Declassified: Critics Were Right - President Reagan Unnecessarily Put World At Risk of Nuclear War

Procrustes Stretched

Welshing is such a Liability
Dec 1, 2008
63,972
9,382
2,040
Location: Positively 4th Street
Declassified: Left Was Right - President Reagan Unnecessarily Put World At Risk of Nuclear War

Reagan later made nice with the Soviets and that brought about conversations between the US and the Soviets. Right Wingers would have started a nuclear war with their get tough bullcrap


By David E. Hoffman October 24 at 9:05 AM
A nuclear weapons command exercise by NATO in November 1983 prompted fear in the leadership of the Soviet Union that the maneuvers were a cover for a nuclear surprise attack by the United States, triggering a series of unparalleled Soviet military responses, according to a top-secret U.S. intelligence review that has just been declassified.

“In 1983, we may have inadvertently placed our relations with the Soviet Union on a hair trigger,” the review concluded.

[Read the U.S. assessment on Soviet fears]
In 1983 ‘war scare,’ Soviet leadership feared nuclear surprise attack by U.S.

George Will

1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives

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),...


...

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.​
 
Last edited:
The Reagan Legacy Project should be attacked by every American who values truth and honesty
1. Reagan was one of our most popular presidents.

2. Reagan was a tax-cutter.

3. Reagan was a hawk. (a USA Today poll taken four days after the fall of the Berlin Wall found that 43 percent of Americans credited Gorbachev, while only 14 percent cited Reagan.)

4. Reagan shrank the federal government.


5.Reagan was a conservative culture warrior.




Five myths about Ronald Reagan's legacy
 
Well done Mr. President. His accomplishments resonate even today!
On a more serious note, what do you like about the devastating truth?
The devastating truth is that the Soviet Union fell and Central and Eastern Europe were liberated thanks in no small part to the actions of a very consequential president and without a shot being fired.

The truth is that those who opposed Reagan came down on the wrong side of history is history.

Get over it.
 
Well done Mr. President. His accomplishments resonate even today!
On a more serious note, what do you like about the devastating truth?
The devastating truth is that the Soviet Union fell and Central and Eastern Europe were liberated thanks in no small part to the actions of a very consequential president and without a shot being fired.

The truth is that those who opposed Reagan came down on the wrong side of history is history.

Get over it.
Those who opposed Reagan taking steps that helped lead to things were conservatives and right wing critics of Reagan. It was only after Reagan went along with the moderates and liberals that things started working out.

How can you deny the truth? White House concluded Kremlin was ready for war

www.usmessageboard.com declassified-critics-were-right-president-reagan-unnecessarily-put-world-at-risk-of-nuclear-war.
 
Declassified: Left Was Right - President Reagan Unnecessarily Put World At Risk of Nuclear War

Reagan later made nice with the Soviets and that brought about conversations between the US and the Soviets. Right Wingers would have started a nuclear war with their get tough bullcrap


By David E. Hoffman October 24 at 9:05 AM
A nuclear weapons command exercise by NATO in November 1983 prompted fear in the leadership of the Soviet Union that the maneuvers were a cover for a nuclear surprise attack by the United States, triggering a series of unparalleled Soviet military responses, according to a top-secret U.S. intelligence review that has just been declassified.

“In 1983, we may have inadvertently placed our relations with the Soviet Union on a hair trigger,” the review concluded.

[Read the U.S. assessment on Soviet fears]
In 1983 ‘war scare,’ Soviet leadership feared nuclear surprise attack by U.S.

George Will

1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives

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),...


...

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.​


Not really no. Been a couple times since Reagan we were 'whoa shit that was close.' The public posturing and bluster of this time was for show. Neither the US, nor Russia ever had any serious intentions of having a nuclear exchange because both sides were sober and sensible enough to understand what would be the result. As evidenced later with Yeltzin, even given every indication of incoming US ICBMs, they weren't interested in retaliating. Their 'let's wait for a detonation' is why we're all here.

