Talk:April Glaspie

The photo
It doesn't look like Ms. Glaspie is actually IN the photograph. Did anyone else notice that?

Ken Burch 10:51 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * she's on the left. but i agree that is a [deleted adj.] photo.  a very quick image search found others that are much better.  but i don't know how to add pics here, or, more of an issue, how to make sure WP has a right to use them.Colbey84 (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

http://thediplomatinspain.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/kuwait-object-1b-1-skip-w-glaspie-and-saddam-reduced3-final_ffd4c80820-900x505.jpg http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/kurokihelion/imgs/c/b/cbdaf07c.jpg http://images.c-spanvideo.org/Files/a07/17395-17199-1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colbey84 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What does cable mean?
what are all of these 'cables' in the article,its not a wire,like speaker cables right? ive never heard anybody calling anything 'cables' except 'cables'. #4TILDES,10/12/7_10:44AM
 * Cable is "State Department speak" for telegrams. You can replace most any US diplomatic article using cable with telegram if the context appears right. Mikebar 16:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cable" communications were originally transmitted telegraphically via electric wire-cables, rather than horseback or sailing-ships. HalFonts (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

transpiration

 * This page has a more than generous interpretation of what transpired between Glaspie and Iraq. Surely any reasonable person's interpretation of what Glaspie wrote would be that a blind eye was being turned by the USA to Iraq's intentions, which were and remain obvious. One notes that Saddam smiled. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

Agree, this is a very, very generous interpretation of what message Glaspie gave Iraq. She had to have been aware of the 'oil theft issue', and the '19 province of Iraq' claim. This is pretty basic information. For here not to state that the U.S. would have 'some difficulties' with any aggressive act by Iraq against Kuwait, is a very 'green light' for the Iraqis to use force if Iraq thought the situation warranted it.They had very legitimate grievances against Kuwait, not only the slant drilling which is alleged to had taken a couple billion dollars worth of Iraqi oil, but, the kicker is, this oil was then sold under market price, further damaging an Iraqi economy which was in ruins. Question: How much of this was Salafi policy? Saddam fights Shi'ites. Both nations are bleeding out. The actions and remarks by Kuwaiti officials hours before hostilities began, which include dropping the 'settlement-aid package' to Iraq to US$500,000.00 is a slap in the face. So is the remark, basically saying that this will be turned over to the American. Nobody ever accused S.Hussein of being an intellectual, maybe cagy, clever, but, they 'pushed his buttons', and he bit. Basically nobody(very few people) of consequence are in Kuwait this time of year. It is summer. Most wealthy people go to London or Paris. This is true in all of the Gulf monarchies. It is just too hot. So yes, the pieces fit together. A well played gambit on the part of the Americans fools the arrogant Hussein once again. With the war against Iran over, he was now expendable. [As for Tariq Aziz, do you honestly believe he will speak outside of parameters clearly defined by the 'Company?' I would never believe that.]--[User:Professor Ahkbar|J.C.Heiser] 16:19, 16th October, 2013 (UTC)
 * I consider myself a reasonable person and I don't think any such thing. As the article notes, there is no authentic transcript or account of the Glaspie-Saddam meeting, only versions issued by Iraq for their own purposes. It makes no sense for the US to give tacit approval for Iraq to attack Kuwait and then to turn around and oppose him when he did so. Adam 02:51, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

PBS has an interview with Tariq Aziz where he says:


 * Q: So you knew from the beginning that America was likely to take action?


 * Aziz: Yes, we had no illusions about that.

[Read: Yes, we believe we were finally going to be rewarded for the loss of 3% of our population fighting a nine year war against Iran as the United States and Israel wished.] --[User:Professor Ahkbar|J.C.Heiser]16:23 16th October, 2013 (UTC) So at least the Iraqis do not seem to claim that they were trapped.&mdash;Eloquence

I notice claims the British reporters that went after Glaspie circa Sep 2 had a tape as well as a transcript. Regardless, her "nobody...thought that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait" begged interesting questions (which she refused to answer). It was also lame, since Iraq's designs on Kuwait were no secret and as old as Iraq. (Also, Glaspie's was far from the only "green light" ... or non-red light if you prefer. Cheney seems to have dropped the only "no" and he was hushed.)

