Reagan's Hurtful Side

nycflasher

Active Member
Apr 15, 2004
3,078
13
36
CT
Ronald Reagan's Hurtful Side
June 12, 2004
by Stan Simpson
source

When I think of Ronald Reagan, I think of Nelson Mandela.

One is without question one of the great men of modern times. The other, well, was a bad actor.

Now that Reagan is buried, there's no better time to unearth the truth of his distorted legacy. His civil and human rights record was so deplorable it anchors him among the lower rung of modern presidents. His indifference to South Africa's apartheid government needlessly added to Mandela's 27-year prison term.

While the Great Communicator harangued Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down that Berlin Wall, he apparently got laryngitis and didn't push South Africa's racist white-minority rulers to end its government-sanctioned oppression of the black majority.

Instead, Reagan, who valued South Africa's anti-Communist standing, proposed "constructive engagement" with its leaders, essentially an endorsement of the status quo. Had America stepped up with sanctions, which is what most of the world was doing, apartheid would have tumbled sooner than 1994, when a released Mandela was elected president.

"With specific regards to human rights, the Reagan era left a lot to be desired," says Richard A. Wilson, director of the Human Rights Institute at the University of Connecticut.

"Reagan could have supported multiracial elections in [South Africa] much, much sooner. A policy of `constructive engagement' was not a clear lead or stance in the awfulness that was apartheid."

Insensitivity, particularly to people of color, was the hallmark of Reagan's eight years in office. He kicked off his presidential campaign in 1980, not in his California hometown, but in Philadelphia, Miss. - notorious for the 1964 murder of three civil rights workers. In espousing a "states' rights" agenda - translated into "pro-segregation" in the South - Reagan let the good ol' boys know he'd have their back.

When Reagan signed the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday into law in 1983, he couldn't resist a dig at the slain civil rights leader. When asked if he thought King was a communist sympathizer, Reagan responded, "We'll know in 35 years, won't we?" - referring to the time frame in which classified FBI tapes would be released.

His administration made the mindless suggestion, in an effort to cut back on free school lunch programs, that ketchup and relish could be considered vegetables. America's 40th president opposed affirmative action, appointed mostly conservative judges and civil rights commissioners, supported Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran, and backed a slew of rightist dictators. As he was with apartheid, the Gipper's silence about a raging AIDS epidemic spoke volumes.

In commemorating World War II, Reagan, against the advice of his advisers and Jewish leaders, laid a wreath in 1985 at a cemetery in Bitburg, West Germany - the resting place of more than 40 Nazi soldiers of the notorious Waffen SS.

"I don't know what his personal feelings may have been," Julian Bond, chairman of the national NAACP, said over the phone Friday. "But whatever they were, his political feelings were developed to appeal to that group of Americans who aren't comfortable with democracy and justice and fair play."

This week's mourning of Reagan was nauseating because so many engaged in a whitewashing of his record. You can't evaluate Bill Clinton without mentioning Monica. You can't revisit Nixon without bringing up Watergate. And you cannot anoint Reagan as one of our great presidents without talking about his thoughtless actions on civil and human rights.

Reagan's self-effacing charm, one-liners and avuncular ways made some look past his shortsighted public policy. "His personality trumped his politics," Bond says. "He apparently was a decent human being, loved his wife, was friendly to all. And that geniality for many people masked the bad side of his politics."

In the plus ledger, Reagan brought pride and toughness to the United States after a Jimmy Carter era that had us looking soft. Reagan's influence in ending the Cold War with the Soviets was significant. His survival of an assassination attempt from a kook named Hinckley was heroic.

In the sunset of his life and battling the debilitation of Alzheimer's, the man who elevated the conservative political movement engendered something he doled out sparingly as president.

Compassion.



Stan Simpson's column appears Wednesdays and Saturdays. He can be reached at [email protected].

E-mail: [email protected]

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at ctnow.com/archives.
 
Get a grip little boy; I doubt you are even old enough to remember or appreciate what this man did for our great nation. Whats the matter didn't he cater enough to the gay community, you know, your little butt buddies.
 
Here come the bitter history revisionists, the fucking left is just jealous that they have never had or never will have anybody with the popularity of Reagan. He stood up for what was right and I guess since he didn't throw billions of dollars at needless social programs and apartheid didn't end under his tenure he was bad on civil rights. Lol what a bitter group Democrats are.
 
Originally posted by eric
Get a grip little boy; I doubt you are even old enough to remember or appreciate what this man did for our great nation. Whats the matter didn't he cater enough to the gay community, you know, your little butt buddies.

1. I'm 6'5", 220lbs.- you're the little man.
2. I didn't write this article, Stan Simpson--a columnist I like-- did.
3. I was 13 when Reagan left office, but I do know how to read. And I do, voraciously.
4. What the fuck is your problem, asshole?

