Reflecting on Reagan

[hardheadjarhead]

As far as Iran-contra goes, I think the intent was noble to help the contras overthrown the dictators down in Central America. Many were claiming that he was carrying on a secret war. but in reality these things happen all the time under every president. <snip>

And the real story behind Iran-contra was we had been sending arms to Iran for quite some time. But the problem was when they wanted the high speed surface to air missles (Sparrow misslies I beleive) and we sent them low speed air to ground missiles (Penguin missiles). <snip>

Ender,

I agree with your attitudes towards farm subsidies.

Insofar as the Iran-Contra scandal, however, I have to disagree strongly.

1. The Sandanista government wasn't a dictatorship as you claim. As I pointed out it was a democratically elected government. The Sandanistas (FSLN) overthrew the Somoza dictatorship (and this WAS a dictatorship) in July of 1979. They immediately instituted a policy of mass immunizations and education aimed at reversing the high illiteracy rates.

A legitimate general election held in 1984 confirmed their rule, with the FSLN capturing 67 percent of the vote. As noted earlier, six other parties ran for office and captured over a third of the seats in the legislature. Given this fact and that western observers noted this was a fairly run election, it is doubtful the FSLN was a "dictatorship." Since then Daniel Ortega, head of the FSLN has run twice for office and been defeated. Dictators don't get defeated in elections...they seize and maintain power through force.

Following the election the U.S. instituted a trade embargo that put a stranglehold on the country for five years. According to the International Court of Justice, the U.S. mined Nicaragua's harbors at this time as well.

2. The U.S. had sold arms to Iran when they were under the thumb of the Shah Reza Pahlavi. Our previous legal and above board sale of arms to them in no way validates the Reagan administration's highly illegal sale of arms to the Islamic revolutionaries who ousted the Shah. This act violated the Boland amendment which was passed by Congress in 1983 and signed by Ronald Reagan himself.

3. The missles in question were TOW anti-tank missiles. 18 Hawk surface to air missles were brokered by Israel as part of the deal. No Penguin missiles or Sparrows were involved.

4. That Presidents carry on "secret wars" and have for some time also does not validate the actions of the Reagan administration, which were in direct violation of an act passed by Congress (as I've indicated).

5. In addition to being a crime, the act was grossly hypocritical given Reagan's flag-waving condemnation of the Iranians for their murder of 241 American Marines in Beirut...and then he illegally sells weapons to them just over a month later.

This act betrayed those Marines and their families, and danged if it didn't give aid and comfort to the enemy.


There is a word for this: Treason.




Regards,


Steve

 

[MartialArtist68]

HOW STUPID DO THEY THINK WE ARE? I mean, COME ON. If I said I set fire to a building in a journal entry, one of the most personal forms of expression, and that text was found by the police, but I then said I didn't do it, I'd be a convicted felon. Why was it any different for the President? It's the same as under the current admin.


Cheers,
Patrick
:idunno:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't we all just get along?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I was a kid when Reagan was President. I remember the Iran-Contra hearings. I had to learn most of the facts of the matter later, as I all I saw on the news was the President saying over and over, in his totally sincere, Holloywood manner, "I don't recall."

For some it may be Nixon, but for me and my cohort it was seeing the President lie about, as I found out later, helping to destroy an elected government and install a dictator, that made me think all politicians lie. And of course they do. But I was far more horrified about that kind of lie than Clinton lying about screwing around with Lewinsky. I felt badly for his wife to find out about it on TV, but hey, it's their business.

It seems that Reagan was genuinely loved by his wife (very much), and his close friends. But I remember the President who said ridiculous things about trees polluting (as I was learning about photosynthesis in school), and who's concept of economics seemed ridiculous to me. "Trickle down economics, my ***." (There's a double entendre in there somewhere!)

Of course we should show former Presidents respect when they pass away. But I am growing increasingly tired and frustruated with attempts to virtually cannonize the man. Present government aside, I found little to like about his terms in office.

 

[Ender]

The Sandanista government was only a democratically elected government in name only. No one could actually believe there were true democratic principles in any way, shape or form. It was election held at gunpoint, that hardly qualifies.

Actually there were Penquin and Sparrow misslies involved. You have to read the trade papers of that time and piece it together to get the real story. But Iran perceived it as a double cross and went public. I remember reading the article in Janes and them showing the differences between the two weapons, and the huge deployment differences. I was on the B-2 project at the time and there were some concerns about the electronic warfare defenses being able to cope with the latest surface to air weaponry. But thats all I can say right now. The stories in the papers hardly revealed the whole truth about what was going on.