From article: "Saddam was a dictator who had never visited a western country, and who lived a in a world where disputes were routinely resolved by force." This sentence seems to imply Western countries do not resort to violence to resolve disputes. Where is this world you are living in? I'd like to move there (I'm currently living in U.S.). --bodhi 00:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)  Agree, on all counts plus... This is very similar to the alleged agreement, Col. Garcia Meza had with American Intel before the Bolivian coup of 1980. He had be using Bolivian Air-force planes to move cocaine to his junior partners in Medellin and Cali, Columbia. The Bolivian government armed with sufficient evidence, was preparing to arrest dozens of military officers who were working with Garcia Meza, and of course Garcia Meza himself. He had the same sort of conversation with US Intel(over objections of DEA) in which he asked if the US would have a serious problem with regime change in Bolivia. Anti-Castro, Anti-Sandinista Cubans(both post '59 ers and Mariels) were already moving cocaine and paying a 'tax' which went to 'Somozistas',already training in Alabama, and Florida, for a counter revolution. Garcia Meza bet that Reagan would win the election and nobody would object as long as money went to buy munitions and to the training camps. He was right on all counts. The DEA was basically shut down in Bolivia. He steps aside a couple years later, but, following his hero, Pinochet, tens of thousands of labor leaders & left leaning intelligentsia were terminated.(Model- Pinochet/Chile) Result: Establishment of the cocaine cartels as global powers, while country remains under control of mining companies & the cocaine cartels for another 25 years. The players in Bolivia and Iraq are practically interchangeable. --[User:Professor Ahkbar|J.C.Heiser] 17:09, October 16th, 2013 (UTC)


 * That paragraph has problems - why don't you see if you can improve it and others? --Niku 03:00, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

This page casts far too much doubt on the transcripts. After the first few weeks, there has never been serious doubt of their veracity. They are based on tapes made surreptitiously by the Iraqis of the meeting which were provided to major western news outlets like the NYT, and the WaPo too IIRC.--John Z 11:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Glaspie's pre-Kuwait caper contributions
When Secy. of State Geo. Schultz testified before the Iran-Contra committee back in 1987, he singled out Ms. Glaspie for heroics during the arms-for-hostages debacle; but I don't recall what those heroics were, what her position was then, or what her connection to Iraq or Iran was in the early to mid-80s. Anyone? BubbleDine (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

--- Interesting, do you have a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.44.209 (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Schultz was against the idea of what later because the Iran-Contra scandal. North and his boss (Poidexter?) where in favor and were already doing it. Ms. Glaspie knew they were doing it, so she told Schultz. In other words, she was the snitch. When Jim Baker, who was in favor of the Iran-Contra, became secretary of state, he sent Ms. Glaspie to Iraq as a form of punishment covered up by the bragging "first female ambassador..."

One more thing, the person who stated that the US will not interfere in conflicts between Arab countries was John Kelly. The person who said "We have no defense agreements with Kuwait and we are not obligated to defend Kuwait was Margaret Tutwiler.


 * i agree. this would be good to have out here, if it can be properly sourced.  i mean, the woman had a twenty-plus career and all this WP page contains is stuff about one, admittedly important, issue.Colbey84 (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Quote:


 * On July 24, when Margaret D. Tutwiler, the State Department spokeswoman, was asked whether the United States had any commitment to defend Kuwait, she said, We do not have any defense treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.


 * Asked whether the United States would help Kuwait if it were attacked, she replied, We also remain strongly committed to supporting the individual and collective self-defense of our friends in the gulf with whom we have a deep and longstanding ties, a statement that some Kuwaiti officials said privately was too weak.


 * https://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/23/world/confrontation-in-the-gulf-us-gave-iraq-little-reason-not-to-mount-kuwait-assault.html


 * Atconsul (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Another more explicit Tariq Aziz interview on PBS
In another PBS interview of Tariq Aziz, broadcast on January 25, 2000, Aziz is even more dismissive of the idea that Glaspie's words were of any consequence or that the U.S. sent mixed signals.


 * Q: Could you elaborate on the point about mixed signals sent by the U.S. during the run-up to the invasion of Kuwait? How did those influence your government's decision?


 * A: There were no mixed signals. We should not forget that the whole period before August 2 witnessed a negative American policy towards Iraq. So it would be quite foolish to think that, if we go to Kuwait, then America would like that. Because the American tendency . . . was to untie Iraq. So how could we imagine that such a step was going to be appreciated by the Americans? It looks foolish, you see, this is fiction. About the meeting with April Glaspie--it was a routine meeting. There was nothing extraordinary in it. She didn't say anything extraordinary beyond what any professional diplomat would say without previous instructions from his government. She did not ask for an audience with the president. She was summoned by the president. He telephoned me and said, "Bring the American ambassador. I want to see her." She was not prepared, because it was not morning in Washington. People in Washington were asleep, so she needed a half-hour to contact anybody in Washington and seek instructions. So, what she said were routine, classical comments on what the president was asking her to convey to President Bush. He wanted her to carry a message to George Bush--not to receive a message through her from Washington.

