The Reagan administration is largely responsible for Iran's dangerous emergence on the world scene.
Over the past few months we have heard cries from the new anti-war left that a war with Iran would be unjust and a show of American aggression in the Middle East. I beg to differ in the strongest possible fashion. Iran currently represents one of the greatest security threats to the western world imaginable. Moreover, unlike Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Iran has engaged in twenty five years of aggressive behavior towards the United States and in the same period of time has been actively developing weapons of mass destruction while arming terrorist groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. The campaign of lies and deceit conducted by the Government of the United States over the past three and a half years with regards to Iraq (Whose leader Saddam Hussein unlike Iran's leadership was secular and fairly westernized) will make all the more difficult to deal militarily or diplomatic with the looming threat coming from Central Asia thanks to Iran. Moreover, Tony Blair's British Government seems to be a fan of the current hostile regime in Tehran, because it suits British business interests quite nicely. Recently, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw referred to Iran an a "budding democracy where moderation rules." A budding Democracy, perhaps? (Not that Democracy is the be all and end all- India for years was the world's largest democracy and also the key link between the Soviet Union and developing world. In a future blog I will explain why Democracies in strategic areas make America less secure) Moderation? No way! Iran continues to be run by Conservative Shiite clerics whose official policy towards the United States is calling for the destruction of the nation they call the "Great Satan."
Much of Iran's success over the last 25 years owes itself to failed foreign policy of Ronald Reagan whom American Conservatives compare to George Washington. The misguided policy of Reagan and his team left American interests worldwide vulnerable to attack from Iranian backed terrorists. In 1980 Reagan and his cohorts negotiated a release of American hostages held in Teheran undermining the President Jimmy Carter. Reagan talked tough on Iran, who after all had seized 52 American citizens as hostages when the fundamentalist Khomeni regime seized power in 1979, but in fact Reagan had opened back channels to Iran that cost hundreds of American lives in the 1980s, during his election campaign. After Reagan secured the release of the hostages, the lay American media which was so mesmorized by Reagan's acting ability perpetuated a lie upon the American public: That Iran was so scared of Reagan, and had no fear of Carter, thus they released the hostages to prevent their own inhalation. Looking back this theory is laughable, and among the many lies the Reagan administration sold to the American public during the dark days of the early 1980s.
In 1982, Ronald Reagan, the Conservative superhero sent American troops to war torn Beirut to serve under foreign command and under the United Nations Flag. The next October, 241 American troops were killed by Hezbollah, a terrorist organization taking its cue directly from Tehran and the Shiite clerics that ran the Iranian Government. America was the "great Satan" that needed to be destroyed. However Reagan and his cowboy friends like Oliver North continued to believe Iran's regime was filled with moderates, and after several more terrorist attacks against American interests including the hijacking of a Pan Am jetliner flying from Bombay to Frankfurt, the hijacking of a TWA jetliner flying Athens to Cairo and the hijacking of the Cruise Ship Achille Lauro, Reagan decided to take action. He secretly authorized the sale of arms to Iran while bombing Libya, who was a marginal player in the terrorist underworld. (If Reagan really wanted to attack North Africa, Tunisia playing host to international outlaw Yasser Arafat or Algeria who had its own fundamentalist government backed by Iran would have been more worthy targets.) Reagan's arms sales to Iran kept the war with Saddam Hussein's relatively pro-western Iraqi government going while allowing Iran to secretly funnel weapons to dissidents within the Soviet Union who were trying to make Soviet Central Asia into a fundamentalist Islamic satellite of Tehran. But for the Cowboy Ronald Reagan the Soviet Union was the evil empire, and anyway working to undermine the U.S.S.R who by this time had signed numerous nuclear non proliferation treaties must be supported. Reagan obviously did not buy into the saying, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. At the same time, Reagan and later the first President Bush sent signals to Tehran that they were open to lifting the freeze on Iranian assets in the United States that had been ordered by Secretary of State Cyrus Vance in 1979. Perhaps the idea of Texas oil companies doing business in one of largest petroleum producing nations in the world was tempting for the Bush administration?
When the USSR collapsed, almost instantly there was a rush from Tehran to install puppet regimes in the newly independent Islamic states of Central Asia. In some places, such as Tajikistan they succeeded. In others such as Uzbekistan, they did not. In those places they did not meet with success, the Iranians continue to create dissent and fund terrorists to overthrow the Government. Official American policy continued to support Iran under George H.W. Bush, as American subsidiaries of US owned corporations were allowed to break the United States' own embargo and do business with Iran. At one point in the early 90s, despite the embargo which had been placed on Iran by Jimmy Carter's administration (and violated by Reagan himself when he approved the arms sale to Iran) over 12% of oil on the American market had come directly from Iranian oil fields after having been passed through American companies regional headquarters in Europe. In 1995 President Bill Clinton put a stop to this madness and made it illegal for any company with a corporate headquarters in the United States to do business with Iran. Despite this the British, the French and Germans still do more business in Iran than any other nations. Throughout this period, Iran has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction, and acquire offensive missiles and tanks from China and North Korea, a topic we will explore in depth tomorrow. All of this has gone on while official American policy was to talk tough on Iran while covertly allowing Iranian terrorists and allies to run unchecked throughout the Middle East. The dangerous policies of Ronald Reagan have put American security at great jeopardy, and we must face the daunting task of dealing with Iran one way or another in the near future.
