Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101

[Oldstyle]

And you're STILL trying to pretend that the video caused the attack in Benghazi? LOL Might as well continue to tell the big lie even though it's been shown to be nothing but a lie for a long long time!

 

[Camp]

And you're STILL trying to pretend that the video caused the attack in Benghazi? LOL Might as well continue to tell the big lie even though it's been shown to be nothing but a lie for a long long time!

Most people who are not obsessed with blaming the US government and it's leaders understand that demonstrations were being held outside of Embassies all across the mid east at the time of Benghazi. The demonstrators carried signs and made statements blaming the demomstrations on the video in question.

Embassy security response teams were on high alert and stretched to their limits. When the attack began in Benghazi, a small facility with limited numbers of personel, those responsible for security had no way of knowing the nature of the attack or if it was spontaeious, a diversion or a trap.

The attack and subsequent politicization in the middle of the crisis by a Presidential candidate and the continued politicization highlighted weaknesses in the overall security posture for US Emabassies. In addition the politicization puts unfair and dangerous levels of stress and pressure on implementing risky and often extremely dangerous operations due to the knowledge that if the operation goes negative, huge investigations and exposure that jeapordizes ongoing and future operations will occur.

 

[JoeB131]

My degree is from the University of Massachusetts...and they don't teach "shit history" or "talking snakes" there. They did however teach real history...something which you obviously know very little about. Stalin aligned himself with the Nazis because Hitler agreed to let him have half of Poland, and all of the Baltic States. He also did so because his own actions had weakened the Soviet military so badly that he was desperately trying to buy time to fix things...hence the treaty with Germany. As for what Hitler gained? It was always about keeping the Soviets from reacting militarily when Hitler invaded Poland! Hitler believed that the French and Great Britain wouldn't come to the defense of Poland because neither had come to the defense of Czechoslovakia a year before after Germany broke agreements with both that it wouldn't invade Czechoslovakia. By signing a 10 year nonaggression pact with Stalin, Hitler felt he could simply pluck Poland just as he had previously done with Czechoslovakia.

Again, your understanding is barely "Talking Snakes' level.

The real problem was, that Hitler approached stalin, not the other way around.

It was because Britian and France wouldn't make any accommedations on the Danzig Corridor, had committed to the COlonel's Regime in Poland to come to their aid so that the COlonel's wouldn't negotiate.

Here's the thing. The territory that Stalin took had been Russia's before the war.

You also fail to appreciate the real thing HItler got out of Ribbontrop Molotov was continued trade with the USSR. Not that you'd get this at all or anything.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Jesus, but you are clueless! We CRUSHED Iraq. It was about as lopsided a conflict as there has ever been in the history of war. What we struggled with was how to deal with the aftermath of the conflict. Nobody perceived our military as weak from the invasion of Iraq. It demonstrated that we had an incredibly powerful and skilled military.

Guy, the whole fucking world hated us after IRaq. Probably because you had your boy Rummy talking about "Old Europe" and Bush spouting shit about "If you're not with us, you're against us!"

And then there were no WMD's, and we couldn't contain a simple uprising.

 

[JoeB131]

And you're STILL trying to pretend that the video caused the attack in Benghazi? LOL Might as well continue to tell the big lie even though it's been shown to be nothing but a lie for a long long time!

Shown by who? The NYT did an investigation where they interviewed a lot of people who participated in that riot, and they said, "Um, yeah, we were really upset about that video that portrayed our holy prophet as a child molestor and animal abuser."

But in ODS land, it was all a vast conspiracy by Al Qaeda zombies and Obama lied!

 

[Oldstyle]

And you're STILL trying to pretend that the video caused the attack in Benghazi? LOL Might as well continue to tell the big lie even though it's been shown to be nothing but a lie for a long long time!

Most people who are not obsessed with blaming the US government and it's leaders understand that demonstrations were being held outside of Embassies all across the mid east at the time of Benghazi. The demonstrators carried signs and made statements blaming the demomstrations on the video in question.

