10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You to Know About Reagan

Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
edited February 2011 in A Moving Train
http://www.alternet.org/story/149812/10 ... ut_reagan/

10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You to Know About Reagan
The image of Reagan as a conservative superhero is myth, created to unite the various factions of the right behind a common leader.

Sunday marked the 100th anniversary of President Reagan’s birth, and all week, conservatives tried to outdo each others’ remembrances of the great conservative icon. Senate Republicans spent much of Thursday singing Reagan’s praise from the Senate floor, while conservative publications have been running non-stop commemorations. Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee and former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich are hoping to make a few bucks off the Gipper’s centennial.

But Reagan was not the man conservatives claim he was. This image of Reagan as a conservative superhero is myth, created to unite the various factions of the right behind a common leader. In reality, Reagan was no conservative ideologue or flawless commander-in-chief. Reagan regularly strayed from conservative dogma — he raised taxes eleven times as president while tripling the deficit — and he often ended up on the wrong side of history, like when he vetoed an Anti-Apartheid bill.

ThinkProgress has compiled a list of the top 10 things conservatives rarely mention when talking about President Reagan:

1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.

4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to choose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice.

6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” “This vision stemmed from the president’s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war — and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,” the Washington Monthly noted. And Reagan’s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but “also to put the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective arms control” for the the entire world — a vision acted out by Regean’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.

7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.

8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.

9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,” saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”

10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

Conservatives seem to be in such denial about the less flattering aspects of Reagan; it sometimes appears as if they genuinely don’t know the truth of his legacy. When liberal activist Mike Stark challenged hate radio host Rush Limbaugh on why Reagan remains a conservative hero despite raising taxes so many times, Limbaugh flew into a tirade and demanded, “Where did you get this silly notion that Reagan raised taxes?“
don't compete; coexist

what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • jg1988jg1988 Posts: 181
    If a few of these points are considered to be bad, Obama has done them as well...so who is right and wrong?
  • jg1988 wrote:
    If a few of these points are considered to be bad, Obama has done them as well...so who is right and wrong?

    They are only "bad" because they go against the whole mythical image that the right wingers have created about Reagan.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • :roll: Gee you think you could find a more biased website than think progress ? Look Regan wasn't perfect by any means. Did he make mistakes ? Yes, doesn't every president ? Im going to take the time and research every one of those examples and I wouldn't be suprised if there was a good reason he did what he did. And I wouldn't be suprised if any of these examples listed are not the whole story or simply just not true.


    #10 just for starters..

    10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

    So where's the part where Charlie Wilson and the CIA was the driving force behind arming the Afghans against the Soviets? Also aid started in 1979 when Jimmy Carter was in office . Regan's term started in 81 and it was a D. controlled office So what is it, Wilson (Democrat) good, Regan (Republican) bad ? Not only that I think the Soviets withdrew in 1989....Taliban didn't become active until at least five years later. And who wouldn't agree that we saved thousands of lives by giving the Mujahadeen surface to air missles so they could take out Russian helicopters

    This is nothing more than half truths. It's what the left does best.
    I wonder... When it's B.J. Clintons Birthday will thinkprogress mention how OBL got away leading up to 911 :think:
  • Dudes dead, I don't care.
    I'll be back
  • Dudes dead, I don't care.


    Well that's one way of looking at it,but it's typical of the far left. They are always trying to distort history or simply choose to ignore it.
  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    edited February 2011
    jg1988 wrote:
    If a few of these points are considered to be bad, Obama has done them as well...so who is right and wrong?

    Why make this a Reagan/Obama thing? Why can't we just look at the article presented and discuss it.

    Stupid, stupid society we live in, trapped into the mindless, unintelligent, lazy, idiotic binary mode of thinking.
    Post edited by whygohome on
  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    prfctlefts wrote:
    :roll: Gee you think you could find a more biased website than think progress ? Look Regan wasn't perfect by any means. Did he make mistakes ? Yes, doesn't every president ? Im going to take the time and research every one of those examples and I wouldn't be suprised if there was a good reason he did what he did. And I wouldn't be suprised if any of these examples listed are not the whole story or simply just not true.


    #10 just for starters..

    10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

    So where's the part where Charlie Wilson and the CIA was the driving force behind arming the Afghans against the Soviets? Also aid started in 1979 when Jimmy Carter was in office . Regan's term started in 81 and it was a D. controlled office So what is it, Wilson (Democrat) good, Regan (Republican) bad ? Not only that I think the Soviets withdrew in 1989....Taliban didn't become active until at least five years later. And who wouldn't agree that we saved thousands of lives by giving the Mujahadeen surface to air missles so they could take out Russian helicopters

    This is nothing more than half truths. It's what the left does best.
    I wonder... When it's B.J. Clintons Birthday will thinkprogress mention how OBL got away leading up to 911 :think:


    Why make this a Left/right thing? Why can't we just look at the article presented and discuss it.

    And I repeat, we are a stupid, stupid society; we are trapped into the mindless, unintelligent, lazy, idiotic binary mode of thinking: left/right, dem/rep, lib/cons

    People cling to political parties like they cling to religions. it is so sad....and stupid. We have a long way to go in this country
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jg1988 wrote:
    Obama has done them as well.