And no, treason is when terrorist attacks on the USS Cole, The first WTC Attack and the attack on the US Embassies in Africa go unanswered. When President Clinton peddles influence to the Chinese government in exchange for contributions to the Democratic party. When President Clinton uses FBI files against citizens of the US to seek revenge on them. When he peddles the Lincoln Bedroom for financial gain. When he gains financially from insider information in the stock market....THAT is treason.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah. So Lawrence Walsh and the special prosecutor's office report had it totally wrong. They said 1000 TOW missiles, and that the Iranians returned the 17 HAWKs, though, not the assorted other spare parts.

I'm just curious exactly how it is that you justify having the President and a group of clowns like Ollie North break the law, violate the express intents of the Congress of the United States of America (sorry, but we're a representative democracy...aren't we supposed to...you know...follow the law?), sell arms to an avowed enemy of this country, use the proceeds to finance death squads, and then lie about it to save their asses?

As for the elections in Nicaragua during the 1970s, glad to see the same old same old argument.

"1984: Sandinistas claim election victory
Nicaragua's ruling Sandinista Front (FSLN) has claimed a decisive victory in the country's first elections since the revolution five years ago.

Within hours of the count beginning, the leader of the country's left-wing junta, Daniel Ortega, said he had gained nearly 70% of the vote in the presidential election.

Mr Ortega said his party won a similar share of the vote in the parliamentary election.

Mr Ortega said: "We can already say that the FSLN is the clear winner of these elections by an ample majority."

The Sandinistas' nearest rivals have so far polled just 11% of the vote but Nicaragua's leading right-wing parties boycotted the ballots.

Turnout was high with an estimated 83% of the country's 1.5 million-strong electorate casting a vote.

Foreign observers

The Sandinistas have been at pains to convince the outside world, especially the US, that the elections were free and fair.

Approximately 400 independent foreign observers, including a number of Americans, were in Nicaragua to monitor proceedings.

The unofficial British election observer, Lord Chitnis, said proceedings were not perfect but he had no doubt the elections were fair.

In 1979 the Sandinistas - named after an assassinated former leader of Nicaragua - ousted long-time dictator Anastasio Somoza.

The Sandinistas have been at odds with the US ever since, especially since the superpower began assisting the party's main opponents, the Contras.

The Contras, based in neighbouring Honduras, are engaged in a guerrilla war aimed at ousting the Sandinista Front."

This is from the BBC, which goes on to note that the Sandinista government lost in the 1990 elections to the Chamorro government, which had very different politics--some Commie dictatorship.

I see that you didn't want to mention the Allende government, nor the US-backed coup. Or the Mossadegh government, and the US-backed coup.

Well, I wouldn't either.

Again, let me recommed Twain: "To the People Sitting In Darkness."

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah. Bill Clinton, Satan Incarnate.

Treason's a mighty big word.

Would it apply to speaking in support of Hitler? Charles Lindbergh did that.

How 'bout selling secret technology to Russia and Japan? US corporations have done that, repeatedly.

Oh wait--knowingly and deliberately lying to Congress...Curtis leMay, and the Gulf of Tonkin boys did that.

Oh, I know. Having another political party's headquarters burglarized...creating an "enemies list...." the Christmas bombing....invading Cambodia and lying about it...Dick Nixon did that.

Or wait, wait, don't tell me...selling arms to murderers, against the will of the Congress, and using the money to finance more murderers...does that count? Reagan did that.

Or lying about WMDs...ducking out on dealing with North Korea...hm. Who's that, now?

But by all means. Bill Clinton, evil incarnate.

 

[michaeledward]

There are quite a few statements in Ender's post that require some attention, however, I will limit myself to just this one.

treason is when terrorist attacks on the USS Cole, The first WTC Attack and the attack on the US Embassies in Africa go unanswered.

The first WTC attack was answered in a court of law. Most of the perpetrators are sitting an American prison cells right now.

The attacks on the US Embassies in Africa were responded to with Cruise missle attacks in Sudan and Afghanistan.

The USS Cole was not responded to during Clinton's last 4 months in office because the intelligence community would not assign blame to any entity. The CIA could not state with an appropriate amount of certainty who the perpetrators were from September 2000 to January 2001. I believe, they CIA did finally ascribe the attack on the Cole to al-Qaeda in May of 2001, at which time, the Bush adminstration did .... NOTHING.

