http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.health/index.html

:eek:

Love him or hate him, the man was a great figure in American politics.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry said that Reagan's "love of country was infectious. Even when he was breaking Democrats hearts, he did so with a smile and in the spirit of honest and open debate."

Maybe not the best president, he was a great man and will be missed. At least he won't suffer any longer. Rest in peace buddy.

I think we all can agree that this is a sad day for America, no matter what you thought of his politics.

RIP, Gip.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Love him or hate him, the man was a great figure in American politics.
Hell........he was a FUCKIN' LIAR........ (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20000327&s=alterman) .......and, a murderous PIG!!!!!!!!!! (http://www.venusproject.com/ecs/Baltimore_Sun.html) :mad:

Mr. Shaman why dont you just stfu!!! The man gave a lot to this country, he did bring an end to the cold war. All Presidents have their skeletons and their good. Well since the man has passed away show him respect. Attacking someone who cant respond is a very cowardly attitude.
Grow up!

Farewell President reagan, I salute you.

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
Hell........he was a FUCKIN' LIAR........ (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20000327&s=alterman) .......and, a murderous PIG!!!!!!!!!! (http://www.venusproject.com/ecs/Baltimore_Sun.html) :mad:

I meant great as in "large" ya loser.

I didn't agree with his politics, and I disagreed with many of the things that he did in life, but no one should suffer from alzheimers.

Shaman...you have no class...

Hey Mr. Shaman how do you feel about these remarks on the man you slander on the day of his passing.


Bill Clinton:

"Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere. It is fitting that a piece of the Berlin Wall adorns the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington."


Yes even those who oppossed him realized that he did good for our country.
As for your need to attack him I feel even more anger towards you than I did the first time I read your post. I didnt always see eye to eye with Regan he sent me to Beirut, it was his and the UN policies that helped 241 American service men die in one day.
So since you call yourself Mr. Shaman how is it that you can act in this manner? Are you truly a believer in the ways of the Shaman or is it that you thought it sounded cool, maybe you could have picked Mr. Rabbi or Mr. Priest? Just a thought.
Ok done raging.

Farewell Dutch.

Mr. Shaman, I understand that Reagan did some horrible horrible things as president. These things aside, he was our president and he did what he felt was best for the country, inspiring many people along the way. He spent the last ten years of his life suffering, he has finally moved on. As progressives, we have better things to do than speak ill of the dead. Doing so is very rude and immature, especially on a day when so many Americans are mourning somebody that was a hero to them.

wow that sux...for him. i never had the pleasure of reagan as a presidend

Shaman has downgraded from just a regular parrot to a low-life cowardly no-respect-for-a-fallen-american-icon parrot.

Farewell to a very Charismatic fellow American!


Shaman, most inappropriate.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040605/capt.ny11206051309.reagan_health_ny112.jpg

much as I disagree with his plitics, he played an integral role in recent American history, and was exuberanbtly patriotic. nobody deserves to suffer from alzheiemer's the way he did.

Shaman, please, be mature.

After I read Reagans Biography a while back I was left thinking this guy was either a total genius or a lucky idiot. I think it was more the first.

You have to credit the guy with pushing the USSR into an arms race they couldn't afford - which preciptated the end of the cold war. Risky strategy - but the guy had a belief and he went with it.

Trickle down Reagan-conomics I don't agree with but you have to Salute the guy for the many great things he did. Overall he was a great President.

RIP Gipper. You will be missed:(

Shaman grow up!

I voted for Ronald Reagan twice for President. Both times from West Germany where I was stationed during most of his term in office. In my opinion, he oversaw the final downfall of the Russian Bear and ended the Cold War. He will be missed.

bush couldnt wear reagans jock strap..........one of reagans more famous quotes used by late night tv hosts.." where would this country be without this great land of ours"........that man was 93. he live a good life. the funny thing about his presidency was that, when bush was his vice, people talked about bush like he was the missing stooge.............then we elected him. i worked at a chemical plant when reagan was in office. i was laid off and the company said it was reaganomics......that was the biggest blessing in my life. i ended up going to school, and the guys that stayed there contracted bad diseases..............in a back door kinda way, he saved my life......

I feel that I must also comment on the composure and strength of Mrs. Reagan that I noticed as his coffin was loaded today.
This lady had to deal several years with the devistation of a terrible disease upon a loved one. She is to be commended.

Yes she has been strong, I am reminded of another strong first lady, Pat Nixon. Anyway I am sure that even though she has lost the man she loved she feels a great relief taht he is no longer suffering.
My Grandmother had Alzheimers and it is an awful way to go. I fear that more than any other way to die. I would hate to lose my thought process and the memories of my life.
I thought one of the sadest things I heard about President Reagan was when he was in an office with Nancy. There was an aquarium and in the bottom was a small whitehouse, he fished it out and held it tight. Nancy asked him why he did that and he said, I think this has something to do with me, but I dont know why. To be the leader of the free world credited with ending the cold war and to have no memories of the accomplishment is sad and unjust.

Think he should be added to Rushmore?

Originally posted by es347fan
Think he should be added to Rushmore?
No. Leave Rushmore as it is.

I wouldn't complain about seeing him on a coin or bill, though. :)

No he should definitely NOT be on Mount Rushmore, and I would even object to memorializing him on a coin.

As much as I disagree with the fact that Shaman referred to him as a "murderous pig", I do agree with the point he was trying to make. Reagan was no saint. You can say he was a "true american" and a "patriot", and you can say that everything he did was because of his love for this country. It doesn't change the fact that he knowingly engaged in policies that led to the murders of thousands of Guatemalans and Hondurans, and he and his cronies deliberately lied to Congress to secretly fund such activities in El Salvador by selling missiles to Iran.

I think it's important to remember these facts lest we get swept away by our emotions, and offer honors and praises to a man who was perhaps not deserving of them.

I do not remember that it was ever proven that he had knowledge of these actions as they took place.
Remember this is a big government and the President is no better than his advisers at gaining knowledge of the actions of the thousands of branches of government.
The CIA, is by its very nature, secretive. They could very well have kept this knowledge from him.
The CIA has many years to create situations, the President has at the most 2 terms.
It is a possibility.

Originally posted by es347fan
Think he should be added to Rushmore?

I don't think anyone else should be added to Rushmore ever. We can destroy a new mountain if we decide to memorialize anyone else. Or we could be different an carve out a lake somewhere that looks like his profile. Or make an island shaped like his initials.

He allready has the D.C. airport and an aircraft carrier named after him, and probably more than one school. I see no point in making a national monument for the guy.

Vile, I understand your issues with Reagan, but as Dan said he did nothing worse than everyone commerated on a coin. The framers had slaves, Grant murdered many in the name of war( to use the phrase from the lib side) Lincoln wasnt a saint either, he didnt enter the Civil War to end slavery, we needed the income from the souths cotton plantations slavery was a side line to the war. And again he did a lot of things that would seem barbaric to us. You can not bring down the Berlin Wall, scare the hell out of the Soviets, initaite a war on terror without getting your hands dirty. It is not always the deed but the reason it was done.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Vile, I understand your issues with Reagan, but as Dan said he did nothing worse than everyone commerated on a coin.

ummm...Dan said no such thing.

The framers had slaves, Grant murdered many in the name of war( to use the phrase from the lib side) Lincoln wasnt a saint either, he didnt enter the Civil War to end slavery, we needed the income from the souths cotton plantations slavery was a side line to the war. And again he did a lot of things that would seem barbaric to us.

All of which is irrelevant to the issue of Ronald Reagan's legacy.

You can not bring down the Berlin Wall, scare the hell out of the Soviets, initaite a war on terror without getting your hands dirty.

Which one of those is the reason we murdered people in Guatemala?

It is not always the deed but the reason it was done.

And some deeds are wrong no matter what the reason...

OK so Dan didnt say it, but he should have ;)

The actions of those on bills are not irrelevant to the issue if Reagan should be on currency or a stamp, they are on the currency so what is the difference.


Do we know for a fact that Reagan had any knowledge of the killings? NO we have only speculation up to this point.
Unfortunately Presidents have ordered assasinations, over throwing of governments and even arresting the President of a nation.

This is the job that very few would want and even less could do it. People say it doesnt take guts to order troops into battle, just because they are not in the fight doesnt make it much easier.
Actually I would say tha most military people are mad at the hesitation most leaders have when ordering actions.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/052699a3.html

May 26, 1999
Reagan & Guatemala’s Death Files

page 1, 2, 3

After his election, Reagan pushed aggressively to overturn an arms embargo imposed on Guatemala by President Carter because of the military's wretched human rights record.

Reagan saw bolstering the Guatemalan army as part of a regional response to growing leftist insurgencies. Reagan pitched the conflicts as Moscow's machinations for surrounding and conquering the United States.

The president's chief concern about the recurring reports of human rights atrocities was to attack and discredit the information. Sometimes personally and sometimes through surrogates, Reagan denigrated the human rights investigators and journalists who disclosed the slaughters.

Typical of these attacks was an analysis prepared by Reagan's appointees at the U.S. embassy in Guatemala. The paper was among those recently released by the Clinton administration to assist the Guatemalan truth commission’s investigation.

Dated Oct. 22, 1982, the analysis concluded "that a concerted disinformation campaign is being waged in the U.S. against the Guatemalan government by groups supporting the communist insurgency in Guatemala.”

The report claimed that “conscientious human rights and church organizations,” including Amnesty International, had been duped by the communists and “may not fully appreciate that they are being utilized."

"The campaign's object is simple: to deny the Guatemalan army the weapons and equipment needed from the U.S. to defeat the guerrillas," the analysis declared.