    No he hasn't. Did you even read the list?
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    prfctlefts wrote:
    :roll: Gee you think you could find a more biased website than think progress ? Look Regan wasn't perfect by any means. Did he make mistakes ? Yes, doesn't every president ? Im going to take the time and research every one of those examples and I wouldn't be suprised if there was a good reason he did what he did. And I wouldn't be suprised if any of these examples listed are not the whole story or simply just not true.


    #10 just for starters..

    10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

    So where's the part where Charlie Wilson and the CIA was the driving force behind arming the Afghans against the Soviets? Also aid started in 1979 when Jimmy Carter was in office . Regan's term started in 81 and it was a D. controlled office So what is it, Wilson (Democrat) good, Regan (Republican) bad ? Not only that I think the Soviets withdrew in 1989....Taliban didn't become active until at least five years later.

    This is nothing more than half truths. It's what the left does best.
    I wonder... When it's B.J. Clintons Birthday will thinkprogress mention how OBL got away leading up to 911 :think:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen ... nd_support
    Under Reagan, U.S. support for the mujahideen evolved into an official U.S. foreign policy, known as the Reagan Doctrine, which included U.S. support for anti-Soviet movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere.[16] Ronald Reagan praised mujahideen as "freedom fighters".


    prfctlefts wrote:
    And who wouldn't agree that we saved thousands of lives by giving the Mujahadeen surface to air missles so they could take out Russian helicopters?

    I wouldn't agree. If you'd just presented the facts instead of cherry-picking them then you'd have also mentioned that the U.S sought to provoke an invasion from the Soviets in the first place by supplying the opposition with arms and other supplies. In an interview with Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski 'he is quoted as saying that the US provided aid to the mujahideen prior to the Soviet invasion for the deliberate purpose of provoking one.'



    Reagan increased the budget for support of the radical Muslim Mujahidin conducting terrorism against the leftist Afghanistan government to half a billion dollars a year.

    One fifth of the money, which the CIA mostly turned over to Pakistani military intelligence to distribute, went to Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, a violent extremist who as a youth used to throw acid on the faces of unveiled girls in Afghanistan.

    Not content with creating a vast terrorist network to harass the Soviets, Reagan then pressured the late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to match US contributions. He had earlier imposed on Fahd to give money to the Contras in Nicaragua, some of which was used to create rightwing death squads. (Reagan liked to sidestep Congress in creating private terrorist organizations for his foreign policy purposes, which he branded “freedom fighters,” giving terrorists the idea that it was all right to inflict vast damage on civilians in order to achieve their goals).

    Fahd was a timid man and resisted Reagan’s instructions briefly, but finally gave in to enormous US pressure.

    Fahd not only put Saudi government money into the Afghan Mujahideen networks, which trained them in bomb making and guerrilla tactics, but he also instructed the Minister of Intelligence, Turki al-Faisal, to try to raise money from private sources.

    Turki al-Faisal checked around and discovered that a young member of the fabulously wealthy Bin Laden construction dynasty, Usama, was committed to Islamic causes. Turki thus gave Usama the task of raising money from Gulf millionaires for the Afghan struggle. This whole effort was undertaken, remember, on Reagan Administration instructions.

    Bin Laden not only raised millions for the effort, but helped encourage Arab volunteers to go fight for Reagan against the Soviets and the Afghan communists. The Arab volunteers included people like Ayman al-Zawahiri, a young physician who had been jailed for having been involved in the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar El-Sadat. Bin Laden kept a database of these volunteers. In Arabic the word for base is al-Qaeda.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    11. NAFTA was Reagan's Idea
    The impetus for NAFTA actually began with President Ronald Regan, who campaigned on a North American common market. In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act. This is important because it gave the President "fast-track" authority to negotiate free trade agreements, while only allowing Congress the ability to approve or disapprove, not change negotiating points. Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney agreed with Reagan to begin negotiations for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which was signed in 1988, went into effect in 1989 and is now suspended due to NAFTA.
    (Source: NaFina, NAFTA Timeline)
    http://useconomy.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=useconomy&cdn=newsissues&tm=144&gps=627_354_1192_628&f=00&su=p649.6.336.ip_&tt=11&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.fina-nafi.org/eng/integ/chronologie.asp%3Flangue%3Deng%26menu%3Dinteg
    ...
    Ask Conservatives what they think about NAFTA. The answer is usually not in favor of it.
    P.S. Signed by George H.W. Bush (August 1992)
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    prfctlefts wrote:
    :roll: Gee you think you could find a more biased website than think progress ? Look Regan wasn't perfect by any means. Did he make mistakes ? Yes, doesn't every president ? Im going to take the time and research every one of those examples and I wouldn't be suprised if there was a good reason he did what he did. And I wouldn't be suprised if any of these examples listed are not the whole story or simply just not true.


    #10 just for starters..

    10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

    So where's the part where Charlie Wilson and the CIA was the driving force behind arming the Afghans against the Soviets? Also aid started in 1979 when Jimmy Carter was in office . Regan's term started in 81 and it was a D. controlled office So what is it, Wilson (Democrat) good, Regan (Republican) bad ? Not only that I think the Soviets withdrew in 1989....Taliban didn't become active until at least five years later. And who wouldn't agree that we saved thousands of lives by giving the Mujahadeen surface to air missles so they could take out Russian helicopters

    This is nothing more than half truths. It's what the left does best.
    I wonder... When it's B.J. Clintons Birthday will thinkprogress mention how OBL got away leading up to 911 :think:
    ...
    So... is what you are alluding to is that President Reagan was an impotent dufus from 1981 to 1989?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    prfctlefts wrote:
    Dudes dead, I don't care.