Coming Tomorrow- Which terrorists Iran supports and what WMDs does Iran possess?
Providing Unique Commentary and Insight into Politics, History and Society since 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Canes Rising Headlines
The Kartik Report
CSRN's American Soccer Spot
Blog Archive
Links
About Me
- Kartik
- I am the host of the Major League Soccer Talk and EPL Talk Podcasts and am frequent guest on other (world) football shows. I am also the publisher of various other websites including this one. I work in public/government relations in addition to my soccer work and have a keen interest in history, politics, aviation, travel,and the world around us.
Widgetbox
59 comments:
Well, you are clearly a hawk wanting war at all costs. A nation that spreads their ideology is not a threat to American security as you claim. Nations can disagree with us, like Vietnam and China both major US trading partners. As far as Iraq, can you accept the fact that we are there and need to support the troops. This is probably the fifth post I've seen of yours where you attack the Iraq war, but never say let's support our troops in harms way.
Interesting collection of opinions. I'll have to reread this before making an "official" comment.
I think it is ridiculous how people always need to "say" that we support our troops. For most of us, it is an absolute truth that we support the troops that defend out liberty. Supporting the troops in your heart is patriotic. Simply saying that you support our troops but not meaning it is nationalistic and simply pandering.
As for a hawk wanting war at all costs, this is just another example of the right-wing and left-wing using absolutes to make petty attacks. Bill Clinton was one of the most hawkish presidents that we have had in recent years. Did you notice how during the election, Clinton never criticized Bush over Iraq? He limited his remarks to the economy and domestic policy. Why? Because the Bush foreign policy is somewhat of a continuation of the Clinton foreign policy. Iraq was a mistake and poorly executed, but the underlying purpose, which was not truthfully expressed by Bush until the WMDs didn't turn up, of liberating the oppressed people of Iraq is the very definition of liberalism.
The primary difference between the two administrations is that Clinton was smarter in foreigh affairs. The only difference between Bosnia and Iraq is that Clinton told us that we were going there to liberate/save the people. Bush thought that about Iraq, but didn't have the courage to sell his war that way.
As for hawkish Democrats, this is a reason why I am starting to come around to supporting Hillary Clinton. She is probably the only Democrat who could successfuly purge the party of the weak, anti-war leftists and return this party to our FDR, Truman, and JFK principles. (Joe Biden would be good too!)
Keep up the good comments Kartik. Republicans are great at the macho talk, but as we saw with Reagan and Iran, just as we've seen with Bush and Iran/North Korea, the Republicans are weak and soft. Reagan invaded Grenada, because he wanted to hide his weakness. Knocking off a little country like that is not real leadership. Same as Bush and Iraq. He ignored the real threats and went after the weakest country in the region. What a wussy! Unfortunately, the Democrats are disorganized, so we appear to be doomed by both parties.
And let's hear about North Korea. There's a place that needs our focus, but Bush is too scared to engage. (Remember when he pulled our troops out of the DMZ in 2004. What a Neville Chamberlain! Bush should have been tossed from office for his appeasement of North Korea. Unfortunately, the Democrats couldn't articulate an alternative, so Bush's weakness was rewarded with a second term.
History will show that Reagan was not the tough president that the Republicans make him out to be. He was soft and was simply the resident of the White House when communism fell - he actually had little to do with it. (Primarily FDR, Truman, JFK, and Nixon were responsible.)
Let's start getting the truth out about Reagan. Then we can start stripping his name off the airports and buildings. He never belonged on them to begin with. It's just that Grover Norquist going crazy!
You're attacks on Reagan one of our greatest President's ever are typical of the Democrats lack of understanding of the world around us. You have no understanding of the Middle East to claim Saddam Hussein was not a threat and Iran, which has free elections and has cooperated against the Taliban and did not like Saddam is. Jimmy Carter is without question on of the worst Presidents of the 20th Century and it is amazing you give him a free pass.
Well, I must say this column came as a surpise, and perhaps that's why I keep coming back to this site despite the racist, pro-southern tone of many other discussions.
I saw the headline and said here we go again, but then read the piece and loved it. However, be aware that Kartik is opening himself up for numerous attacks from the right wing who will call you a traitor and claim you are a subversive. Republicans act like Reagan is the Pope or worse yet, god himself and certainly while we Democrats like this sort of posting I would anticipate a major firestorm from the right who after all control the media and most of the blog sites dealing with politics.
Typical whiny liberalism. Blame Reagan for everything and praise Clinton. Of course Clinton was impeached and tried to "wag the dog" during his times of crisis by starting wars whereas Reagan projected strength throughout his term and brought the Soviet Union to its knees. The Terrorists led by Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein grew in strength and stature during the Clinton years and North Korea became more and more dangerous. The United Nations began excersising a veto over American policy and we became vulnerable to attack. Clinton is to blame for 9/11, yet you liberals always blame Reagan or W. for things. Can you image if Carter had been re-elected how bad things would have been?
