Ronald Reagan: Say What You Like Thread

[Pure]

What is Reagan's Foreign Policy Legacy?

Seems like this, 'say what you like area' is necessary; a place not dedicated to decorum, respect etc. Yet not dedicated to name calling.

CAUTION: Adult Content, Viewer Discretion is Advised. Those of delicate sensibility should consider avoiding this area; stick to the 'worshipful' threads.

While no one doubts that Reagan was a genial fellow, with a certain graciousness, even a bit of class, later on, the man's politics and legacy deserve a close look, esp. in view of recent developments.

In other words, lets leave aside character, and look at the actions of RR and his associates. RR, like GWB is not an item unto himself, but part of a package of new conservative thinkers-- a number of the present top-level advisors turned up then. Is it too much to remember Marx's comment that history repeats: first as tragedy, then as farce.

Some of these strategists brilliant in their world vision; ruthless, ready to carry it out. Too clever by a half, as the saying goes.

To start off, the period of the mujahideen in Afghanistan, roughly coincides with Reagan's tenure. It was a Macchiavelian stroke, to give the Soviet's their Vietnam, and perhaps put the last nail in the coffin of the soviet system, by funding and providing material to the Islamist groups fighting the Soviets. Seeds are laid. Our own House of Laius. (Terrorism was not born in the period of the 1990s, 2000-2001 slumber before the catastrophe.)

There was common cause with a fellow named Osama. Ironic, history; perhaps in giving the Soviets their Vietnam, we gave ourselves another Pearl Harbor.

 

[shereads]

I appreciate the forum, but I'm giving him another 48 hours in honor of my dad, who thought Reagan was a little bit liberal but otherwise a nice man.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Tear down this wall.

Just about the most memorable event of my lifetime was the destruction of the Birlin Wall. That is what I would like to say about Ronald Reagan. Whatever part he played in that event, makes him worthy of my respect and admiration.

But I didn't like his stand on Welfare or the Ecomomy. No one's perfect.

 

[Mhari]

I appreciate the sentiment, Pure, but I have a hard time keeping a civil tongue in my head (or, er, fingers on my hands) when it comes to Reagan.

I will only say that I really wish people would develop a much better understanding of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe before giving Reagan credit for "ending" the Cold War or "bringing down communism".

~M (historian of Things Soviet)

 

[Guest]

from Salon.com:

June 7, 2004 | HAVANA (AP) -- Cuba harshly criticized former President Ronald Reagan and his policies on Monday, saying he should "never have been born."

In the first reaction to Reagan's death from the communist government, Radio Reloj said:

"As forgetful and irresponsible as he was, he forgot to take his worst works to the grave," the government radio station said.

"He, who never should have been born, has died," the radio said.

The statement did not mention Cuba's relationship with the United States under Reagan, a staunch foe of communism.

It also did not mention Reagan's decision to order U.S. forces to invade the tiny Caribbean country of Grenada on Oct. 25, 1983, because Washington feared the island had grown too close to Cuba.

Since the early 1960s, Cuba and the United States have been without diplomatic relations, and Cuba has been under a U.S. trade embargo. But relations between the two countries were especially tense when Reagan was in office from 1981-1989.

Radio Reloj lambasted Reagan's military policies, especially the "Star Wars" anti-missile program. The initiative, launched when the Soviet Union still existed, rejected a long-standing doctrine built on the idea that neither superpower would start a nuclear war out of fear of annihilation by the other.

The radio also criticized Reagan's policies in Central America, where Washington backed a counterrevolutionary rebel army that fought against the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. The United States also supported a conservative government that battled Marxist guerrillas during El Salvador's civil war.

"His apologists characterize him as the victor of the Cold War," the radio said. "Those in the know knew that the reality was not so, but rather (he was) the destroyer of policies of detente in the overall quest for peace."

 

[Carmenica Diaz]

I am not an admirer of American politics in any shape of form - I find it to be uninformed and short term, supremely unintelligent and almost naive.

However, a man has died, give him some respect and let us move on. His wife obviously loved him, although I can't understand her devotion, I respect it.

 

[minsue]

I am not an admirer of American politics in any shape of form - I find it to be uninformed and short term, supremely unintelligent and almost naive.

However, a man has died, give him some respect and let us move on. His wife obviously loved him, although I can't understand her devotion, I respect it.

Well said. Thank you. You saved me from ranting.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I have said very little about Reagan, in the thread I opened, I chose not to eulogize and in the ettiquette thread I had more to say about ettiquette, so I will say a little here.

Ron Reagan was the right man, at the right time and at the right place in history. This country had suffered through vietnam, watergate, the presidency of J. Carter and the Iranian hostage crisis. Our national pride, morale & self estem were at an all time low.

He enjoyed a few tremendous benefits. He followed a very weak president in Jimmy Carter, experienced a fairly significant economic upturn, and had the common touch. He was ebullent, unfailingly optimistic and absolutely convinced of the rightness, justness and decency of his country. He was unabashedly patriotic, at a time when this country needed a patriot.

He wasn't power hungry, in fact he delegated so broadly he may have been the least personally powerful president in recent memory. But after LBJ and Nixxon, a man who wouldn't sell his soul or his beliefs for power was also something this country desperatly needed.

He was a principaled man, yet also pragmatic. And he deserves much of the credit he recieves for ending the cold war. I have seen interviews with soviet scientists, generals and politicians and they all shake their heads and point to star wars. It wasn't that the program worked or was even workable. What drove the nail into communism was the fact that we could invest in trying to make it work and they just didn't have the money to compete. As a defensive measure it was more of a pipe dream than reality, but as an economic/political hammer, it was powerful. It should have died with communism, the foe it was created to defeat, but having a life of its own after the fall of the Soviet Union isn't Reagan's doing.

For all of the evil empire rhetoric, when it came time to be a diplomat he sat down with the Soviet premier and together they worked out a treat to eliminate an entier class of nuclear weapons. The first treaty ever to eliminate rather than curtail the building and testing of nuclear weapons. Isn't that what you expect of a statesman? To be tough enough to bring the other guy to the table, but to be able to compromise and get something done once he is there?

Regan backed his allies to the hilt. He took a stand against international terror when Comunism was still seen as the great enemy. He fought communism, wherever he saw it.

On the home front, he cut taxes, gutted social programs, ignored AIDS and had something of a tin ear when it came to the plight of the poor. He ran up a huge debt and his fiscal policies are at best open topics of debate.