    Well that's one way of looking at it,but it's typical of the far left. They are always trying to distort history or simply choose to ignore it.

    So, we've admitted that Carter was initially involved in suppliying aid to the Mujahadeen in an attempt to overthrow the leftist Afghan governmnent, before Reagan turned it into a full-scale enterprise - something that I'm sure you'll be proud of.

    So how about the other points raised? Did Reagan not illegally funnel weapons to Iran? Or is that just a half-truth?

    Did Reagan arm and train the Contra death squads in Nicaragua, and then try to protect them from scrutiny after countless masssacres were exposed and hundreds of thousands of civilians slaughtered? Or is that just a half-truth?

    Did Reagan not veto numerous Anti-apartheid resolutions at the U.N? Or is that just a half-truth?
  • I swear I think you have a hard on for any thing you can find that sheds a negative light on America or our gov. At least Regan would admit when he was wrong. And where do you live ? China ;) :roll: Now there's a country thats a great roll model when it comes to human rights ,
  • No not at all. He was a he'll of a a lot smarter than our current president and not to mention both bushes and Clinton IMO. And furthermore don't you live in California? You guys just reelected Moonbeam and Barbra Boxer :lol: oh but don't worry well be bailing your asses out sooner or later because your state is completely bankrupt due to statism



    Cosmo wrote:
    prfctlefts wrote:
    :roll: Gee you think you could find a more biased website than think progress ? Look Regan wasn't perfect by any means. Did he make mistakes ? Yes, doesn't every president ? Im going to take reelected the time and research every one of those examples and I wouldn't be suprised if there was a good reason he did what he did. And I wouldn't be suprised if any of these examples listed are not the whole story or simply just not true.


    #10 just for starters..

    10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

    So where's the part where Charlie Wilson and the CIA was the driving force behind arming the Afghans against the Soviets? Also aid started in 1979 when Jimmy Carter was in office . Regan's term started in 81 and it was a D. controlled office So what is it, Wilson (Democrat) good, Regan (Republican) bad ? Not only that I think the Soviets withdrew in 1989....Taliban didn't become active until at least five years later. And who wouldn't agree that we saved thousands of lives by giving the Mujahadeen surface to air missles so they could take out Russian helicopters

    This is nothing more than half truths. It's what the left does best.
    I wonder... When it's B.J. Clintons Birthday will thinkprogress mention how OBL got away leading up to 911 :think:
    ...
    So... is what you are alluding to is that President Reagan was an impotent dufus from 1981 to 1989?
  • I think conservatives have a very romantic view of Regan for a lot of what he stood for BEFORE he got elected. Go back and review his old speeches in the 70s, and he sounds much closer to a true libertarian-conservative than he turned out to be. This seems to be the pattern of any president of this country, including our present one. Shit, even W. ran on a foreign policy of non-interventionism, and look how that turned out... I don't doubt that some of these men really honestly want to change things towards their ideal when they run for president, but when they actually sit in the oval office, they find it's impossible. They are NOT in control as much as they thought the'd be. This always reminds me of the Bill Hicks routine where he talks about showing the film of Kennedy Assasinatoin the smoky room. Maybe it's the conspiracy nut in me, but sometimes I wonder if it's true? :?

    Sometimes people just love the person they helped put in power unconditionally, and just have their blinders on always after.
  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    prfctlefts wrote:
    I swear I think you have a hard on for any thing you can find that sheds a negative light on America or our gov. At least Regan would admit when he was wrong. And where do you live ? China ;) :roll: Now there's a country thats a great roll model when it comes to human rights ,

    Wow. Not at all. I hate the idea that anyone who isn't a Republican hates America. This is ludicrous. It reminds me of the 2004 election: "if you don't vote for Bush, you aren't patriotic." Pure idiocy.

    For me, someone who "leans to the left" (especially on social issues), I criticize and point out injustice because I want the country to be better. I do not want my country to be responsible for actions that I do not agree with, actions that I find invalid and unjustified, such as the 2 wars we are in right now, such as funding dictators, such as Iran-Contra, such Vietnam, such as a failed foreign policy based on imperialism and expansionism, and the list goes on.

    Its just absurd to think that anyone who isn't swelled by a false sense of nationalism or exceptionalism hates America. Silly.
  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    I think conservatives have a very romantic view of Regan for a lot of what he stood for BEFORE he got elected. Go back and review his old speeches in the 70s, and he sounds much closer to a true libertarian-conservative than he turned out to be. This seems to be the pattern of any president of this country, including our present one. Shit, even W. ran on a foreign policy of non-interventionism, and look how that turned out... I don't doubt that some of these men really honestly want to change things towards their ideal when they run for president, but when they actually sit in the oval office, they find it's impossible. They are NOT in control as much as they thought the'd be. This always reminds me of the Bill Hicks routine where he talks about showing the film of Kennedy Assasinatoin the smoky room. Maybe it's the conspiracy nut in me, but sometimes I wonder if it's true? :?

    Sometimes people just love the person they helped put in power unconditionally, and just have their blinders on always after.

