Here are some quotes about Reagan’s foreign policy from some people who should know:
I am sure that Latin American communism is different than any other kind in that they take siestas from shooting political prisoners in the afternoons.
So the Soviet Union collapsed because Reagan went on a wild military spending spree? And if he hadn’t done that, Communism in Russia would be thriving still? Is that your thesis, puddleglum?
If Communism is an inherently flawed economic system (as I’m certain you would agree), then it would have collapsed with or without Reagan’s “help,” right?
Before I credit the noted mastermind Reagan (gmph) for defeating the “Evil Empire,” I want to see some evidence that his policies were intended to drive the Soviets into bankruptcy. Were they? Or were his policies just the result of his own knee-jerk militarism combined with a cozy relationship with defense contractors? Is there any evidence that Reagan intended to drive the Soviets broke, or that he even knew it was happening? Where is that evidence? Surely there was a meeting where this was discussed? Right? Or was it a case of a blind pig finding an acorn?
puddleglum-ever hear of Salvador Allende?
Do you honestly think he was more evil than Augusto Pinochet?
When the Sandanistas came to power, one of their first acts (and one which they maintained throughout their time in power) was to abolish the death penalty. On the other hand, Reagan’s hired thugs, the Somosista National Guards, continued to “execute” (without trial) people that they labeled “traitors” to the deposed dictatorship that Reagan preferred.
It would also be interesting to find independent confirmation of the alleged quotes from former Soviets regarding the collapse of their country.
Since all the quotations are produced (in the same order with the same lack of provenance) on multiple right-wing web sites, they obviously have a single source. Unfortunately, none of those sites have the intellectual honesty to identify that source, so there is no way to discover whether those quotes are correct in context (if any) or if they were simply invented in the fashion of that old leftist claim of a “Law and Order” speech by Hitler.
They may very well be genuine statements by former Soviet leaders. Or they may be genuine statements by former Soviet dissidents (the KGB quote excepted, of course). (Or they could be self-serving statements by former Soviets trying to make a few bucks on the lecture circuit.) However, they look like inventions. (Several of) the people are real human beings, but there is a real dearth of information about them, most of it boiling down to the single quote atributed to them on multiple plagiarized sites.
I had previously said that RR won the Nobel Peace prize. I checked the Nobel site and found I was wrong. Sorry. I honestly thought that he and Gorby shared the prize that year. Even so, I’m willing to bet that if you asked Mike he would gladly share the prize. It was definately a prize won by all.
As for RR vs BC, I wonder how much of the arguement might be about who “your” president is.
Me? I’m a child of Reagan. To me the man was a pillar of strength. He told Gorby “tear down this wall” and somehow it happened. To me the 80’s ruled (as I did) and we always seemd to be on the winning team. And when Challenger blew up, I’ll admit it I cried (I was 17 at the time), but a few days later at funeral service we all “touched the face of God” and he made it easier. Iran-Contra was too complex for my brain at that time, but even today it still seems like it boiled down to Congress getting its panties in a twist cuz nobody told them. All the ecomomic strength was distilled into “yuppies”, and blue margarhitas and thin sock ties ruled the fashion world. We were “Born in the USA” livin’ in “Little Pink Houses” and all the “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun”, but “We don’t have to our Clothes Off”. And even though “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good”, we had USA-for-Africa, Live-Aid, Farm-Aid, Hands Across America and numerous other occasions where people got together for the betterment of all.
I have a thought that this type of “feeling” might be responsible for the JFK effect that 40 years later will just not go away. I didn’t live through his time (I was just an itch in my Daddy’s pants at the time; or more precisely I was a F-1 waiver from Viet Nam at the time), but I hafta think there are many out there that,after all this time, still see him as “their” president.
We can debate (argue) all day long about congressional budgets and what not, but for me (right or wrong) Ronlad Reagan was MY president and he will be the standard by which all others will be measured.
Can anyone say the same for Clinton?
rjung writes:
Nope, it starts with “S” and ends with “exual harassment of a subordinate”. Remember? That thing that is so dreadful that even being accused of it disqualifies you from the Supreme Court, but is OK if you are a pro-abortion President.
Clearer now? Just keep in mind that finding a pattern of behavior is relevant if nobody except Anita Hill accuses you (falsely), but irrelevant if Juanita Broderick, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and five or six other people back each other up.
Glad to be of service.
Regards,
Shodan
Um, the whole thing with Lewinsky was two consenting adults. It had nothing to do with the Paula Jones case.