"If those promoting such disinformation can convince the Congress, through the usual opinion-makers -- the media, church and human rights groups -- that the present GOG [government of Guatemala] is guilty of gross human rights violations they know that the Congress will refuse Guatemala the military assistance it needs.

“Those backing the communist insurgency are betting on an application, or rather misapplication, of human rights policy so as to damage the GOG and assist themselves."

Reagan personally picked up this theme of a falsely accused Guatemalan military. During a swing through Latin America, Reagan discounted the mounting reports of hundreds of Maya villages being eradicated.

On Dec. 4, 1982, after meeting with Guatemala's dictator, Gen. Efrain Rios Montt, Reagan hailed the general as "totally dedicated to democracy." Reagan declared that Rios Montt's government had been "getting a bum rap."

But the newly declassified U.S. government records reveal that Reagan's praise -- and the embassy analysis -- flew in the face of corroborated accounts from U.S. intelligence.

Based on its own internal documents, the Reagan administration knew that the Guatemalan military indeed was engaged in a scorched-earth campaign against the Mayans.

According to these “secret” cables, the CIA was confirming Guatemalan government massacres in 1981-82 even as Reagan was moving to loosen the military aid ban.

In April 1981, a secret CIA cable described a massacre at Cocob, near Nebaj in the Ixil Indian territory. On April 17, 1981, government troops attacked the area believed to support leftist guerrillas, the cable said.

According to a CIA source, "the social population appeared to fully support the guerrillas" and "the soldiers were forced to fire at anything that moved." The CIA cable added that "the Guatemalan authorities admitted that 'many civilians' were killed in Cocob, many of whom undoubtedly were non-combatants."

Despite the CIA account and other similar reports, Reagan permitted Guatemala's army to buy $3.2 million in military trucks and jeeps in June 1981. To permit the sale, Reagan removed the vehicles from a list of military equipment that was covered by the human rights embargo.

Apparently confident of Reagan’s sympathies, the Guatemalan government continued its political repression without apology.

According to a State Department cable on Oct. 5, 1981, Guatemalan leaders met with Reagan's roving ambassador, retired Gen. Vernon Walters, and left no doubt about their plans.
Guatemala's military leader, Gen. Fernando Romeo Lucas Garcia, "made clear that his government will continue as before -- that the repression will continue. He reiterated his belief that the repression is working and that the guerrilla threat will be successfully routed."

Human rights groups saw the same picture. The Inter-American Human Rights Commission released a report on Oct. 15, 1981, blaming the Guatemalan government for "thousands of illegal executions." [WP, Oct. 16, 1981]

But the Reagan administration was set on whitewashing the ugly scene. A State Department "white paper," released in December 1981, blamed the violence on leftist "extremist groups" and their "terrorist methods" prompted and supported by Cuba’s Fidel Castro.

Yet, even as these rationalizations were presented to the American people, U.S. agencies continued to pick up clear evidence of government-sponsored massacres.

One CIA report in February 1982 described an army sweep through the so-called Ixil Triangle in central El Quiche province.

"The commanding officers of the units involved have been instructed to destroy all towns and villages which are cooperating with the Guerrilla Army of the Poor [known as the EGP] and eliminate all sources of resistance,” the report stated.

“Since the operation began, several villages have been burned to the ground, and a large number of guerrillas and collaborators have been killed."

The CIA report explained the army's modus operandi: "When an army patrol meets resistance and takes fire from a town or village, it is assumed that the entire town is hostile and it is subsequently destroyed."

When the army encountered an empty village, it was "assumed to have been supporting the EGP, and it is destroyed. There are hundreds, possibly thousands of refugees in the hills with no homes to return to. …

"The army high command is highly pleased with the initial results of the sweep operation, and believes that it will be successful in destroying the major EGP support area and will be able to drive the EGP out of the Ixil Triangle. … The well documented belief by the army that the entire Ixil Indian population is pro-EGP has created a situation in which the army can be expected to give no quarter to combatants and non-combatants alike."

In March 1982, Gen. Rios Montt seized power. An avowed fundamentalist Christian, he immediately impressed Washington. Reagan hailed Rios Montt as "a man of great personal integrity."

By July 1982, however, Rios Montt had begun a new scorched-earth campaign called his "rifles and beans" policy. The slogan meant that pacified Indians would get "beans," while all others could expect to be the target of army "rifles."

In October, he secretly gave carte blanche to the feared “Archivos” intelligence unit to expand “death squad” operations. Based at the Presidential Palace, the “Archivos” masterminded many of Guatemala’s most notorious assassinations.

The U.S. embassy was soon hearing more accounts of the army conducting Indian massacres. On Oct, 21, 1982, one cable described how three embassy officers tried to check out some of these reports but ran into bad weather and canceled the inspection.

Still, this cable put the best possible spin on the situation. Though unable to check out the massacre reports, the embassy officials did "reach the conclusion that the army is completely up front about allowing us to check alleged massacre sites and to speak with whomever we wish."

The next day, the embassy fired off its analysis that the Guatemalan government was the victim of a communist-inspired "disinformation campaign," a claim embraced by Reagan with his "bum rap" comment in December.

On Jan. 7, 1983, Reagan lifted the ban on military aid to Guatemala and authorized the sale of $6 million in military hardware. Approval covered spare parts for UH-1H helicopters and A-37 aircraft used in counterinsurgency operations.

Radios, batteries and battery charges were also in package.
State Department spokesman John Hughes said political violence in the cities had "declined dramatically" and that rural conditions had improved too.

In February 1983, however, a secret CIA cable noted a rise in "suspect right-wing violence" with kidnappings of students and teachers. Bodies of victims were appearing in ditches and gullies.

CIA sources traced these political murders to Rios Montt's order to the “Archivos” in October to "apprehend, hold, interrogate and dispose of suspected guerrillas as they saw fit."

Despite these grisly facts on the ground, the annual State Department human rights survey praised the supposedly improved human rights situation in Guatemala. "The overall conduct of the armed forces had improved by late in the year" 1982, the report stated.

A different picture -- far closer to the secret information held by the U.S. government -- was coming from independent human rights investigators. On March 17, 1983, Americas Watch representatives condemned the Guatemalan army for human rights atrocities against the Indian population.

New York attorney Stephen L. Kass said these findings included proof that the government carried out "virtually indiscriminate murder of men, women and children of any farm regarded by the army as possibly supportive of guerrilla insurgents."

Rural women suspected of guerrilla sympathies were raped before execution, Kass said. Children were "thrown into burning homes. They are thrown in the air and speared with bayonets.

We heard many, many stories of children being picked up by the ankles and swung against poles so their heads are destroyed." [AP, March 17, 1983]

Publicly, however, senior Reagan officials continued to put on a happy face. On June 12, 1983, special envoy Richard B. Stone praised "positive changes" in Rios Montt's government.

But Rios Montt’s vengeful Christian fundamentalism was hurtling out of control, even by Guatemalan standards. In August 1983, Gen. Oscar Mejia Victores seized power in another coup.

Despite the power shift, Guatemalan security forces continued to act with impunity.

When three Guatemalans working for the U.S. Agency for International Development were slain in November 1983, U.S. Ambassador Frederic Chapin suspected that “Archivos” hit squads were sending a message to the United States to back off even the mild pressure for human rights improvements.

In late November, in a brief show of displeasure, the administration postponed the sale of $2 million in helicopter spare parts. The next month, however, Reagan sent the spare parts.

In 1984, Reagan succeeded, too, in pressuring Congress to approve $300,000 in military training for the Guatemalan army.

By mid-1984, Chapin, who had grown bitter about the army’s stubborn brutality, was gone, replaced by a far-right political appointee named Alberto Piedra, who was all for increased military assistance to Guatemala.

In January 1985, Americas Watch issued a report observing that Reagan's State Department "is apparently more concerned with improving Guatemala's image than in improving its human rights."

According to the newly declassified U.S. records, the Guatemalan reality included torture out of the Middle Ages. A Defense Intelligence Agency cable reported that the Guatemalan military used an air base in Retalhuleu during the mid-1980s as a center for coordinating the counterinsurgency campaign in southwest Guatemala.

At the base, pits were filled with water to hold captured suspects. "Reportedly there were cages over the pits and the water level was such that the individuals held within them were forced to hold on to the bars in order to keep their heads above water and avoid drowning," the DIA report stated. Later, the pits were filled with concrete to eliminate the evidence.

The Guatemalan military used the Pacific Ocean as another dumping spot for political victims, according to the DIA report. Bodies of insurgents tortured to death and of live prisoners marked for “disappearance” were loaded on planes that flew out over the ocean where the soldiers would shove the victims into the water.

The history of the Retalhuleu death camp was uncovered by accident in the early 1990s, the DIA reported on April 11, 1994. A Guatemalan officer wanted to let soldiers cultivate their own vegetables on a corner of the base.

But the officer was taken aside and told to drop the request "because the locations he had wanted to cultivate were burial sites that had been used by the D-2 [military intelligence] during the mid-eighties."


page 3 | History falsified




May 26, 1999
Reagan & Guatemala’s Death Files

page 1, 2, 3

Guatemala, of course, was not the only Central American country where Reagan and his administration supported brutal counterinsurgency operations -- and then sought to cover up the bloody facts.

Reagan's falsification of the historical record was a hallmark of the conflicts in El Salvaodor and Nicaragua as well. In one case, Reagan personally lashed out at an individual human rights investigator named Reed Brody, a New York lawyer who had collected affidavits from more than 100 witnesses to atrocities carried out by the U.S.-supported contras in Nicaragua.