Thanks - Mike

Oh, what the hell ... one more ...

When (the) President ... (takes actions) ... against citizens of the US to seek revenge on them.

.

Do the words ...

Joseph Wilson - Valerie Plame

mean anything to you .... Jiminy Crickets.

 

[rmcrobertson]

The essential problem this reflects--and why it ties to reflecting on Reagan--is this: when it suits their ideology, people will pretty much throw reality right out whatever window is closest. They will also give reason the old heave-ho.

Yes, of course, liberals and lefties and commies (and all three groups are different, by the way, though collapsing them together is a good sign of what I'm talking about) can do the same thing. Sure; obviously true.

However, the facts are that in this case, it ain't the liberals and lefties and commies who've been shooting the facts and rationality right in the head. In this case, we have a sitting President--Ronald Reagan--who issued directives that clearly violated the express will of Congress and this little thing called the law. And he did it--check the Walsh final report!--in order to send arms to a group of radical religious loons in Iran, and then had some of the proceeds used to support a group of murdering right-wing bastards with direct ties to the drug trade in Latin America. I'm so very proud.

And please realpolitik me no realpolitik. I understand--and so does everybody else above the age of twelve--that at times, politicians get their hands very, very dirty. I understand--and so does everybody above the age of twelve--that they do these things in our name. But in this case, screwing around with Iran has directly contributed to the ongoing mess in the Middle East. Supporting Hussein in Iraq--which we were doing way back then, a long twenty years ago--contributed directly to another current mess you may have heard of. And in Latin America, about the only country that HAS had honest elections (note to Ender: see, your average corrupt commie dictatorship DOESN'T LET ITSELF GET VOTED OUT OF POWER the way Ortega et al did) is Nicaragua.

We screwed around with Cuba: how'd that work out for everybody? With Panama: how'd that go? With Colombia: now THERE'S a stable, happy country. With Haiti--anybody besides me see a pattern here?

When ya lets the Prez get away with waving the flag and thumping the Bible, while his wife's setting up the White House appointments calendar according to her astrologer's insights, you are screwing around with reality.

Some folks REALLY aren't going to like this, but a big chunk of the reason Reagan looks good is that this country is incredibly wealthy, incredibly powerful, and--historically speaking--lucky as all hell. If we continue this crap, sooner or later the luck is going to run out.

Oh, and incidentally--the 9/11 Comission is reporting that Hussein had nothoing to do with 9/11.

 

[MisterMike]

The first WTC attack was answered in a court of law.

Most of the perpetrators are sitting an American prison cells right now.

I don't think those are answers. More like short-term solutions/distractions. Take your pick.

An answer, or solution is when you find the root of the trouble and cut it's head off.

Oh and I love how our politicians get the blame for 9/11 and Saddam's innocence is proclaimed. (Even though he had contacts in Sudan and Afghanistan.) Probably just plaing cards or something. I guess OJ in "reality" was innocent too.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh. So first, Clinton didn't do anything at all. Now he did, but it wasn't enough for you. Next, it'll be that the republicans fixed everything anyway.

May I also ask who precisely it was who claimed that Hussein was innocent? I seem to've read that the claim was he didn't have anything to do with 9/11, partly because he was afraid to.

And just incidentally, you might keep it in mind that WE trained a lot of the Taliban, and supplied them with arms too...didn't you see Rambo like, IV?

 

[Cruentus]

Real quick...and no I haven't carefully read all responses yet, but lets talk about Reagan and the economy.

The economy started to turn around in 1982; yes coincidentally this was Regean was in office. However the market cycle/ economic cycle over a period of the last 200 years go through an average of 14 year bull markets, and 14 year bear markets and stagnant markets/economy. This is part of the natural cycle. At around 1968 or so (I'd have to look at my big chart to get the exact date) we hit a bear, and all through the 70's was a stagnant marketplace. A 1982 upturn in the economy until the technology bust in 2001 was all part of the natural market cycle. I am not convinced that Reagon did anything to "help" the economy any more then G.W. Bush helped our recovery, or then Clinton helped our prosperiety. The economy has a lot more to do with who is in office, although that is a factor.

I guess I am saying that I am not convinced that Reagon did ANYTHING to help the economy in 1982 and during his presidency, as the upturn was part of a natural cycle. If any of you have any information to prove what I say to be different, by all means have at it.

:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

Oh. So first, Clinton didn't do anything at all. Now he did, but it wasn't enough for you. Next, it'll be that the republicans fixed everything anyway.

