Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Joe Scarborough adamantly insisted he was right during an exchange with co-host Mika Brzezinski on Monday's "Morning Joe," only to admit later that he was "wrong."
The two were discussing President Obama's response to the Malaysian plane crash in Ukraine. Brzezinski pointed out that President Reagan was on vacation when Korean Airlines Flight 007 was shot down by Soviet forces in 1983, and he did not make a speech for four days after the crash. Scarborough, despite Brzezinski's protests, argued that Reagan "immediately" responded.
"He immediately canceled [his vacation], immediately went back to the White House. He immediately canceled fundraising events and campaign events," the MSNBC host said.
MORE: Joe Scarborough Admits Making 'Boneheaded Error'
Scarborough was proven wrong and later apologized to Mika Brzezinski. He also thanked Twitter posters for pointing out his mistake.
Why am I supposed to care that Joe Scarborough fucked up?
Where are the pics of Reagan drinking beer, playing pool, chowing down on burgers...and going to fundraisers during the time in question?
The Honorable President Reagan did the right thing, while Obozo fucked up again and embarrassed this Country.Looks like Lakhota got sent running from his thread...
I missed the part where Reagan joked to a crowed then hurried off to a fund raiser. You really want to compare an adult leader like Reagan to Boy Blunder?
OK, now the real story.
MH 17 vs. KAL 007—Obama vs. Reagan
Leadership then, leadership now.
By Paul Kengor – 7.19.14
This generation has its KAL 007. The stunning downing of Malaysian flight 17 is strikingly similar to the shock of September 1, 1983, when the Russians downed a Korean passenger airliner, flight 007, which had left New York City for Seoul via Alaska. In both cases, the Russian government vehemently denied any involvement, disparaging anyone who dared to accuse it of prior knowledge.
Both planes were Asian with similar numbers of dead. KAL had 269 passengers; the Malaysian flight nearly 300. They were mostly Asian passengers but also Americans—61 Americans in KAL 007 and a much smaller (still unconfirmed) number in the Malaysian flight. In both cases, questions arise over why the planes were flying where they were flying. Exactly what happened with KAL still isn’t entirely clear, but it seems the computer on the plane’s guidance system was set incorrectly, allowing it to stray into Soviet airspace. Russia fighter planes stalked KAL 007 before blasting it out of the sky.
In 1983, Moscow initially denied the dirty deed, with Yuri Andropov, Vladimir Putin’s former boss at the KGB, insisting on the Kremlin’s innocence. The denials were shattered when the Reagan administration produced audio of the two Russian pilots communicating as they excitedly shot the plane. The audio was secured via the National Security Agency’s exceptional electronic surveillance technology.
But a major difference between September 1983 and July 2014 is the initial reaction of the two presidents. As someone who has written extensively on Ronald Reagan’s response, I’ll start with that.
President Reagan was informed of the KAL catastrophe by his closest aide, national security adviser Bill Clark. As Clark’s biographer, I discussed this with him many times.
Reagan was at his ranch in the Santa Ynez Mountains north of Santa Barbara when he received the news via telephone from Clark. “I told him Bill Casey [CIA director] just relayed an unsubstantiated report that the Soviets may have shot down an airliner, possibly Korean,” Clark told me. Reagan replied to Clark: “Bill, let’s pray it’s not true.”
They prayed, but it was true. The Soviets never let prayer get in the way of their work.
As Clark recalled, “He [Reagan] said, ‘Bill, round table it,’ which meant bring it to the decision-making process to get the opinions and recommendations of all the principals in the NSC: Shultz, Weinberger, Kirkpatrick, Casey….”
Clark called Reagan twice that evening with preliminary information, first at 7:30 PM, California time. Clark was in the “Western Situation Room” at the Biltmore Hotel in Santa Barbara, only a few miles from Reagan. They were not able to confirm the details until 7:10 AM the next morning.
Reagan was furious. John Barletta, his riding companion at the ranch, overheard Reagan shout: “Those were innocent civilians. Damn those Russians!”
Clark told the press that he personally expected the Soviets to perpetuate the “big lie” technique. He said he wouldn’t be surprised if the Russians claimed that the commercial airliner was on an American espionage mission.