Embassy security response teams were on high alert and stretched to their limits. When the attack began in Benghazi, a small facility with limited numbers of personel, those responsible for security had no way of knowing the nature of the attack or if it was spontaeious, a diversion or a trap.

The attack and subsequent politicization in the middle of the crisis by a Presidential candidate and the continued politicization highlighted weaknesses in the overall security posture for US Emabassies. In addition the politicization puts unfair and dangerous levels of stress and pressure on implementing risky and often extremely dangerous operations due to the knowledge that if the operation goes negative, huge investigations and exposure that jeapordizes ongoing and future operations will occur.

Dude, that was one of the worst "summaries" of what took place in Benghazi I've ever heard. If, as you claim Embassy security was on "high alert and stretched to their limits" then kindly explain why security forces protecting our Ambassador in Libya had just been shrunk by the State Department? As for those in charge not knowing the nature of the attack? They not only had real time streaming video of what was happening in Benghazi...they had TWO drones flying over the scene of the attack giving them "eyes on target" information about what was taking place there. I can't think of a situation where those in charge knew MORE about what was happening on the ground than our leaders knew about what was happening that night in Benghazi.

As for your claim that "exposure" of what happened that night puts future operations at risk? That's absurd. The only risk is to the reputations of Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton for lying about what took place in Benghazi.

 

[Oldstyle]

And you're STILL trying to pretend that the video caused the attack in Benghazi? LOL Might as well continue to tell the big lie even though it's been shown to be nothing but a lie for a long long time!

Shown by who? The NYT did an investigation where they interviewed a lot of people who participated in that riot, and they said, "Um, yeah, we were really upset about that video that portrayed our holy prophet as a child molestor and animal abuser."

But in ODS land, it was all a vast conspiracy by Al Qaeda zombies and Obama lied!

There was no "riot", you horses ass! What happened in Benghazi was an attack by Al Queda affiliated terrorists. If the New York Times did an investigation and came up with the conclusion that you state they did, then what that proves is how "in the tank" they are for this Administration. Something which shouldn't surprise anyone. The Times used to have a reputation for journalistic excellence. Now they have a reputation for liberal bias.

 

[JoeB131]

And you're STILL trying to pretend that the video caused the attack in Benghazi? LOL Might as well continue to tell the big lie even though it's been shown to be nothing but a lie for a long long time!

Shown by who? The NYT did an investigation where they interviewed a lot of people who participated in that riot, and they said, "Um, yeah, we were really upset about that video that portrayed our holy prophet as a child molestor and animal abuser."

But in ODS land, it was all a vast conspiracy by Al Qaeda zombies and Obama lied!

There was no "riot", you horses ass! What happened in Benghazi was an attack by Al Queda affiliated terrorists. If the New York Times did an investigation and came up with the conclusion that you state they did, then what that proves is how "in the tank" they are for this Administration. Something which shouldn't surprise anyone. The Times used to have a reputation for journalistic excellence. Now they have a reputation for liberal bias.

Yes, whenever someone contradicts whatever shit you've heard on Faux News, they have a "liberal bias".

All those reports inother countries of riots and demonstrations against the film? LIberal Bias.

Pointing out Obama called it an act of terror the next day when the Mormon said he didn't?

Liberal bias.

It must be nice to live in your own fact-free world where reality doesn't seep in.

 

[editec]

Note how this thread has become another Benghazi debate?

Reagan?

Quick change the subject because we KNOW they're right about him!

 

[Iceweasel]

Note how this thread has become another Benghazi debate?

Reagan?

Quick change the subject because we KNOW they're right about him!

Quick? This thread is how old? If you want to believe Reagan was wrong and we really didn't enjoy prosperity words are a waste of time.

 

[Camp]

Note how this thread has become another Benghazi debate?

Reagan?

Quick change the subject because we KNOW they're right about him!

Quick? This thread is how old? If you want to believe Reagan was wrong and we really didn't enjoy prosperity words are a waste of time.

Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing. And no matter how much the Reagan economic policies are cheered and promoted, it will never override the massive corruption in his administration and the outright evilness of Iran/Contra. His horrendous policies and actions regarding terrorist attacks are still being felt today. His idea that the USSR could be bullied into submission failed. That failure can be seen today as the old USSR shows a grudge and the disatisfaction of having been bullied.
A memorial for Reagan of the type erected to great Presidents will never be built in the nations capitol. Reagan fans hate the fact that Roosevelt was given a Memorial which was proudly built between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, but there will never be space or overwhelming support for a Reagan Memorial. Each year that goes by adds to the negative feeling about Reagan and his legacy. In time he will be viewed as one of our worst Presidents.

 

[Iceweasel]

Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing.

Remembering it is great. I remember it. I remember the middle class doing better than the Carter years too so you're full of shit. But you did prove my point.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Note how this thread has become another Benghazi debate?

Reagan?

Quick change the subject because we KNOW they're right about him!

Quick? This thread is how old? If you want to believe Reagan was wrong and we really didn't enjoy prosperity words are a waste of time.

Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing. And no matter how much the Reagan economic policies are cheered and promoted, it will never override the massive corruption in his administration and the outright evilness of Iran/Contra. His horrendous policies and actions regarding terrorist attacks are still being felt today. His idea that the USSR could be bullied into submission failed. That failure can be seen today as the old USSR shows a grudge and the disatisfaction of having been bullied.
A memorial for Reagan of the type erected to great Presidents will never be built in the nations capitol. Reagan fans hate the fact that Roosevelt was given a Memorial which was proudly built between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, but there will never be space or overwhelming support for a Reagan Memorial. Each year that goes by adds to the negative feeling about Reagan and his legacy. In time he will be viewed as one of our worst Presidents.

FDR averaged 20% Unemployed his first 2 terms. How is that success?

 

[Camp]

Quick? This thread is how old? If you want to believe Reagan was wrong and we really didn't enjoy prosperity words are a waste of time.

Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing. And no matter how much the Reagan economic policies are cheered and promoted, it will never override the massive corruption in his administration and the outright evilness of Iran/Contra. His horrendous policies and actions regarding terrorist attacks are still being felt today. His idea that the USSR could be bullied into submission failed. That failure can be seen today as the old USSR shows a grudge and the disatisfaction of having been bullied.
A memorial for Reagan of the type erected to great Presidents will never be built in the nations capitol. Reagan fans hate the fact that Roosevelt was given a Memorial which was proudly built between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, but there will never be space or overwhelming support for a Reagan Memorial. Each year that goes by adds to the negative feeling about Reagan and his legacy. In time he will be viewed as one of our worst Presidents.

FDR averaged 20% Unemployed his first 2 terms. How is that success?

Greatness isn't just judged by how an economy does during a Presidency. There are factors beyond a Presidents control that effect the economy and people understand that. OPEC and terrorism had enormous effects on the Presidency of Carter. He stood up to both of those forces and paid a price. The end result was that terrorism and America's dependence on mid-east oil would flourish under his replacement.
Americans were hunted down, captured, tortured and murdered under Reagan. They were blown up on the ground and blown up in the skies. His response was to sell them and supply them with weapons and munitions while he introduced their methods of terrorism and warfare to Central America. But hey, some folks think he had some cool economic policies and tax ideas.

 

[Oldstyle]

Shown by who? The NYT did an investigation where they interviewed a lot of people who participated in that riot, and they said, "Um, yeah, we were really upset about that video that portrayed our holy prophet as a child molestor and animal abuser."

But in ODS land, it was all a vast conspiracy by Al Qaeda zombies and Obama lied!

There was no "riot", you horses ass! What happened in Benghazi was an attack by Al Queda affiliated terrorists. If the New York Times did an investigation and came up with the conclusion that you state they did, then what that proves is how "in the tank" they are for this Administration. Something which shouldn't surprise anyone. The Times used to have a reputation for journalistic excellence. Now they have a reputation for liberal bias.