Go drink some coffee and stop the hate, you stupid roid-raging fuckwad. :D
 
Out of respect for the dead and thier loved ones, trashing someone at thier funeral is just not something that is done. No, Reagan wasn't perfect and apparently many now feel the need to point that out. Fine. He was however a man who was loved and respected by millions of people world wide. He obviously did something to earn it.
 
Originally posted by OCA
Here come the bitter history revisionists, the fucking left is just jealous that they have never had or never will have anybody with the popularity of Reagan. He stood up for what was right and I guess since he didn't throw billions of dollars at needless social programs and apartheid didn't end under his tenure he was bad on civil rights. Lol what a bitter group Democrats are.

"This week's mourning of Reagan was nauseating because so many engaged in a whitewashing of his record. You can't evaluate Bill Clinton without mentioning Monica. You can't revisit Nixon without bringing up Watergate. And you cannot anoint Reagan as one of our great presidents without talking about his thoughtless actions on civil and human rights."

Do you agree with that at all, OCA?
I think it's a good point.
 
Originally posted by dilloduck
Out of respect for the dead and thier loved ones, trashing someone at thier funeral is just not something that is done. No, Reagan wasn't perfect and apparently many now feel the need to point that out. Fine. He was however a man who was loved and respected by millions of people world wide. He obviously did something to earn it.

It's important to learn from OUR successes AND failures, no?
 
Originally posted by nycflasher
It's important to learn from OUR successes AND failures, no?

Of course--and we will now here from Reagans critics who want to point out his failures. It will also be nauseating
 
Originally posted by dilloduck
Of course--and we will now here from Reagans critics who want to point out his failures. It will also be nauseating

lol
So, anything about Reagan nauseates you?
 
Originally posted by nycflasher
lol
So, anything about Reagan nauseates you?

The eternal funeral did get a bit long but it was nice to see people show thier respects to a leader instead of thier disdain. Optimism was a nice change.
 
Originally posted by nycflasher
"This week's mourning of Reagan was nauseating because so many engaged in a whitewashing of his record. You can't evaluate Bill Clinton without mentioning Monica. You can't revisit Nixon without bringing up Watergate. And you cannot anoint Reagan as one of our great presidents without talking about his thoughtless actions on civil and human rights."

Do you agree with that at all, OCA?
I think it's a good point.

Where is the proof that his record on civil and human rights was thoughtles? This isn't proof its an opinion piece.
 
LMAO i'm sure we'll hear something stupid from the board libs about IRAN-CONTRA now. If it wasn't for Reagan and Ollie North there would still be untold dozens of American hostages rotting in caves in the Bekaa Valley, Lebanon. But we'll hear how it was a violation of law and cocaine and arms but the left will not talk about the American hostages. Sad that they value law above lives isn't it? Then again it was just a foriegn policy rule rather than a law but who had the foresight to see that Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad would resort to snatching up Americans like they did.

Next we will hear about Latin and South American dictators and death squads and how we propped evil guys blah blah blah. This is exactly why Democrats should be barred from foriegn policy, the world is a rough place and sometimes you have to be buddies with some unsavory characters for the good of your country, something Democrats have no stomach for.
 
Originally posted by OCA
Where is the proof that his record on civil and human rights was thoughtles? This isn't proof its an opinion piece.

Yes it is an opinion piece, just like your opinion that his record on civil rights was thoughtful. I think Stan listed some examples.
 
1. I'm 6'5", 220lbs.- you're the little man.
2. I didn't write this article, Stan Simpson--a columnist I like-- did.
3. I was 13 when Reagan left office, but I do know how to read. And I do, voraciously.
4. What the fuck is your problem, asshole?

Go drink some coffee and stop the hate, you stupid roid-raging fuckwads

Intelligence is not one of your strong points I see. I'm also glad your proud of your physical structure, do you feel tough, like a real man ?

No, you did not write it, but you did post it. The man has not even been in the ground for a week, learn some respect young man !

That is my problem, plain and simple ! It shows your character, which, as evidenced, is lacking many positive traits.

Reading and experience are two very different things, you did not have to live in fear growing up of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, I did, and it was not a comforting thought.

As far as me being stupid, think what you may, opinions of people of your class and stature mean very little to people like me.

Furthermore lay off the language or you will not post again, that is a promise, try me !!!!
 
Originally posted by nycflasher
Yes it is an opinion piece, just like your opinion that his record on civil rights was thoughtful. I think Stan listed some examples.