    Well put.
    All that matters today is if a person has an R or a D next to their name. That is how lazy and docile the American public is.
  • jg1988jg1988 Posts: 181
    whygohome wrote:
    I think conservatives have a very romantic view of Regan for a lot of what he stood for BEFORE he got elected. Go back and review his old speeches in the 70s, and he sounds much closer to a true libertarian-conservative than he turned out to be. This seems to be the pattern of any president of this country, including our present one. Shit, even W. ran on a foreign policy of non-interventionism, and look how that turned out... I don't doubt that some of these men really honestly want to change things towards their ideal when they run for president, but when they actually sit in the oval office, they find it's impossible. They are NOT in control as much as they thought the'd be. This always reminds me of the Bill Hicks routine where he talks about showing the film of Kennedy Assasinatoin the smoky room. Maybe it's the conspiracy nut in me, but sometimes I wonder if it's true? :?

    Sometimes people just love the person they helped put in power unconditionally, and just have their blinders on always after.

    Well put.
    All that matters today is if a person has an R or a D next to their name. That is how lazy and docile the American public is.

    How does that make an American lazy? Why don't you go out and start campaigning about how awful America is and then we will see how far you get with your ideas. I think you are being way to righteous and completely stupid.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    prfctlefts wrote:
    No not at all. He was a he'll of a a lot smarter than our current president and not to mention both bushes and Clinton IMO. And furthermore don't you live in California? You guys just reelected Moonbeam and Barbra Boxer :lol: oh but don't worry well be bailing your asses out sooner or later because your state is completely bankrupt due to statism
    ...
    Everything you say here is all fine and dandy... but, irrelevant to what we are discussing. What does it have to do with what you said previously about Carter and Afghanistan?
    Reagan was President for 8 years after Carter... are you implying that in those 8 years he could not change the strategies and tactics in Afghanistan? Sounds like that the the gist of your message... that Carter and Wilson and the Democrats began Afghanistan... but, Reagan was too weak to change course... that was set by Democrats.
    If I am wrong... please, explain what you mean instead of throwing out crap that has nothing to do what what you were originally trying to point out.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    Reagan definitely was one of the worst deficit spenders...he increased the size of government. I don't think real conservatives would tell anyone that Reagan was the poster child for the conservative way of life...He was a fine republican, but those things aren't always the same.
    One thing Reagan did that I respect was eliminate some of the tax shelters. Reagan actually increased the percentage of the whole the wealthy paid in taxes. The top 10% paid a lot more of the income tax burden in this country from teh start to the end of his presidency. Democrats seem to not give any credit to Reagan for a lot of his economic policies, even though his tax "cuts" brought in more revenue for the federal government and put less of a burden on the bottom 90%. Hind sight is always 20/20, Reagan certainly wasn't perfect but he did some good things. I hope when people come on here and call him, or any president, evil it is just hyperbole to be funny...or maybe I have misunderstood what it means to be evil.
    Reagan's biggest fault was deficit spending in my mind, his social policies were a bit archaic as well, how HIV was handled was one of the biggest mistakes of the 20th century...No president is perfect, and I sure hope those that hold Reagan as a deity can at the very least acknowledge he had some faults
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    prfctlefts wrote:
    I swear I think you have a hard on for any thing you can find that sheds a negative light on America or our gov. At least Regan would admit when he was wrong. And where do you live ? China ;) :roll: Now there's a country thats a great roll model when it comes to human rights ,

    Nice way of avoiding any of the points raised.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    I think conservatives have a very romantic view of Regan for a lot of what he stood for BEFORE he got elected. Go back and review his old speeches in the 70s, and he sounds much closer to a true libertarian-conservative than he turned out to be.

    When Reagan was governor of California he declared that anyone found smoking pot should be executed.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    Reagan's biggest fault was deficit spending in my mind

    Yeah, that sure does eclipse the genocide in Latin America where hundreds of thousands of civilians were slaughtered and raped by Reagan backed death squads.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Byrnzie wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    Reagan's biggest fault was deficit spending in my mind

    Yeah, that sure does eclipse the genocide in Latin America where hundreds of thousands of civilians were slaughtered and raped by Reagan backed death squads.
    ...
    What? You mean like 'making deals with terrorists' in Iran order to fund terrorists in El Salvador and Nicaragua?
    And again... Mujahadeen were specifically called 'Freedom Fighters'. Freedom fighters that were being lead in small groups by people, including Usama Bin Laden. The great irony is the 'Hit and Run' tactics that were taught to them by us and perfected against Soviet Armor in Afghanistan were used against American Armor in Iraq.
    'The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend'. How many times did you heard shitheads repeat that line in Afghanistan in 2002?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Byrnzie wrote:
    I think conservatives have a very romantic view of Regan for a lot of what he stood for BEFORE he got elected. Go back and review his old speeches in the 70s, and he sounds much closer to a true libertarian-conservative than he turned out to be.

    When Reagan was governor of California he declared that anyone found smoking pot should be executed.

    WOW. That's a strong statement-- I've never heard this before. Is there video of him saying this, or is it in print somewhere?
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    Byrnzie wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    Reagan's biggest fault was deficit spending in my mind

    Yeah, that sure does eclipse the genocide in Latin America where hundreds of thousands of civilians were slaughtered and raped by Reagan backed death squads.


