The Death of Ronald Reagan

They are running a cottage industry around the outright lie that Max Cleland's patriotism was questioned (all Saxby Chambliss questioned was Cleland's voting record on Homeland Security and judicial nominations).

...by associating him with Bin Laden and Hussein. And Republican Senators John McCain and Chuck Hagel disagree with you. Hagel even threatened to run an ad countering Chambliss if he didn't remove the ad.

"Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to a picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield -- it's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible,"

John McCain

"It was beyond offensive, especially applied to a man who'd given so much to his country. It made me recoil, quite honestly.?

Chuck Hagel

And Cleland didn't call those guys chickenhawks, and don't bother posting that article from Rev. Moon's Washington Times because I've already read it...he obviously was referring to the Bush/Cheney folks, who hide behind people like Johnson, just as he did against McCain in 2000. But the facts are Kerry and McCain are decorated veterans, while Bush and Cheney are most certainly not.

 

The only thing that keeps me from voting against Bush is Kerry.

Lesser of two lesses.

Bush has his corporatist buddies, while Kerry has his establishment buds.

 

If you seriously think Bush and Kerry are no different from each other, you need to study the facts. I won't get into it in here, but you should head over to the offical thread for the elections.

Anyway, here's some info to put things in perspective on what Reagan did while in office. Take note this is about what he did, not the person. Yes he obviously did a lot of good things as well, but the items on this list are largely being ignored by the media and press while they have nothing but good to say about him.

1-tripled our national debt.
2-supported apartheid in south africa.
3-gave financial and logistical support to saddam hussein.
4-gave financial and logistical support to dictators and death squads in central america.
5-illegally sold weapons to iran.
6-illegally gave money to right wing drug-runners in central america.
7-opened up national parks for oil and gas exploration.
8-presided over the largest banking scandal(the s&l debacle)in the history of the united states that eventually cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

Don't people realize a lot of the problems we have today are directly related to the Reagan Administration? Look at the facts, he funded Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, sold weapons to countries that are now hotbeds for 'terrorists'.

How quickly people forget

 

And has there ever been a world leader anywhere that has been completely free of scandal?

Sure- Reagan, like any other leader made decisions that not everyone agreed with.

It comes with the territory.

It's not that people forget this fact, it's that in death, people usually put aside old scores.

 

DeathStar1977

Did you see the ad in question, or did you just get he version that the folks peddling the myth about Cleland told you?

And as for Cleland's comments - are you accusing The State, based out of Colombia, South Carolina, of misquoting Max Cleland in it's front-page article of April 23, 2004.

I checked for the comments, and here is the lead paragraph of the original article where Cleland smeared Duke Cunningham and Sam Johnson, along with four other congressmen who had the gall, it seems, to question Senator Kerry's 1971 testimony in from of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The original article is archived, you'll have to pay $2.95 for it. The Washington Times did not fabricate the quote.

WILSON CALLS FOR KERRY APOLOGY

Source: LAUREN MARKOE, Washington Bureau
U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., demanded an apology from John Kerry on Thursday for remarks the Democratic presidential candidate made 33 years ago disparaging American soldiers' behavior in Vietnam.Wilson's demand sparked an angry response from Kerry supporters, who questioned Wilson's military record during the Vietnam era.Wilson's Selective Service number came up for possible induction into the military in 1969, when he was 22. But he was not drafted because he had

Published on April 23, 2004, Page A1, State, The (Columbia, SC)

Tell me, are the 220 Swift Boat veterans who oppose John Kerry's candidacy for President also chickenhawks?

 

And has there ever been a world leader anywhere that has been completely free of scandal?

Sure- Reagan, like any other leader made decisions that not everyone agreed with.

It comes with the territory.

my mind is boggling here at the silliness of what you're saying. yes, everyone has a scandal or two, and everyone makes a controversial decision. but the things Crix-Madine has listed are not on the same level as getting busy with an intern. several of them should have been grounds for impeachment and many of the others (notably the issue with the deficit) are disasters that are nearly without parallel in US history. even simply looking at the early support for bin Laden's network and the support for Saddam Hussein would make it obvious to even the slowest person that we are still reaping the harvest that Reagan sowed at a cost of thousands and thousands of lives. i'm positively baffled by the fact that so many people seem so eager to let him off the hook so easily.

 

We can honor a President even if we don't agree with his politics. As I often say, I'm a liberal Democrat, but above that, I'm an American.

Amen, brother. What's a real shame is how some people believe that you're an "America-hater" if you refuse to believe that everything America does is absolutely perfect, and that all other countries should be bowing down and worshipping us and having sacred rituals around an American flag in their town squares.