Reagan immediately helicoptered to Point Mugu Naval Air Station in California to board Air Force One for Washington. At 12:35 PM, from the tarmac, he spoke to the press, excoriating the Soviets for committing a “brutal,” “callous,” and “heinous act”—a “barbaric act,” a “terrorist act.” It was all made worse, he said, by the fact that the Russians “so flagrantly lie.”
Back in Washington, Reagan immediately met with Clark and the National Security Council. He publicly lit up the Soviets with more statements, including a radio address on September 3 and a nationally televised Oval Office speech on September 5, in which he repeatedly denounced Moscow’s “crime” and “massacre.” And there were more statements to come.
In a speech on September 15 to the Air Force Association, Clark accused Moscow of “mass murder” and a “twisted mentality.” “The sickening display of Soviet barbarism in the Korean Air Lines massacre shocked all of us,” Clark said. “But at the same time, this dramatically brutal act must be deemed consistent with the behavior of a Soviet government that continues to terrorize and murder the Afghan people, using chemical weapons on Afghan villages; a Soviet government that sponsors the repression of the entire Polish nation.”
As evidence that Clark’s words had been pre-approved, the White House press office distributed the text as an expression of administration policy. The media didn’t miss it. “Clark Accuses Soviets of ‘Mass Murder,’” read the headline in the Washington Post.
And yet, while Ronald Reagan was steamed, he was also very careful. He told Clark flatly: “[L]et’s be careful not to overreact to this. We have too much going on with the Soviets…. Bill, we’ve got to protect against overreaction.”
Reagan did not want to start a war over the KAL downing, nor derail the substantial progress they had made toward cutting nuclear arsenals. Besides, he was already hammering the Soviets with the economic sledgehammer (read: economic warfare) and recently announced initiatives like SDI.
How best to react? Reagan decided to respond primarily with words rather than yet more sanctions or a military response (which was out of the question). He deployed one of his favorites weapon against the Kremlin: the verbal cruise missile. Recall that earlier that year, in March, Reagan had labeled the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire,” a choice name that dramatically affected Moscow.
So, throughout September 1983, Reagan torched the Soviets in harsh terms, even when delivering speeches on other topics or areas of the world.
On September 25, for instance, Reagan spoke in New York City at the annual Pulaski Day Banquet. There, he linked the KAL 007 “crime” to the same Soviet totalitarian evil responsible for the World War II butchery of Polish military officers in the Katyn forest. “You know that downing a passenger airliner is totally consistent with a government that murdered 15,000 Polish officers in the Katyn forest,” he averred. “We cannot let the world forget that crime, and we will not.”
In short, Ronald Reagan’s reaction to the Russian downing of an Asian airliner was one of strength, character, and leadership.
As for Barack Obama’s reaction to the Russian downing of an Asian airliner, it isn’t entirely clear who even first informed him. According to some reports, it might have been Vladimir Putin, whom Obama, as we know, has repeatedly accommodated since 2009, and who has run roughshod over the Ukraine, the world, and U.S. policy. He has repeatedly made Obama look foolish.
Obama’s initial reaction was terribly un-presidential, even sophomoric. He briefly acknowledged the tragedy in a statement in Delaware before moving ahead with a speech in which he cracked jokes and zinged Republicans for not funding an airport project. He offended diehard liberals like CNN’s Piers Morgan. “President Obama massively dropped the ball just now,” Morgan tweeted. “23 Americans killed and he says ‘it looks like a terrible tragedy’ then back to jokes?”
After the jocular statement in Delaware, Obama headed not for the White House Situation Room but to New York for no less than two fundraisers to raise money for Democrats.
Obama’s woeful response seems to have prompted his deep admirer, Chris Matthews, to long for Ronald Reagan. On MSNBC, Matthews played two video clips of Reagan from September 1983.
Britain’s Daily Mail did an especially good job summarizing Obama’s embarrassing appraisal and the disappointment it drew even from supporters.