    I am sure that with the training given to them...Ronald decided it was best to have all those people killed and then ordered the killing and raping of all those people. You seem rather intelligent, I think you and I will have to agree to disagree from now on and just not bother to engage in any sort of meaningful dialog because it seems like you just want everyone to realize how much you despise the current (or any for that matter) government.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Byrnzie wrote:
    I think conservatives have a very romantic view of Regan for a lot of what he stood for BEFORE he got elected. Go back and review his old speeches in the 70s, and he sounds much closer to a true libertarian-conservative than he turned out to be.

    When Reagan was governor of California he declared that anyone found smoking pot should be executed.

    WOW. That's a strong statement-- I've never heard this before. Is there video of him saying this, or is it in print somewhere?

    I read about years ago in something about the 60's San Francisco scene. I'm sure you could find it. I know he either said they should be shot on the spot, or executed.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    I am sure that with the training given to them...Ronald decided it was best to have all those people killed and then ordered the killing and raping of all those people. You seem rather intelligent, I think you and I will have to agree to disagree from now on and just not bother to engage in any sort of meaningful dialog because it seems like you just want everyone to realize how much you despise the current (or any for that matter) government.

    I didn't say he ordered them killed. But the Contra's were trained and armed by the C.I.A with the direct approval of the President - albeit covertly, and illegally - and when news of the massacres emerged the training and funding increased, and Reagan tried to have any investigation silenced. He was therefore complicit in mass rape, and mass murder of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. Maybe you think he shouldn't be despised for that, so we'll agree to disagree.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Reagan and Guatemala's Death Files

    By Robert Parry

    http://www.consortiumnews.com/052699a1.html

    Ronald Reagan's election in November 1980 set off celebrations in the well-to-do communities of Central America. After four years of Jimmy Carter's human rights nagging, the region's anticommunist hard-liners were thrilled that they had someone in the White House who understood their problems. The oligarchs and the generals had good reason for the optimism. For years, Reagan had been a staunch defender of right-wing regimes that engaged in bloody counterinsurgency campaigns against leftist enemies.

    In the late 1970s, when Carter's human rights coordinator, Pat Derian, criticized the Argentine military for its "dirty war" -- tens of thousands of "disappearances," tortures and murders -- then-political commentator Reagan joshed that she should "walk a mile in the moccasins" of the Argentine generals before criticizing them. Despite his aw shucks style, Reagan found virtually every anticommunist action justified, no matter how brutal. From his eight years in the White House, there is no historical indication that he was troubled by the bloodbath and even genocide that occurred in Central America during his presidency, while he was shipping hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the implicated forces.

    The death toll was staggering -- an estimated 70,000 or more political killings in El Salvador, possibly 20,000 slain from the contra war in Nicaragua, about 200 political "disappearances" in Honduras and some 100,000 people eliminated during a resurgence of political violence in Guatemala. The one consistent element in these slaughters was the overarching Cold War rationalization, emanating in large part from Ronald Reagan's White House.

    Yet, as the world community moves to punish war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, no substantive discussion has occurred in the United States about facing up to this horrendous record of the 1980s. Rather than a debate about Reagan as a potential war criminal, the ailing ex-president is honored as a conservative icon with his name attached to Washington National Airport and with an active legislative push to have his face carved into Mount Rushmore. When the national news media does briefly acknowledge the barbarities of the 1980s in Central America, it is in the context of one-day stories about the little countries bravely facing up to their violent pasts. At times, the CIA is fingered abstractly as a bad supporting actor in the violent dramas. But never does the national press lay blame on individual American officials.

    The grisly reality of Central America was most recently revisited on Feb. 25 when a Guatemalan truth commission issued a report on the staggering human rights crimes that occurred during a 34-year civil war. The Historical Clarification Commission, an independent human rights body, estimated that the conflict claimed the lives of some 200,000 people with the most savage bloodletting occurring in the 1980s. Based on a review of about 20 percent of the dead, the panel blamed the army for 93 percent of the killings and leftist guerrillas for three percent. Four percent were listed as unresolved.

    The report documented that in the 1980s, the army committed 626 massacres against Mayan villages. "The massacres that eliminated entire Mayan villages...are neither perfidious allegations nor figments of the imagination, but an authentic chapter in Guatemala's history," the commission concluded. The army "completely exterminated Mayan communities, destroyed their livestock and crops," the report said. In the north, the report termed the slaughter a "genocide." [WP, Feb. 26, 1999]

    Besides carrying out murder and "disappearances," the army routinely engaged in torture and rape. "The rape of women, during torture or before being murdered, was a common practice" by the military and paramilitary forces, the report found. The report added that the "government of the United States, through various agencies including the CIA, provided direct and indirect support for some [of these] state operations." The report concluded that the U.S. government also gave money and training to a Guatemalan military that committed "acts of genocide" against the Mayans.


    "Believing that the ends justified everything, the military and the state security forces blindly pursued the anticommunist struggle, without respect for any legal principles or the most elemental ethical and religious values, and in this way, completely lost any semblance of human morals," said the commission chairman, Christian Tomuschat, a German jurist.

    "Within the framework of the counterinsurgency operations carried out between 1981 and 1983, in certain regions of the country agents of the Guatemalan state committed acts of genocide against groups of the Mayan people," he added. [NYT, Feb. 26, 1999]

    The report did not single out culpable individuals either in Guatemala or the United States. But the American official most directly responsible for renewing U.S. military aid to Guatemala and encouraging its government during the 1980s was President Reagan.