I'm going to put this in boldface so that everyone will understand:

I LOVE AMERICA.

I was born here, raised here, and the daughter and granddaughter of military veterans.

The definition of "love", last time I checked, was not the equivalent of the definition of "worship" or "believe one to be a God".

I love my husband very much, but I'll be the first to tell you that the guy isn't perfect. He loves me, but he'd say the same about me. I'm short-tempered and ornery. He throws his clothes on the floor and puts the milk jug back in the refrigerator empty.

Since we will both freely admit that the other is far from perfect, does that mean we "hate" each other?

We have a lot to learn from other cultures, and they have some things they could learn from us. To use the UK as an example again: they could use some lessons from us on making coffee. (Sorry, English folks, but the coffee in London tastes like hot water.) But on the other hand, very few Yanks can make a cup of hot tea worth a crap.

That's just a small example. I could give some bigger examples but that would send this thread off on a completely different political topic.

Mr44:

Exactly how many people were aboard the Death Star when Luke blew it up?

I think there is a difference between military casualties that happened in order to save a lot of civilian casualties from happening (in other words, some Death Star soldiers dying in order to keep another entire planet from being blown to bits), and what Alderaan_Viceroy was talking about, which was that the United States should have blown up Russia simply because we could, to show what big bad-asses we are.

One thing a good President will do at wartime is to end the war with an absolute minimum number of casualties. This is why Truman chose to use the atomic bomb on Japan as opposed to an invasion of Japan. I'm not sure how many folks were lost at D-Day, but it was quite a few, and we were using nine divisions there. An invasion of Japan would require fifteen divisions. We were looking at a possible loss of a million people, and that's not with a great likelihood of winning. We don't win, then even more people die.

I'm also not sure how many were lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but when Truman did the numerical estimates, he decided that we would win the war more quickly, with less of a loss of life, by dropping the bomb, even as horrible as that was, than by invading Japan.

As I understand it, Truman was sick about dropping the bomb. I would have no respect for him if he got pleasure out of it, that's for sure. I know the guy who actually dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, looked back at the mushroom cloud and said "Oh my God--what have I done?" If his reaction had been anything less, I'd think there was something wrong with him.

Using nuclear weapons on another country is not minimizing the number of casualties. There is something terribly wrong with a President who would gladly use nuclear weapons. A good President is going to do what he or she can to avoid war--not rush to enter it.

 

Sure, I agree with everything you just said.

What I was questioning was AV's assertion about using nuclear weapons "just to blow Russia up."

If, during the cold war, the Soviet Union steamrollered through the Fulda Gap, a tactical nuclear exchange might have been the only solution, reducing casualities in the long run.

If the Soviet Union was actually allowed to build short range nuke bases on Cuba, the potential consequences would have been a whole lot worse.

I guess what I was pointing point was, that Luke didn't simply blow up the Death Star because it would get him a medal, he did it for valid reasons.

However, I'm sure Tarkin's widow was complaining bitterly at the sheer cockyness of Luke's overaction.

 

Did you see the ad in question, or did you just get he version that the folks peddling the myth about Cleland told you?

Yes, I did see it on a news show. Its not a myth, the ad was disgusting. You whine about the alleged 'smearing' of Johnson and co., yet you find it o.k. to use the ads in question regarding Cleland. Cleland wanted to provide worker protections in the Homeland Security Bill, Bush didn't. Thats the main difference. For an advertisement to imply that he was like Bin Laden/Hussein just because he didn't give Bush a rubber stamp is ridiculous. And agin, Republican Senators McCain and Hagel seem to agree with me.

And you still have not shown proof that Cleland was referring to Johnson and/or Cunningham. And your link doesn't reference Cleland.

Tell me, are the 220 Swift Boat veterans who oppose John Kerry's candidacy for President also chickenhawks?

When did I say that? They are though clearly politically motivated. And you conveniently ignore the thousands of veterans, such as myself and my family, who support Kerry.

But if you do want a list of chickenhawks...here's a good start:

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks

Nor can you dispute that the fact that Kerry and McCain and Cleland are decorated veterans, while Bush and Cheney and Chambliss are most certainly not.

 

If, during the cold war, the Soviet Union steamrollered through the Fulda Gap, a tactical nuclear exchange might have been the only solution, reducing casualities in the long run.

I don't know enough about the Fulda Gap to comment, so I'll take your word for it--I think the point can be made, however, that obviously the Soviets didn't steamroller through the Fulda Gap. A_V is advocating that what we did to end the Cold War wasn't good enough--we should have been more violent and blown them up.