May I also ask who precisely it was who claimed that Hussein was innocent? I seem to've read that the claim was he didn't have anything to do with 9/11, partly because he was afraid to.

And just incidentally, you might keep it in mind that WE trained a lot of the Taliban, and supplied them with arms too...didn't you see Rambo like, IV?

Yeah, thats like Rambo III where he puts the gunpowder in the shrapnal wound and ignites it to cauterize it.

Interesting how people can go from freedom fighters one minute, to religious fanatics the next. I wonder how many of those rpgs that are killing our soldiers in Iraq are leftovers from those days... :idunno:

 

[Ender]

Real quick...and no I haven't carefully read all responses yet, but lets talk about Reagan and the economy.

The economy started to turn around in 1982; yes coincidentally this was Regean was in office. However the market cycle/ economic cycle over a period of the last 200 years go through an average of 14 year bull markets, and 14 year bear markets and stagnant markets/economy. This is part of the natural cycle. At around 1968 or so (I'd have to look at my big chart to get the exact date) we hit a bear, and all through the 70's was a stagnant marketplace. A 1982 upturn in the economy until the technology bust in 2001 was all part of the natural market cycle. I am not convinced that Reagon did anything to "help" the economy any more then G.W. Bush helped our recovery, or then Clinton helped our prosperiety. The economy has a lot more to do with who is in office, although that is a factor.

I guess I am saying that I am not convinced that Reagon did ANYTHING to help the economy in 1982 and during his presidency, as the upturn was part of a natural cycle. If any of you have any information to prove what I say to be different, by all means have at it.

:asian:

Well actually what Reagan did to the economy was revolutionary. Prior to that time the government was heavily involved in too many avenues of the economy. I.E. Price controls, Wage/price freezes, over regulation. Conventional wisdom was that the federal government would control the economy, but as Carter proved, that was the wrong solution. Reagan came in and had the politcal muscle to implement the tax cuts and put the money back in the hands of the consumers and business. Kennedy tried to do the same thing in the 60's but was a bit distracted with that whole Cuban missile thing. It's also interesting to note that Kennedy wanted to do away dividend and inheritance taxes. Anyway, the tax cuts allow consumers and business to invest, save, or spend their money at 95% efficiency rate, compared to a 65% efficiency rate of the government.

Generally speaking, when you have high inflation rates you'll have low unemployment rate, Or when you have high interest rates you'll have low inflation. You raise or lower one to affect the other. You'll hear nowadays how inflation may be increasing so the Fed will raise the prime rate to stem the tide. High inflation means consumers are affluent enough to chase after too few prodcuts, causing the prices to rise: "too many dollars chasing to few goods". Affluent consumers generally means high employment to allow consumers to purchase said goods. But what we had was the "triple whammy" or a high misery index. Interest rates were too high for business to borrow capital to increase manufacturing capacity. Inflation would have made these loans inadequate because they would lose value before they could become invested. Consumers couldn't borrow money also because of high interest, but included in that was the high unemployment rate .A new weapon or tool was needed to deal with these issues.

That new tool was tax cuts. The tax cuts would offset the inflation rate and business could invest more to increase capacity, and the result would be that business would hire more people to produce the new capacity. More people hired for jobs means the consumer can purchase or borrow , because of increased confidence, on long term investments or big ticket items like housing. As the inflation rate dropped and unemployment decreasing, the interest rates would drop making loans even more affordable. The tax cuts left the Federal government with less control over the economy. The big bonus to this was that tax revenues were greatly increased! Now tax cuts are used primarily to put money into consumers hand and not necesarily in business'.

This is what Reagan did.


And as far as the Sandinistas are concerned, I don't think anyone here would want to live under a Sandinista "Democracy" or "Republic". *smirk

 

[Makalakumu]

That wasn't the first time I've heard that Reagan and Kennedy were about dead even when it came to policy. I have a friend who happens to be one of the only conservative college professors I know and he is always saying that. Any truth to this claim?

 

[michaeledward]

I don't think those are answers. More like short-term solutions/distractions. Take your pick.

An answer, or solution is when you find the root of the trouble and cut it's head off.

You mean kinda like Zarquari did with Nicolas Berg?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The Sandanista government was only a democratically elected government in name only. No one could actually believe there were true democratic principles in any way, shape or form. It was election held at gunpoint, that hardly qualifies.

