted the darts of Bush's vindictiveness; in May a report on Hatfield's personal finances
appearing in the Capitol Hill weekly Roll Call alleged that a former Congressman and a California
businessman had forgiven $133,000 in loans to Hatfield over an 8-year period. This information
was somehow leaked from Senate records. [fn 74] The obvious intent of this story was to make it
frankie
(Frankie)
#1