10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan

  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Feb 06, 2011 6:13 AM GMT
    10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan

    http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/05/reagan-centennial/
  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Feb 06, 2011 7:52 PM GMT
    Adolf Reagan

    On the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, read what LGBT rights activist and playwright Larry Kramer had to say about Reagan shortly after his death in 2004.
    By Larry Kramer

    COMMENTARY: The following piece was originally published in The Advocate issue dated July 6th, 2004.

    http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Commentary/Adolf_Reagan//
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Feb 06, 2011 8:06 PM GMT
    It's amusing to see all the attempts in various threads to bad-mouth and ridicule President Reagan, and yet the adulation of Reagan by millions lives on. Watching some of the various coverage on TV today of his 100th Birthday celebration and remembrance reaffirms this. Ronald Reagan was a great man, and a great President. His legacy will live on and on through generations. All the barbs and criticisms some like to throw will never change that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2011 10:43 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidIt's amusing to see all the attempts in various threads to bad-mouth and ridicule President Reagan, and yet the adulation of Reagan by millions lives on. Watching some of the various coverage on TV today of his 100th Birthday celebration and remembrance reaffirms this. Ronald Reagan was a great man, and a great President. His legacy will live on and on through generations. All the barbs and criticisms some like to throw will never change that.







    Which is worse CJ, Playing with a woman's pussy with a cigar and lying about it, or Paying off the Iranians to hold hostages to promote getting elected to the presidency, then once it was pulled off, went forward with a totally illegal arm sales.


    Reagan and Bush were criminals to a much larger degree than Clinton's ill timed placement of a cigar and subsequent lie about his own private business, was it not. You know, some would call what I just wrote "beneath dignity", but facts are facts aren't they ??

    The hypocrisy of republicans is amazing, but on the other hand, It shouldn't be, because its standard practice for the christian faith and after all, it was Reagan who started a lot of the Hoopla about our being a christian nation wasn't it.. It all goes hand in hand.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Feb 06, 2011 10:57 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]southbeach1500 said...it's sad to see that so many gays are so thickheaded and have such a one-track mind that they, predictably, are slamming him.

    Well, it's a free country... icon_rolleyes.gif[/quote]


    30 years from now, the same will be said about President Obama's 8 year term.

    icon_exclaim.gif
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2940

    Feb 06, 2011 11:16 PM GMT
    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HERE.it's sad to see that so many gays are so thickheaded and have such a one-track mind that they, predictably, are slamming him.


    Doubly sad, in that no republicans ever bad-mouthed Clinton or Obama.

    Why is it that republicans can't deal with the fact that some of us disagree with them, for very good reasons? This is so intellectually impoverished!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 12:19 AM GMT
    metta8 said10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan

    http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/05/reagan-centennial/

    Some of the article's points, discussed in details at the link above:

    - Reagan was a serial tax raiser.
    - Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit.
    - Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts.
    - Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously
    - Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants.
    - Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran.
    - Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act.
    [Against South Africa, the only genuinely Conservative act from the ones listed above that Conservatives eagerly supported]
    - Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden.

    And the one not mentioned in that link, Reagan's failure to do anything about fighting HIV/AIDS, other than to condemn the gay "lifestyle" and delay research on treatments that would have saved countless US lives, as these developments are doing today.

    Yeah, a real hero and role model for gay men here. Is anybody surprised at those who are defending him?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Feb 07, 2011 12:50 AM GMT
    The conservative agenda needs a patron saint
    It's too bad that patron saint doesn't pass the smell test

    Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html

    Reagan's myth has grown over time
    http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-04/politics/reagan.legacy_1_lou-cannon-negotiations-with-soviet-leader-conservatives?_s=PMicon_razz.gifOLITICS

    Debunking the Reagan Myth

    Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html

    The Myth of Ronald Reagan Lured the Working Class Into Economic Destruction: Obama Gets It, But the Jilted Middle Class Doesn't.
    Ronald Reagan made many working class and rural voters proud to be Americans again, but meanwhile, behind the scenes, corporate lobbyists and Reagan's aides (who were really running the show) went about dismantling factories in places like central Pennsylvania and moving them overseas, sometimes -- literally -- in the dark of night.