Angered by the revelations about his pet "freedom-fighters," Reagan denounced Brody in a speech on April 15, 1985. The president called Brody "one of dictator [Daniel] Ortega's supporters, a sympathizer who has openly embraced Sandinismo."

Privately, Reagan had a far more accurate understanding of the true nature of the contras. At one point in the contra war, Reagan turned to CIA official Duane Clarridge and demanded that the contras be used to destroy some Soviet-supplied helicopters that had arrived in Nicaragua.

In his memoirs, Clarridge recalled that "President Reagan pulled me aside and asked, 'Dewey, can't you get those vandals of yours to do this job.'" [See Clarridge's A Spy for All Seasons.]

To conceal the truth about the war crimes of Central America, Reagan also authorized a systematic program of distorting information and intimidating American journalists.

Called "public diplomacy," the project was run by a CIA propaganda veteran, Walter Raymond Jr., who was assigned to the National Security Council staff. The explicit goal of the operation was to manage U.S. "perceptions" of the wars in Central America.

The project's key operatives developed propaganda "themes," selected “hot buttons” to excite the American people, cultivated pliable journalists who would cooperate and bullied reporters who wouldn't go along.

The best-known attacks were directed against New York Times correspondent Raymond Bonner for disclosing Salvadoran army massacres of civilians, including the slaughter of more than 800 men, women and children in El Mozote in December 1981.

But Bonner was not alone. Reagan's operatives pressured scores of reporters and their editors in an ultimately successful campaign to minimize information about these human rights crimes reaching the American people. [For details, see Robert Parry's Lost History.]

The tamed reporters, in turn, gave the administration a far freer hand to pursue its anticommunist operations throughout Central America.

Despite the tens of thousands of civilian deaths and now-corroborated accounts of massacres and genocide, not a single senior military officer in Central America was held accountable for the bloodshed.

The U.S. officials who sponsored and encouraged these war crimes not only escaped any legal judgment, but remained highly respected figures in Washington. Reagan has been honored as few recent presidents have.

The journalists who played along by playing down the atrocities -- the likes of Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer -- saw their careers skyrocket, while those who told the truth suffered severe consequences.

Given that history, it was not surprising that the Guatemalan truth report was treated as a one-day story.

The major American newspapers did cover the findings. The New York Times made it the lead story. The Washington Post played it inside on page A19. Both cited the troubling role of the CIA and other U.S. government agencies in the Guatemalan tragedy. But no U.S. official was held accountable by name.

On March 1, 1999, a strange Washington Post editorial addressed the findings, but did not confront them. One of its principal points seemed to be that President Carter's military aid cut-off to Guatemala was to blame.

The editorial argued that the arms embargo removed "what minimal restraint even a feeble American presence supplied." The editorial made no reference to the 1980s and added only a mild criticism of "the CIA [because it] still bars the public from the full documentation."

Then, with no apparent sense of irony, the editorial ended by stating: "We need our own truth commission."

During a visit to Central America, on March 10, President Clinton apologized for the past U.S. support of right-wing regimes in Guatemala.

"For the United States, it is important that I state clearly that support for military forces and intelligence units which engaged in violence and widespread repression was wrong, and the United States must not repeat that mistake," Clinton said. [WP, March 11, 1999]

But the sketchy apology appears to be all the Central Americans can expect from El Norte.

Back in Washington, Ronald Reagan remains a respected icon, not a disgraced war criminal. His name is still honored, attached to National Airport and a new federal building. A current GOP congressional initiative would chisel his face into Mount Rushmore.

Meanwhile, in the Balkans and in Africa, the United States is sponsoring international tribunals to arrest and to try human rights violators -- and their political patrons -- for war crimes.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/052699a1.html

May 26, 1999
Reagan & Guatemala’s Death Files

By Robert Parry

Ronald Reagan's election in November 1980 set off celebrations in the well-to-do communities of Central America.

After four years of Jimmy Carter's human rights nagging, the region's anticommunist hard-liners were thrilled that they had someone in the White House who understood their problems.

The oligarchs and the generals had good reason for the optimism. For years, Reagan had been a staunch defender of right-wing regimes that engaged in bloody counterinsurgency campaigns against leftist enemies.

In the late 1970s, when Carter's human rights coordinator, Pat Derian, criticized the Argentine military for its "dirty war" -- tens of thousands of "disappearances," tortures and murders -- then-political commentator Reagan joshed that she should "walk a mile in the moccasins” of the Argentine generals before criticizing them. [For details, see Martin Edwin Andersen's Dossier Secreto.]

Despite his aw shucks style, Reagan found virtually every anticommunist action justified, no matter how brutal. From his eight years in the White House, there is no historical indication that he was troubled by the bloodbath and even genocide that occurred in Central America during his presidency, while he was shipping hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the implicated forces.

The death toll was staggering -- an estimated 70,000 or more political killings in El Salvador, possibly 20,000 slain from the contra war in Nicaragua, about 200 political "disappearances" in Honduras and some 100,000 people eliminated during a resurgence of political violence in Guatemala.

The one consistent element in these slaughters was the overarching Cold War rationalization, emanating in large part from Ronald Reagan's White House.

Yet, as the world community moves to punish war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, no substantive discussion has occurred in the United States about facing up to this horrendous record of the 1980s.

Rather than a debate about Reagan as a potential war criminal, the ailing ex-president is honored as a conservative icon with his name attached to Washington National Airport and with an active legislative push to have his face carved into Mount Rushmore.

When the national news media does briefly acknowledge the barbarities of the 1980s in Central America, it is in the context of one-day stories about the little countries bravely facing up to their violent pasts.

At times, the CIA is fingered abstractly as a bad supporting actor in the violent dramas. But never does the national press lay blame on individual American officials.

The grisly reality of Central America was most recently revisited on Feb. 25 when a Guatemalan truth commission issued a report on the staggering human rights crimes that occurred during a 34-year civil war.

The Historical Clarification Commission, an independent human rights body, estimated that the conflict claimed the lives of some 200,000 people with the most savage bloodletting occurring in the 1980s.

Based on a review of about 20 percent of the dead, the panel blamed the army for 93 percent of the killings and leftist guerrillas for three percent. Four percent were listed as unresolved.

The report documented that in the 1980s, the army committed SPAMSPAMSPAM massacres against Mayan villages. "The massacres that eliminated entire Mayan villages … are neither perfidious allegations nor figments of the imagination, but an authentic chapter in Guatemala's history," the commission concluded.

The army "completely exterminated Mayan communities, destroyed their livestock and crops," the report said. In the north, the report termed the slaughter a "genocide." [WP, Feb. 26, 1999]

Besides carrying out murder and “disappearances,” the army routinely engaged in torture and rape. "The rape of women, during torture or before being murdered, was a common practice" by the military and paramilitary forces, the report found.

The report added that the "government of the United States, through various agencies including the CIA, provided direct and indirect support for some [of these] state operations." The report concluded that the U.S. government also gave money and training to a Guatemalan military that committed "acts of genocide" against the Mayans.

"Believing that the ends justified everything, the military and the state security forces blindly pursued the anticommunist struggle, without respect for any legal principles or the most elemental ethical and religious values, and in this way, completely lost any semblance of human morals," said the commission chairman, Christian Tomuschat, a German jurist.

"Within the framework of the counterinsurgency operations carried out between 1981 and 1983, in certain regions of the country agents of the Guatemalan state committed acts of genocide against groups of the Mayan people,” he added. [NYT, Feb. 26, 1999]

The report did not single out culpable individuals either in Guatemala or the United States. But the American official most directly responsible for renewing U.S. military aid to Guatemala and encouraging its government during the 1980s was President Reagan.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/060704A.shtml

Planet Reagan
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 07 June 2004

Buffalo Bill's
defunct
who used to
ride a watersmooth-silver
stallion
and break onetwothreefourfive pigeonsjustlikethat
Jesus
he was a handsome man
and what i want to know is
how do you like your blueeyed boy
Mister Death

- e.e. cummings, "Buffalo Bill's Defunct"
Ronald Reagan is dead now, and everyone is being nice to him. In every aspect, this is appropriate. He was a husband and a father, a beloved member of a family, and he will be missed by those he was close to. His death was long, slow and agonizing because of the Alzheimer's Disease which ruined him, one drop of lucidity at a time. My grandmother died ten years ago almost to the day because of this disease, and this disease took ten years to do its dirty, filthy, wretched work on her.

The dignity and candor of Reagan's farewell letter to the American people was as magnificent a departure from public life as any that has been seen in our history, but the ugly truth of his illness was that he lived on, and on, and on. His family and friends watched as he faded from the world of the real, as the simple dignity afforded to all life collapsed like loose sand behind his ever more vacant eyes. Only those who have seen Alzheimer's Disease invade a mind can know the truth of this. It is a cursed way to die.

In this mourning space, however, there must be room made for the truth. Writer Edward Abbey once said, "The sneakiest form of literary subtlety, in a corrupt society, is to speak the plain truth. The critics will not understand you; the public will not believe you; your fellow writers will shake their heads."

The truth is straightforward: Virtually every significant problem facing the American people today can be traced back to the policies and people that came from the Reagan administration. It is a laundry list of ills, woes and disasters that has all of us, once again, staring apocalypse in the eye.

How can this be? The television says Ronald Reagan was one of the most beloved Presidents of the 20th century. He won two national elections, the second by a margin so overwhelming that all future landslides will be judged by the high-water mark he achieved against Walter Mondale. How can a man so universally respected have played a hand in the evils which corrupt our days?

The answer lies in the reality of the corrupt society Abbey spoke of. Our corruption is the absolute triumph of image over reality, of flash over substance, of the pervasive need within most Americans to believe in a happy-face version of the nation they call home, and to spurn the reality of our estate as unpatriotic. Ronald Reagan was, and will always be, the undisputed heavyweight champion of salesmen in this regard.