Put Reagan on Mount Rushmore and take down this site! Rename Mount Rushmore for Reagan and replace the Hollywood sign with REAGANVILLE. Let's honor Reagan by renaming the world wide web after him and having GM rename a line of cars after him. Reagan made us all love America. Before him, we used to hate America and love France.
Reagan ended the cold war and brought down the evil empire. Clinton brought great discredit to our land and had sex with an intern while Osama Bin Laden was preparing to attack America. Who do you think was a better President?
Iran represents a grave threat to American security, a threat which Reagan nor either Bush has taken very seriously. Iraq proved to be merely a sideshow so that W. could excercise a personal vendetta. Now the real hard work begins and alas I am confident that Bush is not up to the task.
Some interesting reaction last night and this morning to my post. I agree with Joe in the latest post- I did not mention that Reagan turned a blind eye to European engagement with Iran which included the development of the Iranian army thanks largely to European arms and technical assistance. I also enjoyed the anonymous post of 10:26 pm last night. Iran has represented for years a much bigger threat than Iran. Even in 1990 after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Pat Buchanan among others stated that George Bush should not attack Iraq simply because it would lead to Iran becoming stronger and more of a threat. The old "great game" played so skillfully by Bismarck towards the end of the 19th Century dictates you play one power off of against another, (particularly if they are neighbors with a history of war)instead of leveling the far weaker one and allowing the more dangerous one to become more of a threat. I guess bush has his own version of the great game, call it the Dubya Doctrine to undermine American interests abroad.
The posts linking Clinton to 9/11 are laughable. Clinton, unlike Bush who let Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora attacked the Sudan when a good tip indicated where Bin Laden was. Clinton was the tough one, actually trying to murder Bin Laden and save the US the anguish that was to come from 9/11, three years later rather than Bush who may have let Bin Laden get away because either he needed him alive to be re-elected or he was too busy worrying about the "threat" posed from a weak Iraq who had been economically cripled by sanctions and had no WMDs, and hardly a functioning army.
Blaming Reagan for today's problems. That's all the Ds have, since they have no ideas of their own.
Iran maybea threat but we are not capable of waging a second mideast war right now. We are streched too thin, and we must bring the troops home from abroad. Besides, Iran doesn't like the US because they see us as trying to dominate the region.
The war drums beat louder and louder. Why have we become such a barbaric people since Bush took over? When Clinton was the President we focused on helping our people here in America, instead of exporting jobs overseas and sending our military to empire build abroad.
The claim that you make that in 1980 Reagan secretly negotiated the release of the hostages to win the election is among the most outrageous liberal conspiracy theories out there. Reagan did not deal with terrorists. But the terrorists were scared of Reagan which is why almost every hostage in Beruit was released eventually. The fear of US military action was too much for the terrorists to risk.
Reagan sold arms to the terrorists for god's sake!
Let's not forget Reagan's response when terrorists brutally murdered 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut.
Did Reagan stand up to the terrorists like a man? NO! He cut and run like a little girl. Reagan was a pussy!
Reagan was one of the worst presidents ever!
It is amazing to see all you left wing pinko communists bash Ronald Reagan, the greatest President of the 20th Century, and the man who single handidly brought down the Evil Soviet Empire, which was far worst than any Iran, Iraq or North Korea you people like to talk about. What Reagan did was bring peace through strength, something weak on defense Democrats such as Carter and the draft dodging, hippie war protesting Clinton had no clue about. As far Kartik, I was enjoying the opinions on your site which showed a moderation among Democrats until reading this slanderous and mostly false opinion piece of yours.
Reagan was a total fraud that media partook in. I am a peacenic and not an advocate of war unless we are attacked, and disagree strongly with the premise that we should go to war with Iran. But Kartik deserves applause for being perhaps the only person in this country who has enough courage to publish openly that Reagan was a fraud and an actor. Good stuff, Karti- you probably will have the ann Coulter's of the world attacking you as a left wing foreign agent of the Indian govenrment who should be deported once your comments are discovered by the right wing leadership. Keep up the good work!
MF has it totally wrong.
As far as draft dodging, it's a fair criticism of Clinton. He did dodge the draft. Just like Dubya and just like Reagan, who dodged service in WWII. Instead of serving his country like a real man, Reagan made instructional movies for the military. What a girlie man!
As for "peace through strength," it is amazing how many right-wingers actually drink the Kool-Aid and believe that Reagan had anything to do with the fall of communism. He did not. The Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, started by the Democrats, had everything to do with the fall of communism. Remember, Reagan had to flip-flop his position on the USSR by backtracking on his "evil empire" comment. He didn't look that tough on communism during his love affair with Gorbie!
As for pinkos, that is why we are criticizing the conservatives. Conservative Republicans are the real pinko, girlie men! Conservatives have always been on the wrong side of war, most notoriously supporting the appeasement of Hitler and battling FDR. Study your history - the greatest war presidents were Lincoln (perhaps the most liberal president in our history), Teddy Roosevelt (another left-wing liberal), Wilson, FDR, and Truman - all of them either Democrats or liberal Republicans.
