:rolleyes:
So, the Clinton body count video was supposed to be a dramatic movie of the week? Who knew?!
The difference is that so far I’ve seen nothing alleged in this mini-series that itsn’t substantially true. Reagan was a bumbling idiot with ridiculous religious ideas. He did ignore AIDS for years because he thought that it was God’s retribution against gays. Nacy was a controlling, hypocritical bitch who popped pills and used astrologers to set White House agendas.
I just hope this thing will be harsh enough. I hope it doesn’t shy awy from the record setting corruiption in the Reagan administration, from the treasonous acts committed in Iran-Contra, from Reagan’s gigantic budget deficits and National Debt, from Reagan’s support of the Taliban, Osama bin-Laden and Saddam Hussein, from Reagan’s sale of weapons to Iran after they truck bombed the American Embassy in Beirut (making Ronnie technically guilty of treason) and from Ronnie’s attempt to wag the dog by staging an utterly pointless invasion of Grenada immediately afterwards.
I can’t really think of a single real accomplishment made during the Reagan years (and if anyone brings up “tear down this wall” I will mock you).
It’s impossible to do an honest portrait of Reagan that won’t be negative. The GOP’s demands for a dishonest whitewash are laughable at best. This is probably just a publicity stunt to scare up interest in their own pro-Reagan proaganda DVD.
I think the idea of the crawl calling bullshit every ten minutes is interesting but it should only be applied during GWB’s State of the Union addresses.
I mentioned that incident because it, like the Reagan miniseries demands, reflects an almost-otherworldly display of chutzpah by the RNC in general and Gillespie in particular. Also, both would be funny as hell if they didn’t have alarming fascist overtones.
Also, compared to how Reagan’s AIDS policy is depicted in books like And the Band Played On, giving Reagan one slightly derogatory line about AIDS patients sounds pretty balanced and fair to me.
It’s an accurate representation of his mentality. I see nothing wrong with it.
In all fairness, Dio, got anything on that? Thats one heck of an indictment. I tend towards the “Ronnie as doofus and tool of the Ruling Class” school of thinking, so I’m not inclined to accept charges of cruelty and hard-heartedness without at least something in the way of a cite.
Diogenes- I seem to recall someone claiming the “tear down this wall” speech got Gorbachov “elected” and rocked the CCCP to its very foundations. Damn, that cracked me up. Do you remember who said it, or what thread it was in?
I’m waiting with bated breath for the disclaimers regarding “WMD,” “imminent threat,” “al Qaida connections” and similar calumny. (Of course, I’ll probably suffer serious lung damage.)
[ nitpick ]
Reagan’s administration supplied weapons almost exclusively to the most radical fundamentalist Muslim elements of the Afghan freedom fighters, depriving more moderate groups of the weaponry needed to defend themselves despite warnings from intelligence that the extremists would turn on us as soon as the Soviets were ousted, but they did not actually become the Taliban until the Soviet war was nearly over.
[ /nitpick ]
’lucy,
I based that statement on a set of circumstancial factors not an explicit statement by Ronnie himself.
It’s indisputable that he ignored AIDS for years. Its also indisputable that he held a hostile attitude towards homosexuals and considered them to be sinners. I also take into account his close association with far right religious figures such as Jerry Falwell who did explicitly state that AIDS was God’s retribution against gays. Reagan never made any attempt to distance himself from these kinds of claims.
When Reagan finally did speak about AIDS he recommended education in “morality” as a key strategy to fight it.
I think it’s prettty clear that he considered AIDS to be something of a disease of vice and sin. I can think of no other reason why he would have ignored it for so long.
Even the most charitable explanation I can think of would be simple political cowardice. He didn’t want people to think he was sympathetic to homosexuals. Even that excuse would still be reprehensible.
Nitpick acknowledged, Tom, but I think it’s a distinction without much of a difference.
Possum, I don’t remember that thread but there are several partsan Dopers on the board who are quite capable of positing such a theory.
Personally, I think Reagan’s speech had about as much causal effect on the fall of the Soviet Union as a rain dance has on rain. It’s a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Out of curiosity, why is the RNC presuming that they and Reagan’s friends are the best judges for the accuracy (or lack thereof) of this movie?
And yeah, I don’t recall hearing anyone from the GOP whining about accuracy when it came to the GWBush and Jessica Lynch fluff pieces. Heck, even the DNC had the good graces not to make a stink about 'em, either.
I agree, but I wanted to forestall anyone posting that the “Taliban did not exist” during Reagan’s tenure (technically true) and pretending that he had no responsibility for them (utterly false).
Does that mean he “called for” something that was already well underway, and inevitable?
I really wasn’t much interested in this movie, but now I think I will watch. I’m very interested in the debate (here) that’s sure to follow.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc means “after this, therefore on account of this.”
It’s the fallacy that X happens, then Y happens, therefore X made Y happen. It’s a specious correlation. That’s why I made the analogy to rain dancing.
Then it will be easy for you to come up with a direct quote from Reagan in which he makes this clear.
A real quote - not one of the lies spread by the dishonorable slander artists who created the malicious fiction they are attempting to foist as biography.
Regards,
Shodan
Ok, Shodan], lets have some direct quotes taken from the series. Some that prove the “malicious fiction” you claim they are trying to foist on us who, I guess, aren’t so enlightened.
Well, IMO it is not what Reagan said but what many in his administration did:
http://www.aegis.com/pubs/woalive/2001/WO2001-0401.html
(Bolding mine)
Besides the gay bashing, here is the problem: Evidence that AIDS can be spread heterosexually was available in 1984! Only Dr. Koop did the right thing.
So, did the Reagan officials did that without orders?
I suppose you’re suggesting that Bush should admit that this poppycock about WMD was, similarly, nonsense. Clearly, by my own standards, he should. If he doesn’t, this somehow justify someone else making stuff up about a third party, and a third party who can’t even defend himself, at that? In my view, not a bit. But maybe I’m odd about this two wrongs and one right thing.
Reagan had a more nuanced view of homosexuals than you give him credit for. He certainly wasn’t a gay-embracing dude, but he also wasn’t from KillQueer, Alabama.
By golly, I have a solution! Its so clearly non-partisan and fair, I am stunned by my own perspicacity! Wait till you hear it!
Bush can release the Reagan Administration papers, which are currently withheld for reasons of political gain, er, national security. Then every action of the Reaganites would be open for public scrutiny, which will undoubtedly put all these unseemly rumors to an end! When the public at large can see all of these activities in the cold light of day, universal approval and glad cries of admiration will ring out through the nation!
Wouldn’t that be swell, Mr. Rove?
Did the DNC demand to edit it before it came out? Anyone else?
No, we just slammed it for the piece of crap it was. Whic the RNC is free to do with this piece of crap when it airs. All this serves to do is make them look afraid it. Which can only serve to boost the numbers. Not a good strategy, if you ask me. They should just wait till it come out and then make fun of the fact they had James Brolin playing Ronnie.
'Cause, man, that is just sad…