To be sure, I don’t want to dump on Obama too hard. The presidency is a tough job. I certainly don’t want to attack Obama like liberals vilified George W. Bush upon his first receiving news of events in New York the morning of September 11 during an event in Florida. The left’s attack on Bush was outrageously uncharitable.
I suspect, too—in fact, I know—that Obama’s public statements hereafter will get progressively stronger with careful directing by his political staff, very similar to the pattern in June 2009 when Obama initially reacted pathetically to the uprising in Iran. His response then was so timid that Democrats expressed outrage. His handlers helped him shape a much better series of statements thereafter.
And indeed, Obama’s statement from the White House the next morning, July 18, was much more serious. I was not surprised at all. His staff grabbed him and corrected him, guiding him to a more presidential response.
But we cannot disregard that initial response—that gut reaction as reports suggested at least two dozen dead Americans on top of the many additional slaughtered lives. Sure, Obama will make amends, but his initial dismal reaction, which undermines the credibility of his further responses, speaks volumes. Does he really need to be coached and steered into the proper moral outrage and indignation? Shouldn’t that come naturally?
This generation has its KAL 007, and it also has a president who responded in a way that left much to be desired. History will remember.
Joe Scarborough adamantly insisted he was right during an exchange with co-host Mika Brzezinski on Monday's "Morning Joe," only to admit later that he was "wrong."
The two were discussing President Obama's response to the Malaysian plane crash in Ukraine. Brzezinski pointed out that President Reagan was on vacation when Korean Airlines Flight 007 was shot down by Soviet forces in 1983, and he did not make a speech for four days after the crash. Scarborough, despite Brzezinski's protests, argued that Reagan "immediately" responded.
"He immediately canceled [his vacation], immediately went back to the White House. He immediately canceled fundraising events and campaign events," the MSNBC host said.
MORE: Joe Scarborough Admits Making 'Boneheaded Error'
Scarborough was proven wrong and later apologized to Mika Brzezinski. He also thanked Twitter posters for pointing out his mistake.
First day he did a fund raiser
Second day he had a burger with a black woman on food stamps
Third day he had a private dinner with a gay man
Fourth day he played golf.
Sound familiar?
I missed the part where Reagan joked to a crowed then hurried off to a fund raiser. You really want to compare an adult leader like Reagan to Boy Blunder?
OK, now the real story.
MH 17 vs. KAL 007Obama vs. Reagan
Leadership then, leadership now.
By Paul Kengor 7.19.14
This generation has its KAL 007. The stunning downing of Malaysian flight 17 is strikingly similar to the shock of September 1, 1983, when the Russians downed a Korean passenger airliner, flight 007, which had left New York City for Seoul via Alaska. In both cases, the Russian government vehemently denied any involvement, disparaging anyone who dared to accuse it of prior knowledge.
Both planes were Asian with similar numbers of dead. KAL had 269 passengers; the Malaysian flight nearly 300. They were mostly Asian passengers but also Americans61 Americans in KAL 007 and a much smaller (still unconfirmed) number in the Malaysian flight. In both cases, questions arise over why the planes were flying where they were flying. Exactly what happened with KAL still isnt entirely clear, but it seems the computer on the planes guidance system was set incorrectly, allowing it to stray into Soviet airspace. Russia fighter planes stalked KAL 007 before blasting it out of the sky.
In 1983, Moscow initially denied the dirty deed, with Yuri Andropov, Vladimir Putins former boss at the KGB, insisting on the Kremlins innocence. The denials were shattered when the Reagan administration produced audio of the two Russian pilots communicating as they excitedly shot the plane. The audio was secured via the National Security Agencys exceptional electronic surveillance technology.
But a major difference between September 1983 and July 2014 is the initial reaction of the two presidents. As someone who has written extensively on Ronald Reagans response, Ill start with that.
President Reagan was informed of the KAL catastrophe by his closest aide, national security adviser Bill Clark. As Clarks biographer, I discussed this with him many times.
Reagan was at his ranch in the Santa Ynez Mountains north of Santa Barbara when he received the news via telephone from Clark. I told him Bill Casey [CIA director] just relayed an unsubstantiated report that the Soviets may have shot down an airliner, possibly Korean, Clark told me. Reagan replied to Clark: Bill, lets pray its not true.