Reagan was able, by virtue of his towering talents in this arena, to sell to the American people a flood of poisonous policies. He made Americans feel good about acting against their own best interests. He sold the American people a lemon, and they drive it to this day as if it was a Cadillac. It isn't the lies that kill us, but the myths, and Ronald Reagan was the greatest myth-maker we are ever likely to see.

Mainstream media journalism today is a shameful joke because of Reagan's deregulation policies. Once upon a time, the Fairness Doctrine ensured that the information we receive - information vital to the ability of the people to govern in the manner intended - came from a wide variety of sources and perspectives. Reagan's policies annihilated the Fairness Doctrine, opening the door for a few mega-corporations to gather journalism unto themselves. Today, Reagan's old bosses at General Electric own three of the most-watched news channels. This company profits from every war we fight, but somehow is trusted to tell the truths of war. Thus, the myths are sold to us.

The deregulation policies of Ronald Reagan did not just deliver journalism to these massive corporations, but handed virtually every facet of our lives into the hands of this privileged few. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat are all tainted because Reagan battered down every environmental regulation he came across so corporations could improve their bottom line. Our leaders are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the corporations that were made all-powerful by Reagan's deregulation craze. The Savings and Loan scandal of Reagan's time, which cost the American people hundreds of billions of dollars, is but one example of Reagan's decision that the foxes would be fine guards in the henhouse.

Ronald Reagan believed in small government, despite the fact that he grew government massively during his time. Social programs which protected the weakest of our citizens were gutted by Reagan's policies, delivering millions into despair. Reagan was able to do this by caricaturing the "welfare queen," who punched out babies by the barnload, who drove the flashy car bought with your tax dollars, who refused to work because she didn't have to. This was a vicious, racist lie, one result of which was the decimation of a generation by crack cocaine. The urban poor were left to rot because Ronald Reagan believed in 'self-sufficiency.'

Because Ronald Reagan could not be bothered to fund research into 'gay cancer,' the AIDS virus was allowed to carve out a comfortable home in America. The aftershocks from this callous disregard for people whose homosexuality was deemed evil by religious conservatives cannot be overstated. Beyond the graves of those who died from a disease which was allowed to burn unchecked, there are generations of Americans today living with the subconscious idea that sex equals death.

The veneer of honor and respect painted across the legacy of Ronald Reagan is itself a myth of biblical proportions. The coverage proffered today of the Reagan legacy seldom mentions impropriety until the Iran/Contra scandal appears on the administration timeline. This sin of omission is vast. By the end of his term in office, some 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, indicted or investigated for misconduct and/or criminal activities.

Some of the names on this disgraceful roll-call: Oliver North, John Poindexter, Richard Secord, Casper Weinberger, Elliott Abrams, Robert C. McFarlane, Michael Deaver, E. Bob Wallach, James Watt, Alan D. Fiers, Clair George, Duane R. Clarridge, Anne Gorscuh Burford, Rita Lavelle, Richard Allen, Richard Beggs, Guy Flake, Louis Glutfrida, Edwin Gray, Max Hugel, Carlos Campbell, John Fedders, Arthur Hayes, J. Lynn Helms, Marjory Mecklenburg, Robert Nimmo, J. William Petro, Thomas C. Reed, Emanuel Savas, Charles Wick. Many of these names are lost to history, but more than a few of them are still with us today, 'rehabilitated' by the administration of George W. Bush.

Ronald Reagan actively supported the regimes of the worst people ever to walk the earth. Names like Marcos, Duarte, Rios Mont and Duvalier reek of blood and corruption, yet were embraced by the Reagan administration with passionate intensity. The ground of many nations is salted with the bones of those murdered by brutal rulers who called Reagan a friend. Who can forget his support of those in South Africa who believed apartheid was the proper way to run a civilized society?

One dictator in particular looms large across our landscape. Saddam Hussein was a creation of Ronald Reagan. The Reagan administration supported the Hussein regime despite his incredible record of atrocity. The Reagan administration gave Hussein intelligence information which helped the Iraqi military use their chemical weapons on the battlefield against Iran to great effect. The deadly bacterial agents sent to Iraq during the Reagan administration are a laundry list of horrors.

The Reagan administration sent an emissary named Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to shake Saddam Hussein's hand and assure him that, despite public American condemnation of the use of those chemical weapons, the Reagan administration still considered him a welcome friend and ally. This happened while the Reagan administration was selling weapons to Iran, a nation notorious for its support of international terrorism, in secret and in violation of scores of laws.

Another name on Ronald Reagan's roll call is that of Osama bin Laden. The Reagan administration believed it a bully idea to organize an army of Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union. bin Laden became the spiritual leader of this action. Throughout the entirety of Reagan's term, bin Laden and his people were armed, funded and trained by the United States. Reagan helped teach Osama bin Laden the lesson he lives by today, that it is possible to bring a superpower to its knees. bin Laden believes this because he has done it once before, thanks to the dedicated help of Ronald Reagan.

In 1998, two American embassies in Africa were blasted into rubble by Osama bin Laden, who used the Semtex sent to Afghanistan by the Reagan administration to do the job. In 2001, Osama bin Laden thrust a dagger into the heart of the United States, using men who became skilled at the art of terrorism with the help of Ronald Reagan. Today, there are 827 American soldiers and over 10,000 civilians who have died in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a war that came to be because Reagan helped manufacture both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

How much of this can be truthfully laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan? It depends on who you ask. Those who worship Reagan see him as the man in charge, the man who defeated Soviet communism, the man whose vision and charisma made Americans feel good about themselves after Vietnam and the malaise of the 1970s. Those who despise Reagan see him as nothing more than a pitch-man for corporate raiders, the man who allowed greed to become a virtue, the man who smiled vapidly while allowing his officials to run the government for him.

In the final analysis, however, the legacy of Ronald Reagan - whether he had an active hand in its formulation, or was merely along for the ride - is beyond dispute. His famous question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" is easy to answer. We are not better off than we were four years ago, or eight years ago, or twelve, or twenty. We are a badly damaged state, ruled today by a man who subsists off Reagan's most corrosive final gift to us all: It is the image that matters, and be damned to the truth.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Rivers Pitt is the senior editor and lead writer for t r u t h o u t. He is a New York Times and international bestselling author of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know' and 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence.'

-------

Jump to TO Features for Monday June 7, 2004
Today's TO Features -------------- William Rivers Pitt | Planet Reagan Ronald Reagan: "Loved and Loathed" Europe: America, Yes. Bush, No. Iraq: Violence Flares, UN Meets, CIA's Man Grabs the Strings Iraqi Prison Abuse: Will the Brass Get Away? Free Afghanistan: Inside the Narco-State Ailing Alaska Killer Whales to Get Protection Patrick Sabatier | D-Day Editorial: Alliances William Greider | Under the Banner of the 'War on Terror' Kerry Asks Veterans To Help Him 'Restore America's Respect' Wars Put Strain on National Guard Chellie Pingree | White House Pressures Public TV t r u t h o u t Home

Print This Story E-mail This Story



© : t r u t h o u t 2004

OD proof is not an article, I would like to see what this article basis its assumptions on. Also why would we be bothered by Guatemala, we were busy in Beirut and getting ready to invade Grenada....
Sorry but there is nothing unusual in this, even if it is true there is nothing down here that wasnt done by other Presidents.

The CIA is a weird breed, has its own agenda and hard to control as its info is top secret so most cant even see it.

I searched the topic and only found liberal blags and such, no hard news sites. But I did read a report that had this in it.


Privately, Reagan had a far more accurate understanding of the true nature of the contras. At one point in the contra war, Reagan turned to CIA official Duane Clarridge and demanded that the contras be used to destroy some Soviet-supplied helicopters that had arrived in Nicaragua.

In his memoirs, Clarridge recalled that President Reagan pulled me aside and asked, ’Dewey, can’t you get those vandals of yours to do this job.’


Well this is a good use of a backed para military operation. Ortega was communist and we didnt like communist. I would praise him for this, get the job done and dont get dirty.

i would like to quote this fine man (at one of his less fine points.)

'trees cause polution'
--reagan

Originally posted by rated R
i would like to quote this fine man (at one of his less fine points.)

'trees cause polution'
--reagan
They do. when burned.

i voted for reagan twice and I SUPPOSE HE DID A LOT FOR USSR AND GERMANY ETC IN TEARING BERLIN WALL DOWN AND GETTING RID OF COMMUNISM ,OR MAYBE COMMUNISM JUST fELL


but some say he kicked mentally ill out on to the streets and i wonder if this is true,, in 1986 he gave (with help of stupid congress?) amnesty to illegal aliens and then more illegal aliens came so id say he and or congreess ruined america because ever since its gone downhill - too many people

wow harmony....were you for or against the man ........lol

you know bv, a real thinking man would not find all of the right done by some men and can find justification to rip a man for a blowjob, or as you put it lying under oath......this guy o.d. is hitting you with some hard shit, some of the things he's wrote sound like some of the reasons you say we should be in iraq. but thats ok ? i have yet to hear you admit that ONE republican did anything wrong... reagan killed the anti monopoly laws which are still doing very much damage....you always want proof, then when someone like o.d. gives you some, you cry liberal journalism...c'mon man. the republicans and democrats have their issues, but now you sound more partisan that wise.....o.d. does his research, ollie north took the fall just like tenet did. and reagan made the poor in this country poorer and the rich , richer. i have a lot of respect for your opinion, but what would make your opinions stronger is, if you would sometimes admit that these guys did some things wrong........i'll tell you, bush senior did less wrong in his years as president than reagan and bush jr. they have a lot of dirt.....but everytime someone shows you some sort of proof, there's an excuse as to why it isnt valid.......give me a break man......these guys are not saints.....clinton got a BLOWJOB for god sake, and he was castrated. everyone said its because he lied under oath, but the real issue is that partisan people make partisan arguments......most of your info comes from what you read or hear also.....thats the way we all get it.