Reagan's legacy in Foerign policy is strong. His domestic policies are not as strong. Neither is really the foundation of his legacy or popularity. Into a time of darkness he brought hope, unfailing, cheeful optimisim, a sureity in the rightness of his cause and a leader people felt they could like. He left the presidency with the highest approval rating of any departing president since World War II. The majority of the population were willing to forgive him any failing, any mistake and even his scandals didn't make much impression on how he was percieved.

The left hated his policies, but even his political enemies ended up liking the man, for the most part. He wasn't perfect, certainly not a candidate for deification, beatification or cannonization. He was however, just what this country needed on a psycological level at that point in time. A leader with a sure vision and undaunted faith in this country, its principals and its people.

I'll leave this with a quote from Tip O'neil, about as leftist democrat as they come.

"He [Regan] was the worst president I have known, but he would have made a hell of a king."

-Colly

 

[shereads]

I'll leave this with a quote from Tip O'neil, about as leftist democrat as they come.

"He [Regan] was the worst president I have known, but he would have made a hell of a king."

-Colly

They were "friends after six o'clock," as Reagan once said of Tip O'Neil.

I've made my feelings known about Reagan in this forum already, and probably will again - but on the day of his funeral, I'm reminded that in comparing him with other presidents from the right, I've always said that with Reagan, I at least believed that he believed. I didn't agree with his policies but neither did I find myself watching him and thinking, "You're pandering," which is too often the case with politicians. Colly may strangle me for making this comparison, but I will liken him - in that one way - to my man Bill. They were both people who came into politics because there were some things they believed in that they felt strongly would make the world a little better. Their ideologies were as unalike as their style; Reagan did "sincere" better than Bill, and Bill had a sense of irony that Reagan lacked, but both were motivated by good intentions rather than the goal of benefiting a few special interests. Yes, they did the necessary degree of selling out, to stay in power so that they could achieve a few of their most dearly-held goals. It may be impossible to achieve anything in politics without some ugly trade-offs. But they believed.

Peace to the people who loved him, and suffered with him. If some good comes from this, I hope it will be more than a passing public interest in Alzheimers and the need for stem cell research. Nancy may be the one person that the right wing will listen to on that subject, and it's heartening to know that well-funded research and access to more stem-cell lines might lead cures for Alzheimers, Parkinsons Disease, and spinal cord injuries. There can't be anything more painful than seeing a lack of recognition in the eyes of someone who loved you.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

In my quest to always hear both sides of any issue, I opened this thread with a grimmace on my face, anticipating the worst.

Now that I'm at the bottom of the page, I'm pleased to say that once again I'm overly impressed by the amount of class of the patrons of this board.

Politically, I am different than the majority on this board. Part of the reason I come here is for the insight of people like Shereads and Perdita among others. While I don't always agree with their views, they always make me stop and think about the issues and their side of things. They present the Liberal view point with information and statistics, but also with dignity and class.

For both of you, and the rest that have posted in this thread, I say thank you.

 

[shereads]

In my quest to always hear both sides of any issue, I opened this thread with a grimmace on my face, anticipating the worst.

Now that I'm at the bottom of the page, I'm pleased to say that once again I'm overly impressed by the amount of class of the patrons of this board.

Politically, I am different than the majority on this board. Part of the reason I come here is for the insight of people like Shereads and Perdita among others. While I don't always agree with their views, they always make me stop and think about the issues and their side of things. They present the Liberal view point with information and statistics, but also with dignity and class.

For both of you, and the rest that have posted in this thread, I say thank you.

That's generous of you, honey. Thank you too.



Now for my nightly attack on Dubya...

 

[Clare Quilty]

And Now For Something Completely Different

Fuck Reagan in his dead arse -- in the names of the 30,000 Nicaraguans killed in his illegally funded Contra war -- not to mention the many more than that were murdered in the Iran/Iraq war back when Reagan was shoveling weapons and cash into the waiting arms of Saddam Hussein.

I hated him when he was the President and I hate him in death. *pppt* I spit on his grave.

 

[Pure]

Reagan memorial article: Le Monde

This is my often clumsy translation (aided by machine) of a Le Monde memorial article. [Corrections are welcome]

If you want the full thing in French, see at the end, from www.lemonde.fr

*Dedicated to WildcardKy, for reading as he eats his patriot fries.*

Ronald Reagan, Revolutionary Conservative
Le Monde 6-07-04

Alain Clément and Pierre Servent

Republican president of the United States of 1980 to 1989, Ronald Reagan, who died Saturday June 5 at 93 years of age, will remain in the American history of the 20th century as the man who again gave confidence and optimism to his country and hastened the end of the cold war.

Often gibed by the press and his adversaries for his look of badly trimmed cowboy, over-the-hill movie star, or president without culture, Ronald Reagan had come, not any the less, at the end of two presidential mandates, to fill the essential part of his contract with the Americans: to give them, again, confidence in the "genius" of their country.

Even if his political and economic assessment do not escape criticism, he will remain in American history like the great miracle-worker in the media, for a people plunged, at the beginning of the years 1980, into deep doubts of their identity and fear of the decline. It doesn't matter if, lacking prompter or coach, the "great communicator" constantly risked tripping over himself.

The oratorical talent of Ronald Reagan was elsewhere: it was due to his capacity to remain close to the American people, to generally find the words and the tone to speak to the heart more than the reason. Reagan believed in it, and it did not matter in the end, about the gap between his personal life and what he preached: divorced and not very attentive father, he would be the champion of the values of the family; not very inclined to work, he would become the champion of individual efforts; full of finer feelings, he would not be able to prevent the most underprivileged from leaving his 'reign' even more vulnerable.

But, by instinct and his craft, he knew how to sway public opinion, including his way of making staying on top of his mockers, taking his detractors in the opposite direction (they expected) on their own ground: Criticized for having launched the project to construct the stealth bomber B-1, he flung back mocking words, "How could I know it was a plane? I thought it was vitamins for the troops... ." The beginnings of his first mandate are placed under the sign of the luck: the very same day of his nomination, January 20, 1981, the 55 hostages in the American embassy in Teheran were released (a happy coincidence which his adversaries would suspect of having been somewhat arranged.)

March 30, 1981, he who had easily survived the fictitious gunshots in his career as hero in the B movies, was wounded in an actual attack which could well have been fatal for him. Nor would luck much desert him thereafter. He managed to pass through the trial of the incredible business of Irangate" (1986), which led members of the National Security Council secretly to sell weapons to Iran to better finance the anti-sandinista "contras" in Nicaragua. Arriving at the White House and wanting to have a clean slate, the fortieth president of the United States - oldest, almost 70 years - invited his compatriots to dare to have 'heroic dreams', and to close the "Carter era". But to reach that point, it was necessary that America find its greatness; awake the industrial giant who was slumbering within and everywhere take up the permanent challenge issued by the Soviet Union.