They prayed, but it was true. The Soviets never let prayer get in the way of their work.
As Clark recalled, He [Reagan] said, Bill, round table it, which meant bring it to the decision-making process to get the opinions and recommendations of all the principals in the NSC: Shultz, Weinberger, Kirkpatrick, Casey .
Clark called Reagan twice that evening with preliminary information, first at 7:30 PM, California time. Clark was in the Western Situation Room at the Biltmore Hotel in Santa Barbara, only a few miles from Reagan. They were not able to confirm the details until 7:10 AM the next morning.
Reagan was furious. John Barletta, his riding companion at the ranch, overheard Reagan shout: Those were innocent civilians. Damn those Russians!
Clark told the press that he personally expected the Soviets to perpetuate the big lie technique. He said he wouldnt be surprised if the Russians claimed that the commercial airliner was on an American espionage mission.
Reagan immediately helicoptered to Point Mugu Naval Air Station in California to board Air Force One for Washington. At 12:35 PM, from the tarmac, he spoke to the press, excoriating the Soviets for committing a brutal, callous, and heinous acta barbaric act, a terrorist act. It was all made worse, he said, by the fact that the Russians so flagrantly lie.
Back in Washington, Reagan immediately met with Clark and the National Security Council. He publicly lit up the Soviets with more statements, including a radio address on September 3 and a nationally televised Oval Office speech on September 5, in which he repeatedly denounced Moscows crime and massacre. And there were more statements to come.
In a speech on September 15 to the Air Force Association, Clark accused Moscow of mass murder and a twisted mentality. The sickening display of Soviet barbarism in the Korean Air Lines massacre shocked all of us, Clark said. But at the same time, this dramatically brutal act must be deemed consistent with the behavior of a Soviet government that continues to terrorize and murder the Afghan people, using chemical weapons on Afghan villages; a Soviet government that sponsors the repression of the entire Polish nation.
As evidence that Clarks words had been pre-approved, the White House press office distributed the text as an expression of administration policy. The media didnt miss it. Clark Accuses Soviets of Mass Murder, read the headline in the Washington Post.
And yet, while Ronald Reagan was steamed, he was also very careful. He told Clark flatly: [L]ets be careful not to overreact to this. We have too much going on with the Soviets . Bill, weve got to protect against overreaction.
Reagan did not want to start a war over the KAL downing, nor derail the substantial progress they had made toward cutting nuclear arsenals. Besides, he was already hammering the Soviets with the economic sledgehammer (read: economic warfare) and recently announced initiatives like SDI.
How best to react? Reagan decided to respond primarily with words rather than yet more sanctions or a military response (which was out of the question). He deployed one of his favorites weapon against the Kremlin: the verbal cruise missile. Recall that earlier that year, in March, Reagan had labeled the Soviet Union an Evil Empire, a choice name that dramatically affected Moscow.
So, throughout September 1983, Reagan torched the Soviets in harsh terms, even when delivering speeches on other topics or areas of the world.
On September 25, for instance, Reagan spoke in New York City at the annual Pulaski Day Banquet. There, he linked the KAL 007 crime to the same Soviet totalitarian evil responsible for the World War II butchery of Polish military officers in the Katyn forest. You know that downing a passenger airliner is totally consistent with a government that murdered 15,000 Polish officers in the Katyn forest, he averred. We cannot let the world forget that crime, and we will not.
In short, Ronald Reagans reaction to the Russian downing of an Asian airliner was one of strength, character, and leadership.
As for Barack Obamas reaction to the Russian downing of an Asian airliner, it isnt entirely clear who even first informed him. According to some reports, it might have been Vladimir Putin, whom Obama, as we know, has repeatedly accommodated since 2009, and who has run roughshod over the Ukraine, the world, and U.S. policy. He has repeatedly made Obama look foolish.
Obamas initial reaction was terribly un-presidential, even sophomoric. He briefly acknowledged the tragedy in a statement in Delaware before moving ahead with a speech in which he cracked jokes and zinged Republicans for not funding an airport project. He offended diehard liberals like CNNs Piers Morgan. President Obama massively dropped the ball just now, Morgan tweeted. 23 Americans killed and he says it looks like a terrible tragedy then back to jokes?