    It was the Republican version of "Let them eat cake." Only, in this case, it was: "Let them eat God, Guns, and Patriotism."

    http://blog.buzzflash.com/editorblog/081

    When you hear about companies opening up mailboxes overseas and sending jobs over to places like Mumbai ...... where do you think that all started?
    ...... and tax cuts that made the rich - that 2% that is now a permanent upper class in our present day system
    Where do you think that started?
    And the gutting of oversight ..... the scapegoatism
    where business is unapproachable and government can do no good
    It all started with Ronnie
    Now you can love him for what he really was .... and for the predicament
    Yes ................ THIS is the end result of Reagonism
    and that is inescapable
    You may love him for that and THIS but be honest and truthful to the reality and not the myth
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3287

    Feb 07, 2011 1:22 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    metta8 said10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan

    http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/05/reagan-centennial/

    Some of the article's points, discussed in details at the link above:

    - Reagan was a serial tax raiser.
    - Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit.
    - Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts.
    - Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously
    - Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants.
    - Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran.
    - Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act.
    [Against South Africa, the only genuinely Conservative act from the ones listed above that Conservatives eagerly supported]
    - Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden.

    And the one not mentioned in that link, Reagan's failure to do anything about fighting HIV/AIDS, other than to condemn the gay "lifestyle" and delay research on treatments that would have saved countless US lives, as these developments are doing today.

    Yeah, a real hero and role model for gay men here. Is anybody surprised at those who are defending him?



    well regarding the tax argument he should be a friend to the democrats right?

    Im not sure why his memory should be looked on in disrespect. The 80's were a prosperous time. On the whole he set out to dismantle the USSR, which allowed for Clinton to set in policies that provided for paying down the debt and a surplus.

    If the USSR had continued who knows where would be today. And many millions under the thumb of communism thank us for it to this day.

    As for Osama bin Laden, he was / is a already rich Arab, who started fighting the USSR, then changed gears after there was really not much to do. And when we needed to go into Kuwait after Sadam Hussein took over Kuwait.
    Saying Reagan was responsible is a stretch.

    ***)The amnesty to undocumented illegals was a COMPROMISE for already illegal residents living and working in the US for years. At the time it seemed the right thing to do.
    It will never happen again, because of the position and failures government has made to enforce the border.
    If we granted amnesty again , pro illegal advocates would just chip at enforcement again ( sanctuary cities) essentially making a legal way of life not necessary. .

    Some people are so partisan that they will suspend the truth just to make political points.

    I think its part of a " persecution complex." some have.

    They associate any ideal or principle related to conservatives to be evil. And just try to paint every idea to be EVIL.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 5:26 AM GMT
    Even Rush can't defend Reagan...

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 5:35 AM GMT
    Two more things..

    Reagan was an avowed racist. (just google it)
    Reagan was a homophobe.(can we say AIDS'? nope!)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 5:38 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidRonald Reagan was a great man, and a great President.

    CuriousJockAZ saidSure there are crooked politicians on both sides. I don't happen to believe that Ronald Reagan is one of them. That's not to say he is pure as the driven snow either --


    hmmmmmmmmmm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 6:03 AM GMT
    musclmed saidIf the USSR had continued who knows where would be today. And many millions under the thumb of communism thank us for it to this day.

    Nonsense. I used to receive Secret military briefings on the Soviet threat. The bad part in the mid-70s through early 1980s was we were told the US didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell if the Soviets made an armored assault into Europe. I remember a fellow Army Officer hearing this during a briefing, raising his hand to ask a question, and saying, in the heaviest Southern accent you can imagine: "Yah mean we're gonna LOSE?" We all laughed at his naiveté.

    Yeah, we were gonna lose. The rest of us understood our situation against a hopeless cause, which wasn't told to the public, political poison. And that once the second echelon of Soviet forces crossed into Germany (the Soviets echeloned their forces, a tactic I would have to explain separately), we would use tactical theatre nukes on them, our only hope. But after that, God help us all.

    Beginning in early 1981, just as Reagan took office, we began to hear more promising estimations. The Soviet Union had fatal internal problems, largely economic, and there were already projections that it would collapse before the decade ended. This before Reagan had done a thing.

    Those intelligence estimations proved to be eerily true. But today Reagan gets all the credit for them. What destroyed the Soviets was the Soviets themselves -- Reagan wasn't a significant factor. But such is how history is rewritten. Especially if you're a US right-winger.