Nice post Korg...good points :)

We all have the same sources available when it comes to "World News".

Guys, we keep beating up both Demo and Rep Presidents.
Lets not forget a little thing called Congress.
The Pres. can not do much alone as far as changing laws.
I repeat that I am Independent, as I say Kerry suddenly has all these great ideas for the betterment of America. Well why didn't he present these bills as Senator. Thats where changes come from.
I am for the betterment of America reqardless of the political party.
Presidents come and go.
Senators and Representatives seem to linger forever. Here-in lies the problem.
The Pres. is only the one in the temporary hot seat because of his exposure and a misconception of his authority.
Do you not realize that congress could pull us out of Iraq or any situation practically overnight. Here lies the true power and responsibility of America's actions.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Guys, we keep beating up both Demo and Rep Presidents.
Lets not forget a little thing called Congress.
The Pres. can not do much alone as far as changing laws.
I repeat that I am Independent, as I say Kerry suddenly has all these great ideas for the betterment of America. Well why didn't he present these bills as Senator. Thats where changes come from.
I am for the betterment of America reqardless of the political party.
Presidents come and go.
Senators and Representatives seem to linger forever. Here-in lies the problem.
The Pres. is only the one in the temporary hot seat because of his exposure and a misconception of his authority.
Do you not realize that congress could pull us out of Iraq or any situation practically overnight. Here lies the true power and responsibility of America's actions. ....good point dan, but even those guys are partisan, therefore.........republican prez, republican controlled congress, republican agenda......and vice versa.....it would be nice to see these guys cross pasrty lines to pass something worthwhile, but it all seems to be partisan......just my opinion

http://www.democracynow.org/static/flashback.shtml

May want to read all of the stories and things they have there on this guy...that the Republicans claim to love.

gr8 point od.....here in buffalo, there is a woman who took her baby outside, grabbed the baby by the feet , and bashed the head on the sidewalk numerous times. people thought that she was beating a rug......she was diagnosed as scitzophrenic...but they had no place to put her, our mental hospitals have been all but shut down.

BV, I posted the articles that proved, with quotes and references to reports that Reagan allowed, and OK’d the killing of over at least 200,000 to 500,000 people. If you are on the “middle ground” you should take this into consideration.

He got our deficits into the trillions, put tons of mental institutions out of practice, forcing them to go onto the streets. He did nothing about Aids when it was first coming to America, when he would have prevented and stopped a lot of the spread of this disease. Because of him not doing anything, tons, of thousands of Americans have died and are dying.

He ignored our hunger problem in America, and thought it would be funny to release (correct me if I’m wrong) 30,000 pounds of cheese to “feed the homeless” and tons of people lined up for the food, and he took it as a joke.

He was even reported helping Saddam Hussein and other terrorists. This man was a horrible president, and will go down in history like so.

The right-wing will defend him, but really, he was horrible.

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/coupreaganbush.htm

Linked with quotes, that have links to all of the scandals and lies Ronald Reagan committed.

PS: Re-Read the articles I posted, BV, because I bet you didn't read them all. Just said they are "liberal" (like a republican) and didn't read the references it made during the articles.

http://www.democracynow.org/static/flashback.shtml
(has everything you need to know on RR on how he was a horrible man)

**Sorry I had to re-post, didn't want BV to miss it.**

Here's links to two fine articles, written by ultra-talented writers, on the subject of Reagan's death, and legacy. :D

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=2&id=5123

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=2&id=5137

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Here's links to two fine articles, written by ultra-talented writers, on the subject of Reagan's death, and legacy. :D

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=2&id=5123

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=2&id=5137
Ultra-talented, my ass. That first article looks like it was written by a third-grader.

...What? Wait...never mind...

OD I said they were slanted, not just liberal.
I lived through his Presidency and many before that, he had his faults but not any worse than any president of the 20th century.
How many people did Roosevelt kill, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson,
Nixon, Carter and so on?
There are things that are done for a reason and others that are not done because it is misunderstood.
France, who really worked on the AIDS issue hasnt gotten much firther than we have, if we had understood or even known more about it, I dont think that much could have been done.
If a medication is discovered for a disease it take the FDA on average 5-7 years to approve it for use. What should be done is revamp the FDA on that issue.
I still dont see the numbers you have posted being accounted for in the articles. Except in an area that would have been missed by every leader, AIDS.
It was called a cancer when it was first known, it took years to even see the correlation between AIDS and HiV. It still is known by a generic name. Arthritis is an auto immune virus as are many others. So to research it would have to know the link between HiV and the final stage.
Yes AIDS is a very horrific disease that must be stopped, but every century has had its disease that wiped out millions of people.
The landscape of disease is ever changing, and we cant keep up much less get ahead.
Do you really know how many "orphan diseases" there are out there?
I am thiankful that AIDS is no longer one of them. The drig companies are the ones who decide what will be researched and what price will be put on the meds. Another part of the system that has to be fixed.

Yes, Regan’s faults are all okay, because other Presidents have killed at least 300,000 people, for no reason, on purpose, and then lied to the American people about it.

Ever heard of the things that happened in El Salvador (70,000), Guatemala (100,000) and in Nicaragua (30,000)? This was when Reagan supported the “freedom fighters” which lead to almost all of these deaths.

Reagan described the Contras in Nicaragua as, "our brothers, these freedom fighters and we owe them our help. They are the moral equal of our founding fathers."

And most of this was done in our name. This death, Regan funded and supported. This was done in are name, because without our assistance, this would have never been as horrific, as it was.

---------------
Reagan on AIDS:

From:
http://www.thebody.com/encyclo/presidency.html

For Reagan, AIDS presented a number of potentially serious political risks. As a presidential candidate, Reagan promised to eliminate the role of the federal government in the limited American welfare state, as well as to raise questions of morality and family in social policy. When AIDS was first reported in 1981, Reagan had recently assumed office and had begun to address the conservative agenda by slashing social programs and cutting taxes and by embracing conservative moral principles. As a result, Reagan never mentioned AIDS publicly until 1987. Most observers contend that AIDS research and public education were not funded adequately in the early years of the epidemic, at a time when research and public education could have saved lives.

In the early 1980s, senior officials from the Department of Health and Human Services pleaded for additional funding behind the scenes while they maintained publicly, for political reasons, that they had enough resources. The Reagan administration treated AIDS as a series of state and local problems rather than as a national problem. This helped to fragment the limited governmental response early in the AIDS epidemic.

AIDS could not have struck at a worse time politically. With the election of Reagan in 1980, the "New Right" in American politics ascended. Many of those who assumed power embraced political and personal beliefs hostile to gay men and lesbians. Health officials, failing to educate about transmission and risk behavior, undermined any chance of an accurate public understanding of AIDS. The new conservatism also engendered hostility toward those with AIDS. People with AIDS (PWAs) were scapegoated and stigmatized. It was widely reported, as well, that New Right groups, such as the Moral Majority, successfully prevented funding for AIDS education programs and counseling services for PWAs. At various points in the epidemic, conservatives called for the quarantining and tattooing of PWAs. Jerry Falwell, the leader of the Moral Majority, was quoted as stating: "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals."

This larger conservative climate enabled the Reagan administration's indifference toward AIDS. The administration undercut federal efforts to confront AIDS in a meaningful way by refusing to spend the money Congress allocated for AIDS research. In the critical years of 1984 and 1985, according to his White House physician, Reagan thought of AIDS as though "it was measles and it would go away." Reagan's biographer Lou Cannon claims that the president's response to AIDS was "halting and ineffective." It took Rock Hudson's death from AIDS in 1985 to prompt Reagan to change his personal views, although members of his administration were still openly hostile to more aggressive government funding of research and public education. Six years after the onset of the epidemic, Reagan finally mentioned the word "AIDS" publicly at the Third International AIDS Conference held in Washington, D.C. Reagan's only concrete proposal at this time was widespread routine testing.

Reagan and his close political advisers also successfully prevented his surgeon general, C. Everett Koop, from discussing AIDS publicly until Reagan's second term. Congress mandates that the surgeon general's chief responsibility is to promote the health of the American people and to inform the public about the prevention of disease. In the Reagan administration, however, the surgeon general's central role was to promote the administration's conservative social agenda, especially pro-life and family issues.

At a time when the surgeon general could have played an invaluable role in public health education, Koop was prevented from even addressing AIDS publicly. Then, in February 1986, Reagan asked Koop to write a report on the AIDS epidemic. Koop had come to the attention of conservatives in the Reagan administration because of his leading role in the anti-abortion movement. Reagan administration officials fully expected Koop to embrace conservative principles in his report on AIDS.

When the Surgeon General's Report on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome was released to the public on October 22, 1986, it was a call for federal action in response to AIDS, and it underscored the importance of a comprehensive AIDS education strategy, beginning in grade school. Koop advocated the widespread distribution of condoms and concluded that mandatory identification of people with HIV or any form of quarantine would be useless in addressing AIDS. As part of Koop's broad federal education strategy, the Public Health Service sent AIDS mailers to 107 million American households. Koop's actions brought him into direct conflict with William Bennett, Reagan's secretary of education. Bennett opposed Koop's recommendations and called for compulsory HIV testing of foreigners applying for immigration visas, for marriage license applicants, for all hospital patients, and for prison inmates.

