Why did President Reagan wait 4 days before responding to Korean Airlines Flight 007?

[blackhawk]

Reagan was an unmitigated disaster as a President.

He blew up the deficit, spent like a drunken sailor, cut taxes on the rich and then raised taxes on the poor and middle class. He cut regulations and starved regulators, reintroducing the boom/bust economies of yore.

Not only that? He supported folks like Osama Bin Laden and the Contras.

Which has led to some pretty catastrophic outcomes.

Come up with some new talking points please.

They are not "talking points".

They are history.

Revisionist history does not qualify as history.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Ronald Reagan's 30-Year Time Bombs

The time element of “30 years” keeps slipping into American official reports and news stories about the origins of crises – the latest in “The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report” – but rarely is the relevance of the three-decade span explained, and there is a reason.

The failure to close the circle in saying who started the nation off on the path toward these disasters is because nearly everyone shies away from blaming Ronald Reagan for almost anything.

The overpowering consensus in Washington is that it’s political suicide to criticize the 40th president of the United States, whose centennial birthday on Feb. 6 will be celebrated elaborately.

It’s much safer to behave like MSNBC’s “Hardball” host Chris Matthews and simply accept that Reagan was “one of the all-time greats.”

But the truth is that Reagan’s current historical reputation rests more on the effectiveness of the Republican propaganda machine – and the timidity of many Democrats and media personalities – than on his actual record of accomplishments.

Indeed, many of today’s worst national and international problems can be traced to misjudgments and malfeasance from the Reagan years – from the swelling national debt to out-of-control banks, from the decline of the U.S. middle class to the inaction on energy independence, from the rise of Islamic fundamentalism to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

All of these disasters are part of the Reagan Legacy. Yet, possibly the most insidious residue from the Reagan Years was the concept of manipulating information – what some Reagan officials liked to call “perception management” – as a means of societal control.

MUCH MORE: Ronald Reagan's 30-Year Time Bombs

Reagan was a disaster for America - especially the poor and middle class. Because of him, I switched from Republican to Democrat - and I've never regretted that decision.

because of Republicans like you were and Democrats like you are now....i became a person who cant stand both parties and have not regretted that decision ever....

 

[EconChick]

So, rightwingers have been worshiping an insane "Alzheimer's-addled" Reagan? Now it makes sense.

Fuck Reagan! That prick was a disaster!

And Obama has been worshiped by insane left wingers who don't even have the excuse of Alzheimer's.

Reagan was an unmitigated disaster as a President.

He blew up the deficit, spent like a drunken sailor, cut taxes on the rich and then raised taxes on the poor and middle class. He cut regulations and starved regulators, reintroducing the boom/bust economies of yore.

Not only that? He supported folks like Osama Bin Laden and the Contras.

Which has led to some pretty catastrophic outcomes.

I don't know what kinda drugs you're taking, but I'd ask for a refund if I were you. This is the most bat shit crazy revisionism I've ever seen. And I've seen some really stupid shit on the internet.

Blew up the deficit????? Leave it to a math challenged liberal to not know the difference between the debt and deficit.

And blew it up????? You mean compared to this idiot in the WH now that's added 5.5 TRILLION to the debt over 5 and a half years while Reagan added only 1.8 TRILLION over 8 years??????

And with Reagan's 1.8 trillion he gave us soaring growth with some quarters as high as 8% while this moron gives us GDP quarters of 1%. The first quarter actually contracted 3%.

Job growth also went through the roof under Reagan while jobs under this moron have been disastrous for the long term unemployed.

For all that money Reagan spent, he also brought down the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War.

As you can see, someone's been feeding you a pile of bullshit higher than the Empire State Building.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Ronald Reagan's 30-Year Time Bombs

The time element of “30 years” keeps slipping into American official reports and news stories about the origins of crises – the latest in “The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report” – but rarely is the relevance of the three-decade span explained, and there is a reason.

The failure to close the circle in saying who started the nation off on the path toward these disasters is because nearly everyone shies away from blaming Ronald Reagan for almost anything.

The overpowering consensus in Washington is that it’s political suicide to criticize the 40th president of the United States, whose centennial birthday on Feb. 6 will be celebrated elaborately.

It’s much safer to behave like MSNBC’s “Hardball” host Chris Matthews and simply accept that Reagan was “one of the all-time greats.”

But the truth is that Reagan’s current historical reputation rests more on the effectiveness of the Republican propaganda machine – and the timidity of many Democrats and media personalities – than on his actual record of accomplishments.

Indeed, many of today’s worst national and international problems can be traced to misjudgments and malfeasance from the Reagan years – from the swelling national debt to out-of-control banks, from the decline of the U.S. middle class to the inaction on energy independence, from the rise of Islamic fundamentalism to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

All of these disasters are part of the Reagan Legacy. Yet, possibly the most insidious residue from the Reagan Years was the concept of manipulating information – what some Reagan officials liked to call “perception management” – as a means of societal control.

MUCH MORE: Ronald Reagan's 30-Year Time Bombs

Reagan was a disaster for America - especially the poor and middle class. Because of him, I switched from Republican to Democrat - and I've never regretted that decision.