    Reagan was in the right place at the right time, and the "Great Communicator" who said brave things that seemed to precipitate events that were long in the making before him, and none of his doing. But such is the skill of a professional actor.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Feb 07, 2011 6:12 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    musclmed saidIf the USSR had continued who knows where would be today. And many millions under the thumb of communism thank us for it to this day.

    Nonsense. I used to receive Secret military briefings on the Soviet threat. The bad part in the mid-70s through early 1980s was we were told the US didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell if the Soviets made an armored assault into Europe. I remember a fellow Army Officer hearing this during a briefing, raising his hand to ask a question, and saying, in the heaviest Southern accent you can imagine: "Yah mean we're gonna LOSE?" We all laughed at his naiveté.

    Yeah, we were gonna lose. The rest of us understood our situation against a hopeless cause, which wasn't told to the public, political poison. And that once the second echelon of Soviet forces crossed into Germany (the Soviets echeloned their forces, a tactic I would have to explain separately), we would use tactical theatre nukes on them, our only hope. But after that, God help us all.

    Beginning in early 1981, just as Reagan took office, we began to hear more promising estimations. The Soviet Union had fatal internal problems, largely economic, and there were already projections that it would collapse before the decade ended. This before Reagan had done a thing.

    Those intelligence estimations proved to be eerily true. But today Reagan gets all the credit for them. What destroyed the Soviets was the Soviets themselves -- Reagan wasn't a significant factor. But such is how history is rewritten. Especially if you're a US right-winger.

    Reagan was in the right place at the right time, and the "Great Communicator" who said brave things that seemed to precipitate events that were long in the making before him, and none of his doing. But such is the skill of a professional actor.



    MMMMM-Kay, we'll take your word for it, General Patton icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 7:14 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidMMMMM-Kay, we'll take your word for it, General Patton icon_rolleyes.gif

    What a remarkably meaningless reply, meant to be some kind of personal insult, I must assume. Attacking the individual is your usual MO when you aren't able to counter with anything factual, but still feel compelled to reply in some unpleasant way.

    If you can't address the points I made, either from personal experience (and I know you were too young in the 1970s) or from historical research, then you would do better not to comment at all, and not make yourself look the fool. And BTW, the implied diss of my honorable military service, which I don't believe you can match, shows what unprincipled hypocrites you right-wingers are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 10:25 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    musclmed saidIf the USSR had continued who knows where would be today. And many millions under the thumb of communism thank us for it to this day.

    Nonsense. I used to receive Secret military briefings on the Soviet threat. The bad part in the mid-70s through early 1980s was we were told the US didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell if the Soviets made an armored assault into Europe. I remember a fellow Army Officer hearing this during a briefing, raising his hand to ask a question, and saying, in the heaviest Southern accent you can imagine: "Yah mean we're gonna LOSE?" We all laughed at his naiveté.

    Yeah, we were gonna lose. The rest of us understood our situation against a hopeless cause, which wasn't told to the public, political poison. And that once the second echelon of Soviet forces crossed into Germany (the Soviets echeloned their forces, a tactic I would have to explain separately), we would use tactical theatre nukes on them, our only hope. But after that, God help us all.

    Beginning in early 1981, just as Reagan took office, we began to hear more promising estimations. The Soviet Union had fatal internal problems, largely economic, and there were already projections that it would collapse before the decade ended. This before Reagan had done a thing.

    Those intelligence estimations proved to be eerily true. But today Reagan gets all the credit for them. What destroyed the Soviets was the Soviets themselves -- Reagan wasn't a significant factor. But such is how history is rewritten. Especially if you're a US right-winger.

    Reagan was in the right place at the right time, and the "Great Communicator" who said brave things that seemed to precipitate events that were long in the making before him, and none of his doing. But such is the skill of a professional actor.

    Your assessment of the USSR is correct, but you minimize Reagan's role, based I think on your own politics. There were three factors involved. First, obviously was the economic situation in the USSR along with related political challenges (Yeltsin, et al). Second, which you did not mention, was Gorbachev, who was a pragmatist, understood the Soviet condition, and was not blinded by ideology. Third was Reagan, who made it clear he was a hawk who would not be deterred from keeping our position strengthened. His actions made clear to the USSR that were they to try and keep up with us, they would be in further dire economic straits. In short, Reagan obviously did not, himself, win the cold war, but when the USSR was weakened and understood that, he gave them a body blow instead of encouragement. To that he does deserve credit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 1:32 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Art_Deco said
    musclmed saidIf the USSR had continued who knows where would be today. And many millions under the thumb of communism thank us for it to this day.