It was thus, for a moral, industrial, and military rearmament that Ronald Reagan worked, with more or less success, during the eight years he spent in the White House. At the time of his election, 51.7 % of the electorate endorsed this Reaganist dream of an America revivified by a fortifying, conserving revolution (four years later, it was 59 %).

An American editorialist described it as "the roar of the silent majority," this Reaganist fever. Preferred to the humanistic democrat Jimmy Carter, the Republican candidate presented himself, throughout his campaign as the champion of an American Renewal, as the only political leader capable of restoring the prestige of America; an America that had its hostages held in its embassy in Iran, a ridiculed symbol of national humiliation and scorned dignity.

If it was simplistic, his message then strongly attracted to his cause, those well beyond the traditional participants, the dyed in the wool conservatives who voted Barry Goldwater in 1964. His past as an actor and a sporting commentator gave him, moreover, a great control of the microphone and a strong capacity to win over, even if, in the slickness of the experienced comedian, there would often break through an ignorance of an old man; the new president who was a bit clumsy{?}.

To a certain extent, the Reagan phenomenon Reagan is not very distant, in era, from the Carter phenomenon: like each other, both are 'prophets of renewal' thanks to a return to source. Both overpowered critics in Washington, this Babylon of the American democracy, and its 'tentacled' bureaucracy implicated as the cause of enfeeblement of the American destiny. There are certainly differences in tone and argumentation, and ingenuity to, but the inspiration is if not identical, at least close.

In one way or the other, it was always a question of curbing big government and its corrupting influence to release the lively forces of a fundamentally healthy country. That does not go without a moralizing reference; a clash (of the world) with Christianity. Carter quoted the Bible; Reagan proposed to teach the creation of the world according to the Genesis account in parallel with the Darwinian theory of évolution. Carter used his credibility. Reagan could preserve his in sticking to the aspirations of the Américan majority.

A priori, nothing personal or individual predestined Ronald Wilson Reagan to take up politics, even if, in the United States, the routes are less clearly marked out than in Europe. He would long show, besides, a hesitation to put himself onto this path and to consider an election campaign that would take account of his aversion to the airplane. He was of Irish stock by his father, a catholic of handsome stature with leaning to the bottle, and an unequaled talent as a storyteller, according to his son; Ronald had inherited from his mother, of English and Scottish descent, actress who'd come back, a disposition toward the theater. One time after becoming president, he said, "From my father, I took the value of work and ambition, and perhaps two or three useful things about how to tell a good story. From my mother, I learned the value of prayer, of dreams, and to believe I could realize them."

[… boyhood, Warner Bros, Screen Actors Guild, the hunt for communists within, Wyman, Davis; governorship; running for President in 1979, winning]

The success of Ronald Reagan coincides, in these years of the 1980s, with a need for "political realignment" announced periodically, and which must end up happening, whether it is or is not to the profit of the Republican Party. The evolution of attitudes, as the surveys reveal it, goes in this direction (way): the full extent had undoubtedly been reached in what (American) people could expect from the action of the authorities{?}. The Federal government, the state, must thus disconnect as quickly as possible! The name of Ronald Reagan, two mandates later, remains attached to this memorable turn characterized by a drastic reduction in social assistance, even if there were corrections at the time of the second mandate. Regardless, the influence of the state in the society was very far from having regressed during this period: at most there was the tendency to catch (hold) at the same degree, if one attempted to put the brakes on it.

In all, which America did he leave to his successor and former fellow candidate, George Bush, when he handed it over? In Le Monde entitled To the One, November 3, 1988, one can read, "The inheritance of deception of Ronald Reagan." "His heritage, made of unexpected successes and unfinished promises, will be heavy to assume." In the number of the open wounds, stands out clearly, the fact that the poor left the Reagan years often poorer and the underprivileged ones, with less assistance.

[.. inflation; firing the air controllers. Popularity. Most surveyed saying Reagan had done well for America.]

In foreign policy, Reagan made of anti sovietism and the fight against "the dark totalitarianisms" a kind of national cult. The Americans were invited to a crusade against the new "Evil Empire". Undoubtedly he had illusions on the possibility of reasoning with the Soviet Union Soviet, in that he employed economic and commercial means of pressure, but he did not launch a military challenge to them. On the contrary, he reiterated the calls for harmony (as in his speech of Berlin-Charlottenburg of June 1982). As a sign of a lasting detente, the two countries signed, in December 1987, the INF treaty on elimination of the medium range missiles. Ronald Reagan and Mikhaïl Gorbachev met at least five times in four years.

{Moscow's reaction; star wars}
For the remainder, the enormous appropriations enacted for the Pentagon were primarily used to take small prey (invasion of the Grenade in 1983 and raids on Libya in 1986). It is thus a kind of pragmatic realism, with the original ideological enthusiasm is strongly attenuated, which was set up in Washington during the Reagan era.

The best example of this evolution is perhaps given by central America and the Caribbean, where the president and his team did not shy away from any measure to prevent the "Castroist contagion". El Salvador ceased to be the priority of priorities, especially when the [good] participation in the elections of March 1982 would prove that the boycott order of the (left) guerrillas was only followed by a minority of voters.

Then Nicaragua took its turn{?}. And on whatever concerned the Israili-Palestinian conflict, candidate Reagan showed himself a resolute friend of the Jewish state. The PLO, was only, for him, a band of 'terrorists.'

That view prevailed (?) for a long time. It required the war in Lebanon, and the attack of Israel against Beirut, so that 'the Palestinian question' seized and was taken account of by Washington, who (proceded) to integrate it into the Camp David accords, as reviewed and corrected.

With Europe, relations (with US) evolved progressively from simple leadership to a partnership of uncertain character, sometimes strained. But Ronald Reagan left power in the same year as the great upset in the East, leaving to his successor, George Bush, the command of a country at once confident and fragile. In parting, covered with flowers (and surrounded by those who had held him in contempt, before), he left a last message to his fellow citizens. "We wanted to change a nation, and we've changed the world." A number of his compatriots didn't smile then, in hearing this imperial declaration of the Great Communicator.

[end of article and excerpts]





Ronald Reagan, le révolutionnaire conservateur
LE MONDE | 07.06.04 | 13h56 • MIS A JOUR LE 07.06.04 | 17h44
Les annales et corrigés du baccalauréat depuis 1995.Abonnez-vous au Monde.fr, 5€ par mois

Président républicain des Etats-Unis de 1980 à 1989, Ronald Reagan, mort samedi 5 juin à l'âge de 93 ans, restera dans l'histoire américaine du XXe siècle comme l'homme qui a redonné confiance et optimisme à son pays et hâté la fin de la guerre froide.


