What Would Reagan Do In Egypt?

[AquaAthena]

According to Douglas Brinkley:


Egypt’s brutal crackdown on demonstrators and the media would have “angered and goaded” the late, great President Ronald Reagan, who would have sided with the people trying to throw off a dictator, best-selling historian Douglas Brinkley tells Newsmax.

“One of the things I learned in editing 'The Reagan Diaries' is to never say what Reagan would do, because he surprised people,” Brinkley told Newsmax in an exclusive interview Thursday night.

However, there’s little doubt how Reagan would have reacted to the mayhem in the streets of Cairo, "The Reagan Diaries” author said.

“If Reagan had intelligence information that showed that the upheaval in Egypt is actually Democratic in spirit, then he would have, I believe, turned his back on Mubarak, even though there’s a long friendship between the United States and Egypt,” Brinkley said. “And [he would have] supported the Democratic movement.”

“Reagan was a pure liberation, free-and-fair election American. I think he would have been cautious, would have been doing what he could to get Americans out of Egypt like Obama’s done, and to try to embrace this perhaps-Democratic movement that is sweeping throughout the Middle East,” Brinkley said.

Regarding President Barack Obama’s handling of the crisis, Brinkley was not critical and pointed out “I’m sure there’s a lot going on . . . that we’re not privy to.”

The prize-winning historian and author said there were two reasons Reagan handled situations such as the crisis in the Middle East astutely: He listened to his top advisers, and “he was always fighting for one ideal: democracy around the world.”


More: Douglas Brinkley: What Reagan Would Do in Egypt

 

[JScott]

He would flee.

 

[The T]

According to Douglas Brinkley:


Egypt’s brutal crackdown on demonstrators and the media would have “angered and goaded” the late, great President Ronald Reagan, who would have sided with the people trying to throw off a dictator, best-selling historian Douglas Brinkley tells Newsmax.

“One of the things I learned in editing 'The Reagan Diaries' is to never say what Reagan would do, because he surprised people,” Brinkley told Newsmax in an exclusive interview Thursday night.

However, there’s little doubt how Reagan would have reacted to the mayhem in the streets of Cairo, "The Reagan Diaries” author said.

“If Reagan had intelligence information that showed that the upheaval in Egypt is actually Democratic in spirit, then he would have, I believe, turned his back on Mubarak, even though there’s a long friendship between the United States and Egypt,” Brinkley said. “And [he would have] supported the Democratic movement.”

“Reagan was a pure liberation, free-and-fair election American. I think he would have been cautious, would have been doing what he could to get Americans out of Egypt like Obama’s done, and to try to embrace this perhaps-Democratic movement that is sweeping throughout the Middle East,” Brinkley said.

Regarding President Barack Obama’s handling of the crisis, Brinkley was not critical and pointed out “I’m sure there’s a lot going on . . . that we’re not privy to.”

The prize-winning historian and author said there were two reasons Reagan handled situations such as the crisis in the Middle East astutely: He listened to his top advisers, and “he was always fighting for one ideal: democracy around the world.”


More: Douglas Brinkley: What Reagan Would Do in Egypt

Reagan had answers for the MidEast and Terrorists...Just ask Mo-Mo Kahdaffi who had his ass handed to him in the mid 80's.

 

[The Hatter]

“If Reagan had intelligence information that showed that the upheaval in Egypt is actually Democratic in spirit, then he would have, I believe, turned his back on Mubarak, even though there’s a long friendship between the United States and Egypt,” Brinkley said. “And [he would have] supported the Democratic movement.”

“Reagan was a pure liberation, free-and-fair election American. I think he would have been cautious, would have been doing what he could to get Americans out of Egypt like Obama’s done, and to try to embrace this perhaps-Democratic movement that is sweeping throughout the Middle East,” Brinkley said.

What? Reagan supported many dictatorships, as long as they opposed communism.

Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and the Shah of Iran for starters.

He defended the apartheid government of South Africa, even going as far as vetoing the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 which would of put sanctions on South Africa. In fact, that piece of legislation was the first time in the 20th century that a President had a foreign policy veto overridden.

Source: How African-Americans helped free South Africa | Ebony | Find Articles at BNET

Reagan also supported right-wing dictatorships throughout South America including Columbia, El Salvador, and Guatemala.