As was previously pointed out, Reagan chose Grenada and Bush chose Iraq, because they weren't real men who would fight those that were the real threats. They fought the easy fights because they were scared to take on the real threats and because they wanted to build their images. Not real leadership in either case.
Plus, as Jill pointed out, Reagan trained and armed Osama bin Laden. Clinton tried to clean up Reagan's mess, but it was too late by 1993. Bush Sr. didn't even address the terrorist threat. 9/11 happened because the terrorists hate us, because Bush II was asleep at the wheel, and because Reagan created Osama bin Laden. Clinton wasn't blameless, but he was much less responsible than George W. and Reagan. Who are the real pinko girlie men here? (Answer: Conservative Republicans!)
I forgot to mention that I don't want to let the anti-war people on the left and the right off the hook. They are wimps too, but at least they are honest. While pro-war Republicans are soft and weak, what is most offensive is that they talk tough while they act soft. At least the anti-war fanatics are honest about their beliefs. They simply preach the teachings of Christ, so you have to admire that at least.
Reagan is an American hero. He saved us from the Soviet threat and yet all you liberals do is attack him. Perhaps it is because you hate America. Obviously the authout here hates the American way and would like the Communists and the UN to run our nation.
As far as the typical right-wing, knee-jerk (stress the word "jerk") response about the UN and communism, this just shows that the right is losing the debate - like usual.
I have agreed with Kartik's posts about how the UN is badly flawed and needs reform. A lunatic like John Bolton is not the answer, but someone who is going to go in there and clean up shop is what we need. Republican Senator Norm Coleman was a suggestion by Kartik and I think that would be a great choice. Regardless of who it is, we need someone who will kick some ass and throw out Kofi Annan - the crook!
As for communism, you will probably not find anyone who is as anti-communist as me. That is one of the reasons that I have major issues with the current Bush administration. They have bungled the situation with Cuba and have only empowered the evil dictator Fidel Castro. Of course, the rhetoric by Bush and his followers is tough, but it is just talk - nothing more. People like the Diaz Balart brothers and Ros-Lehtinen have done more to help Fidel Castro stay in power - he should put them on his Christmas card list. They know that they can only get reelected in their congressional districts if Castro stays in power and that is why Lincoln and Mario Diaz Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are actually pro-Castro. It's sad and borderline treasonous.
The Republican Party is also pro-Castro, because they know that if he fell from power, they would have a tougher time getting votes in South Florida. In order to get votes, the Republicans have betrayed the Cuban people and opposed Democracy on the island.
The truth is that the Republicans are the ones who have been propping Fidel Castro up for years, largely for their own political purposes and political gain. Republicans don't agree with the ideology of the communists, but they support their efforts because it helps them politically. If that doesn't make the Republican Party the most pro-communist party in US history, I don't know what does.
Mark,
It was FDR at Yalta that allowed Stalin to take Eastern Europe
It was Truman who allowed the Mao to take China
It was JFK who betrayed the partiots at the Bay of Pigs
It was LBJ who gave away Southeast Asia
It was Carter who gave away Central Asia
It was Clinton who went to Moscow and protested against our patriots fighting in Vietnam. Clinton and his cohorts including Jane Fonda gave aid and comfort to the Viet Cong.
If the Democratic Party is not the most pro communist party outside of socialist party's in Communist countries, I don't know who is.
The Democrats are themselvs communists who see Fidel as a hero. Fidel once said that Clinton was his favorite American politician.
You Republicans lack critical thinking skills. Everybody who disagrees with you hates America and is a communist.
Reagan this and Reagan that. All Republicans talk about is trying to rename the nation after him. Read this blog and you'll find what is being said by Kartik while clearly opinion in some sense is based on a factual chain of events. He didn't make these things up. Why is it that Reagan can never be blamed for anything in your world?
I liked the right-wing talking points about the various Democratic presidents and how they let you down. Not only was this a shameful attack on the memory of the brave men and women that have served in our military, but it was also factually inaccurate.
First, you criticize FDR for siding with Churchill and Stalin in defeating Hitler and the Nazis. I find it shocking that you would argue that we should have "appeased" Hitler in WWII. Actually, I'm not surprised. The GOP wanted to appease Hitler then, and apparently you guys haven't changed much.
You criticize Truman and inaccurately state that he allowed Communism to spread. Have you ever heard of the Truman Doctrine? On March 12, 1947, Truman addressed Congress and stated, ""It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." It was this policy, not the actions of our 40th president, that eventually led to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989.
You blamed JFK for the Bay of Pigs. Nice try. Everyone knows that while Kennedy had been president less than 3 months, the operation was carried over from the Eisenhower administration. As we have learned, Vice President Richard Nixon was instrumental in the planned invasion and largely responsible for its failure.