After the jocular statement in Delaware, Obama headed not for the White House Situation Room but to New York for no less than two fundraisers to raise money for Democrats.
Obamas woeful response seems to have prompted his deep admirer, Chris Matthews, to long for Ronald Reagan. On MSNBC, Matthews played two video clips of Reagan from September 1983.
Britains Daily Mail did an especially good job summarizing Obamas embarrassing appraisal and the disappointment it drew even from supporters.
To be sure, I dont want to dump on Obama too hard. The presidency is a tough job. I certainly dont want to attack Obama like liberals vilified George W. Bush upon his first receiving news of events in New York the morning of September 11 during an event in Florida. The lefts attack on Bush was outrageously uncharitable.
I suspect, tooin fact, I knowthat Obamas public statements hereafter will get progressively stronger with careful directing by his political staff, very similar to the pattern in June 2009 when Obama initially reacted pathetically to the uprising in Iran. His response then was so timid that Democrats expressed outrage. His handlers helped him shape a much better series of statements thereafter.
And indeed, Obamas statement from the White House the next morning, July 18, was much more serious. I was not surprised at all. His staff grabbed him and corrected him, guiding him to a more presidential response.
But we cannot disregard that initial responsethat gut reaction as reports suggested at least two dozen dead Americans on top of the many additional slaughtered lives. Sure, Obama will make amends, but his initial dismal reaction, which undermines the credibility of his further responses, speaks volumes. Does he really need to be coached and steered into the proper moral outrage and indignation? Shouldnt that come naturally?
This generation has its KAL 007, and it also has a president who responded in a way that left much to be desired. History will remember.
Nice revisionist story you found there, I especially liked the almost romantic tone to it. But in reality, Reagan didn't want to cut his vacation short. His handlers convinced him it would appear terrible for him to remain on vacation and not address the nation following such a horrible incident. Had he left immediately, as you posted, it wouldn't have taken him 4 days to reach Washington.
But in reality, Reagan didn't want to cut his vacation short. His handlers convinced him it would appear terrible for him to remain on vacation and not address the nation following such a horrible incident. Had he left immediately, as you posted, it wouldn't have taken him 4 days to reach Washington.
I missed the part where Reagan joked to a crowed then hurried off to a fund raiser. You really want to compare an adult leader like Reagan to Boy Blunder?
OK, now the real story.
MH 17 vs. KAL 007Obama vs. Reagan
Leadership then, leadership now.
By Paul Kengor 7.19.14
This generation has its KAL 007. The stunning downing of Malaysian flight 17 is strikingly similar to the shock of September 1, 1983, when the Russians downed a Korean passenger airliner, flight 007, which had left New York City for Seoul via Alaska. In both cases, the Russian government vehemently denied any involvement, disparaging anyone who dared to accuse it of prior knowledge.
Both planes were Asian with similar numbers of dead. KAL had 269 passengers; the Malaysian flight nearly 300. They were mostly Asian passengers but also Americans61 Americans in KAL 007 and a much smaller (still unconfirmed) number in the Malaysian flight. In both cases, questions arise over why the planes were flying where they were flying. Exactly what happened with KAL still isnt entirely clear, but it seems the computer on the planes guidance system was set incorrectly, allowing it to stray into Soviet airspace. Russia fighter planes stalked KAL 007 before blasting it out of the sky.
In 1983, Moscow initially denied the dirty deed, with Yuri Andropov, Vladimir Putins former boss at the KGB, insisting on the Kremlins innocence. The denials were shattered when the Reagan administration produced audio of the two Russian pilots communicating as they excitedly shot the plane. The audio was secured via the National Security Agencys exceptional electronic surveillance technology.
But a major difference between September 1983 and July 2014 is the initial reaction of the two presidents. As someone who has written extensively on Ronald Reagans response, Ill start with that.
President Reagan was informed of the KAL catastrophe by his closest aide, national security adviser Bill Clark. As Clarks biographer, I discussed this with him many times.