    Reagan vs. Human Rights

    After his election, Reagan pushed aggressively to overturn an arms embargo imposed on Guatemala by President Carter because of the military's wretched human rights record. Reagan saw bolstering the Guatemalan army as part of a regional response to growing leftist insurgencies. Reagan pitched the conflicts as Moscow's machinations for surrounding and conquering the United States.

    The president's chief concern about the recurring reports of human rights atrocities was to attack and discredit the information. Sometimes personally and sometimes through surrogates, Reagan denigrated the human rights investigators and journalists who disclosed the slaughters. Typical of these attacks was an analysis prepared by Reagan's appointees at the U.S. embassy in Guatemala. The paper was among those recently released by the Clinton administration to assist the Guatemalan truth commission's investigation. Dated Oct. 22, 1982, the analysis concluded "that a concerted disinformation campaign is being waged in the U.S. against the Guatemalan government by groups supporting the communist insurgency in Guatemala."

    The report claimed that "conscientious human rights and church organizations," including Amnesty International, had been duped by the communists and "may not fully appreciate that they are being utilized."

    "The campaign's object is simple: to deny the Guatemalan army the weapons and equipment needed from the U.S. to defeat the guerrillas," the analysis declared. "If those promoting such disinformation can convince the Congress, through the usual opinion-makers -- the media, church and human rights groups -- that the present GOG [government of Guatemala] is guilty of gross human rights violations they know that the Congress will refuse Guatemala the military assistance it needs.

    "Those backing the communist insurgency are betting on an application, or rather misapplication, of human rights policy so as to damage the GOG and assist themselves."

    Reagan personally picked up this theme of a falsely accused Guatemalan military. During a swing through Latin America, Reagan discounted the mounting reports of hundreds of Maya villages being eradicated. On Dec. 4, 1982, after meeting with Guatemala's dictator, Gen. Efrain Rios Montt, Reagan hailed the general as "totally dedicated to democracy." Reagan declared that Rios Montt's government had been "getting a bum rap."

    But the newly declassified U.S. government records reveal that Reagan's praise -- and the embassy analysis -- flew in the face of corroborated accounts from U.S. intelligence. Based on its own internal documents, the Reagan administration knew that the Guatemalan military indeed was engaged in a scorched-earth campaign against the Mayans.According to these "secret" cables, the CIA was confirming Guatemalan government massacres in 1981-82 even as Reagan was moving to loosen the military aid ban.


    In April 1981, a secret CIA cable described a massacre at Cocob, near Nebaj in the Ixil Indian territory. On April 17, 1981, government troops attacked the area believed to support leftist guerrillas, the cable said. According to a CIA source, "the social population appeared to fully support the guerrillas" and "the soldiers were forced to fire at anything that moved." The CIA cable added that "the Guatemalan authorities admitted that 'many civilians' were killed in Cocob, many of whom undoubtedly were non-combatants."

    Despite the CIA account and other similar reports, Reagan permitted Guatemala's army to buy $3.2 million in military trucks and jeeps in June 1981. To permit the sale, Reagan removed the vehicles from a list of military equipment that was covered by the human rights embargo.

    Apparently confident of Reagan's sympathies, the Guatemalan government continued its political repression without apology. According to a State Department cable on Oct. 5, 1981, Guatemalan leaders met with Reagan's roving ambassador, retired Gen. Vernon Walters, and left no doubt about their plans. Guatemala's military leader, Gen. Fernando Romeo Lucas Garcia, "made clear that his government will continue as before -- that the repression will continue. He reiterated his belief that the repression is working and that the guerrilla threat will be successfully routed."


    Human rights groups saw the same picture. The Inter-American Human Rights Commission released a report on Oct. 15, 1981, blaming the Guatemalan government for "thousands of illegal executions." [WP, Oct. 16, 1981] But the Reagan administration was set on whitewashing the ugly scene. A State Department "white paper," released in December 1981, blamed the violence on leftist "extremist groups" and their "terrorist methods" prompted and supported by Cuba's Fidel Castro.

    Yet, even as these rationalizations were presented to the American people, U.S. agencies continued to pick up clear evidence of government-sponsored massacres. One CIA report in February 1982 described an army sweep through the so-called Ixil Triangle in central El Quiche province. "The commanding officers of the units involved have been instructed to destroy all towns and villages which are cooperating with the Guerrilla Army of the Poor [known as the EGP] and eliminate all sources of resistance," the report stated. "Since the operation began, several villages have been burned to the ground, and a large number of guerrillas and collaborators have been killed."

    The CIA report explained the army's modus operandi: "When an army patrol meets resistance and takes fire from a town or village, it is assumed that the entire town is hostile and it is subsequently destroyed." When the army encountered an empty village, it was "assumed to have been supporting the EGP, and it is destroyed. There are hundreds, possibly thousands of refugees in the hills with no homes to return to. ..."

    "The army high command is highly pleased with the initial results of the sweep operation, and believes that it will be successful in destroying the major EGP support area and will be able to drive the EGP out of the Ixil Triangle. ... The well documented belief by the army that the entire Ixil Indian population is pro-EGP has created a situation in which the army can be expected to give no quarter to combatants and non-combatants alike."