Though it looks crazy, major nuclear powers aren't ever going to willingly launch their arsenals at one another. Smaller powers like India, Pakistan, DPRK...All bets are off. Completely different cultures and psychologies in play so harder to predict and assess.

Were several times during the height of the cold war the US had an objective superiority over Soviet nuclear forces where we coulda attacked and decidely won. More missiles, better guidance systems, more reliable nuclear systems. They could retaliated, but what they had at the time woulda amounted to SCUDs landing off shore and the like. But despite this supreme advantage we didn't attack.

What's put us closer to a nuclear launch has always been the mechanics involved. Perverbial 50 cent lights going out, or other major malfunctions. And the launch-on-warning idea was probably the worst idea ever thought of other than gods. :) Launch-on-detonation is better. Rules out mistakes and computer glitches.
 
Last edited:
Well done Mr. President. His accomplishments resonate even today!
On a more serious note, what do you like about the devastating truth?
The devastating truth is that the Soviet Union fell and Central and Eastern Europe were liberated thanks in no small part to the actions of a very consequential president and without a shot being fired.

The truth is that those who opposed Reagan came down on the wrong side of history is history.

Get over it.
Those who opposed Reagan taking steps that helped lead to things were conservatives and right wing critics of Reagan. It was only after Reagan went along with the moderates and liberals that things started working out.

How can you deny the truth?

www.usmessageboard.com declassified-critics-were-right-president-reagan-unnecessarily-put-world-at-risk-of-nuclear-war.
The devastating truth is that Reagan was one of the best President's of the 20th century, and he won the Cold War WITHOUT FIRING A SHOT!!!

For some reason, Obama's drones can't accept that fact after Obama started two failed illegal wars and made a disaster of our foreign policy...


Dante says "I AM A FOOLISH TOOL"!!!
 
Well done Mr. President. His accomplishments resonate even today!
On a more serious note, what do you like about the devastating truth?
The devastating truth is that the Soviet Union fell and Central and Eastern Europe were liberated thanks in no small part to the actions of a very consequential president and without a shot being fired.

The truth is that those who opposed Reagan came down on the wrong side of history is history.

Get over it.
Those who opposed Reagan taking steps that helped lead to things were conservatives and right wing critics of Reagan. It was only after Reagan went along with the moderates and liberals that things started working out.

How can you deny the truth?

www.usmessageboard.com declassified-critics-were-right-president-reagan-unnecessarily-put-world-at-risk-of-nuclear-war.
Reagan will always be remembered for abandoning the Detente policy and fathering the Reagan Doctrine. When the Reagan Doctrine started bearing fruit with the arrival of Gorbachev, Reagan shrewdly became more conciliatory and ushered in a period of relaxed relations which in turn brought about the collapse of the USSR.

There is no question that Reagan completely rejected the appeasement and fanciful policies of the weak and it is to his undying credit that his hard-line stance changed the world as many of us who were alive and aware in those days never thought we would see in our lifetimes.

That is why Reagan is a historical giant in a period of presidential midgets.
 
Not really no. Been a couple times since Reagan we were 'whoa shit that was close.' The public posturing and bluster of this time was for show. Neither the US, nor Russia ever had any serious intentions of having a nuclear exchange because...
Of course if you had framed it as neither had any serious intention of WANTING to start a nuclear war out f hatred for the enemy or global power gains you'd win me and others over. But...

Both sides had some very serious plans of how to start or defend during a nuclear war. Both sides also has some very serious people, in serious positions of power who advocated starting a nuclear war out of fear. Cooler heads ultimately prevailed. But the declassified documents from Reagan's own White House show cooler heads almost lost a battle to NOT go to war because of what you have either willfully ignored or misunderstood.

In 1983 ‘war scare,’ Soviet leadership feared nuclear surprise attack by U.S.