    Nonsense. I used to receive Secret military briefings on the Soviet threat. The bad part in the mid-70s through early 1980s was we were told the US didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell if the Soviets made an armored assault into Europe. I remember a fellow Army Officer hearing this during a briefing, raising his hand to ask a question, and saying, in the heaviest Southern accent you can imagine: "Yah mean we're gonna LOSE?" We all laughed at his naiveté.

    Yeah, we were gonna lose. The rest of us understood our situation against a hopeless cause, which wasn't told to the public, political poison. And that once the second echelon of Soviet forces crossed into Germany (the Soviets echeloned their forces, a tactic I would have to explain separately), we would use tactical theatre nukes on them, our only hope. But after that, God help us all.

    Beginning in early 1981, just as Reagan took office, we began to hear more promising estimations. The Soviet Union had fatal internal problems, largely economic, and there were already projections that it would collapse before the decade ended. This before Reagan had done a thing.

    Those intelligence estimations proved to be eerily true. But today Reagan gets all the credit for them. What destroyed the Soviets was the Soviets themselves -- Reagan wasn't a significant factor. But such is how history is rewritten. Especially if you're a US right-winger.

    Reagan was in the right place at the right time, and the "Great Communicator" who said brave things that seemed to precipitate events that were long in the making before him, and none of his doing. But such is the skill of a professional actor.



    MMMMM-Kay, we'll take your word for it, General Patton icon_rolleyes.gif
    Actually he (art deco) is correct. too bad you never served a day.. you might have been privy to that kind of intelligence.Even socal backed him up.. guess you got some slimey egg on the face? Says alot about your credibility.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Feb 07, 2011 2:13 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    CuriousJockAZ saidMMMMM-Kay, we'll take your word for it, General Patton icon_rolleyes.gif

    What a remarkably meaningless reply, meant to be some kind of personal insult, I must assume. Attacking the individual is your usual MO when you aren't able to counter with anything factual, but still feel compelled to reply in some unpleasant way.

    If you can't address the points I made, either from personal experience (and I know you were too young in the 1970s) or from historical research, then you would do better not to comment at all, and not make yourself look the fool. And BTW, the implied diss of my honorable military service, which I don't believe you can match, shows what unprincipled hypocrites you right-wingers are.



    Oh Good Lord, I was just razzin' ya because, as SoCal pointed out, your own political bias attempted unsuccessfully to minimize Reagan's role in Soviet relations during his Presidency. But, do let us know when General David Petraeus checks into the Wilton Manors compound to consult with you on Iraq & Afghanistan, as we here at RJ want the "top secret" inside scoop. icon_wink.gif
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3287

    Feb 07, 2011 2:40 PM GMT
    Yes i am waiting for his book on the topic. Not to minimize anyones service to this country.

    But it would be a interesting book, and it seems to contradict whats out there in the public domain.


    There is a constant din from the garbage generator of progessive blogs that just pollute the airways.

    Without doubt it will make some MSNBC's pundits show tonight.




    It has been refuted on about 20 other blogs as garbage revisionism.
    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/02/thinkprogress-celebrates-ronald-reagans.html
    Its funny though how liberals would argue. Reagan was bad.... he was a liberal just like us.icon_biggrin.gif

    ..............................................................................................................
    ThinkProgress' "top 10 things conservatives rarely mention when talking about President Reagan" are as follows:

    " 1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser" - Reagan suffered from overwhelming Democrat majorities in Congress when he took office. While he desperately wanted to strip away huge swaths of government (including eliminating the then newly created Department of Education), he had no choice but to compromise with the Democrats who controlled the budgetary purse-strings. When Reagan left office, the top marginal tax rate was 28% (today's it's 35% and under Bill Clinton it was nearly 40%).