I strongly disagree with this assertion, and I don't understand how someone could look in hindsight, after the Cold War has ended, and say, "It's not enough that the Cold War ended. We should have been more violent with them."

What reason would there be, other than to flex the US nuclear muscle just because we can? Obviously since the Cold War ended without a massive nuclear missile launch, there were other ways of ending it.

As I said, a good President is not going to do something like launch a nuclear attack unless there are no other options.

If the Soviet Union was actually allowed to build short range nuke bases on Cuba, the potential consequences would have been a whole lot worse.

But we stopped them from doing that without blowing anyone up, without killing civilians. A_V said we should have blown them up anyway.

However, I'm sure Tarkin's widow was complaining bitterly at the sheer cockyness of Luke's overaction.

Was she complaining when her husband blew up a planet for no reason?

 

But we stopped them from doing that without blowing anyone up, without killing civilians. A_V said we should have blown them up anyway.

Ah, then we completely agree here.

If AV was claiming to blow them up anyway, that would have been pointless.

I was taking it as more of a "we threaten because of X, and then have to be prepared to back it up."

Causing a nuclear exchange just because anyone could- well, it's not good.

Was she complaining when her husband blew up a planet for no reason?

Well, she did say that Tarkin always liked to play with his toys.

 

DeathStar1977

As I have said repeatedly, Chambliss was NOT questioning Cleland's patriotism. Even the Associated Press at the time said that the ad did not compare Cleland to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. I'm not citing the Washington Times on this one. So, what is the issue here? Cleland's votes, not his patriotism.

So, why does John F. Kerry make the false claim that Cleland's patriotism was attacked in that ad? Because he does not want to debate or discuss certain issues (like his anti-war activism after he returned from Vietnam, or his voting record and public statements as a United States Senator on defense issues). So, he perpetuates the myth. It's just the same as the allegations about the "Willie Horton ad" of 1988 (that issue was first brought up by Al Gore).

In the age of Google and Lexis-Nexis, the lies behind this urban legend surrounding Max Cleland are quickly revealed. Did the AP take part in the character assassination? Did the Veterans of Foreign Wars buy into it when they endorsed Saxby Chambliss, citing the votes HE cast in the House?

 

I think about 10% of the posts in this thread actually talk about "The Death of Ronald Reagan".

Lock this ****, please.

 

AG -

Good posts. A quote (not verbatim) that best exemplifies why I and many members of my family joined the armed forces:

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it.

JS -

Even the Associated Press at the time said that the ad did not compare Cleland to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden

Yet here they do, just one of many examples:

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/H/HEINZ_KERRY?SITE=APWEB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

As I have said repeatedly, Chambliss was NOT questioning Cleland's patriotism.

And as I have said repeatedly, myself, Chuck Hagel and John McCain, among others, 100 percent disagree with you. Deal with it.

Chambliss even said that Cleland "broke his oath to protect and defend the Constitution". That is typical of the right wing. "Liberals hate America! Oh, but we are not questioning their patriotism"

From CNN:

Chambliss... ran into trouble after he ran a television ad attacking Cleland's votes that featured images of Osama bin Laden. He was forced to remove the image from the spot, a tacit acknowledgement of a misstep.

So even Chambliss obviously realized that he went over the line.

Because he does not want to debate or discuss certain issues (like his anti-war activism after he returned from Vietnam, or his voting record and public statements as a United States Senator on defense issues

Kerry has and will continue to discuss these issues. What he will not allow, and rightfully so, is gross distortions of his record.

What you and the right wing will continue to do, is ignore the fact that Kerry is a decorated veteran, while Bush/Cheney are not.

GS-

I concur. I'm going back to the Election thread.

 

Well, I've never seen DeathStarr so agressive here before, but BAM, good post.

 

OWM -

I'm all for debate on the issues, the voting records, proposals, etc., as well as the reasoning involved (see my new sig). But as you probably know, nothing boils my partisan blood as much as when the dedication of us liberals to our country is in question. Whether it is a distortion of defense/homeland security records, an unwillingness to support every defense program, an unwillingness to give Bush a rubber stamp, or 'upholding our oath to protect the Constitution'...its all a bunch of crap. Whats even worse is when people go over the line, as Chambliss did, and try to pretend as if nothing is wrong, or hide behind others to sling mud (although Chambliss eventually did remove the ad).

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Herman Goering
Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag
the second in command of the Third Reich

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country.

In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else"

- Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States

 

But as you probably know, nothing boils my partisan blood as much as when the dedication of us liberals to our country is in question.

No kidding--ditto here.

 

DS,

Maybe they'd stop questioning your patriotism if you quit equating them with Nazis.

Disingenuous.