You said that LBJ gave away Southeast Asia. This one actually made me laugh out loud. Remember those pictures of helicopters being pushed off of ships; remember the embassy being evacuated. Nixon was president when we left Vietnam you idiot. Johnson stuck and fought. The Republicans cut and run!
You then mentioned that Carter gave away Central Asia. I assume you are referring to Afghanistan. Again, not true. He chose not to engage and the Soviets were eventually defeated by the Afghan people. Actually a wise, and technically conservative, foreign policy decision. This choice was actually much wiser than that of Reagan who thought it best to train, fund, and arm a young Saudi named Osama bin Ladin. Thanks for 9/11 Ronny!
And Clinton in Russia. You guys tried this in 1992 and you were proven false then. Clinton was a student who studied overseas. No protesting ever occurred, but again you right-wingers have never let the truth get in the way of your talking points.
I do find it ironic that you mentioned Jane Fonda. The right-wing posters on this site act in a way very similar to Hanoi Jane. The talking points that you provided only mention our country's "failures." This is disrespectful to the brave men and women who have fought and died to protect this country. I especially found offensive the line where you said that we "gave away Southeast Asia." Would you tell the families of the 55,000 Americans who died in Vietnam that we simply gave it away? Such right-wing talk is un-American and shameful.
Lou asked "Why is it that Reagan can never be blamed for anything in your world?" "Well Nancy ..." Reagan can be blamed for a lot. He actually did a lot to hurt this country.
The rise of Osama bin Ladin was Reagan's doing. As I mentioned before, Reagan essentially created the al Qaeda leader and made him into who he is today. September 11th is really part of the Reagan legacy.
The rise of Saddam Hussein was also Reagan's doing. Reagan empowered Saddam, because he opposed Iran. This brings me to my favorite Reagan story. In order to justify the War in Iraq, right-wingers like to remind us that Saddam gassed his own people. (He did, and I hope he gets the death penalty for it.) But let's not forget that he gassed the Kurds while Reagan gave him a wink and a nod. The Kurds were opponents of Saddam and allies of Iran. At the time, the US was at odds with Iran and Reagan was an ally of Saddam Hussein. (I'm sure everyone has seen the pictures of Rumsfeld and Saddam acting buddy-buddy.) When Saddam took out the Kurds, he did so with the blessings of the Reagan administration.
Reagan started the trend of tax and spend Republican policies that have led to high deficits. A lot of our economic woes are due to the current Bush administration and their reckless spending (Bush hasn't yet vetoed a spending bill), but don't let Reagan off the hook. As Jill correctly stated, Reagan was the original Republican big-spender. He increased government spending and raised the deficit. Clinton almost cleaned up Reagan's mess with the deficit (it was scheduled to be paid off by 2012 under the Clinton plan), but Bush has abandoned fiscal discipline so Reaganomics are back and here to stay.
It's also the Reagan deficits that have allowed countries like communist China to gain so much power in the world. (Another example of how Republicans have helped communists.)
OK - I know I'm posting a lot, but I had to add this point. I just read from Reuters that Saddam is now telling guards in prison of his old American buddy. That's right. Saddam's old right-wing, err - I mean right-hand, man was none other than Ronnie Reagan. Can anyone still say that Ronald Reagan was good for American? I think not.
From the article entitled Captive Saddam misses Ronald Reagan, magazine says
Saddam Hussein likes Doritos, washes his hands compulsively and thinks fondly of the late U.S. President Ronald Reagan, according to American soldiers who guarded him and tell their story in the July issue of GQ magazine.
The jailed former Iraqi leader described how Reagan, who was president during the time of Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran, sold him planes and helicopters. "Reagan and me, good,'" Saddam said, according to the article by Lisa DePaulo in the July issue that goes on sale June 28.
"He said, 'I wish things were like when Ronald Reagan was still president,'" said one of the soldiers who guarded him.
Well there you have it. We just went to war and lost over 1700 American lives due to Reagan's buddy. And the weapons that they are using to kill our troops came from Ronald Reagan.
After reading all the posts praising Reagan on this site, I am starting to wonder. Are those posts really from Saddam Hussein supporters? It sure sounds like it.
How many marxist revolutions took place in Latin America during the 1980s almost as a direct reaction to Reagan's cowboy behavior towards Nicaragua? Furthermore, Reagan spent American resources and violated the law by covertly shipping arms and money to the Contras to fight the Sandanistas who were in power because they had overthrown a right wing, CIA backed dictatorship. Once the Contras were defeated the Sandanistas who Reagan had tried so hard to defeat held free and open electrion in which they fairly lost. Now, looking back if Reagan hadn't been so macho and violated the Congress wish not ship arms to the Contra it's likely the Sandanistas would have held an election in 1984 instead of 1989 and we never would have had to arm the Iranians either! Just some foor for thought for the Fox news crowd.
Okay, I was determined to hold my tongue today when I saw all of Mark's out of line posts but now have decided to fire back.
Nobody criticzes FDR for siding with Stalin during the war. Where we criticize FDR and Truman was for seeing Stalin as an ally well after the war. When Churchill gave his famous commencement speech in 1946 with Truman in the audience where he coined the team iron curtain, the press and the Democrats seemed stunned. The Soviet's were a war time ally Truman privately told people- Chruchil obviously sees danger that does not exist.