Yes, whenever someone contradicts whatever shit you've heard on Faux News, they have a "liberal bias".

All those reports inother countries of riots and demonstrations against the film? LIberal Bias.

Pointing out Obama called it an act of terror the next day when the Mormon said he didn't?

Liberal bias.

It must be nice to live in your own fact-free world where reality doesn't seep in.

You continue to amuse, Joe...

The fact of the matter is that the Obama Administration used those reports about riots and demonstrations in other countries to conceal from the American people that a well planned attack by Al Queda affiliated terrorists killed our Ambassador and torched our consulate. The Obama Administration lied about Benghazi right from the start. They knew what it was almost immediately and continued to blame the attack on a mob response to a You Tube video. Why? Because their campaign was running hard on the theme that Barry had Al Queda on the run after killing Osama bin Laden and they didn't want to admit that Al Queda wasn't as "on the run" as they had portrayed them. The lies about Benghazi were all about politics. This Administration made a calculated decision to lie about it because they felt they would receive enough cover from a compliant main stream media to pull it off until the election.

And Obama spoke "generally" about terrorism the day after the attacks...a reference that you Obama fluffers have tried to use to obscure the repeated lies and distortions of truth by Obama, Clinton, Carney and Rice to paint what happened as a demonstration that got out of control...a demonstration over a video. This was a planned and coordinated series of lies that went on for weeks.

 

[Oldstyle]

Note how this thread has become another Benghazi debate?

Reagan?

Quick change the subject because we KNOW they're right about him!

Quick? This thread is how old? If you want to believe Reagan was wrong and we really didn't enjoy prosperity words are a waste of time.

Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing. And no matter how much the Reagan economic policies are cheered and promoted, it will never override the massive corruption in his administration and the outright evilness of Iran/Contra. His horrendous policies and actions regarding terrorist attacks are still being felt today. His idea that the USSR could be bullied into submission failed. That failure can be seen today as the old USSR shows a grudge and the disatisfaction of having been bullied.
A memorial for Reagan of the type erected to great Presidents will never be built in the nations capitol. Reagan fans hate the fact that Roosevelt was given a Memorial which was proudly built between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, but there will never be space or overwhelming support for a Reagan Memorial. Each year that goes by adds to the negative feeling about Reagan and his legacy. In time he will be viewed as one of our worst Presidents.

You're amazing! Seriously...

You not only make the statement that Reagan's policies towards the Soviets failed...you imply that what is happening today, because of the ineptitude of Barack Obama, is REALLY because the "old USSR" is still angry at Reagan!

The sheer audacity of that claim is breathtaking! It's the kind of rewriting of history to support a political agenda that the folks running the "old USSR" would have employed!

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

This is a very short, but very intuitive and historically correct treatise on Reagan's dealings with the Soviets. Anyone would do well to read it and learn from it.

The Collapse of the Soviet Union and Ronald Reagan

Weakness breeds confrontation. Carter was confronted by the Soviets (Afghanistan, Nicaragua and others) because they perceived him as weak and ineffective. And he was. Barry and his criminal cronies are also weak and ineffective. This has rejuvenated feelings of a Soviet empire in Putin and emboldened him to seek to re-establish Russian dominance. It will ONLY be checked if someone is elected to office who reflects Reagan's strength and view point. If not, the destruction of America as a super power will certainly continue.

The OP was ludicrous and pure fantasy...

 

[longly]

Note how this thread has become another Benghazi debate?

Reagan?

Quick change the subject because we KNOW they're right about him!

Quick? This thread is how old? If you want to believe Reagan was wrong and we really didn't enjoy prosperity words are a waste of time.

Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing. And no matter how much the Reagan economic policies are cheered and promoted, it will never override the massive corruption in his administration and the outright evilness of Iran/Contra. His horrendous policies and actions regarding terrorist attacks are still being felt today. His idea that the USSR could be bullied into submission failed. That failure can be seen today as the old USSR shows a grudge and the disatisfaction of having been bullied.
A memorial for Reagan of the type erected to great Presidents will never be built in the nations capitol. Reagan fans hate the fact that Roosevelt was given a Memorial which was proudly built between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, but there will never be space or overwhelming support for a Reagan Memorial. Each year that goes by adds to the negative feeling about Reagan and his legacy. In time he will be viewed as one of our worst Presidents.

Here is the way it was:

1. We were in the Cold War. The communist wanted to establish a military base in central on the man land of North America.

2. The Reagan administration saw this as disadvantageous to the US and the future of freedom and did all they could to resist it.

3. Liberal democrats on the other hand did all they could to impede the ability of Reagan to oppose Soviet interest in Central America. Evidently the liberal Democrats saw a stronger Soviet Union as a good thing. They could never have too many slave labor camps.

 

[Meathead]

Quick? This thread is how old? If you want to believe Reagan was wrong and we really didn't enjoy prosperity words are a waste of time.

Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing. And no matter how much the Reagan economic policies are cheered and promoted, it will never override the massive corruption in his administration and the outright evilness of Iran/Contra. His horrendous policies and actions regarding terrorist attacks are still being felt today. His idea that the USSR could be bullied into submission failed. That failure can be seen today as the old USSR shows a grudge and the disatisfaction of having been bullied.
A memorial for Reagan of the type erected to great Presidents will never be built in the nations capitol. Reagan fans hate the fact that Roosevelt was given a Memorial which was proudly built between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, but there will never be space or overwhelming support for a Reagan Memorial. Each year that goes by adds to the negative feeling about Reagan and his legacy. In time he will be viewed as one of our worst Presidents.

You're amazing! Seriously...

You not only make the statement that Reagan's policies towards the Soviets failed...you imply that what is happening today, because of the ineptitude of Barack Obama, is REALLY because the "old USSR" is still angry at Reagan!

The sheer audacity of that claim is breathtaking! It's the kind of rewriting of history to support a political agenda that the folks running the "old USSR" would have employed!

Agreed. Camp has outdone even himself in abject stupidity; no small feat.

 

[Camp]

Quick? This thread is how old? If you want to believe Reagan was wrong and we really didn't enjoy prosperity words are a waste of time.

Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing. And no matter how much the Reagan economic policies are cheered and promoted, it will never override the massive corruption in his administration and the outright evilness of Iran/Contra. His horrendous policies and actions regarding terrorist attacks are still being felt today. His idea that the USSR could be bullied into submission failed. That failure can be seen today as the old USSR shows a grudge and the disatisfaction of having been bullied.
A memorial for Reagan of the type erected to great Presidents will never be built in the nations capitol. Reagan fans hate the fact that Roosevelt was given a Memorial which was proudly built between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, but there will never be space or overwhelming support for a Reagan Memorial. Each year that goes by adds to the negative feeling about Reagan and his legacy. In time he will be viewed as one of our worst Presidents.

Here is the way it was:

1. We were in the Cold War. The communist wanted to establish a military base in central on the man land of North America.

2. The Reagan administration saw this as disadvantageous to the US and the future of freedom and did all they could to resist it.

3. Liberal democrats on the other hand did all they could to impede the ability of Reagan to oppose Soviet interest in Central America. Evidently the liberal Democrats saw a stronger Soviet Union as a good thing. They could never have too many slave labor camps.

Everyone knew the Contras were a bunch of gangster, terrorist, drug dealers and criminals. That is why the Bolin amendment(s) were passed in Congress which forbade giving support to the Contras. It did not forbid other means of making problems for the Nicaragua government, but it specificly made supporting those thugs and gangsters against the law. REAGAN KNEW THAT CONGRESS, WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DECLARE WAR OR FORBID IT HAD FORBIDDEN SUPPORT TO THE CONTRAS. He signed the amendment on 21 DEC 1982. He did not vetoe it and send it back. He signed it. Evidently enough Republicans in Congress and the President himself knew any effort to follow constitutional means to implement support to the Contras would fail.