Souvent brocardé par la presse et ses adversaires pour ses allures de cow-boy mal dégrossi, de vedette sur le retour ou de président inculte, Ronald Reagan n'en était pas moins parvenu, au terme de deux mandats présidentiels, à remplir l'essentiel de son contrat avec les Américains : leur redonner confiance dans le "génie" de leur pays.

Même si son bilan politique et économique n'échappe pas à la critique, il restera dans l'histoire américaine comme le grand thaumaturge médiatique d'un peuple plongé, au début des années 1980, dans un profond doute identitaire et dans la crainte du déclin.
Qu'importe si, privé de prompteur ou de coach, le "grand communicateur" risquait à tout moment de se prendre les pieds dans le tapis. Le talent oratoire de Ronald Reagan était ailleurs : il tenait à sa capacité à rester proche des Américains, à trouver le plus souvent les mots et le ton pour parler au cœur plus qu'à la raison. Reagan y croyait, et peu importait finalement le décalage entre sa vie personnelle et ce qu'il prêchait : divorcé et père peu attentif, il sera le champion des valeurs de la famille;peu enclin au travail, il se fera le champion de l'effort ; plein de bons sentiments, il ne pourra empêcher que les plus défavorisés sortent plus fragiles de son "règne".

Mais, par instinct et par métier, il savait gagner l'opinion, y compris par sa façon de mettre les rieurs dans sa poche, en prenant ses détracteurs à contre-pied sur leur propre terrain : critiqué pour avoir lancé le projet de construction du bombardier furtif B-1, il lançait, goguenard : "Comment pouvais-je savoir que c'était un avion ? Je pensais que c'était des vitamines pour les troupes..."

Les débuts de son premier mandat sont placés sous le signe de la baraka : le jour même de son investiture, le 20 janvier 1981, les cinquante-deux otages de l'ambassade américaine de Téhéran sont libérés (une heureuse coïncidence que ses adversaires soupçonneront d'avoir été un peu sollicitée).


Le 30 mars 1981, lui qui avait essuyé tant de coups de feu fictifs dans sa carrière de héros de série B n'est que blessé lors d'un attentat qui aurait bien pu lui être fatal. La chance ne lui fera pas trop défaut par la suite. Il parvient à passer à travers les gouttes de l'incroyable affaire de l'"Irangate" (1986), qui a conduit des membres du Conseil national de sécurité à vendre en secret des armes à l'Iran pour mieux financer la Contra antisandiniste au Nicaragua.

Arrivé à la Maison Blanche et voulant du passé proche faire table rase, le quarantième président des Etats-Unis - le plus âgé, presque 70 ans - invite ses compatriotes à oser faire des "rêves héroïques", comme pour clore "l'ère Carter". Mais pour y parvenir, il faut que l'Amérique retrouve sa "grandeur", réveille le géant industriel qui sommeillait en elle et relève partout le défi permanent lancé par l'Union soviétique.

C'est donc à un réarmement moral, industriel et militaire que Ronald Reagan travaille, avec plus ou moins de succès, durant les huit années qu'il passe à la Maison Blanche. Lors de son élection, 51,7 % du corps électoral partage ce "rêve" reaganien d'une Amérique revivifiée par une roborative révolution conservatrice (quatre années plus tard, ils sont 59 %).

Un éditorialiste américain qualifie de "rugissement de la majorité silencieuse" cette fièvre reaganienne. Préféré au démocrate humaniste Jimmy Carter, le candidat républicain s'est présenté, tout au long de sa campagne, comme le champion du "renouveau américain", comme le seul responsable politique à même de restaurer le prestige d'une Amérique qui a fait de la prise d'otages de l'ambassade américaine en Iran le symbole de son humiliation nationale et de sa dignité bafouée.

Si simpliste soit-il, son message d'alors séduit bien au-delà de la clientèle classique des conservateurs bon teint, qui ont voté Barry Goldwater en 1964. Son passé d'acteur ou de commentateur sportif lui donne, en outre, une grande maîtrise du micro et une forte capacité de séduction même si, derrière la rouerie du comédien chevronné, perce souvent l'ignorance de l'ancien jeune premier un peu pataud.

Dans une certaine mesure, le phénomène Reagan n'est pas très éloigné, à l'époque, du phénomène Carter : l'un et l'autre sont des "prédicateurs de renouveau" grâce à un retour aux sources. Tous les deux ont accablé de critiques Washington, cette Babylone de la démocratie américaine, et sa bureaucratie "tentaculaire", désignée comme la cause de l'affaiblissement du destin américain. Il y a certes des différences de ton et d'argumentation, d'ingénuité aussi, mais l'inspiration est sinon identique, du moins voisine.

D'une manière ou d'une autre, il s'agit toujours de brider le big government et son influence corruptrice pour libérer les forces vives d'un pays foncièrement sain. Cela ne va pas sans référence moralisante à un christianisme de choc. Carter cite la Bible ; Reagan propose d'enseigner la création du monde selon la Genèse parallèlement à la théorie de l'évolution des espèces... Carter a usé sa crédibilité. Reagan sut préserver la sienne en collant aux aspirations d'une majorité d'Américains.

A priori, rien de particulier ne prédestine Ronald Wilson Reagan à faire de la politique, même si, aux Etats-Unis, les filières sont moins nettement balisées qu'en Europe. Il se montrera d'ailleurs assez longtemps réticent à s'engager dans cette voie et à envisager une campagne électorale compte tenu de son aversion pour l'avion. De souche irlandaise par son père, un catholique de belle stature avec un penchant pour la bouteille

et un talent de conteur inégalé d'après son fils, il a hérité de sa mère, une protestante d'ascendance anglaise et écossaise, actrice rentrée, des dispositions pour le théâtre. "De mon père, j'ai appris la valeur du travail et de l'ambition, et peut-être deux ou trois choses utiles sur la façon de raconter une bonne histoire. De ma mère, j'ai appris la valeur de la prière, des rêves, et à croire que je pouvais les réaliser", dira-t-il une fois devenu président.

