Tweet
After reading this article I was not only quite furious but I was very puzzled by the author's selective reporting.
The author sounds like an angry and bitter spouse going through a nasty divorce. He obviously takes only a portion of the incidents and the portion is purely negative. This article seems to me overly opinionated, excited and just plain crude. Author's style belongs somewhere in scandalous tabloids which are superb at smearing celebrities.
He writes about Reagan:
regarding the massacre in El Salvador and Guatemala. But he leaves out that it wasn't the American army which executed the act, but rather the Salvadorian soldiers who were fighting terrorist Communist guerrillas (with American support, same is happening with the US who is giving military aid to the Middle East to fight terrorists) who used American weapons to destroy those poor civilians. It is the same in every case where nations use weapons purchased from arms suppliers to execute their filthy deeds. For some reason the suppliers are blamed in the end. Basically if I give you a bat and you kill a cat with it at the moment of rage, I am responsible because I gave you a bat for your protection. Making a quick statement of this sort is not sufficient because one has to know politics of South America in order to judge the entire situation.
Interestingly enough Reagan has been an immense supporter of Israel. "in 1985 and 1986, when the Israeli economy was experiencing inflation rates as high as 445 percent, Reagan approved $1.5 billion in Israeli assistance, which was paid in two installments - one each year." "Reagan was instrumental in the enhancement of the U.S.-Israel Strategic Cooperation Agreement, which resulted in the establishment of the Joint Political-Military Group [JPMG], a Pentagon program which oversees joint intelligence and military ventures between both nations." Not bad for a supporter of anti-semitism. So I don't really understand the author's beef.
He also mentions that Reagan vetoed anti-apartheid, yet he fails to mention that the xxxish community was very distant when it came to the anti-apartheid struggle. Well what about:
President Ronald W. Reagan announced limited sanctions against South Africa Sept. 9. Reagan banned the sale of computers to South African security agencies, barred most loans to the Pretoria government, halted the importation of the Krugerrand, South Africa's gold coin, and stopped exports of nuclear technology until South Africa signs an accord to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
Reagan condemned apartheid and expressed concern over the increasing violence in South Africa in the executive order outlining his sanctions. Reagan said he was not abandoning his policy of "constructive engagement," which seeks to influence the South African Government through negotiations. He now refers to his policy as "active, constructive engagement."
And his concern was the amount of South African's who will suffer from the very strict imposition of sanctions.
When he mentions the Iran scandal he fails to reveal all of the details. Such as: Reagan traded weapons for American hostages (although not generally an acceptable international policy which states "you should never negotiate with the terrorists" somehow I feel that saving many lives is more essential than those principles). Interesting how he left out that detail.
Sure Reagan has made mistakes, which President hasn't? However, to focus only on the negative omitting paramount details, painting a picture of a prejudice and immoral monster, is just juvenile reporting. The author is clearly bias, prejudice and ridiculously dramatic.
So I was wondering, why such a negative spin? Is it due to an overwhelming majority of Democrats who can't hold themselves back from any arising opportunity to smear anyone who is a Republican, regarding their achievement? Where is the classic liberalism, is it dead? Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of his presidency can educate me further?
The author sounds like an angry and bitter spouse going through a nasty divorce. He obviously takes only a portion of the incidents and the portion is purely negative. This article seems to me overly opinionated, excited and just plain crude. Author's style belongs somewhere in scandalous tabloids which are superb at smearing celebrities.
He writes about Reagan:
"His administration cuddled up with fascistic and anti-semetic junta of Argentina,"
Interestingly enough Reagan has been an immense supporter of Israel. "in 1985 and 1986, when the Israeli economy was experiencing inflation rates as high as 445 percent, Reagan approved $1.5 billion in Israeli assistance, which was paid in two installments - one each year." "Reagan was instrumental in the enhancement of the U.S.-Israel Strategic Cooperation Agreement, which resulted in the establishment of the Joint Political-Military Group [JPMG], a Pentagon program which oversees joint intelligence and military ventures between both nations." Not bad for a supporter of anti-semitism. So I don't really understand the author's beef.
He also mentions that Reagan vetoed anti-apartheid, yet he fails to mention that the xxxish community was very distant when it came to the anti-apartheid struggle. Well what about:
President Ronald W. Reagan announced limited sanctions against South Africa Sept. 9. Reagan banned the sale of computers to South African security agencies, barred most loans to the Pretoria government, halted the importation of the Krugerrand, South Africa's gold coin, and stopped exports of nuclear technology until South Africa signs an accord to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
Reagan condemned apartheid and expressed concern over the increasing violence in South Africa in the executive order outlining his sanctions. Reagan said he was not abandoning his policy of "constructive engagement," which seeks to influence the South African Government through negotiations. He now refers to his policy as "active, constructive engagement."
And his concern was the amount of South African's who will suffer from the very strict imposition of sanctions.
When he mentions the Iran scandal he fails to reveal all of the details. Such as: Reagan traded weapons for American hostages (although not generally an acceptable international policy which states "you should never negotiate with the terrorists" somehow I feel that saving many lives is more essential than those principles). Interesting how he left out that detail.
Sure Reagan has made mistakes, which President hasn't? However, to focus only on the negative omitting paramount details, painting a picture of a prejudice and immoral monster, is just juvenile reporting. The author is clearly bias, prejudice and ridiculously dramatic.
So I was wondering, why such a negative spin? Is it due to an overwhelming majority of Democrats who can't hold themselves back from any arising opportunity to smear anyone who is a Republican, regarding their achievement? Where is the classic liberalism, is it dead? Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of his presidency can educate me further?
Comment