Could you please explain how what you claim refutes this:

By David E. Hoffman October 24 at 9:05 AM
A nuclear weapons command exercise by NATO in November 1983 prompted fear in the leadership of the Soviet Union that the maneuvers were a cover for a nuclear surprise attack by the United States, triggering a series of unparalleled Soviet military responses, according to a top-secret U.S. intelligence review that has just been declassified.

“In 1983, we may have inadvertently placed our relations with the Soviet Union on a hair trigger,” the review concluded.​
 
The devastating truth is that Reagan was one of the best President's of the 20th century, and he won the Cold War WITHOUT FIRING A SHOT!!!

For some reason, Obama's drones can't accept that fact after Obama started two failed illegal wars and made a disaster of our foreign policy...


Dante says "I AM A FOOLISH TOOL"!!!
please stay on topic or leave the thread
 
Reagan will always be remembered for abandoning the Detente policy and fathering the Reagan Doctrine. When the Reagan Doctrine started bearing fruit with the arrival of Gorbachev, Reagan shrewdly became more conciliatory and ushered in a period of relaxed relations which in turn brought about the collapse of the USSR.

There is no question that Reagan completely rejected the appeasement and fanciful policies of the weak and it is to his undying credit that his hard-line stance changed the world as many of us who were alive and aware in those days never thought we would see in our lifetimes.

That is why Reagan is a historical giant in a period of presidential midgets.


Okay. Now, how does what YOU claim square with these facts:

George Will

1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives

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),...


...

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.​
 
Reagan will always be remembered for abandoning the Detente policy and fathering the Reagan Doctrine. When the Reagan Doctrine started bearing fruit with the arrival of Gorbachev, Reagan shrewdly became more conciliatory and ushered in a period of relaxed relations which in turn brought about the collapse of the USSR.

There is no question that Reagan completely rejected the appeasement and fanciful policies of the weak and it is to his undying credit that his hard-line stance changed the world as many of us who were alive and aware in those days never thought we would see in our lifetimes.

That is why Reagan is a historical giant in a period of presidential midgets.


Okay. Now, how does what YOU claim square with these facts:

George Will

1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives

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),...


...

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.​
I have no idea what those 'facts' have to do with Reagan's accomplishments. If anything, the raise his stature as a great leader. You're obviously a hack barking up the wrong tree.
 
Not really no. Been a couple times since Reagan we were 'whoa shit that was close.' The public posturing and bluster of this time was for show. Neither the US, nor Russia ever had any serious intentions of having a nuclear exchange because...
Of course if you had framed it as neither had any serious intention of WANTING to start a nuclear war out f hatred for the enemy or global power gains you'd win me and others over. But...

Both sides had some very serious plans of how to start or defend during a nuclear war. Both sides also has some very serious people, in serious positions of power who advocated starting a nuclear war out of fear. Cooler heads ultimately prevailed. But the declassified documents from Reagan's own White House show cooler heads almost lost a battle to NOT go to war because of what you have either willfully ignored or misunderstood.

In 1983 ‘war scare,’ Soviet leadership feared nuclear surprise attack by U.S.


Could you please explain how what you claim refutes this:

By David E. Hoffman October 24 at 9:05 AM
A nuclear weapons command exercise by NATO in November 1983 prompted fear in the leadership of the Soviet Union that the maneuvers were a cover for a nuclear surprise attack by the United States, triggering a series of unparalleled Soviet military responses, according to a top-secret U.S. intelligence review that has just been declassified.

“In 1983, we may have inadvertently placed our relations with the Soviet Union on a hair trigger,” the review concluded.​

We have 'very serious' plans on what to do if aliens attack. Don't read anything into it.
 
Reagan will always be remembered for abandoning the Detente policy and fathering the Reagan Doctrine. When the Reagan Doctrine started bearing fruit with the arrival of Gorbachev, Reagan shrewdly became more conciliatory and ushered in a period of relaxed relations which in turn brought about the collapse of the USSR.

There is no question that Reagan completely rejected the appeasement and fanciful policies of the weak and it is to his undying credit that his hard-line stance changed the world as many of us who were alive and aware in those days never thought we would see in our lifetimes.