    "2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit by enacting a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously" - Another flat-out lie. Before his 25 percent across-the-board cut in individual income-tax rates went into effect, government receipts from individual income taxes trickled in at $244.1 billion. The year Reagan left office, they totaled $445.7 billion -- an 82 percent jump. As for the deficits, Democrats outspent every one of the nine budgets Reagan proposed but one. Further, Democrats refused to make corresponding cuts in wasteful domestic programs to offset the defense appropriations Reagan needed to combat the Soviet Union after the Carter administration's foreign policy disasters (e.g., Iran, Afghanistan, et. al.).

    "3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts" - Before the full tax-relief package was passed -- against the wishes of many Democrats, by the way -- the jobless rate hit 9.6 percent. But as the cuts rippled through the economy, unemployment dropped every year after 1983, reaching a low of 5.3 percent in 1989. And tax cuts benefited minorities, too. The jobless rate among blacks plunged from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989.

    "4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously" - this again omits the role of Congressional Democrats who controlled the purse-strings and refused to axe the programs and agencies that Reagan requested. In fact, the media portrayed Reagan as "heartless" and depicted him as "laughable and malevolent" for his attempts to strip away the federal bureaucracy. But the only way the Democrat Congress would accept a defense buildup and tax cuts was for Reagan to agree to their domestic spending agenda. In fact, the budget deficits of the 1980s made the surpluses in the 1990s possible; the balanced budget was aided by surging tax revenues from a healthy, low-tax economy and immense defense savings made possible by the fall of the Soviet Union.

    "5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to chose [sic]" - Reagan was adamant about ending the practice of 'abortion on demand' and proposed that legislation be drafted to do so (you can hear Reagan's 1983 address on this subject); but he "had little success in gaining its acceptance by Congress."

    " 6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.”" - this is sheer revisionist idiocy; Reagan believed, first and foremost, in peace through strength. He gave dozens of speeches on this topic, rebuilt the U.S. military after Carter had stripped it bare, and created the impetus for the oft-derided SDI ("Star Wars") program that has since become an essential part of U.S. national security strategy. His famous slogans on this topic were "peace through strength" and "trust but verify".

    " 7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants" - The Democrat leadership in Congress promised to enact strict enforcement measures as a trade for a one-time amnesty deal. In an effort to control the border, Reagan went along with the deal. At the time (1986), the measures were marketed by Democrats as as being able to stop illegal immigration. Ted Kennedy himself sold the enforcement clauses of the law as strong enough to ensure that only a one-time amnesty would be needed. But, as is their standard practice, Democrats lied about sealing the border.

    Reagan himself said, "This country has lost control of its borders. And no country can sustain that kind of position."

    " 8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran" -Democrats launched a six-year, $40 million investigation of Reagan in a politically inspired witch-hunt. Reagan was, in fact, found guilty of absolutely nothing. Furthermore, indictments were intentionally handed down mere days before the 1992 election that pitted George H. W. Bush against Bill Clinton -- presumably to levy the maximum amount of political damage on the GOP candidate. Near the end of the investigations, The Baltimore Sun reported that a "federal trial judge in Washington dismissed Oliver North's conviction" and that "[c]riticism of Mr. Walsh's prosecution and of the law that authorized it will become more intense [because the] public has gotten precious little from his [at the time] $30 million, four-year effort".

    "9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act" - Reagan vehemently opposed apartheid ("Apartheid is morally wrong and politically unacceptable [... the] United States cannot maintain cordial relations with [such] a government") but he did not support the approach advocated by Congress. He issued an executive order restricting trade with the Pretoria government and virtually ended inter-bank dealings. But he believed that Congress' unilateral sanctions would harm blacks most of all and eradicate all of the leverage he wanted to bring to bear on South Africa. He wanted a timetable for the elimination of apartheid laws, the release of all political prisoners (especially Nelson Mandela) and a removal of the ban on black political movements. He felt he could not negotiate with the South African government if he had nothing to trade. His 1986 speech -- "Ending Apartheid in South Africa" -- comprehensively described his plans and approach.

    " 10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden" - Gee, next they'll be complaining that we had to side with the Soviets to defeat the Nazis. This sort of leftist lunacy simply rewrites history. We needed to sabotage the Soviets' efforts in Afghanistan to prevent a dramatic power-shift in the Middle East. Blaming Reagan for the Taliban and Bin Laden is like blaming Henry Ford for the problem of too many scrap tires.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 3:26 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidYour assessment of the USSR is correct, but you minimize Reagan's role, based I think on your own politics...