Lyndon Johnson's record on Communism is suspect as well. First off he had a running affair with the pink lady from California a known socialist leabing Congresswoman who was defeated by Nixon in 1950 for Senate. Secondly, Johnson in the Senate was one of Joseph McCarthy's harshest critics. He didn't even want McCarthy's charges investigated. Johnson as President put Nixon in a position where he could not win the war. Nixon himself thought that the Presidency was a place to throw out your ideals and become soft on communist and the economy. Nixon's price controls were the closet thing to socialism we have ever had in this nation. Carter thought that Human Rights not Communism should be the focus of American policy. He was wrong as by questioning some of our allies Human Rights practices he practicaly invited Communist rebels to create civil wars in those nations. As for Clinton, all of the people I mentioned above had some shred of decency. Clinton however did not and I could spend all day explaining why the man was not fit to be a janitor let alone President.
You liberals, Kartik, Mark, Lou, Jill allof you are set on using this webpage to attempt to rewrite history. Thank goodness the only people who come to this site are people who are involved in politics in Florida in selected circles. What you people are doing is bordering on criminal. You are using what should be a discussion group to attempt a radical shift in perception of one of the greatest men to ever lead our nation. Can't you people just let Ronald Reagan, who made so many people believe in America again rest in peace?
You people ought to be locked up!
Tommy is your typical revisionist historian that is so common among the right-wingers.
The original post that I addressed did criticize FDR for siding with Stalin against Hitler, and you obviously avoid that point. (When did Stalin enter Eastern Europe? Hello - it was while the war was still raging.) I am shocked that Tommy and his Republican friends are arguing that we should have appeased Hitler during World War II. It just goes to prove that Republicans are weak and will endanger our country if we give them the chance.
I am pleased to see Tommy admit that Nixon "gave away Southeast Asia." Of course, I still object to the right-wing's use of the phrase "gave away", because I feel that is just another example of the right-wing dishonoring our veterans. We fought a war, and our troops fought bravely. We didn't give anything away, regardless of what the right-wing says. The right-wing's disrespect of our troops and veterans is disgusting.
Tommy also uses his post as an opportunity to beat up on a woman - typical conduct for girlie-men Republicans. Remember how right-wingers took great pleasure in bashing First Lady Hillary Clinton, Mary Landrieu, Teresa Heinz Kerry, Barbara Boxer, etc. I find it amazing how these Ike Turner wannabe Republicans think it is acceptable to beat up on women. It shouldn't surprise us however considering that it comes from Republicans.
As for Reagan, history will judge him accurately. Reagan was a crook. And those who care about America should not buy into the "let him rest in peace" crap. As long as the right-wing attempts to spread lies and rewrite Reagan's legacy, it is important that patriotic Americans keep telling the truth about our country's history. From dodging service during WWII, to arming and allying with terrorists, to increasing our deficit, Reagan did more to hurt this country, and the American people should be reminded of this everyday. Reagan was one of our most un-American presidents.
What about Saddam?
To reagan for sainthood:
It's fair that you believe Reagan to be a saint. But now that we are learning more in the news that Reagan and Saddam were actually two peas from a pod, are you now a supporter of Saddam Hussein? Does Saddam deserve sainthood as well? If the standards for sainthoold can be lowered enough for Reagan, then Saddam should also qualify, right?
What about the other Reagan supporters on this site? Are you all now changing your tune on Saddam Hussein because he was an ally of President Reagan?
Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator. No one from the right disputed the Saddam comments posted last night, nor did they even address them. Why is that? I think any support of Saddam by the right-wing, whether by explicit comments or by their silence, is disgraceful.
Reagan personally defeated the Soviets after years of American appeasment. Jimmy Carter=Neville Chamberlin. Ronal Reagan=Winston Churchill. Bill Clinton=crook, liar, murderer.
http://www.realchange.org/clinton.htm
reagan for sainthood is drinking the Kool-Aid. I will say that I am always pleased to see conservatives embarrass themselves with ridiculous comments that apparently required no real thought. I especially want to thank you for including the link to the right-wing conspiracy web site. If you had any credibility as a poster on this site before, it is now gone.
As I explained in my post last night, Reagan had nearly nothing to do with the fall of communism. He simply took credit for those that did the heavy lifting before him. The Truman Doctrine was responsible for the crumbling of the Soviet Union, not a bunch of silly speeches by a former B-movie actor. You can also note great advances by American democracy by analyzing the presidencies of Truman, JFK, and Nixon.
To better understand Reagan's role in the fall of communism, think of professional wrestling. Everyone has seen a tag-team match when one guy does all the fighting, throws all the punches, etc. Then when the opponent is struggling to stay on his feet, the first wrestler tags his partner. The partner then comes in and as a show for the audience just blows on his opponent. The opponent falls and the second partner pins him for the 3 count. The first wrestler did all the work, but the second wrestler took the credit. This is exactly what Reagan did. Reagan is no different from a professional wrestler, except that most wrestlers are better actors.