No. It wasn't. I've provided information to indicate that it was a fairly elected government. You have yet to provide any data contradicting it. Robert and I both have pointed out that dictatorships don't get elected out of office. The "dictator" Ortega has lost in elections at least three times. Guys who seize power at gunpoint don't lose elections, Ender.

Are you reading these posts? You ought to. You're getting hammered pretty badly here.

Actually there were Penquin and Sparrow misslies involved. <snip>The stories in the papers hardly revealed the whole truth about what was going on.

As in the issue with the "dictatorship", you have not provided a lick of data here. Its a small point, but I bring it up to point out that your background information entering into this debate is suspect. Provide us with your sources...some links would be nice...and then we can verify what seems to be so far spurious information.

And no, treason is when terrorist attacks <snip>When he gains financially from insider information in the stock market....THAT is treason.

Here we have an attempt to derail the course of the argument by bringing up a totally unrelated issue. THIS THREAD IS ON REAGAN. When confronted with an undeniable truth that you find distasteful, you deflect attention away from it. Rather than address a statement, you attempt to switch gears with a form of "tu quoque" argument. Mistermike did this too with his "O.J." reference. He does it quite often.

If you want a Clinton thread, start a Clinton thread...but stay on track with this one. Attempting to derail the argument like this is a woeful display of impotence in the art of debate.


Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

The tax cuts left the Federal government with less control over the economy. The big bonus to this was that tax revenues were greatly increased!

Once again ... what we have here is a failure to understand the facts.

The 'Big Bonus' were the largest federal deficits in the history of the country (up until W. got reigns of power).

You know ... that year when I made $35,000.00 and put another $40,000.00 on my credit cards, I lived pretty good for a while (70 grand in spending on 35 grand in income - woo woo). But sooner or later ... somebody is going to come looking for the money.

Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

Judging by a couple of the last posts, Reagan's single most astonishing achievement was to get working class people to rewrite basic economics, common sense, and history in ways diametrically opposed to their own best interests.

And by the way, tax cuts are hardly revolutionary. Dick Nixon instituted price controls. Carter started the military buildup that Reagan took credit for. Actual wages have been dropping for the last few years. The workweek is climbing. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Global warming is real.

But hey, all's for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Reagan and his Republican successors have managed, as you suggest, to sell the public an optimism not warranted by the situation. Wave the flag, sing the anthem, recite the pledge...and put down anybody and anything that you deem "un-'merican". Demonize the left and give yourself the mantle of "Holy Moral Crusader." Whip out pithy aphorisms and give jingoistic speeches. Talk about Freedom while working behind the scenes to restrict the freedom of your adversaries.

The notion of the "liberal media" not cracking on Reagan inspite of his transgressions because he was justified in carrying them out is misleading. They did indeed fail to go after him, and showed him undue reverence given his crimes. Why? He made good copy, perhaps. Maybe Watergate had oversensitized the press. Perhaps they felt that another Republican President ousted in scandal was too much for the public to handle. Maybe the thought our National morale was at stake. I honestly don't know, and am conjecturing here.

Reagan was truly the "Teflon President". Nobody attempted to make anything stick to him...deserve it though he did. With Clinton they were vitriolic...going after him with a rabid intensity for more than eight years. With Bush II they once again seem cowed. Even Tim Russert fails to ask the obvious follow up questions.

Mr. Mike and others, perhaps, will say this is due to the media's recognition of the vast disparities in character between the two Republican Presidents and Clinton. Yesterday we maligned the "lib'ral media" for their bias to the left, today we praise them for their enlightenment.

What I find disturbing is our people's inability to seek substance in their politics. We are a nation of sheep, easily herded by warm and fuzzy Republican rhetoric. We glory that we are "a shining city upon a hill", held up as example to all people everywhere. We then shame ourselves with acts so egregious in their criminality and arrogance that the world stands appalled.

We then point the finger at others, pointing out how their actions were similar, but much worse.

Leaders...true leaders...never use "tu quoque" arguments. Regardless, there is no excuse, for as occupants of a Shining City, there should be none for the taking.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Feisty Mouse]

We are a nation of sheep, easily herded by warm and fuzzy Republican rhetoric. We glory that we are "a shining city upon a hill", held up as example to all people everywhere. We then shame ourselves with acts so egregious in their criminality and arrogance that the world stands appalled.

We then point the finger at others, pointing out how their actions were similar, but much worse.

Sad but true. Seductive, easy-sounding rhetoric is often used....and then the topic is changed if and when pressed on the details.