That is why Reagan is a historical giant in a period of presidential midgets.


Okay. Now, how does what YOU claim square with these facts:

George Will

1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives

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),...


...

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.​
I have no idea what those 'facts' have to do with Reagan's accomplishments. If anything, the raise his stature as a great leader. You're obviously a hack barking up the wrong tree.
okay. Ignore the content of the posts. I'll just ignore you in this thread
 
Not really no. Been a couple times since Reagan we were 'whoa shit that was close.' The public posturing and bluster of this time was for show. Neither the US, nor Russia ever had any serious intentions of having a nuclear exchange because...
Of course if you had framed it as neither had any serious intention of WANTING to start a nuclear war out f hatred for the enemy or global power gains you'd win me and others over. But...

Both sides had some very serious plans of how to start or defend during a nuclear war. Both sides also has some very serious people, in serious positions of power who advocated starting a nuclear war out of fear. Cooler heads ultimately prevailed. But the declassified documents from Reagan's own White House show cooler heads almost lost a battle to NOT go to war because of what you have either willfully ignored or misunderstood.

In 1983 ‘war scare,’ Soviet leadership feared nuclear surprise attack by U.S.


Could you please explain how what you claim refutes this:

By David E. Hoffman October 24 at 9:05 AM
A nuclear weapons command exercise by NATO in November 1983 prompted fear in the leadership of the Soviet Union that the maneuvers were a cover for a nuclear surprise attack by the United States, triggering a series of unparalleled Soviet military responses, according to a top-secret U.S. intelligence review that has just been declassified.

“In 1983, we may have inadvertently placed our relations with the Soviet Union on a hair trigger,” the review concluded.​

We have 'very serious' plans on what to do if aliens attack. Don't read anything into it.
plans? So you are still avoiding the content and message in declassified document(s)?That Reagan's game pushed the Soviets into thinking a nuclear war was inevitable and on the very near horizon is undeniable -- those are the newest facts
 
Declassified: Left Was Right - President Reagan Unnecessarily Put World At Risk of Nuclear War

Reagan later made nice with the Soviets and that brought about conversations between the US and the Soviets. Right Wingers would have started a nuclear war with their get tough bullcrap


By David E. Hoffman October 24 at 9:05 AM
A nuclear weapons command exercise by NATO in November 1983 prompted fear in the leadership of the Soviet Union that the maneuvers were a cover for a nuclear surprise attack by the United States, triggering a series of unparalleled Soviet military responses, according to a top-secret U.S. intelligence review that has just been declassified.

“In 1983, we may have inadvertently placed our relations with the Soviet Union on a hair trigger,” the review concluded.

[Read the U.S. assessment on Soviet fears]
In 1983 ‘war scare,’ Soviet leadership feared nuclear surprise attack by U.S.
 
Reagan will always be remembered for abandoning the Detente policy and fathering the Reagan Doctrine. When the Reagan Doctrine started bearing fruit with the arrival of Gorbachev, Reagan shrewdly became more conciliatory and ushered in a period of relaxed relations which in turn brought about the collapse of the USSR.

There is no question that Reagan completely rejected the appeasement and fanciful policies of the weak and it is to his undying credit that his hard-line stance changed the world as many of us who were alive and aware in those days never thought we would see in our lifetimes.

That is why Reagan is a historical giant in a period of presidential midgets.


Okay. Now, how does what YOU claim square with these facts:

George Will

1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives

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),...


...

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.​
I have no idea what those 'facts' have to do with Reagan's accomplishments. If anything, the raise his stature as a great leader. You're obviously a hack barking up the wrong tree.
okay. Ignore the content of the posts. I'll just ignore you in this thread
Why would anyone start a thread where they're guaranteed to get there ass whopped? If you start out with such a weak and hackneyed premise, what do you expect? Worse, you paint yourself in a corner where a puny I'll-ignore-you response is all you have left.

God, you have to despair at the dumbing down of America.
 

Forum List

Back
Top