Le petit Ronald a 9 ans (il est né le 6 février 1911, à Tampico, Illinois) quand sa famille s'établit à Dixon, toujours dans l'Illinois, dont il fréquente l'école publique. Il y reste jusqu'à sa vingt et unième année. A la fin de ses quatre ans de collège, et après quelques hésitations, il trouve finalement sa voie : "Je veux être acteur." Au volant d'une vieille Oldsmobile, il sillonne la région en quête d'un quelconque emploi. A Davenport, dans l'Iowa, il tombe sur un original qui lui propose de "couvrir" un match de football pour la station de radio locale. Sa prestation lui vaut un engagement de reporter sportif. Il se débrouille si bien qu'il est bientôt recruté par la maison-mère de la station. "Cinq ans de suite, écrira l'un de ses biographes, Ronald Reagan sera la voix du sport de la station qui couvre le centre des Etats-Unis."

La Warner Bros l'engage ensuite, après un bout d'essai réussi, avec une idée bien précise des rôles que cette "belle gueule" franche et sympathique peut jouer. Il sera donc condamné par les producteurs à incarner le country boy (l'enfant du pays), le provincial vertueux, celui par qui le scandale n'arrive jamais... Il jouera au total dans une cinquantaine de films sans sortir de son rôle. Las, le "Errol Flynn de la série B", selon sa propre expression, ne sera jamais qu'une demi-vedette, connu des inconnus mais sans le rayonnement qui fait les stars. De toutes façons, la guerre interrompt sa modeste ascension : il est versé dans les services cinématographiques de l'armée de l'air, d'où lui vient sa phobie des voyages en avion.

En 1947, il succède à Robert Montgomery à la tête du Screen Actors Guild, le syndicat des acteurs de cinéma. En même temps, il embrasse les causes les plus "libérales" de son milieu. Ce qui ne l'empêche pas de coopérer à l'épuration "anticommuniste" de celui-ci - sans succomber à l'hystérie maccarthyste, il est tout de même convaincu que les communistes ont un plan pour s'emparer de Hollywood et agit en conséquence. Il n'en apporte pas moins son soutien, en 1950, à la candidature de la démocrate Gahagan Douglas, qui, briguant un siège au Sénat de Washington, doit faire face, en vain, à la diffamation démagogique de Richard Nixon.

Deux ans plus tôt, lui-même a été pressenti par le Parti démocrate pour poser sa candidature à un siège à la Chambre des représentants, et il s'est prononcé pour Harry Truman.
Ses opinions politiques sont alors encore balbutiantes. En revanche, c'est à corps perdu qu'il se lance dans l'activisme politique, sans pourtant franchir le Rubicon de l'élection. Il déploie tant d'énergie et consacre tant de temps à la politique qu'il lasse sa première femme, Jane Wyman, épousée en 1940 et oscar de la meilleure actrice en 1948 pour son rôle dans Johnny Belinda, de Jean Negulesco. Elle demande le divorce.

La politique, qui avait détruit ce premier mariage, déterminera le second. Metro Goldwyn Mayer s'adresse à lui comme expert en "infiltrations communistes" au sujet d'une de ses jeunes actrices, Nancy Davis, dont le nom se serait trouvé sur une liste d'abonnés à une publication "subversive" (il s'agissait en fait d'une homonymie). Il la disculpe et... l'épouse l'année suivante, en 1952. Cette union aura une grande influence sur la vie de Ronald Reagan. Il est probable que les convictions ultra- conservatrices de son beau-père, un neuro-chirurgien de Chicago, auquel il est très attaché, achèvent de le convertir à une idéologie radicale.

n 1954, General Electric lui offre la présentation de son émission dominicale, G. E. Theatre, et 175 000 dollars d'honoraires annuels. "Cette expérience allait se révéler très précieuse pour le genre de vie que nous aurions plus tard et dont nous n'avions pas alors la moindre idée", expliquera Nancy Reagan dans son autobiographie. Son verbe fait merveille. Il est vrai que son "message" ne réclame pas des oreilles trop exigeantes : c'est l'apologie frénétique de la "libre entreprise" et la condamnation non moins ardente de ses "ennemis".

Reagan fulmine contre le "gouvernement vampire" et ses impôts, exalte un "chacun pour soi" qui rejette dans des ténèbres méritées les déshérités et les inaptes. Il a définitivement choisi son camp. Il se lance dans la course pour le poste de gouverneur de Californie et, contre toute attente, l'amateur républicain est élu avec presque un million de voix d'avance sur le vieux routier sortant. Dès janvier 1967, l'hebdomadaire US News and World Report pose la question : "Ronald Reagan sera-t-il en tête des aspirants républicains à la candidature présidentielle en 1968 ?" Interrogation à la fois significative et prématurée.

Ronald Reagan gouverne la Californie le temps de deux mandats (1967-1975).

Le 13 novembre 1979, il se déclare candidat à l'investiture républicaine. Dans l'avion qui le conduit de meeting en meeting, il offre son cuir chevelu à l'examen des journalistes, pour leur prouver qu'il ne se teint pas les cheveux, qu'il n'a même pas grisonnants... Après des débuts un peu lents, il l'emporte finalement au sein de son parti sur ses adversaires républicains, dont George Bush, qui se rallie à lui. Candidat officiel du Parti républicain, il entre à la Maison Blanche le 20 janvier 1981, tournant le dos aux années Carter.

Le succès de Ronald Reagan coïncide, dans ces années 1980, avec un besoin de "réalignement politique" annoncé périodiquement et qui doit bien finir par se produire, que ce soit ou non au profit du Parti républicain. L'évolution des mentalités, telle que les sondages la révèlent, va dans ce sens : le plein a sans doute été fait de ce que l'on peut attendre de l'action des pouvoirs publics. L'Etat fédéral doit donc débrayer au plus vite ! Le nom de Ronald Reagan, deux mandats plus tard, reste attaché à ce tournant mémorable caractérisé par une diminution drastique des aides sociales, même si la barre est redressée lors du second mandat. Pour autant, le poids de l'Etat dans la société est très loin d'avoir régressé durant cette période : tout au plus la tendance à la prise de poids est-elle freinée.

Au total, quelle Amérique laisse-t-il à son successeur et ancien colistier, George Bush, quand il passe la main ? Le Monde titre à la Une, le 3 novembre 1988 : "L'héritage en trompe-l'œil de Ronald Reagan." "Son héritage, fait de succès inattendus et de promesses inachevées, sera lourd à assumer", peut-on lire. Au nombre des plaies ouvertes figure, en bonne place, le fait que les pauvres sortent des années Reagan souvent plus pauvres et les défavorisés moins assistés.

Certains commentateurs commencent également à parler des Etats-Unis comme d'une puissance de second ordre, tant la dépendance vis-à-vis du capital étranger semble grande. Le Japon apparaît déjà comme une sorte de grand prédateur de l'économie américaine. Premier créditeur hier, l'Amérique pointe désormais à l'agence des grands débiteurs. En 1987, un krach a sanctionné la gloutonnerie de la Bourse.