This pattern of funding right-wing military and paramilitary groups would continue in Guatemala. In 1999 a report on the Guatemalan Civil War from the UN-sponsored Commission for Historical Clarification stated that “the American training of the officer corps in counter-insurgency techniques” was a “key factor” in the “genocide…Entire Mayan villages were attacked and burned and their inhabitants were slaughtered in an effort to deny the guerillas protection.” According to the commission, between 1981 and 1983 the Guatemalan government—financed and trained by the US—destroyed four hundred Mayan villages and butchered 200,000 peasants (1).

Source: Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is also Reagan's support of Panama Dictator, Manuel Noriega. He was dropped from the CIA payroll during the Carter Administration and put back on during the Reagan Administration.

Source: Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mini 14]

I'm sure it would be a simple, 2-step campaign:

1. Kick asses

2. Take names

Only Chuck Norris would be equally effective in a military situation, but Chuck would need no Army.

 

[boedicca]

One things for sure: he wouldn't encourage an outcome in which the Islamic Brotherhood took over the country.

 

[xsited1]

Check this out:

White House Insider: Obama is Clueless. Totally Clueless | Newsflavor

A surprise message from our D.C. Insider reveals an Obama White House completely unprepared for the events in Egypt, and increasingly fearful of Obama’s chances for re-election in 2012.

Obama is clueless. Totally clueless.

The people who voted for him and still support him are .

 

[boedicca]

Check this out:

White House Insider: Obama is Clueless. Totally Clueless | Newsflavor

A surprise message from our D.C. Insider reveals an Obama White House completely unprepared for the events in Egypt, and increasingly fearful of Obama’s chances for re-election in 2012.

Obama is clueless. Totally clueless.

The people who voted for him and still support him are .

Many of this knew he was clueless before he became President.

Just sayin'.

 

[The T]

“If Reagan had intelligence information that showed that the upheaval in Egypt is actually Democratic in spirit, then he would have, I believe, turned his back on Mubarak, even though there’s a long friendship between the United States and Egypt,” Brinkley said. “And [he would have] supported the Democratic movement.”

“Reagan was a pure liberation, free-and-fair election American. I think he would have been cautious, would have been doing what he could to get Americans out of Egypt like Obama’s done, and to try to embrace this perhaps-Democratic movement that is sweeping throughout the Middle East,” Brinkley said.

What? Reagan supported many dictatorships, as long as they opposed communism.

Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and the Shah of Iran for starters.

He defended the apartheid government of South Africa, even going as far as vetoing the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 which would of put sanctions on South Africa. In fact, that piece of legislation was the first time in the 20th century that a President had a foreign policy veto overridden.

Source: How African-Americans helped free South Africa | Ebony | Find Articles at BNET

Reagan also supported right-wing dictatorships throughout South America including Columbia, El Salvador, and Guatemala.

This pattern of funding right-wing military and paramilitary groups would continue in Guatemala. In 1999 a report on the Guatemalan Civil War from the UN-sponsored Commission for Historical Clarification stated that “the American training of the officer corps in counter-insurgency techniques” was a “key factor” in the “genocide…Entire Mayan villages were attacked and burned and their inhabitants were slaughtered in an effort to deny the guerillas protection.” According to the commission, between 1981 and 1983 the Guatemalan government—financed and trained by the US—destroyed four hundred Mayan villages and butchered 200,000 peasants (1).

Source: Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is also Reagan's support of Panama Dictator, Manuel Noriega. He was dropped from the CIA payroll during the Carter Administration and put back on during the Reagan Administration.

Source: Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SHAH fell long before Reagan was elected...

 

[The T]

One things for sure: he wouldn't encourage an outcome in which the Islamic Brotherhood took over the country.

And interesting that SOS Clinton, is NOT opposed to talks with the Muslim Brotherhood?

 

[The Hatter]

The SHAH fell long before Reagan was elected...

President Reagan talks about why he objected to Jimmy Carter abandoning the support for Shah of Iran, during pre-election debate.

 

[boedicca]

The Hatter displays the typical heartbreak of historical illiteracy of the garden variety moonbat.

Are the world and Iran better off with the latter in the hands of fanatical mullahs?

 

[The T]

The SHAH fell long before Reagan was elected...