The Reagan administration did little to prohibit HIV/AIDS discrimination. The administration placed responsibility for addressing AIDS discrimination issues with the states rather than with the federal government. In the face of federal inaction, some states and localities passed laws that prohibited HIV/AIDS discrimination. It took the Supreme Court, in its 1987 School Board of Nassau County, Fla. v. Arline decision, to issue a broad ruling that was widely interpreted as protecting those with HIV or AIDS from discrimination in federal executive agencies, in federally assisted programs or activities, or by businesses with federal contracts.

Reagan did appoint the Presidential Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic in the summer of 1987; it was later renamed the Watkins Commission, after its chair. With the appointment of this commission, Reagan was able to appease those who demanded a more sustained federal response to AIDS. He also answered the concerns of the New Right by appointing an AIDS commission that included few scientists who had participated in AIDS research and few physicians who had actually treated PWAs. In addition, the commission included outspoken opponents of AIDS education.

In retrospect, it is clear that the commission was created to deflect attention from the administration's own inept policy response to AIDS. The Watkins Commission's final report did recommend a more sustained federal commitment to address AIDS, but this recommendation was largely ignored by both the Reagan and Bush administrations. None of the commissions studying AIDS over the years has recommended a massive federal effort to confront AIDS at all levels of society.

seems like no matter who is elected president someone gets killed at least its all done in the name of democray

and i bet all of them got a blowjob in the whitehouse too....you let these guys off the hook too easy man..... watch the movie " and the band played on ". reagan didnt care man.....you guys never admit any wrongdoing by republicans....and they are the sneakiest, some of the dirtiest polititians. just like everyone believes bush is gonna find osama RIGHT BEFORE ELECTION, reagan did the same thing with the hostages....made a deal so that jimmy carter would look like a fool who couldnt get things done......enron, haliburton, the s&l scandal...these guys were going after clinton for a LAND DEAL, and they did the worst thing to workers and families. and if ANY democrat had done any of these things, you guys wouldnt let dems forget it......give me a break man

Korg I thought you read my post, I have said that they made mistakes.
OD the governments that you are talking about were communist or communist leaning and any more of these governments on this continent would not have been tolerated. Since you didnt live back then or during the cuban missle crisis and the following build up, you couldnt possibly know the way we felt about an attack. We talked about the Soviets launching all the time, we tested and so did they, we moved closer to them and they wanted more countries near us. SO it was a tactical move to support any anti-communist movements.

BV, you bring the age factor in, once again. Sadly, this time, it just won’t work. I’ve talked to my Grandparents, and my parents and they all agree that Reagan was willing to do anything, even mass murder to get rid of communism, and in doing so he did something that was wrong.

Please explain why over 300,000 people in South America were raped, and murdered by our support and funding?

Reagan was so strong in supporting the “anti-communism” epidemic; he failed to keep his mind clean or do what was “right”.

Well we are back to this again, it is a POV not held by me. We argued this for days on the war on Terror and now you want to argue it again on communism. The Soviets were the biggest threat to our peace back then and our number one enemy. SO to eliminate an enemy you will get dirty. Again if we fund groups and we have no actual military control things that are done are once again on their shoulders. We had the obligation to eliminate communism and the threat to our global stability.
I am done arguing this point, lets talk about something else. You will not change my mind on the topic and I am not going to change yours. So lets not waste anymore of our lives on this.

I think the point that BV is trying to make is that ALL presidents, congress, etc. make mistakes and can't please everyone. The last I knew it had a name -- "POLITICS".

Whether you believe Reagan or any other President was terriffic or horrible, there will be others who will defend or persecute him with countless articles, opinions, etc. Take JFK for example. Most people believed he was truly a gem in the White House. BUT, there are others who will disagree til hell not have it.

We are human - nobody is perfect and governments are not in place to make EVERYONE happy...they are there to do what their members feel is in the best interest of the Country and/or Constitutents - or to satisfy their OWN best interests (take GWB for example :)). Depends on how you look at it. :D

We can debate these issues until donkeys fly, but it won't change anything.

Communism was linked to the countries in South America?

Originally posted by Overdose
Communism was linked to the countries in South America?
Yes and Latin America, rebels in some and Governments in others. But I am now done. Only answering for the historical.
By the way in some places it still is.......

According to a CIA source, "the social population appeared to fully support the guerrillas" and "the soldiers were forced to fire at anything that moved." The CIA cable added that "the Guatemalan authorities admitted that 'many civilians' were killed in Cocob, many of whom undoubtedly were non-combatants."

“Since the operation began, several villages have been burned to the ground, and a large number of guerrillas and collaborators have been killed."

Rural women suspected of guerrilla sympathies were raped before execution, Kass said. Children were "thrown into burning homes. They are thrown in the air and speared with bayonets. We heard many, many stories of children being picked up by the ankles and swung against poles so their heads are destroyed." [AP, March 17, 1983]


The death toll was staggering -- an estimated 70,000 or more political killings in El Salvador, possibly 20,000 slain from the contra war in Nicaragua, about 200 political "disappearances" in Honduras and some 100,000 people eliminated during a resurgence of political violence in Guatemala.

The army "completely exterminated Mayan communities, destroyed their livestock and crops," the report said. In the north, the report termed the slaughter a "genocide." [WP, Feb. 26, 1999]

"Within the framework of the counterinsurgency operations carried out between 1981 and 1983, in certain regions of the country agents of the Guatemalan state committed acts of genocide against groups of the Mayan people,” he added. [NYT, Feb. 26, 1999]

But we are really just fighting the Communism in these areas, and “Despite his aw shucks style, Reagan found virtually every anticommunist action justified, no matter how brutal. From his eight years in the White House, there is no historical indication that he was troubled by the bloodbath and even genocide that occurred in Central America during his presidency, while he was shipping hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the implicated forces.”

***Because of Reagan homicide, slaughter, and murder took place, under our name, funding and support. That is wrong, and it was not right, and over 300,000 people died, because of it!***

Ok whatever you say, I am tired of this please move on.
But your wrong...... :D

BV, stop being such an ignorant fool. The genocide is proven, and Reagan supported, and funded it. You are just as Right-Wing as almost all other Republicans on this board, on defending Presidents that are Republican but attacking Clinton.

Originally posted by Overdose
BV, stop being such an ignorant fool. The genocide is proven, and Reagan supported, and funded it. You are just as Right-Wing as almost all other Republicans on this board, on defending Presidents that are Republican but attacking Clinton.
Calling me a fool is the biggest mistake you could have ever made on here. I am not a fool. I have lived in the world that you have read about little one. I am sorry that you think I am ignorant but I am happy that I have the balls to say what is true unlike you.
Look around and see the world, GROW up and live. If I piss anyone off I am sorry but I will not be insulted when I didnt insult first.
So OD just take your BS to another time and place where all restraunts are Taco Bell and we use three sea shells instead of toilet paper.
But the world is not like that, if you want to survive you must do things that are distasteful.
Again GROW up

You are a fool to not understand that our government supporting genocide, is wrong. Regardless of “if I lived or not”, my parents along with my grandparents agree with my stance. So again, shut up about me “growing up and going into the real world” because I have people that I know, that have lived longer then you, who believe that what Ronald Reagan did was wrong.

My BS? My BS, that provides reports of genocide, that our Government supported and funded? Yeah, that sure is “bs”.

Honestly, face the facts, and please grow up enough to admit you are wrong.

ME??????????????? You only see what you have been told you didnt live then, Damn you were barley alive during Clintos first term.
You have no clue what must be done to keep a nation secure, not all of the BS you post is true by the way. The numbers you quote are nowhere except on liberal bottom feeding rags. I have looked at all the encyclopedias and all the resource I can find online and off.
I think you need to look at a book that says World Book, or Brittanica instead of TomPaine.com and DU.
When you have been 45 call me, tell me I am wrong then. I will give your story some credence, I never insulted you if you didnt believe my opinion and I tried to treat you fairly. Vile would ask me to chill if I got angry with you and asked me to treat you like an adult but I can no longer, I guess I can say, when you are backed in a corner you come out swinging insults not facts.

BV, I would like you to argue the reports and quotes of genocide that was committed, that our Government supported? I never thought supporting genocide was in the best interest of America, nor is it making us “safer or more secure”

It was an honor to serve in the military with Ronald Reagan as the Commander in Chief. Those of us in the military knew, that unlike many others, this C in C knew very well what threatened the U.S. and how to meet that threat.

Clinton was, and is an embarassment to the Office of President of the United States.

Originally posted by Overdose
BV, I would like you to argue the reports and quotes of genocide that was committed, that our Government supported? I never thought supporting genocide was in the best interest of America, nor is it making us “safer or more secure”
Define Genocide? It is a word that is used way more than it should be.
You do that and I will rip your reports apart.

The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

They were killed because of their cultural and political affiliation (being in a country where they have communism, even though they weren’t the Government that was communist, they were really innocent victims), and they were deliberately killed (reports show that they knew they were innocent civilians and they did it anyway), and they systematically burned their houses, and any other means of death.

According to a CIA source, "the social population appeared to fully support the guerrillas" and "the soldiers were forced to fire at anything that moved." The CIA cable added that "the Guatemalan authorities admitted that 'many civilians' were killed in Cocob, many of whom undoubtedly were non-combatants."

“Since the operation began, several villages have been burned to the ground, and a large number of guerrillas and collaborators have been killed."

