RatcliffeBlog—Mitch’s Open Notebook

RatcliffeBlog—Mitch’s Open Notebook
“Then, there has been an absurd line of reporting about Saddam’s dedication to Joe Stalin. Now, he may have been an ardent admirer of another murderous monster, but when commentators appear on air suggesting that Saddam, the egomaniacal despot, had his statues made to look more like Stalin than himself, you have to wonder about the sanity of the producers. Saddam’s interest in Stalin as a model is an meaningful anecdote, but not the important explanation of Saddam’s rise to power.Why is there not coverage of the meeting between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam in 1983, when the United States and Iraq agreed they shared many common interests? This was, of course, after the genocide for which he was sentenced to die. Joe Stalin had less direct influence on Saddam than the Reagan Administration and Don Rumsfeld, who cleared the way for sales of weapons to Iraq throughout the 1980s. President Reagan released a national security directive (NSDD 139) that codified our support of the Saddam Hussein regime in 1984.Saddam was a monster, but let’s be realistic about this. He was our monster, not Stalin’s, not Russia’s, not even Islam’s monster. Saddam was an instrument of U.S. policy toward Iran while he cemented his power in Iraq and, like many strongmen we’ve supported in the past, it backfired.

I read that on Mitch Ratcliffe’s blog this morning and it rung so very true. I remember those days… I was in my 20’s and in college, reading in Time & Newsweek how Iraq was or friend and bulwark against the Iranian regime.

The Iranians are still there, we’re sinking into a quagmire in Iraq, and we just provided the “insurgents” with a martyr.

And the best part: George W. Bush will retire and leave the whole mess… “his legacy” to some other poor bastard to try and clean up. What do you want to bet the GOP moves to control Congress and cede the White House to the Dems for ’08. Turn the next guy into “Carter II, the Sequel.”

sigh… I hate politics.