Is this what reagan for sainthood thinks of George W. Bush?
As I mentioned before, reagan for sainthood destroyed her credibility by siting a crazy web site. For those right-wingers who may rush to support RFS, here is what she thinks of George W. Bush:
-- His top aides exposed an undercover CIA agent to silence critics
-- Lies, deception and coverups to push the war in Iraq
-- Convicted of drunk driving. Lied repeatedly to cover up his arrest.
-- Lying under oath. Bush & staff stop investigation of contributor's huge funeral home company.
-- Avoided Vietnam and Skipped Out on his National Guard Service
-- Texas government corruption: State $$ for campaign funders & business cronies
-- Cocaine: felony drug use, vile hypocrisy, and a hushed up arrest?
-- His "young and irresponsible" behavior: sex, drugs and (gasp!) rock and roll?
-- Thin skinned: censors his critics with police, lawyers, $$$
-- Character: Spoiled rich kid living off his family's name and reputation
-- Made millions on insider business deals, for little work
-- Deal #1. Personal Profits from Failing Oil Companies
-- Easy Money From Odd Sources
-- A Surprise Deal From Bahrain
-- Access to the President and National Security Adviser for his foreign business partner
-- Deal #2. Selling Oil Stocks Just Before Iraq Invaded: lucky guess or illegal insider trading?
-- Deal #3. A Big Slice of a Baseball Team
-- Hypocrisy: using government coercion to make his private fortune
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm
I think most of those accusations against Bush are BS, but that just goes to show what kind of web sites the right-wingers read.
Ha ha! Thanks RFS!
I love that wrestling comparison! It is very effective and in the case of Reagan, very accurate.
You liberals continue to insult the American nation with your efforts to undermine the flag and patriotism. Most of you are probably cheering the Iraqi insurgents as they blow up buildings and kill civilians. I read an article by a leading figure in the Florida Democratic Party who compared the Iraqi resistance to the American patriots who fought in the Revolution. That is exactly whe3re the Democrats stand on Iraq and the war against terror.
To the previous post, let me get this straight - we oppose Reagan because he was an ally of Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein and we are supposed to be the anti-American ones. That's almost funny.
Let's not forget that Reagan rose to power by attacking America. While he campaigned for Goldwater in '64, he gave some of the most negative, anti-American speeches. Before he said that we were a "city on a hill," he loved to tell everyone that America was an outhouse in a shithole. How American is that?
Right-wingers commonly accuse their opponents of what they themselves are guilty of. The fact that you and your friends like to accuse those who seek the truth about Reagan as being un-American tells us a lot about you.
To the right-winger who says she read an article comparing Iraqi insurgents to our founding fathers, my response is: produce it. Where's the article? Show it to us. If you do, I'll be the first one to blast that Democratic SOB.
Of course, everyone knows that you won't produce it, because you made it up. This is why the right-wing continues to lose credibility - you can't tell the truth.
Again, I'll be waiting. Please prove me wrong. Believe it or not, I hope you do.
I need to find the letter. It was written by a DNC member from Florida, but someone who is not an elected official. I have the letter somewhere.
I'll be waiting. I'm looking forward to seeing it. Please, don't let us down.
Wasn't the topic at hand Iran? Why did we get so far off topic? Iran should be hit with some precision attacks via missles from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, but not invaded. A war there would be a major quagmire.
You know the real Reagan/Bush/Bush II legacy is going to be a mushroom cloud.
When the Soviet Union went bankrupt, they no longer had the money to secure their arsenal nor their material. Because Bush has stretched our resources so thin (and has had gay linguists and intelligence analysts fired), and run these huge deficits, we can't even be sure if nuclear material has been transferred out of Russian and former soviet state control.
Say what you will about the Cold War, but I felt safer at least knowing where the bombs were. Thanks to Conservative short-sightedness, there are not only more rogue nuclear weapons programs today then there were under Clinton (Iran/N. Korea/Pakistan), we don't even have the resources to keep tabs on where they are any more...
You conservatives oughta stop patting W on the back, and demand he work with Putin and other former soviet state leaders to get a full accounting of their stockpiles and establish through international agreement and oversight (NATO or the UN will suffice), and secure our country against further WMD proliferation.
That was the justification for Iraq after all, so while you try and spin the war for political gain, it is the Conservatives who put our nation at risk by failing to recognize and continuing to ignore the real and immediate threat.
Tick tock, tick tock!
Where's the article featuring a Democrat comparing the Iraqi insurgents to the founding fathers? We're still waiting.
You right-wingers shouldn't make accusations that you can't back up with evidence or facts. You only hurt your own credibility.
Please show it to us, so I can start going after a Democrat. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one. Don't let me down!