 

Which was the whole point, ShaneP. That quote serves as a warning as to what can happen when dissent is not allowed. As a Jew who had many family members murdered by Nazis, I can assure you that I am well aware of the danger of using Nazi comparisons.

 

Anakin Girl, do you read what I post? I said that the nuclear option was good to end the Cuban missle Crisis, not the cold war. And I am still waiting for the proof that I wanted the British Empire eliminated.

 

This thread is to discuss the legacy of Ronald Reagan, not the candidates in the upcoming election. Politics in general may be discussed in a historical context insofar as they apply to Mr. Reagan's time in office, but take the 2004 political discussions to their proper thread.

I am keeping a close eye on this one, and it is hovering dangerously close to being locked. Stay on target, people.

Thank you.

V-03

 

Actually, the only reason we didn't get into a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis, was due to Khruschev, not Kennedy. If Khruschev hadn't turned back at the last minute (destroying his own political career, btw), most likely none of us would be sitting here arguing today.

I'm watching an episode of "Law & Order" that deals with an incident related to the coup in Chile during the 1970s.

Reagan supported Pinochet-who we originally put into power (under Nixon-which is one reason why I will ALWAYS think of him as scum). Carter cut off aid to Pinochet, Reagan restored it.

Don't tell me Allende was a communist-he was the democratically elected leader whose greatest crime was nationalizing the nation's industries. Pinochet, on hte other hand, was fond of herding people into sports stadiums and having them mowed down by machine guns. Remember that?

Why don't you ask the various chapters of the Mothers of the Disappeared if Reagan was such a great man?

 

Actually, the only reason we didn't get into a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis, was due to Khruschev, not Kennedy. If Khruschev hadn't turned back at the last minute (destroying his own political career, btw), most likely none of us would be sitting here arguing today.

Well given that I've seen absolutely nothing to support that, I'll ask for proof...

* * * * *

Is it said, often by supporters of Dubya, that George W Bush is the "heir" of Reagan, and indeed, the man himself likes to believe that he is indeed a natural progression from Reagan. Yet is this the case?

E_S

 

I said that the nuclear option was good to end the Cuban missle Crisis, not the cold war.

You still said you thought we should have blown up the Russians.

Kennedy ended the Cuban Missile Crisis without blowing up the Russians. Why the call for excess violence?

And I am still waiting for the proof that I wanted the British Empire eliminated.

You said the following:

There is a Great Britian today because of Ronald Reagan.

From my point of view without the United States, that U.S.S.R. (that is Russia for you younger Boys and Girls) would have expanded without being checked until it did own all of Europe, including all of England.

Ronald Reagan restored the U.S. into a economic and military powerhouse that was able to bankrupt the Soviet Union (Russia) and end their expansionost threat. We did that despite England and western europe's help, not because of it. Hell they stil b*tch about it today.

The world is safer, and more free because of Ronald Reagan, not the British Empire (Not that it is anymore...). When someone like Darkgloom likes to bash this country, I like to bash back

Do you Brit's have history books written past the 18th century?

If someone said something nearly that nasty about America, you would be screaming for blood. So why is it OK for you to say that a country that has been allied with us completely sucks, doesn't deserve to exist, and should be down on their knees praising the fact that we, The Great and Almighty America, are showing them the mercy of allowing them to exist?

You even flamed me for sticking up for the UK, and called me an "America-hater" because I dared to say that America is not God.

It's pretty bad when I'm getting PMs from British users, who probably feel they don't have much voice here due to the bullying from some "you think we're God or you're against us" Americans, thanking me for supporting them against your attacks.

 

From my point of view without the United States, that U.S.S.R. (that is Russia for you younger Boys and Girls) would have expanded without being checked until it did own all of Europe, including all of England.

Ronald Reagan restored the U.S. into a economic and military powerhouse that was able to bankrupt the Soviet Union (Russia) and end their expansionost threat. We did that despite England and western europe's help, not because of it. Hell they stil b*tch about it today.

No. I mean, sure, you might think it's so, but still, no.

The USSR was still lumbering towards a wall, their arrogant Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist hybrid unable to sustain the sheer unwieldiness of their system. You and others assert that Reagan, in your mind's eye dressed like Superman, pushing and pushing the lumbering Soviet bear, accelerated it's decline with the power of his Goodness and America's Rightness.

Not so.

The USSR was always going to crash into that wall, and it didn't need Ronnie pushing it; nor, for that matter, did Ronnie push them along. He just moved the wall closer, so the inevitable demise of the failed socialist experiment happened earlier than expected. The driving force of progress and change had already infected the bear, and it was dying from it. Reagan just put it out of it's misery.

E_S