    In March 1982, Gen. Rios Montt seized power. An avowed fundamentalist Christian, he immediately impressed Washington. Reagan hailed Rios Montt as "a man of great personal integrity." By July 1982, however, Rios Montt had begun a new scorched-earth campaign called his "rifles and beans" policy. The slogan meant that pacified Indians would get "beans," while all others could expect to be the target of army "rifles". In October, he secretly gave carte blanche to the feared "Archivos" intelligence unit to expand "death squad" operations. Based at the Presidential Palace, the "Archivos" masterminded many of Guatemala's most notorious assassinations.

    The U.S. embassy was soon hearing more accounts of the army conducting Indian massacres. On Oct, 21, 1982, one cable described how three embassy officers tried to check out some of these reports but ran into bad weather and canceled the inspection. Still, this cable put the best possible spin on the situation. Though unable to check out the massacre reports, the embassy officials did "reach the conclusion that the army is completely up front about allowing us to check alleged massacre sites and to speak with whomever we wish." The next day, the embassy fired off its analysis that the Guatemalan government was the victim of a communist-inspired "disinformation campaign," a claim embraced by Reagan with his "bum rap" comment in December.

    On Jan. 7, 1983, Reagan lifted the ban on military aid to Guatemala and authorized the sale of $6 million in military hardware. Approval covered spare parts for UH-1H helicopters and A-37 aircraft used in counterinsurgency operations. Radios, batteries and battery charges were also in package. State Department spokesman John Hughes said political violence in the cities had "declined dramatically" and that rural conditions had improved too.

    In February 1983, however, a secret CIA cable noted a rise in "suspect right-wing violence" with kidnappings of students and teachers. Bodies of victims were appearing in ditches and gullies. CIA sources traced these political murders to Rios Montt's order to the "Archivos" in October to "apprehend, hold, interrogate and dispose of suspected guerrillas as they saw fit."

    Despite these grisly facts on the ground, the annual State Department human rights survey praised the supposedly improved human rights situation in Guatemala. "The overall conduct of the armed forces had improved by late in the year" 1982, the report stated.


    A different picture -- far closer to the secret information held by the U.S. government -- was coming from independent human rights investigators. On March 17, 1983, Americas Watch representatives condemned the Guatemalan army for human rights atrocities against the Indian population. New York attorney Stephen L. Kass said these findings included proof that the government carried out "virtually indiscriminate murder of men, women and children of any farm regarded by the army as possibly supportive of guerrilla insurgents."

    Rural women suspected of guerrilla sympathies were raped before execution, Kass said. Children were "thrown into burning homes. They are thrown in the air and speared with bayonets. We heard many, many stories of children being picked up by the ankles and swung against poles so their heads are destroyed." [AP, March 17, 1983]

    Publicly, however, senior Reagan officials continued to put on a happy face. On June 12, 1983, special envoy Richard B. Stone praised "positive changes" in Rios Montt's government.
    But Rios Montt's vengeful Christian fundamentalism was hurtling out of control, even by Guatemalan standards. In August 1983, Gen. Oscar Mejia Victores seized power in another coup.Despite the power shift, Guatemalan security forces continued to act with impunity.

    When three Guatemalans working for the U.S. Agency for International Development were slain in November 1983, U.S. Ambassador Frederic Chapin suspected that "Archivos" hit squads were sending a message to the United States to back off even the mild pressure for human rights improvements. In late November, in a brief show of displeasure, the administration postponed the sale of $2 million in helicopter spare parts. The next month, however, Reagan sent the spare parts.

    In 1984, Reagan succeeded, too, in pressuring Congress to approve $300,000 in military training for the Guatemalan army. By mid-1984, Chapin, who had grown bitter about the army's stubborn brutality, was gone, replaced by a far-right political appointee named Alberto Piedra, who was all for increased military assistance to Guatemala. In January 1985, Americas Watch issued a report observing that Reagan's State Department "is apparently more concerned with improving Guatemala's image than in improving its human rights."

    According to the newly declassified U.S. records, the Guatemalan reality included torture out of the Middle Ages. A Defense Intelligence Agency cable reported that the Guatemalan military used an air base in Retalhuleu during the mid-1980s as a center for coordinating the counterinsurgency campaign in southwest Guatemala. At the base, pits were filled with water to hold captured suspects. "Reportedly there were cages over the pits and the water level was such that the individuals held within them were forced to hold on to the bars in order to keep their heads above water and avoid drowning," the DIA report stated. Later, the pits were filled with concrete to eliminate the evidence.

    The Guatemalan military used the Pacific Ocean as another dumping spot for political victims, according to the DIA report. Bodies of insurgents tortured to death and of live prisoners marked for "disappearance" were loaded on planes that flew out over the ocean where the soldiers would shove the victims into the water.

    The history of the Retalhuleu death camp was uncovered by accident in the early 1990s, the DIA reported on April 11, 1994. A Guatemalan officer wanted to let soldiers cultivate their own vegetables on a corner of the base. But the officer was taken aside and told to drop the request "because the locations he had wanted to cultivate were burial sites that had been used by the D-2 [military intelligence] during the mid-eighties."

    History Falsified

    Guatemala, of course, was not the only Central American country where Reagan and his administration supported brutal counterinsurgency operations -- and then sought to cover up the bloody facts.