Historians do not rate the napper in Chief highly, massive debt, slow economy, heavy services cuts (federal highways crumbled) but he did inspire some, those raised by TV sets, instead of parents.

i am not a fan of Reagan.....but i just was looking at lists rating the Presidents.....he was in the top 25 by a few and top 15 by a few....2 even had him in the top 10....maybe it depends on the historians....

 

[Wildman]

In Reagan's day capabilities were much different from today, speed of information was much slower. But what he did do is immediately, upon satisfying information make strong statements and not head off to fund raise and joke. Obama's opening that day was just ridiculous. How does this guy have so much time for fund raising, as well as golf all the time? Seriously. I have tried to not dog on that fact, but I just can't stop myself any more.

Why did President Reagan wait 4 days before responding to Korean Airlines Flight 007?

i was going to say something similar, Reagan, a man with a level head and brains, unlike Obozo, a clown waited for proof of what actually happened before he addressed "we the people" and told us the truth. something Obozo, a clown has no comprehension of the meaning of TRUTH !

if he ever did tell the truth, his bitch of a mother slapped him senseless.

 

[AgentSparky]

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.

Thanks Pete. That was an interesting read.

 

[CaféAuLait]

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.

Who cares what happened thirty plus years ago. Why is it Obama can't stand on his own two feet without people bringing up the past constantly to excuses what he does? Very strange.

I'm not sure if I have seen this phenomenon in politics before. Everything Obama is criticized for, other people are brought up to either excuse him, compare him or derail the issue.

Why can't Obama rest on his own laurels?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The world was a nuclear tinderbox in those days so any response had to be measured and specific.
Obama is doing his best to bring that climate back.

 

[Freewill]

 

[Stephanie]

Ronnie Raygun and Joe McCarthy were buddies. Ronnie was a stool pigeon - a rat.

OK. Does that now make Obumfuck a lesser POS?

That's what this silly thread is all about.

Did it work? Will we wake up tomorrow and all Obumfuck's screw-ups will be gone now that you've reached back to the 80's to vilify a dead guy?

that is the ugly work of stupid troll...they start a thread then troll it with comments like that

 

[Freewill]

Historians do not rate the napper in Chief highly, massive debt, slow economy, heavy services cuts (federal highways crumbled) but he did inspire some, those raised by TV sets, instead of parents.

Be truthful, you were not alive or too young to actually remember back then. I remember back to Eisenhower and I am telling you after Carter Reagan brought America back from the brink. Carter even gave a speech telling us about our malaise and he continues today. Reagan ushered in the greatest peacetime expansion of the economy in history. The economy soared in the 80s and 90s until Clinton and his damn "free" trade agreements. We are reaping the whirlwind from that lying Clinton. But Reagan, he returned American's greatness.

Are you on drugs? That is really fucked up. I'm 67, and that ain't the way it happened. In fact, because of Reagan I switched from Republican to Democrat.

Something else good that happened because of Reagan.

 

[Claudette]

Why are we dredging up stuff from 31 years ago? No wait, why did it take you 31 years to bring this up?

It's called a goose and gander story, retard.

No. Its you trying to trying to make that fuck in the WH look good and using what Reagan did 31 years ago to try and do it.

Par for the course for Shitting Bull.

 

[Stephanie]

Does this troll (Lakhooota) every post anything worthwhile that isn't meant to stir HATE?

they had to dig up Reagan to make excuses for this President and for them to have someone to hate on

pathetic LOSER

people needs to get a clue about them

 

[Peach]

The world was a nuclear tinderbox in those days so any response had to be measured and specific.
Obama is doing his best to bring that climate back.

Yes, another Reagan "achievement".

 

[Claudette]

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.

Who cares what happened thirty plus years ago. Why is it Obama can't stand on his own two feet without people bringing up the past constantly to excuses what he does? Very strange.

I'm not sure if I have seen this phenomenon in politics before. Everything Obama is criticized for, other people are brought up to either excuse him, compare him or derail the issue.

Why can't Obama rest on his own laurels?

So true. Its called deflect, deflect and by the fuck deflect. None of these Obama lovers have an answer for how their messiah has fucked up so the deflect, deflect and deflect again.

Common sense really when your defending a POS like that fuck in the WH.

 

[Claudette]

The world was a nuclear tinderbox in those days so any response had to be measured and specific.
Obama is doing his best to bring that climate back.

Yes, another Reagan "achievement".

Nope. That muclear tinderbox was there long before Reagan came into office.

The cuban missle crisis ring any bells there peachpit??

 

[BlindBoo]

Oh come on. Quit pickin on the Gipper. He was too busy riding horses at his ranch to bother with making a statement. Then when his handlers finally got through to him what an important moment this was, considering a US Congressman was on that flight, he needed to cut his vactation short and go back to DC so he didn't look bad. He was heartbroken about it as he wrote in his diary that day.

"We were due to return to Wash. on Labor Day but realized we couldn’t wait so we left on Fri. It was heartbreaking. I had really looked forward to those last three days."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...agan-really-rush-back-dc-after-korean-plane-/

Of course when US forces shot down the Iranian passenger jet he didn't cut short his vacation. I guess that would have been too heart breaking.