President Reagan talks about why he objected to Jimmy Carter abandoning the support for Shah of Iran, during pre-election debate.

And? So?

And look what took over?

YOU are clueless.

 

[The Hatter]

And? So?

And look what took over?

YOU are clueless.

So? You were trying to say Reagan didn't support the Shah, I proved otherwise.

Reagan also supplied support to the new regime in Iran several times throughout the 80's. Of course, this occurred because Congress banned the Reagan Administration from further funding the Contras under the Boland Amendment.

Also, was the Shah of Iran comment really the only thing you could even try to respond with in your defense of Ronald Reagan? Why don't you tell me the reasonable justification for which Ronald Reagan supported the Apartheid Government in South Africa. Or you could also give me justification for his support of other dictatorships.

 

[The T]

In rhetroscet Hatter? I should have included the word sympathetic to the Islamist Totalinarians as IRAN that want to take over.

And IF that happens? The people of Egypt would BEG for Mubarak to return.

You just aren't a student of real history, are you?

 

[The T]

And? So?

And look what took over?

YOU are clueless.

So? You were trying to say Reagan didn't support the Shah, I proved otherwise.

Reagan also supplied support to the new regime in Iran several times throughout the 80's. Of course, this occurred because Congress banned the Reagan Administration from further funding the Contras under the Boland Amendment.

Also, was the Shah of Iran comment really the only thing you could even try to respond with in your defense of Ronald Reagan? Why don't you tell me the reasonable justification for which Ronald Reagan supported the Apartheid Government in South Africa. Or you could also give me justification for his support of other dictatorships.

I am speaking HISTORY. Aquaint yourself with it. As it stands? You are one that would ensure it is repeated.

 

[The Hatter]

I am speaking HISTORY. Aquaint yourself with it. As it stands? You are one that would ensure it is repeated.

So...

You have no response then to my questions?

 

[The Hatter]

Hosni Mubarak has been the dictator of Egypt since October 14, 1981.

In 1985, Reagan met with Mubarak:

Reagan Meeting With President Hosni Mubarak

I reassured President Mubarak of the commitment of the United States and my personal commitment to work with Egypt and our other friends in the area to achieve a just and lasting peace.

I thank you, and God bless you.

So it seems to me that Reagan had no problem with Mubarak back in the 80's, or if he did, he never vocalized it once in his life.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One things for sure: he wouldn't encourage an outcome in which the Islamic Brotherhood took over the country.

And interesting that SOS Clinton, is NOT opposed to talks with the Muslim Brotherhood?

I'm just curious, what would you have us do, to prevent Mubarak talking with the Muslim Brotherhood, or anyone else?

 

[Charles_Main]

According to Douglas Brinkley:


Egypt’s brutal crackdown on demonstrators and the media would have “angered and goaded” the late, great President Ronald Reagan, who would have sided with the people trying to throw off a dictator, best-selling historian Douglas Brinkley tells Newsmax.

“One of the things I learned in editing 'The Reagan Diaries' is to never say what Reagan would do, because he surprised people,” Brinkley told Newsmax in an exclusive interview Thursday night.

However, there’s little doubt how Reagan would have reacted to the mayhem in the streets of Cairo, "The Reagan Diaries” author said.

“If Reagan had intelligence information that showed that the upheaval in Egypt is actually Democratic in spirit, then he would have, I believe, turned his back on Mubarak, even though there’s a long friendship between the United States and Egypt,” Brinkley said. “And [he would have] supported the Democratic movement.”

“Reagan was a pure liberation, free-and-fair election American. I think he would have been cautious, would have been doing what he could to get Americans out of Egypt like Obama’s done, and to try to embrace this perhaps-Democratic movement that is sweeping throughout the Middle East,” Brinkley said.

Regarding President Barack Obama’s handling of the crisis, Brinkley was not critical and pointed out “I’m sure there’s a lot going on . . . that we’re not privy to.”

The prize-winning historian and author said there were two reasons Reagan handled situations such as the crisis in the Middle East astutely: He listened to his top advisers, and “he was always fighting for one ideal: democracy around the world.”


More: Douglas Brinkley: What Reagan Would Do in Egypt

This is a pretty dumb Question considering we do not have to speculate as to what he would have done. We can look and see what he did do.

Which of course was to support Mubarak as a lesser evil.