What would USMB look like if Reagan gave the nod to kill Osama bin laden?

[whitehall]

Reagan? Osama's network didn't attack the US until Bill Clinton's first term and he was handed Bin Ladin on a silver platter but declined in favor of attacking Waco Texas and later Yugoslavia.

 

[blackhawk]

Some history many here seem to have forgotten during Reagan's time as President Bin Laden was in Afghanistan waging war against the Soviet Union not the United States so there was really no reason at that time for Reagan or anyone else here to want him killed. For the one who remarked it seemed like Reagan trained and supported OBL while that did happen during the Reagan years the one most responsible for training and supporting OBL and the other mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan was Charlie Wilson.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

it would still be obamas fault.

I wonder how many years after he leaves office his name will be used as a rallying cry for misfits and losers on the right?

Far less than losers and misfits on the left have used the name Bush for theirs.

No one rallies around a call about Boooooosh

mentioning Bush oversaw a terrible economic crisis is not about rallying....

geesh

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Reagan? Osama's network didn't attack the US until Bill Clinton's first term and he was handed Bin Ladin on a silver platter...

not true


next

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Some history many here seem to have forgotten during Reagan's time as President Bin Laden was in Afghanistan waging war against the Soviet Union not the United States so there was really no reason at that time for Reagan or anyone else here to want him killed. For the one who remarked it seemed like Reagan trained and supported OBL while that did happen during the Reagan years the one most responsible for training and supporting OBL and the other mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan was Charlie Wilson.

Conservative Opposition - Hardline conservatives protest Gorbachev’s visit to Washington, and the signing of the treaty, in the strongest possible terms. When Reagan suggests that Gorbachev address a joint session of Congress, Congressional Republicans, led by House member Dick Cheney (R-WY—see 1983), rebel. Cheney says: “Addressing a joint meeting of Congress is a high honor, one of the highest honors we can accord anyone. Given the fact of continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, and Soviet actions in Africa and Central America, it is totally inappropriate to confer this honor upon Gorbachev. He is an adversary, not an ally.”

Conservative Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Committee is more blunt in his assessment of the treaty agreement: “Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as in clout, and not in a position to make judgments about Gorbachev at this time.”

Conservative pundit William F. Buckley calls the treaty a “suicide pact.”

Fellow conservative pundit George Will calls Reagan “wildly wrong” in his dealings with the Soviets. Conservatives gather to bemoan what they call “summit fever,” accusing Reagan of “appeasement” both of communists and of Congressional liberals, and protesting Reagan’s “cutting deals with the evil empire” (see March 8, 1983).

They mount a letter-writing campaign, generating some 300,000 letters, and launch a newspaper ad campaign that compares Reagan to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Steven Symms (R-ID) try to undercut the treaty by attempting to add amendments that would make the treaty untenable; Helms will lead a filibuster against the treaty as well.
Senate Ratification and a Presidential Rebuke - All the protests from hardline opponents of the treaty come to naught.

When the Senate votes to ratify the treaty, Reagan says of his conservative opposition, “I think that some of the people who are objecting the most and just refusing even to accede to the idea of ever getting an understanding, whether they realize it or not, those people, basically, down in their deepest thoughts, have accepted that war is inevitable and that there must come to be a war between the superpowers.” [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 142-145]

---------------------

As the end of President Reagan’s final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him.

They originally saw him as one of their own—a crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific.

But recent events—Reagan’s recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan. Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985).

Attempts by administration hardliners to get “soft” officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of “moral disarmament” and Safire mocking Reagan’s rapport with Gorbachev: “He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachev’s eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination.” It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]

George Will


Far right Conservatives have always been despicable when attacking those who do not fall into line

 

[blackhawk]

I wonder how many years after he leaves office his name will be used as a rallying cry for misfits and losers on the right?

Far less than losers and misfits on the left have used the name Bush for theirs.