Reagan was at his ranch in the Santa Ynez Mountains north of Santa Barbara when he received the news via telephone from Clark. I told him Bill Casey [CIA director] just relayed an unsubstantiated report that the Soviets may have shot down an airliner, possibly Korean, Clark told me. Reagan replied to Clark: Bill, lets pray its not true.
They prayed, but it was true. The Soviets never let prayer get in the way of their work.
As Clark recalled, He [Reagan] said, Bill, round table it, which meant bring it to the decision-making process to get the opinions and recommendations of all the principals in the NSC: Shultz, Weinberger, Kirkpatrick, Casey .
Clark called Reagan twice that evening with preliminary information, first at 7:30 PM, California time. Clark was in the Western Situation Room at the Biltmore Hotel in Santa Barbara, only a few miles from Reagan. They were not able to confirm the details until 7:10 AM the next morning.
Reagan was furious. John Barletta, his riding companion at the ranch, overheard Reagan shout: Those were innocent civilians. Damn those Russians!
Clark told the press that he personally expected the Soviets to perpetuate the big lie technique. He said he wouldnt be surprised if the Russians claimed that the commercial airliner was on an American espionage mission.
Reagan immediately helicoptered to Point Mugu Naval Air Station in California to board Air Force One for Washington. At 12:35 PM, from the tarmac, he spoke to the press, excoriating the Soviets for committing a brutal, callous, and heinous acta barbaric act, a terrorist act. It was all made worse, he said, by the fact that the Russians so flagrantly lie.
Back in Washington, Reagan immediately met with Clark and the National Security Council. He publicly lit up the Soviets with more statements, including a radio address on September 3 and a nationally televised Oval Office speech on September 5, in which he repeatedly denounced Moscows crime and massacre. And there were more statements to come.
In a speech on September 15 to the Air Force Association, Clark accused Moscow of mass murder and a twisted mentality. The sickening display of Soviet barbarism in the Korean Air Lines massacre shocked all of us, Clark said. But at the same time, this dramatically brutal act must be deemed consistent with the behavior of a Soviet government that continues to terrorize and murder the Afghan people, using chemical weapons on Afghan villages; a Soviet government that sponsors the repression of the entire Polish nation.
As evidence that Clarks words had been pre-approved, the White House press office distributed the text as an expression of administration policy. The media didnt miss it. Clark Accuses Soviets of Mass Murder, read the headline in the Washington Post.
And yet, while Ronald Reagan was steamed, he was also very careful. He told Clark flatly: [L]ets be careful not to overreact to this. We have too much going on with the Soviets . Bill, weve got to protect against overreaction.
Reagan did not want to start a war over the KAL downing, nor derail the substantial progress they had made toward cutting nuclear arsenals. Besides, he was already hammering the Soviets with the economic sledgehammer (read: economic warfare) and recently announced initiatives like SDI.
How best to react? Reagan decided to respond primarily with words rather than yet more sanctions or a military response (which was out of the question). He deployed one of his favorites weapon against the Kremlin: the verbal cruise missile. Recall that earlier that year, in March, Reagan had labeled the Soviet Union an Evil Empire, a choice name that dramatically affected Moscow.
So, throughout September 1983, Reagan torched the Soviets in harsh terms, even when delivering speeches on other topics or areas of the world.
On September 25, for instance, Reagan spoke in New York City at the annual Pulaski Day Banquet. There, he linked the KAL 007 crime to the same Soviet totalitarian evil responsible for the World War II butchery of Polish military officers in the Katyn forest. You know that downing a passenger airliner is totally consistent with a government that murdered 15,000 Polish officers in the Katyn forest, he averred. We cannot let the world forget that crime, and we will not.
In short, Ronald Reagans reaction to the Russian downing of an Asian airliner was one of strength, character, and leadership.
As for Barack Obamas reaction to the Russian downing of an Asian airliner, it isnt entirely clear who even first informed him. According to some reports, it might have been Vladimir Putin, whom Obama, as we know, has repeatedly accommodated since 2009, and who has run roughshod over the Ukraine, the world, and U.S. policy. He has repeatedly made Obama look foolish.