Not only were we safer knowing where the bombs were, I would argue we were much safer with semi-strong Soviet Union bottling up Islamic fundamentalist, occupying the resources of nations nearby the USSR such as Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, China, etc and working to reduce nuclear proliferation than having a poor Russia with little tracking of nuclear material that has a black market that sells plutonium to rogue nations and potentially to non nation states such as Al Quida and who cannot due much to stop the continued growth of Iranian sponsored fundamentalism in Central Asia. The Devil you know is better than the devil you don't know, and while I was no fan of the Soviet Union, I'd rather be dealing face to face with the Soviets using diplomacy and if it ever came to that a red phone rather than wondering and hoping nuclear weapons aren't in the hands of people who will not respect human lives and international treaties.
Tommy and Anonymous who is attacking Mark:
Do you get your talking points everyday from the local REC leadership? Guys, I know who you are and if you want to post as anonymous, that's quite alright since you don't want anyone else to know, but don't think I'm not on to you guys. I'm just wondering what the Reagan Legacy project has been sending you guys. I'm going to be nice and just let you know this is just the beginning of my effort to expose the real legacy of the Reagan Presidency.
Thought of the day:
NASCAR = Nearly all stupid caucasians are Republicans.
And btw, Reagan really was a pussy.
I can do fun with letters too - check it out:
GOP = Girlies Or Pussies*
* You can substitute the last word with "panzy" if that suits you better. If you are a pussy, you probably should.
Ha ha
Still waiting for the article since yesterday. Yawnnnn! I'll keep waiting I guess. Just don't keep me up all night. ;)
You know who we are? I'm scared!
Kartik, you do know me but you should be smarter than this. You'll be marginalized for good if you attack someone that most DEMOCRATS agree was a patriot and a good president. So you wan't blame Iran-Contra on him? Fine, if you believe that that stopping Saddam Hussein and the Communists in Central America was a waste of America's time. It was the Democratic Congress that stopped us from arming the Contras and it was the Democrats who wanted to stiop funding Radio Marti to Cuba in order to placate Castro. The Democrats are the real p-word and pinkos as well!
We've hit a record for number of posts. Thanks for your support GOP activists!
As Mark said, the Reagan legacy includes support of Saddam. Don't believe me or Mark. Why don't you pick up the new issue of GQ? Saddam states that he and Reagan were buddies. So if we believe Bush and live by the mantra you are either with us or with them, well then Reagan was with them. C'mon, can't you guys at least be honest. Either Reagan was bad news for arming Saddam or Bush was bad news for taking him out. You cannot be on both sides of this one, folks.
Kartik, why are you talking to these guys? Who cares who they are? They're just a bunch of guys who are uncapable of reading a history book. That's why they make up all their facts about Reagan.
Reagan was a poor president, was responsible for Osama bin Ladin, and was largely responsible for 9/11. More than 3000 innocent people were brutally murdered, and we're supposed to treat Reagan with respect? Please!
Keep it up Kartik. And don't worry about the threats - these are Palm Beach Republicans - what can they do? With the exception of the liberal Republican Mary M., they are totally impotent in the county.
Mark,
Don't worry. I'm not backing off. These people are all against McCarty as well, funny you'd mention her. They don't like moderates in EITHER party.
Whoever the "Anonymous" SS Stormtrooper was who is threatening you (what else could he mean by "marginalized"), he should shut up and just continue goose-stepping in lockstep with the other right-wing fascists.
However, I'd like to point out one thing: Yes, the Democrats did cut the funding to the contras...guilty as charged. But don't glaze over the fact that it happened after it was found out that the Contras were murdering and torturing civilians (remember the three dead nuns and the dead priest?) and that the CIA had violated international law by mining the port of Managua.
Our goals in Latin America may have been correct - containing socialist expansion in South/Latin America is in our interests politically, economically, and militarily. But the policies enacted by Pointdexter, North, Abrahms, et. al. to achieve those goals were outside the law.
This is the moral equivalent of cops failing to obtain search warrants, planting evidence, or coercing witnesses.
Congress was right to step in and stop the crimes committed with US Tax Dollars. Congress was correct in ordering an investigation. However, because doing so sullied the reputation and legacy of the ONLY conservative President ever elected this century, the GOP has tried to frame a legitimate criminal investigation as a politically motivated witch hunt. So Reagan denied any knowledge, underlings fell on their swords, and the whole thing went away...or so we thought.
I am proud of the Democrats who stopped the funding, because they sided with the law, whereas the Iran-Contra conspirators trampled on it. In their mind, any means necessary was ok if it stopped communism.
My question to these "wingnuts" as I like to call them is this: how bad can communism really be if containing it justifies breaking the laws of a free Republic? I have a bigger problem with conservative lawbreakers at home than leftist guerillas in a tropical rainforest.
If Iran-contra taught us one thing it is that the Reagan legacy instilled among the new generation of so-called "conservatives" a sense of entitlement to break laws and circumvent our Constition when it gets in the way of political ideologies or agendas.
North & Pointdexter were criminals, and was Liddy under Nixon. I find it interesting that Republicans look at these criminals as heroes, and it says a great deal about their character...or lack of it.
PS Not only was Reagan a pussy, but he was no patriot...he was a traitor to his country.
He swore an oath to defend the Consitution, and put people to work who spat on it in the name of containing communism. And you people on the right have the gall to call him a great American President.
Hey bluedog, that was ruff!
Post a Comment