No one rallies around a call about Boooooosh

mentioning Bush oversaw a terrible economic crisis is not about rallying....

geesh

Stop playing stupid or at least I hope your playing the left has used Bush to rally there loons and losers and deflect from any negatives on Obama or the left from the moment he left office and continue to do so to this day.

 

[blackhawk]

Some history many here seem to have forgotten during Reagan's time as President Bin Laden was in Afghanistan waging war against the Soviet Union not the United States so there was really no reason at that time for Reagan or anyone else here to want him killed. For the one who remarked it seemed like Reagan trained and supported OBL while that did happen during the Reagan years the one most responsible for training and supporting OBL and the other mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan was Charlie Wilson.

Conservative Opposition - Hardline conservatives protest Gorbachev’s visit to Washington, and the signing of the treaty, in the strongest possible terms. When Reagan suggests that Gorbachev address a joint session of Congress, Congressional Republicans, led by House member Dick Cheney (R-WY—see 1983), rebel. Cheney says: “Addressing a joint meeting of Congress is a high honor, one of the highest honors we can accord anyone. Given the fact of continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, and Soviet actions in Africa and Central America, it is totally inappropriate to confer this honor upon Gorbachev. He is an adversary, not an ally.”

Conservative Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Committee is more blunt in his assessment of the treaty agreement: “Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as in clout, and not in a position to make judgments about Gorbachev at this time.”

Conservative pundit William F. Buckley calls the treaty a “suicide pact.”

Fellow conservative pundit George Will calls Reagan “wildly wrong” in his dealings with the Soviets. Conservatives gather to bemoan what they call “summit fever,” accusing Reagan of “appeasement” both of communists and of Congressional liberals, and protesting Reagan’s “cutting deals with the evil empire” (see March 8, 1983).

They mount a letter-writing campaign, generating some 300,000 letters, and launch a newspaper ad campaign that compares Reagan to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Steven Symms (R-ID) try to undercut the treaty by attempting to add amendments that would make the treaty untenable; Helms will lead a filibuster against the treaty as well.
Senate Ratification and a Presidential Rebuke - All the protests from hardline opponents of the treaty come to naught.

When the Senate votes to ratify the treaty, Reagan says of his conservative opposition, “I think that some of the people who are objecting the most and just refusing even to accede to the idea of ever getting an understanding, whether they realize it or not, those people, basically, down in their deepest thoughts, have accepted that war is inevitable and that there must come to be a war between the superpowers.” [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 142-145]

---------------------

As the end of President Reagan’s final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him.

They originally saw him as one of their own—a crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific.

But recent events—Reagan’s recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan. Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985).

Attempts by administration hardliners to get “soft” officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of “moral disarmament” and Safire mocking Reagan’s rapport with Gorbachev: “He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachev’s eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination.” It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]

George Will


Far right Conservatives have always been despicable when attacking those who do not fall into line

All of that rambling nonsense you posted does not change the facts that Bin Laden was not attacking the U.S. during Reagan's time as President or that Charlie Wilson was the man most responsible for arming and training the Afghan fighters including Bin Laden.

 

[edthecynic]

Reagan? Osama's network didn't attack the US until Bill Clinton's first term and he was handed Bin Ladin on a silver platter but declined in favor of attacking Waco Texas and later Yugoslavia.

More bullshit from a Misinformation Voter.

 

[edthecynic]

Some history many here seem to have forgotten during Reagan's time as President Bin Laden was in Afghanistan waging war against the Soviet Union not the United States so there was really no reason at that time for Reagan or anyone else here to want him killed. For the one who remarked it seemed like Reagan trained and supported OBL while that did happen during the Reagan years the one most responsible for training and supporting OBL and the other mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan was Charlie Wilson.

First of all, Reagan's buddy OBL, like just about everyone in the ME that St Ronnie armed, hated and wanted to kill Westerners, that includes the USA. Reagan knew this first hand from Dana Tyrone Rohrabacher when he got back from delivering stinger missiles to OBL where he recounts that he was told not to speak when he met with OBL because the crazy Saudi wanted to kill Americans as much as he wanted to kill Russians.