    Reagan's falsification of the historical record was a hallmark of the conflicts in El Salvaodor and Nicaragua as well. In one case, Reagan personally lashed out at an individual human rights investigator named Reed Brody, a New York lawyer who had collected affidavits from more than 100 witnesses to atrocities carried out by the U.S.-supported contras in Nicaragua. Angered by the revelations about his pet "freedom-fighters," Reagan denounced Brody in a speech on April 15, 1985. The president called Brody "one of dictator [Daniel] Ortega's supporters, a sympathizer who has openly embraced Sandinismo."

    Privately, Reagan had a far more accurate understanding of the true nature of the contras. At one point in the contra war, Reagan turned to CIA official Duane Clarridge and demanded that the contras be used to destroy some Soviet-supplied helicopters that had arrived in Nicaragua. In his memoirs, Clarridge recalled that "President Reagan pulled me aside and asked, 'Dewey, can't you get those vandals of yours to do this job.'" [See Clarridge's A Spy for All Seasons.]

    To conceal the truth about the war crimes of Central America, Reagan also authorized a systematic program of distorting information and intimidating American journalists. Called "public diplomacy," the project was run by a CIA propaganda veteran, Walter Raymond Jr., who was assigned to the National Security Council staff. The explicit goal of the operation was to manage U.S. "perceptions" of the wars in Central America. The project's key operatives developed propaganda "themes," selected "hot buttons" to excite the American people, cultivated pliable journalists who would cooperate and bullied reporters who wouldn't go along.

    The best-known attacks were directed against New York Times correspondent Raymond Bonner for disclosing Salvadoran army massacres of civilians, including the slaughter of more than 800 men, women and children in El Mozote in December 1981. But Bonner was not alone. Reagan's operatives pressured scores of reporters and their editors in an ultimately successful campaign to minimize information about these human rights crimes reaching the American people.
    [For details, see Robert Parry's Lost History.] The tamed reporters, in turn, gave the administration a far freer hand to pursue its anticommunist operations throughout Central America.

    Despite the tens of thousands of civilian deaths and now-corroborated accounts of massacres and genocide, not a single senior military officer in Central America was held accountable for the bloodshed. The U.S. officials who sponsored and encouraged these war crimes not only escaped any legal judgment, but remained highly respected figures in Washington. Reagan has been honored as few recent presidents have. The journalists who played along by playing down the atrocities -- the likes of Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer -- saw their careers skyrocket, while those who told the truth suffered severe consequences. Given that history, it was not surprising that the Guatemalan truth report was treated as a one-day story.

    The major American newspapers did cover the findings. The New York Times made it the lead story. The Washington Post played it inside on page A19. Both cited the troubling role of the CIA and other U.S. government agencies in the Guatemalan tragedy. But no U.S. official was held accountable by name. On March 1, 1999, a strange Washington Post editorial addressed the findings, but did not confront them. One of its principal points seemed to be that President Carter's military aid cut-off to Guatemala was to blame. The editorial argued that the arms embargo removed "what minimal restraint even a feeble American presence supplied." The editorial made no reference to the 1980s and added only a mild criticism of "the CIA [because it] still bars the public from the full documentation." Then, with no apparent sense of irony, the editorial ended by stating: "We need our own truth commission."

    During a visit to Central America, on March 10, President Clinton apologized for the past U.S. support of right-wing regimes in Guatemala.> "For the United States, it is important that I state clearly that support for military forces and intelligence units which engaged in violence and widespread repression was wrong, and the United States must not repeat that mistake," Clinton said. [WP, March 11, 1999] But the sketchy apology appears to be all the Central Americans can expect from El Norte.

    Back in Washington, Ronald Reagan remains a respected icon, not a disgraced war criminal. His name is still honored, attached to National Airport and a new federal building. A current GOP congressional initiative would chisel his face into Mount Rushmore. Meanwhile, in the Balkans and in Africa, the United States is sponsoring international tribunals to arrest and to try human rights violators -- and their political patrons -- for war crimes.
  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    Byrnzie wrote:
    I think conservatives have a very romantic view of Regan for a lot of what he stood for BEFORE he got elected. Go back and review his old speeches in the 70s, and he sounds much closer to a true libertarian-conservative than he turned out to be.

    When Reagan was governor of California he declared that anyone found smoking pot should be executed.

    WOW. That's a strong statement-- I've never heard this before. Is there video of him saying this, or is it in print somewhere?

    Reagan is quoted as saying this: “I now have absolute proof that smoking even one marijuana cigarette is equal in brain damage to being on Bikini Island during an H-bomb blast” This is just as stupid as saying someone should be shot.

    "Casual drug users should be taken out and shot" - Darryl Gates Head of Los Angeles Police Department United States Senate Judiciary Committee

    "When I was a kid I inhaled frequently. That was the point." - Barack Obama

    "Now, like, I'm President. It would be pretty hard for some drug guy to come into the White House and start offering it up, you know? ... I bet if they did, I hope I would say, 'Hey, get lost. We don't want any of that.'" - George W. Bush

    Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!
    o George Washington in a note to his gardener at Mount Vernon (1794), The Writings of George Washington, Volume 33, page 270 (Library of Congress)

    You bet I did -— and I enjoyed it.
    o Michael Bloomberg - New York City Mayor, when asked if he had ever smoked marijuana.

    A reliable source :mrgreen: : http://www.bakedlife.com/2008/12/top-10 ... uotes.html
    http://michiganweed.org/top-10-marijuana-quotes-ever/
Sign In or Register to comment.