Rural women suspected of guerrilla sympathies were raped before execution, Kass said. Children were "thrown into burning homes. They are thrown in the air and speared with bayonets. We heard many, many stories of children being picked up by the ankles and swung against poles so their heads are destroyed." [AP, March 17, 1983]


The death toll was staggering -- an estimated 70,000 or more political killings in El Salvador, possibly 20,000 slain from the contra war in Nicaragua, about 200 political "disappearances" in Honduras and some 100,000 people eliminated during a resurgence of political violence in Guatemala.

The army "completely exterminated Mayan communities, destroyed their livestock and crops," the report said. In the north, the report termed the slaughter a "genocide." [WP, Feb. 26, 1999]

"Within the framework of the counterinsurgency operations carried out between 1981 and 1983, in certain regions of the country agents of the Guatemalan state committed acts of genocide against groups of the Mayan people,” he added. [NYT, Feb. 26, 1999]

But we are really just fighting the Communism in these areas, and “Despite his aw shucks style, Reagan found virtually every anticommunist action justified, no matter how brutal. From his eight years in the White House, there is no historical indication that he was troubled by the bloodbath and even genocide that occurred in Central America during his presidency, while he was shipping hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the implicated forces.”

"Within the framework of the counterinsurgency operations carried out between 1981 and 1983, in certain regions of the country agents of the Guatemalan state committed acts of genocide against groups of the Mayan people,” he added. [NYT, Feb. 26, 1999]

Might want to take that one into consideration.

The Guatemalan military used the Pacific Ocean as another dumping spot for political victims, according to the DIA report. Bodies of insurgents tortured to death and of live prisoners marked for “disappearance” were loaded on planes that flew out over the ocean where the soldiers would shove the victims into the water.

The death toll was staggering -- an estimated 70,000 or more political killings in El Salvador, possibly 20,000 slain from the contra war in Nicaragua, about 200 political "disappearances" in Honduras and some 100,000 people eliminated during a resurgence of political violence in Guatemala.

"The massacres that eliminated entire Mayan villages … are neither perfidious allegations nor figments of the imagination, but an authentic chapter in Guatemala's history," the commission concluded.

"government of the United States, through various agencies including the CIA, provided direct and indirect support for some [of these] state operations."

^^don't forgot those, these ones are new, rip them apart too.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
ME??????????????? You only see what you have been told you didnt live then, Damn you were barley alive during Clintos first term.
. hey b.v.....who the hell is clintos.........lmao..lol......just thought i'd break the ice.....but it is funny

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, or ethnic group.

So if this is the definition from the Websters then I guess we killed everyone in Guatemala? And Columbia? Or maybe we supported those who opposed the communist? WHich by the way was and is a good thing.
Communism or maybe we should call it Marxism's manifesto was to spread it throughout the world, it was their defining moments. We were the opposite to that and we opposed it where ever we could. Reagan took the fight from the part of the world to the heart of the cancer and he stood up to them but they blinked and they lost their foor holds and then they lost it all.
To call it genocide is misleading, to say tha genocide includes political groups is by definition of the word wrong.

Latin word "GENS" meaning "a clan, stock, people, tribe, nation".


Latin word CIDI is the anagrammatized form of the Turkish word "KIyDI" ("kiymak, dogramak, kesmek fiillerinden) meaning "buthchered" or "cut into pieces".

Now this proves that what you say is genocide wasnt.
I never said that the fighters in other countries(not American) killed their enemies, people who had been oppressed by those that they fought.
They did this much like you said the Kurds should have done themselves, they rose up and we supported their efforts to purge their homelands of communism.
So I guess I have proven your posts is inaccurate and thus not correct.

"Within the framework of the counterinsurgency operations carried out between 1981 and 1983, in certain regions of the country agents of the Guatemalan state committed acts of genocide against groups of the Mayan people,” he added. [NYT, Feb. 26, 1999]

Over 500,000 people were killed, look it up. Also, they were not communists, they were innocent civilians living under communists.

And regardless if my terminology is somewhat off, it still supports that massive killing did occur, on innocent civilians that didn’t need to be killed, IE: Boys, and women being burned in fires and being torn apart by bayonets. We supported the killing of innocent people, and that is just the fact. We funded them, we funded these killings against people who lived under communism, not the Government officials that the “freedom fighters” were suppose to be taking care of.

Originally posted by es347fan
It was an honor to serve in the military with Ronald Reagan as the Commander in Chief. Those of us in the military knew, that unlike many others, this C in C knew very well what threatened the U.S. and how to meet that threat.

Clinton was, and is an embarassment to the Office of President of the United States. you got to be shitting me man.....clinton !! and george is what ? i guess he's a great man huh ? clinton didnt inhale, but george snorted, clinton didnt serve and most of you said that you couldnt see a man that didnt serve, leading anyone to war............and bush did what !? give me a break.....clinton was being sought after by republicans for a land deal.....deal, did someone say deal, how about your buddy and vice prez getting the contract to repair a country you erroneously destroyed....lmao...no, lets prosecute martha stewart, while my enron buddies take millions of retirement dollars from unsuspecting victims....did someone say S & L..clinton had chelsea, she was a postergirl of a college student, bush had.....dum dee dum dum...THE DAUGHTERS FROM HELL...clinton got a blowjob......bush has been fucking us ever since...lmao..lmao..i guess your level of corruption gives you a better shot at mt rushmore.......huh ....

Not that what I say matters to you two, but lets say this again, I didnt care if Clinton had sex with a damn goat, what he was impeached for was felony perjury, not the act of sex but lying to a federal judge. I wish everyone would stop making it sound like a morality thing.

This is pretty low when Reagan hasn't even been dead a week and he is already being slammed up agaisnt the wall. I am proud that he was my President for 8 years. He stood up for what he belived in. He made this nation proud. He was the best President we had in the last twenty years. That is my opinion and i hope that he finaly rests in peace.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
ME??????????????? You only see what you have been told you didnt live then, Damn you were barley alive during Clintos first term.
You have no clue what must be done to keep a nation secure, b.v...man, you sound like jack nichalson in a few good men.." you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall " we use words like code , honor, and loyalty. we use these words as a lifetime defending something, you use them as a punchline "....your damn right i called that code red !.....lol

Originally posted by korg
b.v...man, you sound like jack nichalson in a few good men.." you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall " we use words like code , honor, and loyalty. we use these words as a lifetime defending something, you use them as a punchline "....your damn right i called that code red !.....lol
Ok well I was on that wall but I am not saying he was right. I only said that you and OD dont really understand what was going on in Latin America at the time. It was alot harder to define than they are the good guys and they are the bad guys.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Not that what I say matters to you two, but lets say this again, I didnt care if Clinton had sex with a damn goat, what he was impeached for was felony perjury, not the act of sex but lying to a federal judge. I wish everyone would stop making it sound like a morality thing. and i know that but i was making a point ! someone was comparing dirt so i did too.....that response wasnt for you......but clinton's dirt hurt no one but he and his wife ! it was a morality issue....so what he lied about having sex....there's a matter of national security.....bush is a lying idiot.....who people have died for his lies....call it a blunder by the cia and fbi if you want....most people have a reason, then they go to war, bush had a war, and needed a reason ! ....wmd's my ass ! he's the only wmd i've seen. i dont care about political beliefs, im able to seperate mine. bush is a lying jerk, and so is clinton.....here's the difference.....no one died for clintons lie !! just my opinion

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Ok well I was on that wall but I am not saying he was right. I only said that you and OD dont really understand what was going on in Latin America at the time. It was alot harder to define than they are the good guys and they are the bad guys. and you know what, i dont know one third of the literary shit o.d. knows. im 43, and just go by what was going on at those times.......everyone wants to explain, but i dont think being decent deserves an explaination. being a blessed nation, we need to watch what we do. we are not fair in who we decide to bomb, or fight. if you say wmd's, then we should attack korea. we are the trend setters for the world, but we look like hypocrites...now they cant find the weapons.....yeah....that shit helps......ands like i say......whats with the haliburton shit ? no one talks about that !

Originally posted by korg
and i know that but i was making a point ! someone was comparing dirt so i did too.....that response wasnt for you......but clinton's dirt hurt no one but he and his wife ! it was a morality issue....so what he lied about having sex....there's a matter of national security.....bush is a lying idiot.....who people have died for his lies....call it a blunder by the cia and fbi if you want....most people have a reason, then they go to war, bush had a war, and needed a reason ! ....wmd's my ass ! he's the only wmd i've seen. i dont care about political beliefs, im able to seperate mine. bush is a lying jerk, and so is clinton.....here's the difference.....no one died for clintons lie !! just my opinion
Actually it did hurt someone else, he lied to get a lawsuit dropped, Paula Jones, and she was made fun off by the country when she did what she thought was right. Then after it ended he or friends of his paid a settlement with her. But the lie did hurt someone other than Bill and Hillary.

Originally posted by korg
and you know what, i dont know one third of the literary shit o.d. knows. im 43, and just go by what was going on at those times.......everyone wants to explain, but i dont think being decent deserves an explaination. being a blessed nation, we need to watch what we do. we are not fair in who we decide to bomb, or fight. if you say wmd's, then we should attack korea. we are the trend setters for the world, but we look like hypocrites...now they cant find the weapons.....yeah....that shit helps......ands like i say......whats with the haliburton shit ? no one talks about that !
I ahve talked alot about Haliburton, I am sure that there is a conflict there but I want to know more.
Sure we havent found the large amounts of WMD's that we expected to, but even Lieberman said that he had seen classified info and as soon as it was declassified that it would be a vindication for Tenet. SO I guess that Gores running mate is either taking the republican side or he is speaking truth. Which ever it is I am gaining alot of respect for a man not afraid to speak out against his party line.

