Negroponte: Man With a Message

[andyfox]

"Carter's actions led directly to the Iraq situation today"

No, Reagan's and Bush 41's actions led directly to the Iraq situation today. Did you not see the picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with his friend Hussein? He was our good buddy despite the fact that he was using chemical weapons against both Iran and his own people.

That's the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives like to rewrite history. Take the Cold War. Conservatives say that Ronald Reagan brought down the evil empire. In fact it was the liberals, from Harry Turman and Dean Acheson through John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, who fought the Soviets, dragging the isolationist Republicans along kicking and screaming. The Republicans were the advocates of detente and their hero Ronald Reagan proposed the elimination of all nuclear weapons to Gorbachev.

It was Bush 41's ambassador who told Hussein not to worry about going into Kuwait. And it was Bush 41 who left Hussein in power in the first gulf war.

[andyfox]

The Sandanistas were not totalitarians. This was a figment of Ronald Reagan's imagination. The contras, now there were totalitarians. The groups we supported in El Salvador and Guatemala and Chile--there were some brutal thugs in the Joseph Stalin mode. Elections in Nicaragua happened despite the United States' interference, not becauase of it. The elections we cause are usually rigged.

The idea that Reagan, who proposed to Gorbachev that we eliminate all nuclear weapons, had anything to do with the end of the Soviet Union is laughable. The pressure during the Cold War that caused the Soviet Union to finally go bankrupt was put on by the liberal Democrats, dragging the isolationist Republican Party with it kicking and screaming in protest.

The big picture is that millions suffered directly because of U.S. non-concern with human rights in Latin America. Negroponte believes in this policy and is a shockingly disappointing appointment.

You're description of conservatives' non-concern for the death of innocents--"a murder here, a terrorist act there"--is telling. It would be a good description of your foreign policy. Perhaps you should use it in your commercials.

Hi, I'm George Bush, and I approve this commercial. "A murder here, a terrorist act there." Not to worry. Let's keep our eyes on the big picture.

[andyfox]

Actually, there was not deafening silence. Reagan said that the contras were the moral equivalent of our founding fathers. Quite a moral compass there.

A murder here, and terrorist act there, what's the difference? GWB has his eye on the big picture.

That's why he's made twenty-seven visits to Pennsylvania while in office.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Carter's actions led directly to the Iraq situation today

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Reagan's and Bush 41's actions led directly to the Iraq situation today. Did you not see the picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with his friend Hussein? He was our good buddy despite the fact that he was using chemical weapons against both Iran and his own people.



[/ QUOTE ]
The US would never have had to make a reluctant choice of support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War if Carter had not turned Iran into the greatest evil in the region. Iraq had been a Soviet client state, but we had to resist the spread of Iran-style terror and oppression. We were never buddies with Iraq, but we did have a common enemy thanks to Carter.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
The pressure during the Cold War that caused the Soviet Union to finally go bankrupt was put on by the liberal Democrats, dragging the isolationist Republican Party with it kicking and screaming in protest.


[/ QUOTE ]
LOL. Wow if you believe this, I just don't know what to say.

I guess you think the GOP is full of closet communists. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Imagine! Ted Kennedy - Commie Fighter!

[nicky g]

You are clearly about as well informed as the man himself.

[andyfox]

It was the Truman administration that developed the Marshall Plan. It was the Truman administration that gave aid to Greece and Turkey. It was the Truman administration that institutued loyalty oaths in the federal government. The Republican Party was the part of Taft and Vendenburg and other isolationists. It was the Johsnons, and Kennedys and Jacksons in congress who were the hawks. It was Kennedy and Johnson who made our massive commitment to Vietnam and southeast Asia. It was Nixon and Kissinger who wante detente with the Soviets and made nice-nice with Red China. And it was Reagan who would have eliminated all nuclear weapons had Gorbachev not recognized him for the simpleton that he was.

I think the GOP was full of empty barrels. They rattled pretty loud, but there's no there there.

If you would read the newspapers, Mr. President, or anything for that matter, you might know a little about recent American history. Perhaps you can start with Mr. Woodward's book, as you are recommending it to others.

[andyfox]

The United States turned Iran to the greatest evil in the region. Why was Ayatollah Knomeini welcomed back from Paris as a hero? Because the people loved the Shah? Why did we overthrow Mossadegh? You should learn a little about the history of Iran. People who don't know their history are condemned to repeat it, Mr. President.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
And it was Reagan who would have eliminated all nuclear weapons had Gorbachev not recognized him for the simpleton that he was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, regarding Reagan's "Zero-Option" offer to the Soviets--I only vaguely recall the setting--but didn't it go something like this?

At arms talks, the USSR surprised Reagan by proposing the elimination of all theater-range nukes in Europe--a reduction which, if implemented, would have given the Soviets a huge strategic advantage due to their enormous tank force in the region. The Soviet proposal also scored points politically and in the press by making it look like the Soviets were the "progressive, pro-peace guys." Reagan, after thinking it over, countered with the proposal to eliminate ALL nukes period--an offer the Soviets walked away from. So Reagan avoided selling out Western Europe's security, and at the same time reversed the public relations coup the Soviets thought they had scored. The Soviets rather than the Americans now looked like the instransigents. Reagan probably also knew that he held the stronger cards: the Soviets could not match America's military spending in the years to come (though they tried somewhat, to the detriment of their already weak economy). Thus the "simple" Reagan actually pulled off a brilliant feat.

That's all I remember, and I might be off--maybe way off. But I don't mind looking like an idiot if I am;-) Maybe, too, I am remembering something Mason once wrote? Not sure if he covered this in any essays or books.

Input or comments?

[Cyrus]

"Carter allowed [the Shah of Iran] a run-of-the-mill dictator who left the vast majority of the [Iranian] people unmolested ---he did go after a few of his political opponents--- [to be ousted] by a regime of Islamic fanaticism that has subjugated everybody, especially women."

The depth of your ignorance of History is astounding, colossal, truly breathtaking. One does not know where to begin.

I mean this is my first reaction, when I read the above drivel. (That "thoughtful" coda about "the women" is a gem!) Then I remember I'm reading a post, by a guy, who has adopted, as his nickname, the name of, the current Prez of the U.S.A.! And I get my breath back.