Reagan always used surrogates like Wilson and North, etc., so he can maintain "Plausible Deniability" as a smirking North called it under oath.

 

[Misty]

First I've seen no proof that Osama bin laden is dead.

Second has his death stopped al Qaida? Not even a little bit.

Did Obama leave Iraq and Afghanistan in the hands of al Qaida? Yes.

Is the Muslim brotherhood a terrorist group gaining power in Egypt? Yes

Is Obama a complete failure at foreign policy? Yes.

 

[UseCaution]

What would USMB look like if Reagan gave the nod to kill Osama bin laden?

This si what bothers most sane people. The unreality of the right wing when they politicize every single action of a President they disagree with ;politically.

Everyone should be celebrating Obama as a great C-in-C...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reagan would get full credit. This is the same man who said "Tear down this wall", and the Soviet Union magically crumbled.

right! the right wing attacked Reagan when he left office ....

Conservative Opposition - Hardline conservatives protest Gorbachev’s visit to Washington, and the signing of the treaty, in the strongest possible terms. When Reagan suggests that Gorbachev address a joint session of Congress, Congressional Republicans, led by House member Dick Cheney (R-WY—see 1983), rebel. Cheney says: “Addressing a joint meeting of Congress is a high honor, one of the highest honors we can accord anyone. Given the fact of continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, and Soviet actions in Africa and Central America, it is totally inappropriate to confer this honor upon Gorbachev. He is an adversary, not an ally.”

Conservative Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Committee is more blunt in his assessment of the treaty agreement: “Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as in clout, and not in a position to make judgments about Gorbachev at this time.”

Conservative pundit William F. Buckley calls the treaty a “suicide pact.”

Fellow conservative pundit George Will calls Reagan “wildly wrong” in his dealings with the Soviets. Conservatives gather to bemoan what they call “summit fever,” accusing Reagan of “appeasement” both of communists and of Congressional liberals, and protesting Reagan’s “cutting deals with the evil empire” (see March 8, 1983).

They mount a letter-writing campaign, generating some 300,000 letters, and launch a newspaper ad campaign that compares Reagan to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Steven Symms (R-ID) try to undercut the treaty by attempting to add amendments that would make the treaty untenable; Helms will lead a filibuster against the treaty as well.
Senate Ratification and a Presidential Rebuke - All the protests from hardline opponents of the treaty come to naught.

When the Senate votes to ratify the treaty, Reagan says of his conservative opposition, “I think that some of the people who are objecting the most and just refusing even to accede to the idea of ever getting an understanding, whether they realize it or not, those people, basically, down in their deepest thoughts, have accepted that war is inevitable and that there must come to be a war between the superpowers.” [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 142-145]

---------------------

As the end of President Reagan’s final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him.

They originally saw him as one of their own—a crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific.

But recent events—Reagan’s recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan. Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985).

Attempts by administration hardliners to get “soft” officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of “moral disarmament” and Safire mocking Reagan’s rapport with Gorbachev: “He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachev’s eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination.” It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]

George Will


Far right Conservatives have always been despicable when attacking those who do not fall into line

I say he would look like this!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What would USMB look like if Reagan gave the nod to kill Osama bin laden?

I don't think ReRon took-on anyone who was....

.....big-enough to fight-BACK.

*

March 19, 2013

Ex-Dictator Rios Montt On-Trial​

"Former Guatemalan dictator Efrain Rios Montt is due to go on trial for genocide and crimes against humanity on Tuesday, the first time a country has prosecuted an ex-head of state in a national court on such charges.

For decades, Rios Montt, avoided prosecution for atrocities committed during his 1982-1983 rule in a particularly bloody phase of the country's long civil war, protected as a congressman by a law that grants immunity to public officials.