Certes, au-delà des trous du budget et de la question douloureuse des échanges extérieurs, le bilan économique comporte des aspects plus positifs. Les coûts des transports et des télécommunications ont baissé pour les usagers et l'épargne est mieux rémunérée. Du côté des plaies pansées figurent une forte croissance et la création de nombreux emplois (le taux de chômage est ramené de 9,5 % à 5,4 %, sans que la population noire puisse vraiment en profiter). L'inflation a également été maîtrisée, la politique monétariste de la Banque centrale comme l'intransigeance de l'administration dans le conflit salarial avec les contrôleurs aériens ont fait merveille... En 1988, 56 % des Américains, selon une enquête de Time, estiment que la politique économique de Reagan "avait été bonne pour le pays".

En politique étrangère, Reagan fait de l'antisoviétisme et de la lutte contre "les ténèbres totalitaires" une sorte de culte national. Les Américains sont invités à une croisade contre le nouvel "Empire du mal". Sans doute se fait-il des illusions sur la possibilité de "raisonner" l'Union soviétique en employant des moyens de pression économiques et commerciaux, mais il ne lui lance pas de défi militaire. Au contraire, il multiplie les appels à la concorde (comme son discours de Berlin-Charlottenburg de juin 1982). Signe d'une détente préservée, les deux pays signent, en décembre 1987, le traité INF sur l'élimination des missiles à moyenne portée. Ronald Reagan et Mikhaïl Gorbatchev se rencontreront pas moins de cinq fois
en quatre ans.


Moscou, de son côté, a souhaité ce rapprochement avec Washington notamment après avoir constaté son impuissance à suivre, sur le tapis vert des armements, la formidable mise financière de l'Initiative de défense stratégique (IDS), surnommée la "guerre des étoiles". Lancée en 1983, l'IDS est censée protéger le territoire des Etats-Unis d'un bouclier antinucléaire. Ce projet délirant, en l'état des capacités de mise sur orbite de satellites à lasers tueurs, a pour effet de doper la recherche américaine tout en étranglant l'Union soviétique incapable de suivre le mouvement imprimé.

Pour le reste, les énormes crédits débloqués pour le Pentagone servent essentiellement à s'en prendre à de petites "proies" (invasion de la Grenade en 1983 et raids sur la Libye en 1986). C'est donc une sorte de réalisme pragmatique, où la ferveur idéologique originelle est fortement atténuée, qui se met en place à Washington durant l'ère Reagan.
Le meilleur exemple de cette évolution est peut-être donné par l'Amérique centrale et les Caraïbes, où le président et son équipe ne reculent devant rien pour empêcher la "contagion castriste". Le Salvador cesse d'être la priorité des priorités, surtout quand la participation aux élections de mars 1982 aura prouvé que les mots d'ordre de boycottage de la guérilla n'ont été suivis que par une minorité.

Le Nicaragua prend le relais. En ce qui concerne le conflit israélo-palestinien, le candidat Reagan se montre un ami résolu de l'Etat hébreu. L'OLP n'est pour lui qu'une bande de "terroristes". Cette vue prévaut longtemps. Il faut la guerre du Liban et l'assaut d'Israël contre Beyrouth pour que "la question palestinienne" soit prise en compte par Washington, qui tente de l'intégrer aux accords de Camp David revus et corrigés.

Avec l'Europe, les relations évoluent progressivement du simple "leadership" à un "partnership" au contour encore imprécis et parfois tendu. Mais Ronald Reagan quitte le pouvoir l'année même du grand bouleversement à l'Est, laissant à son successeur, George Bush, les commandes d'un pays à la fois confiant et fragile. En partant, couvert de fleurs (y compris par ses contempteurs d'hier), il laisse un dernier message à ses concitoyens : "Nous voulions changer une nation, et nous avons changé un monde"... Nombreux sont ses compatriotes à ne pas sourire alors, en entendant cette déclaration impériale du "grand communicateur".

Alain Clément et Pierre Servent
Rédigé avant la disparition de notre collaborateur Alain Clément en 1994, cet article a été actualisé par la rédaction.
• ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 08.06.04

===

 

[Pure]

FTSOA, How much, aside from 'presentation' and 'packaging' issues, is the GWB presidency--its principles and practice-- like RR's? Is GWB the true, if verbally challenged, heir of RR?

 

[houston32M]

The Soviety Empire (Former)

I appreciate the sentiment, Pure, but I have a hard time keeping a civil tongue in my head (or, er, fingers on my hands) when it comes to Reagan.

I will only say that I really wish people would develop a much better understanding of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe before giving Reagan credit for "ending" the Cold War or "bringing down communism".

~M (historian of Things Soviet)

Hmmmmmmmm Gorbachev seems to think that President Reagan "was one of the greatest leaders in the 20th century, if not the greatest"

 

[rgraham666]

Yes, I would agree to that one, Pure.

Both were true believers in the absolute rightness of their Cause. And the results were the exact opposite of what they envisaged.

Instead of more people belonging, more were cast out.

Instead of the country becoming rich it became more indebted.

Business did not become freer, it passed to the control of the larger corporations.

And if you look closely at all their military operations, they were, in my opinion, failures.

 

[Pure]

Yet Reagan essayed Granada, and Bush, Iraq.

Perhaps the neocon ideologues had become unstoppable** by the time of Bush--unstoppable in actual deeds, not merely in rhetoric.

There were a number of terrorist attacks in the Reagan presidency, and it appears he did not have clear ideas for dealing with them. (To be fair, no one in the 1980s quite knew what to do.) One idea was to deal with the 'sponsoring state.' In one case, that was likely Iran, so RR (& co.) came up with the idea of selling them arms for hostages.

---
**I.e., the pentagon not listened to.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

One of the points that often seems to get lost is that many Republicans desire large deficits, and why.

Excert from "Dubya, You're No Gipper"
TomPayne.COMmon Sense
David Kusnet
June 08, 2004

... Bush’s lack of life experience translates into economic policies that are even more regressive than Reagan’s. And Reagan’s policies made the rich richer, working Americans insecure and the government broke.

We were warned. In an interview with The Washington Post’s William Greider early in the administration, Budget Director David Stockman said Reagan’s economic theories were really “a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.” He explained, “It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle-down,’ so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really trickle-down.”

