Trying to make you look bad? Hardly.
I'm fully aware that Rumsfeld brought up the subject of CW with Tariz Aziz. This occurred before his meeting with Husayn.
Rumsfeld did not, however, bring up the matter of CW with Husayn, even though by then the US knew with certainty that Husayn was gassing Iranians. Instead, quoting the same source you've just thrown in:
[Rumsfeld's] December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting.
As you read through that document, it confirms everything I said. The US Government made outward noises condemning Iraq, even while making no change to their policy of supporting Iraq and Husayn.
Put yourself in Saddam's shoes... one morning he reads the paper headlines "US Condemns Iraq!" while having a cigar and overseeing trucks bearing goodies from the US with labels "Made in the USE".
Yes, that condemnation would have been highly effective. [sarcasm off] In fact, such a dual standard, so plainly obvious to any brute, would serve only to encourage Husayn. Saddam knew he was in the catbird set, thanks to official US policy. Reagan's policy.
Trying to make you look bad? Hardly.
Trying to show that budding neocons 20 years ago had no problem making deals with Husayn, at any cost (ignoring his use of chemical weapons, shipping him materials to his nuclear entities, enticing him into building an oil pipeline for US benefit)? Absolutely.
Having a little fun taking Reagan down a notch, as he deserves to be? Quite possibly.
As I've stated before, all presidents have dark pasts... sometimes we do not fully appreciate what they've done until the records are opened up.
Reagan gets too much hero worship and not enough scrutiny. Frankly I like some of the things he did and the way the country felt after he was through, but that doesn't mean he isn't subject to scrutiny and the cold hard light of reality. |