    Possibly, humans are not imaginary Vulcans, and we'll have our biases and subjective views. But here's what we were also told in the time period I mentioned above, during briefings.

    That the Soviet Union was already overspending on defense, and neglecting its domestic infrastructure and consumer goods. And that they would face serious unrest with their ethnic minorities. We were shown charts (in rooms protected by armed guards because this was Secret, though not Top Secret), that projected when their economic & political collapse would happen.

    And frankly, I must tell you quite a few of us were skeptical. That kind of "evidence" had been used before, and had proven untrue. Wishful thinking, on our US part, involving finer points of intelligence analysis that most of us dull Army Officers would know nothing about.

    And so did Reagan tip the scales? As I said, I saw this already predicted, exactly along the timelines that happened, within about 2 months of his first inauguration (and BTW I had voted for him, Carter being an incompetent, if well-meaning).

    Could the Soviet collapse have happened without Reagan, or any US President? On balance I think so, based on what I saw. But certainly he did apply some political pressure, and most US history writers are determined to give him the credit. The right-wing always needs a hero, and I suppose this one is better than when it used to be J. Edgar Hoover. icon_razz.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Feb 07, 2011 4:12 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said

    Could the Soviet collapse have happened without Reagan, or any US President? On balance I think so, based on what I saw.



    I think we should not have a double-standard than when criticizing other Presidents. For example:

    THE AIDS CRISIS IN THE EARLY 80'S -- The Reagan haters like to lambaste Reagan's not mentioning "AIDS" in public until 1987, and blame his inaction on fueling the AIDS epidemic. However, would any other President really have handled it differently given the public perception and confusion surrounding the disease?

    911: ATTACK ON THE U.S.: -- Conspiracy theories aside, would we have been attacked if we had a President Al Gore in The White House? Most likely, YES. There is ample evidence that the 911 attacks were planned well before G.W. Bush even announced he was running for President.

    INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN & IRAQ IN RESPONSE TO 911 -- Wouldn't President Gore have had the very same erroneous information about WMDs in Iraq. Would he have responded in a similar way? If so, wouldn't those WMDs also never been found -- or would a President Gore managed to find them?

    I could go on, but you get my point. We will never know how things would have been had someone else been in charge. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy --- anyone can do that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 4:30 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Art_Deco said

    Could the Soviet collapse have happened without Reagan, or any US President? On balance I think so, based on what I saw.



    I think we should not have a double-standard than when criticizing other Presidents. For example:

    THE AIDS CRISIS IN THE EARLY 80'S -- The Reagan haters like to lambaste Reagan's not mentioning "AIDS" in public until 1987, and blame his inaction on fueling the AIDS epidemic. However, would any other President really have handled it differently given the public perception and confusion surrounding the disease?

    911: ATTACK ON THE U.S.: -- Conspiracy theories aside, would we have been attacked if we had a President Al Gore in The White House? Most likely, YES. There is ample evidence that the 911 attacks were planned well before G.W. Bush even announced he was running for President.

    INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN & IRAQ IN RESPONSE TO 911 -- Wouldn't President Gore have had the very same erroneous information about WMDs in Iraq. Would he have responded in a similar way? If so, wouldn't those WMDs also never been found -- or would a President Gore managed to find them?

    I could go on, but you get my point. We will never know how things would have been had someone else been in charge. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy --- anyone can do that.


    To your first question, yes, I think a different president, particularly one not in the pocket of the religious right would have handled it differently.

    To the second, maybe. I agree that the attack would have been attempted but Bush didn't prioritize Al Qaeda despite the fact that the Clinton administration told them it was the clearest threat to our national security. Perhaps Gore would have handled it differently. We'll never know.

    To the third, I think Gore would have invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq. Considering that Cheney's office cooked the intelligence to suit their desire to invade Iraq, I can't see how or why Gore would have done same.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Feb 07, 2011 4:52 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    To your first question, yes, I think a different president, particularly one not in the pocket of the religious right would have handled it differently.

    That would have been President Jimmy Carter, the nations first elected Evangelical president. Arguably, Jimmy Carter was more gay-friendly than Reagan to gays, but how he would have reacted to what at the time was deemed "The Gay Plague" is anyone's guess. Had Carter been elected, it would likely have had something to do with backing of religious groups.