Around the same time, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned the Reagan policies were a Trojan horse in more ways than one. The secret strategy, Moynihan maintained, was to create a huge federal budget deficit in order to achieve the conservative goal of crippling government’s capacity to regulate corporate America and conduct domestic social programs. In private, Stockman agreed, reportedly using the phrase “starving the beast” to describe the strategy of using deficits to shrink government.

Stockman and Moynihan were right: By 1989, the distribution of wealth and income had become more unequal than at any time since the 1920s. Meanwhile, the federal deficit increased from $73 billion to $155 billion during the Reagan years, and the national debt ballooned from $711 billion to $2 trillion. This ocean of red ink had the desired effect of drowning the prospects for new social spending. In fact, “domestic discretionary spending”—social programs other than entitlements—declined from 4.5 percent of the economy in 1981 to 3.2 percent in 1988.

The Reaganites claim credit for the boom of the late '90s. But Bill Clinton’s successful economic policies reversed Reaganomics by increasing taxes on the wealthy and cutting taxes on the working poor. Contrary to supply-side theory, the result was an even stronger economy than during the late '80s, with the added benefits that the federal budget started showing a surplus and inequality declined.

But the conservative Republicans who returned to power with Bush in 2001 weren’t happy with a booming economy and a balanced budget. In three successive years, Bush pushed through three successive tax cuts totaling $1.9 trillion, with 54 percent of the benefits going to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population.

This time, conservatives openly embraced the “starve the beast strategy.” In an interview with U.S. News and World Report, Norquist explained: “The goal is reducing the size and scope of government by draining its lifeblood.” During an August 2001 press conference, Bush himself declared that the disappearing surplus was “incredibly positive news” because it would put Congress in a “fiscal straitjacket.” By Nov. 5, 2003, with the federal budget showing a deficit of at least $374 billion, Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins was saluting the Republicans as “the party that restrains the growth of government by keeping it on the only fiscal leash that works—a.k.a. the deficit.” ...

 

[Pure]

Yes, Virtual, I learned of the 'starve the beast' strategy a while back. Spend so much that future gov's have their hands tied, and even have to cut 'entitlements.' One 'entitlement' coming up is old age pensions, 'social security.'

It appears voters haven't quite 'caught on.' I believe they are unaware of what awaits them.

As someone once pointed out, conservatives believe that money in the hands of the poor corrupts them, discourages efforts, BUT in the hands of the rich, is improves them, rewards efforts, and redounds to the benefit of all society.

 

[Pornofan420]

Even less substance, and more harm, than originally thought.

 

[Pure]

Reagan mementos, based on David Corn, in The Nation.

Winnable nuclear war
recallable nuclear missiles
trees that cause pollution
colluding with Guatemalan thugs
voodoo economics
budget deficits
toasts to Ferdinand Marcos
getting cosy with Argentine fascist generals
tax credits for segregated schools
"homeless by choice"
Manuel Noriega
"constructive engagement "with apartheid {Mandela labeled terrorist}
invasion of Grenada
assassination manuals
silence on AIDS
tax cuts for the rich
massacres in El Salvador
Iran contra
laying a wreath at cemetery where the Nazi SS were buried

 

[Pure]

In another thread, Reagan's support for the British in the Fauklands war was mentioned--i.e., alleged; there's also lots of talk of the fabled friendship of RR and Thatcher.

Here's a note as to the facts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,893655,00.html

We're their allies - so why aren't they ours?

Rod Liddle
Wednesday February 12, 2003
The Guardian

What a divine pleasure it was to hear the Republican congressman Pete King eviscerating the hapless French on our radios yesterday morning. It was a perfect way to begin the day: basking in the happiness of not being French, of not being, as Bart Simpson has it, a "cheese-eating surrender monkey".

The French are, according to Pete, an irrelevance - and useless, to boot. "They don't even have a working aircraft carrier," he kept repeating, between diatribes about France's heroic and longstanding commitment to the principle of capitulation. Garlic-swathed beignet-stuffed sexually dysfunctional trash-pop Petainist belching Gauloise-smoking hypocritical papist bastard haw-hee-haw Johnny bloody Halliday up-yours-Delors coward monkeys, the lot of them. From Biarritz to Lille. Via the town of Vichy. And apart from Emmanuelle Béart, of course.

For people like me, who enjoy a bit of spite and vituperation first thing, just to get the juices flowing, it was magnificent stuff. And there - curiously unspoken - in the background was the knowledge that Pete and other similarly enraged US politicians couldn't say the same thing about us, could they?

We're right behind them, the Yanks, and this will ensure us a sliver of love from our transatlantic cousins, if only by the process of disassociation. And this matters, being loved by the US. And then, rather disconcertingly, it suddenly occurred to me that this was the same Pete King who has spent the past 15 years similarly eviscerating the British, or the "Bruddush", for "centuries of oppression" inflicted upon the Irish people.

Pete could always be relied upon to say a few words in support of Martin Galvin's evil Noraid organisation, or to wade into some delicate and confusing conundrum of Northern Ireland politics with his size 12 cowboy boots, ready to give succour to the IRA for the sake of securing a few more votes from his Irish and faux-Irish constituents. He always did so with a mixture of brio and crass ignorance. It is the same Pete King, isn't it? Of course it is. And many of you may well agree with him about Northern Ireland.

But my point is more straightforward. We should not delude ourselves that we get anything from standing four-square beside George W Bush, or any other American president, for that matter. They think we're an irrelevance too, and useless, and antiquated and decadent. And what's more, no matter how loyal we strive to be, they would not so much as bother to cross the road to piss on us were we suddenly to catch fire.

This has been the signal lesson of the past 20 years of international politics. Beginning, of course, with the Falklands "dispute". As the then defence secretary, John Nott, made clear in his strange autobiography, the Americans were a big problem.At least half of the US administration - a section led by the perfidious Jean Kirkpatrick - was vocally supportive of the Argentinian cause and attempted to thwart our attempts to regain the islands by force. Why? Because siding with us disturbed their various, disgusting, machinations in Latin America (please don't believe the US opposition was motivated by moral disgust at the prospect of bloodshed).

Incidentally, who were our real allies then, according to Nott? The cowardly French, who provided us, sotto voce, with invaluable intelligence on the Super Etendard fighter aircraft. A year later the US invaded (ineptly, of course) the British sovereign territory of Grenada without so much as a by-your-leave or bud, do you mind if we sort this problem out? On this occasion, according to Denis Healey, what irked our prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, most "was not so much the overthrow of the (Grenadian) dictatorship ... as the fact that he (President Reagan) deliberately and successfully deceived her on his intentions, though he had often told her she was his personal friend and closest ally. Moreover, he did so as part of a conspiracy with certain commonwealth governments in the Caribbean, which also kept Mrs Thatcher in the dark." Plus ça change, huh.