Rios Montt, 86, who left Congress in 2012, was ordered to trial in January when a judge found sufficient evidence linking him to the killing of more than 1,700 indigenous people in a counter-insurgency plan executed under his command."​

​

 

[TNHarley]

it would still be obamas fault.

I wonder how many years after he leaves office his name will be used as a rallying cry for misfits and losers on the right?

Ironic post is ironic

 

[Redfish]

news for all of you obama fans. He made the right call authorizing the hit on OBL. But without the intel generated during the Bush admin, they never would have known where he was.

Now, a question for you, where would the twin towers be if Clinton had taken OBL when Sudan offered him to us?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why would Reagan kill someone he thought of as a "Founding Father" of Afghanistan?

Yeah.....ol' ReRon used that "Founding Fathers" sales-pitch, a lot!!

I often wondered if he was aware our "Founding Fathers".....

....WEREN'T the dudes in the Red-Coats??!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

it would still be obamas fault.

I wonder how many years after he leaves office his name will be used as a rallying cry for misfits and losers on the right?

Far less than losers and misfits on the left have used the name Bush for theirs.

Aw, c'mon.....we've ALWAYS given the Bush Family credit for their.....

....DECADES of effort!!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Reagan would get full credit. This is the same man who said "Tear down this wall", and the Soviet Union magically crumbled.

Magically? You people seriously dont think do you?

I guess that was a more-poetic way of saying the Soviet Union had (pretty much) already collapsed, under it's own weight.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Reagan (like Bush) would have given the Special Ops all the credit, and neither one would have given out the name of the Seal team that did it. And, they would have waited until all information was in ... you do know that by jumping the gun and giving out the information screwed up other plans?

Like he sent out the "Special Ops" team after some 250 Marines were killed in Beriut?

People STILL wonder how they managed to show-up....

....in Grenada!!

"The U.S. invasion of Grenada was the first major U.S. military operation since the end of the Vietnam War. Indeed, it may have in part been a test of the so-called "Vietnam syndrome," the purported "affliction" that makes it difficult for the American public to support U.S. military intervention without a just cause. As with Iraq, the initial justifications for the invasion proved to be either highly debatable or demonstrably false, yet it still received bipartisan support in Congress and the approval of nearly two-thirds of the American public.

The major justification for the invasion was the protection of American lives. Reagan administration officials falsely claimed that the island's only operating airport was closed, offering the students no escape. In reality, scores of people left the island on charter flights the day before the U.S. invasion, noting that there was not even a visible military presence at the airport and that customs procedures were normal. Regularly scheduled flights as well as sea links from neighboring Caribbean islands had ceased as of October 21, however, though this came as a direct result of pressure placed on these governments to do so by U.S. officials. Apparently, by limiting the ability of Americans who wished to depart from leaving, the Reagan administration could then use their continued presence on the troubled island as an excuse to invade. The Reagan administration admitted that no significant non-military means of evacuating Americans was actively considered.

The medical school's chancellor, Charles Modica, polled students and found that 90% did not want to be evacuated. Despite repeated inquiries as to whether Washington was considering military action, he was told nothing of the sort was being considered. As the invasion commenced, Dr. Modica angrily denounced the invasion as totally unnecessary and a far greater risk to the students' safety than Grenada's domestic crisis. Vice-chancellor Geoffrey Bourne and Bursar Gary Solin also declared their steadfast opposition. The U.S. media focused great attention on the students who were first evacuated and "debriefed" by U.S. officials who generally supported the invasion. However, virtually no attention was given to those who stayed behind, who tended to be more familiar with the island and who largely opposed U.S. intervention. There were no confirmed reports of any American civilians harmed or threatened before or during the invasion. It was three days after U.S. troops initially landed before they decided to take control of the second medical school campus, raising questions as to whether the safety of Americans was really the foremost priority."​

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What would usmb look like if Dante actually left and mr sharmin were sane?

 

[ClosedCaption]

If Reagan would've taken out OBL GWB wouldnt have been able to do business together. making money creates strange bedfellows...