    To the second, maybe. I agree that the attack would have been attempted but Bush didn't prioritize Al Qaeda despite the fact that the Clinton administration told them it was the clearest threat to our national security. Perhaps Gore would have handled it differently. We'll never know.

    Kind of like how Clinton also warned of the WMDs that Saddam Hussein was harboring? Kind of like how the Clinton Administration handled both the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole and the first World Trade Center bombing?

    To the third, I think Gore would have invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq. Considering that Cheney's office cooked the intelligence to suit their desire to invade Iraq, I can't see how or why Gore would have done same.


    Cheney's office "cooked the intelligence to suit their desire to invade Iraq" -- Conspiracy theory perhaps?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 5:00 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    To your first question, yes, I think a different president, particularly one not in the pocket of the religious right would have handled it differently.

    That would have been President Jimmy Carter, the nations first elected Evangelical president. Arguably, Jimmy Carter was more gay-friendly than Reagan to gays, but how he would have reacted to what at the time was deemed "The Gay Plague" is anyone's guess. Had Carter been elected, it would likely have had something to do with backing of religious groups.

    To the second, maybe. I agree that the attack would have been attempted but Bush didn't prioritize Al Qaeda despite the fact that the Clinton administration told them it was the clearest threat to our national security. Perhaps Gore would have handled it differently. We'll never know.

    Kind of like how Clinton also warned of the WMDs that Saddam Hussein was harboring? Kind of like how the Clinton Administration handled both the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole and the first World Trade Center bombing?

    To the third, I think Gore would have invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq. Considering that Cheney's office cooked the intelligence to suit their desire to invade Iraq, I can't see how or why Gore would have done same.


    Cheney's office "cooked the intelligence to suit their desire to invade Iraq" -- Conspiracy theory perhaps?


    Carter was an evangelical Christian but not a fundamentalist. There is a difference.

    Clinton's administration caught, prosecuted and jailed the people behidn the '93 bombing, without invading another country or dragging us into a 10-year long war that has drained our Treasury.

    Cheney's cooking the books on the intelligence is not a "conspiracy theory" but well-documented.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 5:03 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness saidYour assessment of the USSR is correct, but you minimize Reagan's role, based I think on your own politics...

    Possibly, humans are not imaginary Vulcans, and we'll have our biases and subjective views. But here's what we were also told in the time period I mentioned above, during briefings.

    That the Soviet Union was already overspending on defense, and neglecting its domestic infrastructure and consumer goods. And that they would face serious unrest with their ethnic minorities. We were shown charts (in rooms protected by armed guards because this was Secret, though not Top Secret), that projected when their economic & political collapse would happen.

    And frankly, I must tell you quite a few of us were skeptical. That kind of "evidence" had been used before, and had proven untrue. Wishful thinking, on our US part, involving finer points of intelligence analysis that most of us dull Army Officers would know nothing about.

    And so did Reagan tip the scales? As I said, I saw this already predicted, exactly along the timelines that happened, within about 2 months of his first inauguration (and BTW I had voted for him, Carter being an incompetent, if well-meaning).

    Could the Soviet collapse have happened without Reagan, or any US President? On balance I think so, based on what I saw. But certainly he did apply some political pressure, and most US history writers are determined to give him the credit. The right-wing always needs a hero, and I suppose this one is better than when it used to be J. Edgar Hoover. icon_razz.gif

    Depending upon the time when predictions of the Soviet collapse might have been made, if they were accurate, there would be an element of coincidence because the actual time was significantly impacted by certain political events that would have been difficult to predict. First, the selection of Gorbachev might have been predicted only with some probability. Had another person filled that role, the USSR could have been maintained for longer using repressive measures. Second, the timing was influenced by the attempted coup by a group of 8 hard-liners. Gorbachev and his wife, Raisa, were detained under house arrest at his resort home in the Crimea for 24+ hours. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/19/newsid_2499000/2499453.stm The ultimate failure of the coup and the rise in prestige of Yeltsin significantly weakened Gorbachev, and ultimately the USSR. There was a speech from the Duma that was televised on Western TV showing Yeltsin lecturing Gorbachev, something that would have been unheard of previously.