More recently, within weeks of September 11 2001, the US failed, astonishingly, to outlaw Noraid, despite having proscribed and seized the assets of every other terrorist fundraising organisation in the known universe. There is terrorism directed against the US and terrorism directed elsewhere, you see.

And a little later, as Britain incurred a good deal of wrath for sticking its head above the parapet to support, unequivocally, financially and with our own servicemen, America's War Against Terror and immediate adventure in Afghanistan, the US whacked illegal tariffs on our steel exports, desperately injuring a beleaguered British industry.

Of course, the two issues are not remotely related, as US trade representatives, blank-faced and unrepentant, frequently pointed out. And it may well be that the US was "right" in all of the above little contretemps with Britain. But my point is more simple - and I suppose, fairly crass: that in every case where Britain may have expected, or even just desired, a degree of loyalty from our "closest allies", that loyalty has not been remotely forthcoming. It was last forthcoming, in fact, in about 1942.

None of this should deflect Tony Blair from supporting the US in a war against Iraq if he believes it is morally the right course of action and, further, that it is in our best interests. He may well think both of these things. But increasingly the debate is being seen as a question of where we stand; are we part of Europe or do we append our allegiance to the US? And, further, what do we gain as a result?

The French are perpetually accused of pursuing a selfish foreign policy and it is a charge which is hard to deny. But it is rather less selfish and small-minded than that pursued by the US, a country for which the concept "ally" works only, it would appear, in one direction.

The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and Clarifications column, February 14 2003

It was incorrect to refer to Grenada at the time of the US invasion as "the British sovereign territory". Grenada won independence from the UK in 1974 but retained the Queen as head of state, in common with a number of other independen Commonwealth countries.

 

[Pure]

Reagan's finest hour. Even Coulter had trouble explaining this one. Largest loss of marines since WWII.

http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/MidEast/05/may/

The Bombing of the United States Marines Barracks in Beirut

By Caroline May

[Beirut]

After several months of getting settled into their hostile surroundings, the United States Marines were faced with a situation of great proportions. On October 23, 1983 a yellow Mercedes Benz truck was spotted encircling the Battalion Landing Team headquarters building (BLT). Less than an hour later the same truck returned following the same path it had taken before (Frank 1-2). It then sped into the lobby of the BLT armed with more than 1,200 pounds of dynamite, which detonated causing the entire structure to collapse (Friedman 201).

At the time there were more than three hundred men in the building. Two hundred forty one Americans died, two hundred twenty of which were Marines. The rest were medical personnel and soldiers. Not since Iwo Jima in 1945 had the Marines lost so many men in a single day (Frank 3) "Nothing was moving, just absolute silence, no gun fire no yelling, nothing. The whole four-story structure had blown up and collapsed into one massive rubble…it was seeing something move that took me out of my trance. And then I recognized, oh yes, Marines were in that building a lot of Marines were in that building…" said Commander George Puccianelli.

President Reagan and his cabinet were outraged "These deeds make so evident the bestial nature of those who would assume power if they would have their way and drive us out of that area (PBS "Target America" Video)." Reagan voiced the opinion of many American citizens.

Rescue and recovery of the victims began exactly three minutes after detonation. The rescuers included any able bodied person in the area; all were stunned. There were body parts scattered about the scene, as military personnel scrambled to pull out those who had survived in air pockets (Hammel 329-330). The Marines were traumatized. One sergeant counseled his men on having to pick out the bodies and body parts of their comrades, "Don’t think about what you are doing just do it (Hammel 339)." The fact that the building was made of reinforced concrete and steel made it more dangerous for the recovery of survivors. Trying to pull one man out, and moving a big slab of concrete on to another part of rubble they ran the risk of losing more men under the weight of that piece of concrete (Hammel 346). It was a traumatic, tedious, and dangerous job, cleaning up the mess made by the anti-Israel fundamentalists.

The Islamic terrorist group Hizballah was blamed for the attack. Little more then a year before the group had sent another suicide bomber into the United States embassy in west Beirut (Webmaster 2) which killed sixty-three people (PBS "Target America" Video). Hizballah was founded in 1985 in reaction to Israel’s movement into Lebanon, it was and is an anti-Zionist organization (Webmaster 1). Although Hizballah denied having any thing to do with the Barracks bombing, all evidence pointed in their direction.

As retaliation to the attack, President Reagan had the Pentagon plan an assault on the Bekaa Valley fifty miles from Beirut (PBS "Target America" Video), in the town of Bolbec, where the Hizballah regime and their allies trained (Webmaster 2). This plan was never carried out.

The Secretary of Defense Weinburger halted the mission for fear of starting another Vietnam. Instead, the President ordered the naval ship New Jersey to shell the side of the mountain where the terrorists resided. This scare tactic did not work, and four months later the Marines were taken out of Lebanon to prevent more casualties (PBS "Target America" video).

When the United States pulled out of Lebanon without a fight it became evident to the terrorists the state of American resolve. "Terrorists learned that a few causalities can cause us to retreat, draw in our shell, to give up what ever objective we were seeking, to abandon those with whom we had been working," said Robert Oakley, the Director of Counter Terrorism State Department ’84-’86 on the United States’ reaction (PBS "Target America Video).

The terrorists were further empowered after United States troops left Beirut, and more Hizballah suicide bombers struck the United States embassy in east Beirut (Webmaster 2). Twenty-four more victims were killed. The United States knew that Hizballah was the perpetrator, but did nothing to seek justice. (PBS Target America Video).

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Aol is running a rate Reagan poll. With 70,000 plus respondents over 75% rate him as excellent. Less than 9% poor. Bitch all you want abou thim, but he had a rapport with the American people that even his years out of the public spotlight haven't dimmed.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Bitch all you want abou thim, but he had a rapport with the American people that even his years out of the public spotlight haven't dimmed.

He got 9% of the Black vote, second term**. So I'd correct your statement to "he had rapport with the white American people, that even his years ...."

And all this 'decent sorta guy' stuff does not obscure the fact that the first major blow of Islamic 'militants' against the US not only went without significant response, but clearly stimulated NO thought processes in the conservative foreign policy advisors and the CIA [Republicans], etc., no long range plans or initiatives, save.... support Israel's hawks, regardless.


I would still like to hear, Colly, "Does GWB, in his policies and actions, show himself to be the rightful and genuine heir to the confabulatorious RR?"

**Added: GWB, I gather also got about 10% of the Black vote.