On Morality...
Nadine forgets that Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in December of 1983, urging Saddam to consider new oil pipelines through Jordan, and assuring Saddam that an expansion of relations between the US and Iraq is what Reagan wanted.
Nadine, and others, forget or never bothered to investigate that the Reagan administration knew, in November of 1983, that Iraq was using chemical weapons - long before public outcry in 1984 forced the administration to take a hard line.
Nov 1983 State Department memo to Lawrence Eagleburger
"We also know that Iraq has acquired a CW production capability, primarily from Western firms, including possibly a U.S. foreign subsidiary."
She forgets or never bothered to check that the Reagan administration did not decide then and there to attack Iraq on "moral" grounds - in fact they didn't even demand that Iraq immediately stop all production and use of chemical weapons. They pussy footed around the issue, hoping to "deter" them from using them.
The subject of chemical weapons was not discussed in Rumsfeld's personal meeting with Saddam one month later in December. In the State Department summary sent to Sec State Eagleburger via a telegraph transmission after the Rumsfeld/Saddam meeting, an oil pipeline is mentioned, but not any discussion on prohibited weapons. None once.
So much for morality.
The US only joined on board the international condemnation train when source from other countries made sure the CW story was front and center. Yes, the US admin warned Iraq that ultimately they would have to side with the international community, but while the issue was not front and center, Reagan did not do the "moral" thing and demand immediate cessation of all CW activities. But they were interested in an oil pipeline.
Other "moral" lapses abound.
In a May 9, 1984 confidential state department memo discussing trade between US and Iraq of "dual use" equipment that could be used for military purpose in particular for NUCLEAR purpose:
- "dual-use items are allowed to be shipped to Iraqi non-nuclear entities under present U.S. regulations"
- "the U.S. has undertaken a policy review for the sale of certain categories of dual-use items to Iraqi nuclear entities"
- "the policy review's preliminary results favor expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities."
In this same memo the rhetorical question "should we change policy now when Iraq is publicly implicated in using poison gas?" is a few paragraphs later answered with "it makes no sense to deny them to nuclear entities. The timing, however, is crucial."
Why? Because Saddam is bad? because he is gassing people? Because such shipments should be tied to Iraq disposing of CW?
No.
It was because "we would add considerably to our Congressional burdens, not to mention needless adverse publicity."
Their decision in the end -- go forward, but wait until the initial furor over CW subsided so they could better sneak under the radar.
Morality in action, indeed.
Perhaps if Nadine and others did a bit more reading of the actual records from the past they would understand that the world is not black and white like Cheney and Rumsfeld would like us to believe.
The arrogance is spectacular. Rumsfeld many times raised Saddam's human rights record in his latest stint as Sec Defense but did nothing about it at all while shaking hands with Saddam 20 years prior.
A Reagan administration wanted to increase trade, including through back-door channels, military materials, and the US Department of State concluded that selling materials to nuclear entities in Iraq was the right thing to do.
Don't talk about the morality of France and Germany Nadine -- you need to look first at home before you have the right to castigate others.
---
Sources: Declassified Department of State memos and telex transmissions of the day. Where I've quoted, I've quoted verbatim from the scanned images. |