Difference being I don't write a fucking column. The free lunch b.s. and ketchup crap is the same rhetoric Demos have been using for years, find links to that please. Conservative judges? Hell yes, thats one of the perks! AIDS? It was just starting back then, any Demos speak up about it? Philadelphia, Miss.? Nice inference and slander. Was MLK a communist? Lots of people think so. Supported Hussein? Damn right, Iran was the enemy, now Hussein has shit in his own nest and we euthanized him like a rabid dog. The rest is the green eyes of jealousy tearing some asswipe apart.
 
Originally posted by OCA

Next we will hear about Latin and South American dictators and death squads and how we propped evil guys blah blah blah. This is exactly why Democrats should be barred from foriegn policy, the world is a rough place and sometimes you have to be buddies with some unsavory characters for the good of your country, something Democrats have no stomach for.

Reagan played decisive role in Saddam Hussein's survival in Iran-Iraq war

Wed Jun 9, 3:06 AM ET

WASHINGTON, (AFP) - As Americans mourn the passing of president Ronald Reagan, almost forgotten is the decisive part his administration played in the survival of Iraq's president Saddam Hussein through his eight year war with Iran.

US soldiers now fighting the remnants of Saddam's regime can look back to the early 1980s for the start of a relationship that fostered the rise of the largest military in the Middle East, one whose use of chemical weapons set the stage for last year's war.

Reagan, determined to check arch-foe Iran, opened a back door to Iraq through which flowed US intelligence and hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees even as Washington professed neutrality in Baghdad's war with Tehran.

It was complemented by French weaponry and German dual-use technology that experts say wound up in Iraq's chemical and biological warfare programs.

Donald Rumsfeld, then Reagan's special Middle East envoy, is credited with establishing the back channel to Saddam on a secret trip to Baghdad in December 1983.

Washington had plenty of motives to help Saddam stave off an Iranian victory. Not only was the United States still smarting from the 1980 hostage-taking at the US embassy in Tehran, but its embassy and a marine barracks in Beirut had been struck with truck bombings earlier in 1983.

In fact, the United States had begun to tilt in favor Baghdad even before Rumsfeld's arrival in Baghdad.

In February 1982, the State Department dropped Baghdad from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, clearing the way for aid and trade.

A month later, Reagan ordered a review of US policy in the Middle East which resulted in a marked shift in favor of Iraq over the next year.

"Soon thereafter, Washington began passing high-value military intelligence to Iraq to help it fight the war, including information from US satellites that helped fix key flaws in the fortifications protecting al-Basrah that proved important in Iran's defeat in the next month," wrote Kenneth Pollack in his recently published book "The Threatening Storm."

Economic aid poured into Iraq in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of loan guarantees to buy US agricultural products, indirectly aiding the war effort.

Sales of UH-1H helicopters and Hughes MD-500 Defender helicopters were approved by Washington. Though sold as civilian aircraft, nobody objected when they were quickly converted for military use.

A May 9, 1984 memo unearthed by the National Security Archive, a Washington research organization, noted that US policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program also was reviewed.

The memo said its "preliminary results favor expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities."

By March 1985, the United States was issuing Baghdad export permits for high tech equipment crucial for its weapons of mass destruction programs, according to Pollack.

US allies also were active in Iraq.

"By 1982, Iraq accounted for 40 percent of French arms exports," wrote Pollack. "Paris sold Baghdad a wide range of weapons, including armored vehicles, air defense radars, surface-to-air missiles, Mirage fighters, and Exocet anti-ship missiles."

"German firms also rushed in without much compunction, not only selling Iraq large numbers of trucks and automobiles but also building vast complexes for Iraq's chemical warfare, biological warfare, and ballistic missile programs," he wrote.

The aid came despite clear evidence as early as mid-1983 that Iraq was using chemical weapons on Iranian forces.

Washington said nothing publicly, but noted "almost daily" Iraqi use of chemical weapons in internal reports.

"We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons," a November 1, 1983 State Department memo said. "We also know that Iraq has acquired a CW production capability, primarily from western firms, including possibly a US foreign subsidiary."

It said "our best present chance of influencing cessation of CW use may be in the context of informing Iraq of these measures."

Washington did not publicly denounce Iraqi use of chemical weapons until March, 1984 after it was documented in a UN study.

The Reagan administration opened full diplomatic relations with Baghdad in November, 1984. Iraqi chemical attacks continued not only on Iranian forces but also on Kurdish civilians, notably at Hallabja in 1987.

For its support, Pollack wrote, Washington got a bulwhark against Iran, cheap oil and Iraqi support for peace neogtiations with Israel.

But when the Iran-Iraq war ended, Baghdad was left with huge debts and a large and menacing military looking for easy prey.

source
 
All of that is absolutely true and at the time was the best thing to do. We'll help ya when we want and take you down when we want!

God bless Ronald Reagan! Perhaps the greatest president of the 20th century!
 

Forum List

Back
Top