Obamas initial reaction was terribly un-presidential, even sophomoric. He briefly acknowledged the tragedy in a statement in Delaware before moving ahead with a speech in which he cracked jokes and zinged Republicans for not funding an airport project. He offended diehard liberals like CNNs Piers Morgan. President Obama massively dropped the ball just now, Morgan tweeted. 23 Americans killed and he says it looks like a terrible tragedy then back to jokes?
After the jocular statement in Delaware, Obama headed not for the White House Situation Room but to New York for no less than two fundraisers to raise money for Democrats.
Obamas woeful response seems to have prompted his deep admirer, Chris Matthews, to long for Ronald Reagan. On MSNBC, Matthews played two video clips of Reagan from September 1983.
Britains Daily Mail did an especially good job summarizing Obamas embarrassing appraisal and the disappointment it drew even from supporters.
To be sure, I dont want to dump on Obama too hard. The presidency is a tough job. I certainly dont want to attack Obama like liberals vilified George W. Bush upon his first receiving news of events in New York the morning of September 11 during an event in Florida. The lefts attack on Bush was outrageously uncharitable.
I suspect, tooin fact, I knowthat Obamas public statements hereafter will get progressively stronger with careful directing by his political staff, very similar to the pattern in June 2009 when Obama initially reacted pathetically to the uprising in Iran. His response then was so timid that Democrats expressed outrage. His handlers helped him shape a much better series of statements thereafter.
And indeed, Obamas statement from the White House the next morning, July 18, was much more serious. I was not surprised at all. His staff grabbed him and corrected him, guiding him to a more presidential response.
But we cannot disregard that initial responsethat gut reaction as reports suggested at least two dozen dead Americans on top of the many additional slaughtered lives. Sure, Obama will make amends, but his initial dismal reaction, which undermines the credibility of his further responses, speaks volumes. Does he really need to be coached and steered into the proper moral outrage and indignation? Shouldnt that come naturally?
This generation has its KAL 007, and it also has a president who responded in a way that left much to be desired. History will remember.
Nice revisionist story you found there, I especially liked the almost romantic tone to it. But in reality, Reagan didn't want to cut his vacation short. His handlers convinced him it would appear terrible for him to remain on vacation and not address the nation following such a horrible incident. Had he left immediately, as you posted, it wouldn't have taken him 4 days to reach Washington.
Reagan has Alzheimer's during his nap in the White House:
"Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying."
"Well, I learned a lot....I went down to (Latin America) to find out from them and (learn) their views. You'd be surprised. They're all individual countries"
"I don't know. I've never played a governor." -asked by a reporter in 1966 what kind of governor he would be
"Facts are stupid things." -at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles."
"All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk."
yabut that was different then somehowWhy did President Reagan wait 4 days before responding to Korean Airlines Flight 007?
IT JUST WAS!!!
ok, so what's Obama's excuse if Reagan had Alzheimer's which you have proof of right?
Because 007 stands for James Bond and James Bond stands for a secret agent duh.Why did President Reagan wait 4 days before responding to Korean Airlines Flight 007?
I wasn't there but the person who said it was.But in reality, Reagan didn't want to cut his vacation short. His handlers convinced him it would appear terrible for him to remain on vacation and not address the nation following such a horrible incident. Had he left immediately, as you posted, it wouldn't have taken him 4 days to reach Washington.
But in reality? You were there? Your story is true but mine which is backed up by a magazine editorial staff, a professor and cites Reagan aides as sources is revisionist.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science who has written a book on Reagan and interviewed most of his former staff while conducting research. He's a leading expert on the Reagan administration. I'll take his revisionist history over your Boy Blunder knob slobbering.
Desperation is frantic among the moonbats this week.
ok, so what's Obama's excuse if Reagan had Alzheimer's which you have proof of right?
You beat me to it!
Obama is an incompetent, bed wetting poor excuse for a Keystone Kop even when compared to an Alzheimer's-addled Reagan napping in the White House.
Need to work on that defense or quit trying to defend a hopeless loser. Pathetic. Best to go back to the race card and blaming Bush.
I wasn't there but the person who said it was.