--Niku 15:31, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think this PBS interview with Aziz destroys the US "green light" or "lack of red light" theory completely, in fact it makes the page look wrongly focused - why is a theory discussed in such detail, at such length, when it is completely contradicted by Aziz? At this point the only interesting aspect of this theory is how widely believed it is, even though the regime's own representatives have explicitly rejected it. Pepik70 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

TWO TRANSCRIPTS - they seem to be drastically different. Bad translations? - the US government must have at least one person who can read Arabic somwhat better than this. Ms Glaspie seems to have been unprofessional - an ambassadore not clearing with headquarters a threat of war ( you would think it would be of some interest at the State Dept, maybe not? ) - or she was part of a conspiracy to sucker Saddam into a trap ( no matter what Aziz says now - after awhile with US CIA he probably is an unreliable source ). She should have the Secretary's response in writing - her cavalier attitude about an imminent invasion seems a little too unbelieveable.

"First meeting?"
Quot the article:

It was in this context that Glaspie had her first meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz on July 25, 1990.

This seems to imply that this was her first meeting w/Saddam ever, or at least her first as ambassador to Iraq. Since she had been appointed ambassador to Iraq in 1989 (presumably early in the year, as one of H.W. Bush's beginning-of-the-term ambassadorial appointment), it seems odd that she wouldn't have met the president until mid-1990. Since he was head of state, wouldn't she have had to have at least some kind of formal meeting to be officially accredited? --Jfruh (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that is odd. That should be looked into. Hawk08210 (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That purported picture of their first meeting is clearly a doctored photo of a man with a tress of black hair painted down the back. It's quite obvious - the hairline around the ear gives it away. IT SHOULD BE REMOVED. 00:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.133.96 (talk)
 * @IP. that would be an argument (that i don't think would work) for wikimedia commons, where the picture is hosted, not here. -Shootbamboo (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Conflict with Saddam Article
The Saddam Hussein page (which is protected), states "The transcript, however, does not show any explicit statement of approval of, acceptance of, or foreknowledge of the invasion." I know this is a controversial point, yet the protected page is clearly at odds with this article, which says, "she told the Iraqi dictator that the US official policy was not to get involved in Iraq's dispute with Kuwait" and cites Edward Mortimer in the New York Review of Books, November 1990. These two statements conflict. This article cites sources, the Saddam article does not cite any source for the quoted statement.

Can somehow with rights to edit a protected page take a look at writing a more accurate, less NPOV, and source-cited way of editing the Saddam page? According to this article, "If there is a full transcript of the meeting in existence, or if the State Department declassified Glaspie's cables about the meeting, history might reach a different verdict on her performance." Yet those who edited the protected Saddam article somehow know the unreleased full transcript shows no "explicit statement of, approval of, acceptance of, or foreknowledge of the invasion." This page cites its sources and points out no one has access to the full, declassified transcripts. The protected Saddam article unequivocally contradicts source-cited info in this article on the basis of uncited, unreleased, classified documents that cannot be verified. 66.17.118.195 15:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no conflict. The reference is to the version of the transcript released by Iraq and published in the New York Times. The two statements "The transcript, however, does not show any explicit statement of approval of, acceptance of, or foreknowledge of the invasion," and "she told the Iraqi dictator that the US official policy was not to get involved in Iraq's dispute with Kuwait" are both correct and do not contradict each other. If I say: "your dispute with person X is none of my business," that is not the same as saying "I give you permission to shoot person X." Adam 16:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

April Glaspie confused with April Gillespie
Thousands of web pages make claims that an ambassador named "April Gillespie" gave Saddam the greenlight to invade, a name that a Wikipedia search has no results for.

Would it make sense to mhave such a common mis-spelling somehow link to the correct page? It isn't exactly a disabiguation issue.

Guymacon 16:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do published reliable sources say this is a common spelling error? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Jan 2011: Wikileaks leaked the Glaspie cable
So feel free to update the article. Here's a couple WP:RS and hopefully the mainstream press will report it SOMEDAY!! Professor Stephen Walt analysis here. Jason Dietz, antiwar.com, Haaretz, the Actual Cable from Glaspie, etc.  CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * i came on the talk page to note that in the "Retrospective views" section, the 3rd paragraph mentions that the incident might be better understood if the State Department ever declassifies her cables. yet, in the previous section, it reads, "The cables that Glaspie sent from Iraq about her meeting with Saddam are no longer classified."  the source for that sentence is an article from 2008.  so i was left wondering, are they declassified or not?
 * but then your comment...made it even more confusing. btw, i tried to bring up the "Actual Cable from Glaspie" that you have in your list of links, and it wouldn't open.Colbey84 (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Context
Many of the world's problems, ranging from marital disharmony to nuclear war, result from poor communication. I feel that this article would benefit from some discussion of the general problem of miscommunication in history and diplomacy. Perhaps someone could create a Wikipedia entry on this general issue, to which the Glaspie article could refer.Paulhummerman (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on April Glaspie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110107203728/http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/1990/07/90BAGHDAD4237.html to http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/1990/07/90BAGHDAD4237.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)