Clintonesque - 1. to be youthful, energetic. Progressive and always planning for the future. honest, open, except about personal life. warm, gentle and kind. thougtful. Stress teamwork. Bridge builder. A friend of the poor and young. Ladies’ man.
2. trouble keeping your pants on.
Reaganesque- 1. to be forgetfull, old, and senile. old fashioned. to worship the past and not care about the future, because you don’t expect to be alive in the near
future. cowboy like, rough and tough. phony, insincere. conniving. Stress individualism. Bomb builder. A friend of the rich and old. Horses’ man.
2. trouble getting your own pants on.
Similarities:
Both were teflon, indestructable.
Clinton survived an impeachment attempt.
Reagan survived an assasination attempt.
Differences:
Clinton came from a small, poor, rural state but overcame his Hillbilly background. Graduated from the Ivy League and became a Rhodes scholar. An American Educational system success story.
Reagan did not have much education (bachelor’s degree from a small college?), but spent his adult hood in one of the most sophisticated, wealthy, urban areas in the
world: Los Angeles and Beverly Hills. American capitalist and Hollywood success story.
The quotes come from the book Victory by Peter Schweizer. Communism is an inherently flawed economic system and is unsustainable over the long term. However, it could have wobbled on for the foreseeable future in the USSR just as it has in other parts of the world had it not been so vigorously opposed by the Reagan administration. I find it highly unlikely that the timing of the collapse was a coincidence. Tyrants and dictators don’t change unless they are forced to change.
The quotes still lack a context. Pinsker is a pro-Western economist who may or may not be correct in his opinion, but with his personal views, he certainly had no access to the the actual wielders of power in the Soviet Union. His ability to know what drove the Kremlin are as useful as Lane Kirkland’s views on what drove Labor policy in the Reagan administration. Certainly worthy of consideration, but hardly an eyewitness testimony.
Marian Krzalewski was even further removed, being an opponent in another country, completely.
Kalugin and Novikov are better citations, provided they are quoted correctly, in context, and that they were not speaking for their own agendas.
They are still not authoritative alone. If we polled Donald Regan and Alexander Haig and got Bob Woodward to channel the spirit of William J. Casey regarding various decisions made by the Reagan administration, we would get at least three different answers to each question. Schweizer took the quotations that supported his contention (for which I do not blame him), but I doubt the definitive story has been told.
It may be true that tyrants and dictators do not change unless forced, however that is irrelevant to this discussion. On the one hand, Gorbachev cannot be considered either a tyrant or a dictator in any normal use of the words. On the other hand, he did begin attempting to change the Soviet arrangement as soon as he became premier. The “force” applied to him was the general state of the economy based on over 70 years of accumulated mistakes.
You hold a view shared by many that Reagan forced the Soviet collapse. It’s an interesting notion, but it is far from proved and I see the situation differently. I do not believe we will really know until scholars have been able to get at the day-to-day records and notes from the Kremlin in that period. Declaring it “true” is, at best, premature.
I suspect, James, that you and I are probably about the same age. But while you saw Reagan as a pillar of strength, I saw a dottering idiot. As with “President” Dubya, I can’t believe people actually believed that nonsensical garbage he was peddling.
“We can cut taxes and increase defense spending at the same time!” Really, Ron? The math sure doesn’t add up, as even a six-year-old knows that you lose money if you spend more than you take in.
“If you give tax cuts to rich people, they’ll spend it on the poor, and everyone benefits!” That’s a surprise to me – I didn’t know that rich people weren’t shopping in Watts because they didn’t have enough money. Or is it called “trickle-down” because that’s the fat cats pissin’ on everyone else below?
“We’ll build a set of satellites with lasers that can shoot down any nasty incoming missiles!” Hey, Ron, I loved Star Wars, but even I know that was a movie…
Weren’t those all causes supported by those no-good Hollywood liberal elite types?
I went over to google and punched in Clintonesque. I seem to get a much different reading of what that phrase means than you do.
Try this:
Clintonesque:
Double talk. Talking out both sides of your mouth. Saying absolutely nothing even though your lips have been moving for 5 minutes. Avoiding a question you do not want to answer by reinterpreting what you thought the questioner was asking, and then answering THAT question, all the time pretending to be addressing the common meaning of the question.
[sub]I did not have sexual relations with that woman.[/sub]
From my links:
**Clintonesque Cox **
http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/01/04/press-moxley.shtml
So Very Clintonesque
http://www.larryelder.com/clinton/clintonesque.htm
In the name of fighting ignorance everywhere, I offer this simple correction of the common understanding of what clintonesque means.