Originally posted by big worm
This is pretty low when Reagan hasn't even been dead a week and he is already being slammed up agaisnt the wall. I am proud that he was my President for 8 years. He stood up for what he belived in. He made this nation proud. He was the best President we had in the last twenty years. That is my opinion and i hope that he finaly rests in peace. what kills me BW are the hypocrites on tv talking about what a great president he was, and most of the dems back then said that his policies were the worst. but i guess thats what we are suppose to do when a person dies, just agree that everything he did, no matter how much i disagreed then, was right ? give me a break. im not here saying that the guy deserved to die, i can seperate politics from humanity.....and i didnt like his politics, and thats what im talking about....one day , clinton will die......what will you say ?......" boy, what a lying sex maniac ".....lmao

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
I ahve talked alot about Haliburton, I am sure that there is a conflict there but I want to know more.
Sure we havent found the large amounts of WMD's that we expected to, but even Lieberman said that he had seen classified info and as soon as it was declassified that it would be a vindication for Tenet. SO I guess that Gores running mate is either taking the republican side or he is speaking truth. Which ever it is I am gaining alot of respect for a man not afraid to speak out against his party line. lieberman is a boatshifting jackass.......now he's a republicrat.!...lmao....he's the type of guy that wants something...i dont know what ...but he wants something......he's working both sides of the crowd. so i have no respect....but i dont have a lot of respect for dems, especially when they went to the hotel on their lock-in....wimps. they are all too afraid of being called unamerican.....they should've stood up.......republicans too dirty, dems, not dirty enough...

Originally posted by korg
what kills me BW are the hypocrites on tv talking about what a great president he was, and most of the dems back then said that his policies were the worst. but i guess thats what we are suppose to do when a person dies, just agree that everything he did, no matter how much i disagreed then, was right ? give me a break. im not here saying that the guy deserved to die, i can seperate politics from humanity.....and i didnt like his politics, and thats what im talking about....one day , clinton will die......what will you say ?......" boy, what a lying sex maniac ".....lmao
Clinton Die? I doubt it. But I would not bad mouth him until a descent period of time.
By the way when the dems were attacking him back then it was because they were all being political

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
I ahve talked alot about Haliburton, I am sure that there is a conflict there but I want to know more.
. ......now, beirut......you need to know more ? see thats what im talking about. you know that the sky is blue, but your willing to hear a second opinion ? its haliburton...they have the contract......they say cheney's old company, but we know better....its still his. he just cant be ceo and vice prez. and that company has the contract.......need anymore.? you know what, if i worked at McDonalds, and they had a contest, my family members cant enter bacause its a conflict of interest...MCDONALDS !......C'MON BEIRUT....GIVE ME THIS ONE BABY....JUST ONE, IM ONLY ASKING FOR ONE ....LMAO

Originally posted by korg
......now, beirut......you need to know more ? see thats what im talking about. you know that the sky is blue, but your willing to hear a second opinion ? its haliburton...they have the contract......they say cheney's old company, but we know better....its still his. he just cant be ceo and vice prez. and that company has the contract.......need anymore.? you know what, if i worked at McDonalds, and they had a contest, my family members cant enter bacause its a conflict of interest...MCDONALDS !......C'MON BEIRUT....GIVE ME THIS ONE BABY....JUST ONE, IM ONLY ASKING FOR ONE ....LMAO
I said I am sure there is a problem, but to convict there must be proof beyond a reasoanble doubt.
By the way(not defending CHeney) But you can be CEO of one company and become the CEO of a competitor and not have any ties to the former.
I believe that we have a problem, but also there are not many companies who could do what they are doing in Iraq only three I think and one is French.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Clinton Die? I doubt it. But I would not bad mouth him until a descent period of time.
By the way when the dems were attacking him back then it was because they were all being political AND BEIRUT....TELL ME, WHAT IS A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME START ATTACKING THE DEAD...............sorry for the caps, just happen to be on it............everythings political....tell me, why do ALL republicans and dems have the same agenda ? rep....lower tax for rich and hope their greedy asses share the wealth, but they wouldnt be wealthy if they did ! dems, tax and spend and make the poor dependant on programs, that only get them temporary satisfaction.......i say we clunk their heads together like moe and make.........dumdeedumdum.....super politician !..lmao

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
I said I am sure there is a problem, but to convict there must be proof beyond a reasoanble doubt.
By the way(not defending CHeney) But you can be CEO of one company and become the CEO of a competitor and not have any ties to the former.
I believe that we have a problem, but also there are not many companies who could do what they are doing in Iraq only three I think and one is French. and as popeye would say......what a coinkadink....lmao...they should have put a bid out, and let every competitive company have a % of the work.....thats more..."american ".....no, they make the ultimate controversy.....how stupid

That has been my argument all along, politicians lie and we argue about it like fools.
I am not a die hard Bush supporter, I am an independent, but I believe along the lines of a libertarian.
I have jumped on Bush for alot of things, I attacked Reagan for allowing the UN to put us in a bad posistion in Iraq, I attacked Clinton for the same thing in Somalia and have found things wrong with every president.
Proper amount of time is at least till he is buried.
We may have our differences over policies and programs but we must remember that politicians lie, thats what they do, we vote for them becuase there isnt many choices and this cycle will continue until we force the country to dump the electoral college and start supporting other parties and start looking for good candidates for the job., Remember those elected work for us and we should have the right to fire them, recall vote.

Look korg, he may not have been perfect but he is better than what we had. I dont care what other people say, especially the media. Every President had there policies and how they evoked them always has some sort of reprocussion. Either right or wrong, they will do what is best for this country. I pick and choose who i like and who i dislike. I like Reagan and i dislike Clinton. Since i was around when both were President, they were two different people with there own agendas. When Clinton dies, people would be doing the same thing now as they are doing to Reagan.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
That has been my argument all along, politicians lie and we argue about it like fools.
I am not a die hard Bush supporter, I am an independent, but I believe along the lines of a libertarian.
I have jumped on Bush for alot of things, I attacked Reagan for allowing the UN to put us in a bad posistion in Iraq, I attacked Clinton for the same thing in Somalia and have found things wrong with every president.
Proper amount of time is at least till he is buried.
We may have our differences over policies and programs but we must remember that politicians lie, thats what they do, we vote for them becuase there isnt many choices and this cycle will continue until we force the country to dump the electoral college and start supporting other parties and start looking for good candidates for the job., Remember those elected work for us and we should have the right to fire them, recall vote. damn well said beirut

I cant believe I said Iraq, but it is sort of true, I meant to say was Beirut. LOL sorry

Originally posted by big worm
Look korg, he may not have been perfect but he is better than what we had. I dont care what other people say, especially the media. Every President had there policies and how they evoked them always has some sort of reprocussion. Either right or wrong, they will do what is best for this country. I pick and choose who i like and who i dislike. I like Reagan and i dislike Clinton. Since i was around when both were President, they were two different people with there own agendas. When Clinton dies, people would be doing the same thing now as they are doing to Reagan. that may be where we differ.....i dont think polititians go in thinking of doing right by the country, because once political patronage steps in, now you owe someone, and the more patronage, the more people you owe. thats how doctors screw hmo's over, thats how companies over ride monopoly laws. thats how companies get around pollution laws. when a lawyer is good friends with the judge, the other guy has a hard time winning......things are set up to be fair, its PEOPLE who change and reconfigure fairness. we breathe worst air because some polititian sold that out to some big company. it is more dangerous for us to back someone down party lines, because the shit comes in a package that has stuff thats not good for you....man, very few people really care about their fellow man.....really care !

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
I cant believe I said Iraq, but it is sort of true, I meant to say was Beirut. LOL sorry i did get your point though

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Remember those elected work for us and we should have the right to fire them, recall vote. i say this on my radio program all of the time....and its so true

I dont believe in being naive or cynical. I truly believe tha most who want the job of President do it to change the country for the better. I dont think anyone would take the job for the money, the prestige is ok if you are an egomanic. But I beleive that most want to do good, few realize that they really are powerless and all resort to using the CIA and other agency to usurp the congress and supreme court.

it just seems to me that with all of the , what i consider, self serving going on, its just too hard to tell who.....i think being cynical has helped me not to make quick judgement mistakes, and also, i just dont buy a lot. in buffalo, i tell black people that we have to stop hiring black polititians, who dont do the job, because they're black. they think that as long as they are black. i say a dick is a dick, a fucking is a fucking, and that i feel worst that my brother fuck me, than a stranger.....im just cynical that way .....lmao

I would agree no one should be given a job because of their cultural or racial origin. ALway vote for the best person for the job. I am not a racist but I have been called that because I am a realist. I believe that we are all equal what we do with that is our own choosing. If a person is brought up in poverty and they stay in poverty then they have a responsibility for the result. Now that is no matter the color of the skin.
But this is for another post.

I need to post a story about Reagan that shows the man had a human side.
This was relayed to us after the dedication of the Beirut Memorial( alos heard it mentioned again this week).

Reagan and staff were in attendance at the dedication of The Beirut Memorial at Camp Lejuene N.C. The families of those who had died were also there one little boy asked Reagan as he walked passed if he could bring his daddy home.
Reagan picked the boy up and with tears on his face said, " I wish I could son, I wish I could."

I feel that this story shows that even though he was a president who governed with a heavy hand(which is not always bad) he was also kind and human. He could have just smiled and walked past the boy, but he stopped and held the young child and answered his question.
What wasnt on TV this week was what we were told.
After he put the boy down Reagan continued to cry silently for the fallen marines, sailors and army men.
A compassionate yet firm leader is a very good quality.
I didnt post this to create a firestorm on his politics I did to try and erase the earlier debate and try to remember him quietly.