In all the years since her meeting with Saddam Hussein, Glaspie has never spoken about it to the media, never appeared as a guest on a TV talk show, never written an article or a book about her time as the US’s top diplomat in Baghdad. The question is: why? What has she got to hide?
April Catherine Glaspie was born in Vancouver, Canada, on April 26, 1942 and graduated from Mills College in Oakland, California in 1963 and from Johns Hopkins University in 1965. In 1966 she entered the United States diplomatic service, where she became an expert on the Middle East. After postings in Kuwait, Syria and Egypt, Glaspie was appointed Ambassador to Iraq in 1989.
Glaspie’s appointment followed a period from 1980 to 1988 during which the United States had given substantial covert support to Iraq during its war with Iran.
Before 1918 Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman province of Basra, and thus in a sense part of Iraq, but Iraq had recognised its independence in 1961. After the end of the Iran-Iraq War (during the course of which Kuwait lent Iraq $ 14 billion), Iraq and Kuwait had a dispute over the exact demarcation of its border, access to waterways, the price at which Kuwaiti oil was being sold, and oil-drilling in border areas.
It was in this context that Glaspie had her first meeting with Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990. Glaspie herself had requested the meeting, saying she had an urgent message for the Iraqi president from US President George H. W. Bush (Bush Senior). In her two years as Ambassador to Iraq, it was Glaspie’s first private audience with Saddam Hussein. It was also to be her last. A partial transcript of the meeting is as follows:
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m18997&l=i&size=1&hd=0
Note: http://www.uruknet.info...

Very insightful. I wonder how long it will be until your comment is called 'Anti-American'.
---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill
I dunno...probably about as long as it took you to twist a comment suggesting Saddam take responsibility for invading Kuwait into one that baits Americans.
"...we told him (Saddam) he could take the northern part of Kuwait<<
Is it presumed the US owned the country and allowed a portion to be taken? "Allowed"?
"to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq "<
Would Saddam taking back Kuwait, be comparable to the Alamo? The Americans did allow part of Mexico to be taken back.
Is it presumed the US owned the country and allowed a portion to be taken? "Allowed"?>>
I'm not sure about that. But my guess is Saddam knew no one else in the world had the means or courage to get him out. So America was his only concern. Even Saudi Arabia let the US essentially occupy their country in the prelude to the Gulf War. Of course once Saddam was kicked back to Baghdad- the infidels (who had done all the heavy lifting) were quickly sent home.
<<Would Saddam taking back Kuwait, be comparable to the Alamo? The Americans did allow part of Mexico to be taken back.>>
No.
"I dunno...probably about as long as it took you to twist a comment into one that baits Americans."
I guess you're the first, because I didn't. I just wanted to gauge the anti-Canadian knee jerkers.
---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill
Funny that you chose to re-write my comment and still put it in quotes? Here's what I said:
"I dunno...probably about as long as it took you to twist a comment suggesting Saddam take responsibility for invading Kuwait into one that baits Americans."
here's what you quoted me as saying:
"I dunno...probably about as long as it took you to twist a comment into one that baits Americans."
Kind of an important difference? N'est ce pas? Unless of course you weren't really sincere about guaging anything and just looking to derail a thread?