Defending the Truth

Aren’t we mature enough as a democracy to memorialize our leaders with clear eyes? While the nation mourns one of its most popular presidents, it must be truthful in assessing his leadership. The very resolve being celebrated on op-ed pages across the country also led Reagan to ignore and sometimes sanction the brutality being committed in the name of fighting the "evil empire."
Throughout his presidency, Reagan made nice with dictators—no matter how nefarious—as long as they parroted his opposition to communism. As soon as he entered the White House, his administration tried to normalize relations with Augusto Pinochet, the dictator of Chile, who was responsible for a bloody coup that overthrew a democratically elected (but socialist) government. The Reaganites also cozied up to the fascistic and anti-Semitic junta of Argentina, which tortured, slaughtered and disappeared its political opponents. And don’t forget Reagan’s attempt to woo Saddam Hussein, even after it was known that Hussein had used chemical weapons. (Reagan assigned this task to Donald Rumsfeld.)

Reagan may have pushed for democracy and human rights in the Soviet bloc, but he cared little for these values elsewhere. He dramatically urged the destruction of the Berlin Wall and supported the Solidarity movement in Poland. But he sent money and assistance to regimes that repressed and murdered their people. While visiting Ferdinand Marcos, the Filipino dictator, Reagan’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, toasted Marcos' "adherence to democratic principles." People lost their freedom or died because Reagan and his lieutenants could not see beyond their ideological blinders and cut deals with miscreants who shared their anti-Moscow mantra. Not only did Reagan embolden torturers and murders, but the CIA—following his order to support the contra rebels in Nicaragua (who were trying to oust the socialist Sandinistas)—worked with suspected drug traffickers. Who said so? Not conspiracy-theory nuts, but the inspector general of the CIA. Years after the contra war, the agency’s IG produced two reports that conceded the CIA had enlisted the assistance of alleged drug runners. At the same time Nancy Reagan was preaching “Just Say No” to drugs.
He preached about peace,justice equality and yet Reagan was AWOL on one of the important battles for freedom and democracy in the 1980s: South Africa. He defended the racist apartheid government there and claimed—as wrongly as could be—that South Africa had "eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country." And when Republicans and Democrats joined together in Congress to impose economic sanctions on the government of South Africa, Reagan vetoed the measure. In response to that veto, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a leader of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, said, "Apartheid will be dismantled, and its victims will remember those who helped to destroy this evil system. And President Reagan will be judged harshly by history."
Nevertheless,Reagan always denied that he was racist in any form or fashion like he did in the book,"an american life" where he said:

"The myth about myself that has always bothered me most is that I am a bigot who somehow surreptitiously condones racial prejudice. . . . For some reason, this myth stuck to me . . . Whatever the reasons for the myth that I'm a racist, I blow my top every time I hear it." (An American Life, 401-2)

Yet his words and actions as both Governor of California and president of the united states speak differently. In in 1980 he began his campaign in Philadelphia (Miss.) Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" — a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters.
Then there was Reagan's attempt, once he reached the White House in 1981, to reverse a long-standing policy of denying tax-exempt status to private schools that practice racial discrimination and grant an exemption to Bob Jones University, despite its racist ban on interracial dating. Two years later the U.S. Supreme Court in a resounding 8-to-1 decision ruled that Reagan was dead wrong and reinstated the IRS's power to deny BJU's exemption.
Republican leaders and their apologists tend to go into a frenzy of denial when members of the liberal media cabal bring up these inconvenient facts. It's that lack of candor, of course, that presents the biggest obstacle in conservative politicis today and ensures that conservatives are continually branded as racist,christo facsists fiends. This is seen in the results of the last elections and the way the public views the Republican party and the conservative movement. Things need to change,progress needs to be made and old myths need to be undone in order to move ahead!

You really ought to cite your sources - or are you embarrassed to link MoveOn.org?

why would anybody be embarrassed to link MoveOn.org? It's a fine organization, dedicated to fighting to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Oh man, you are TOO funny! Too danged funny!!!!!!


It's just too bad that you're not intending to be!


MoveOn.org is a "fine organization"?!?!?!?! What in sam hill have you been smoking lately?

MMM actually my sources were the times magazine (http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...21,00.html),in an article by jack white, as well as CNN.com and an interview conducted by Jim lehrer and some of Reagan's closest friends. Also Eveyrhting I stated is true, He did start his campaign in Mississipi and those were the words he used, moreso you can check his record even in various government web sites as well as the number of cuts he made and his domestic policies I really doubt that I would need to go to Moveon. whatever you called it to get this info since these were not fabrications, these were facts that have been well documented all throughout history, of course if you have any proof that contradicts anything I wrote up there then you are more than welcome to bring it forth,but if you do not and proceed with this argument then you might embarass youself,anyways thankx for the feedback and good luck.

So let us look at the article you posted. For that is what it is an article. First, while Ronald Reagan did campaign in Philadelphia, MISS, he kicked off his presidency in New York City in November 1979, is this the first lie or just a mistake???

Immediately following his campaign appearance in Mississippi, Candidate Reagan flew to New York to address the Urban League. Yes some closet racist.

BTW believing in States' Rights does not equate with supporting racism. For if this far-fetched belief were true, then our very Constitution would be racist. (10th Amendment ring a bell?) Also let us be reminded that it was Southern DEMOCRATS that used the state rights argument to support slavery, not Republicans. George Wallace, Al Gore Sr to name just a few.

Reagan believed that the government most responsive to the needs of the people was the government closest to the people. That is why as Governor of California he fought Washington to reform Welfare in California, and as a result, the benefits for Californian recipeints increased to help the people who needed the help the most, while eliminating from the rolls people who did not need the assistance. Reagan's idea of allowing those who are able to work, work, is the basis of the successful reform of welfare in the 1990's by the left's hero Bill Clinton. So tell me, is the so-called "first black President" actually a racist as well??? Or does that title only apply to Republicans. At least Republicans can proudly say we have no Senator and have supported no Senator who was a former member of the KKK. What about the Democrats???? Oh that's right, can't do it, Senator Byrd the former Kleagle.

Reagan engaged in constructive engagement with South Africa. Congress passed their Anti-Apartheid act in 1986. Yet by 1979 thanks to economic growth, the South African government had begun to recognize Black Labor Unions. By 1985 thanks again to economic growth, 50% of all skilled jobs were filled by black workers. Why did Reagan veto the act?? Did anyone bother to read his message to Congress when he returned the legislation?? Of course not, immediately it meant he was a racist. The act would have place punishing restrictions on South African labor, including the banning of sugar imports. Did anybody bother the think about the 25,000 black sugar farmers?? Reagan did. The sanctions would ban import of natural resources from South Africa. Did anybody think about the 500,000 black miners?? Reagan did. The act would have prohibited the import of wheat from the US, wheat that went to feed the black population.

So not only did Congress wish to starve the blacks, they also wanted to make them jobless. Some legislation. While Bishop Tutu may have supported it, many blacks in South Africa did not, including Zulu Chief Gatsha Buthlezi. In his message to Congress Reagan asked;

Are we truly helping the black people of South Africa--the lifelong victims of apartheid-- when we throuw them out of work and leave them and their families jobless and hungry in those segregated townships? Or are we simply assuming a moral posture at the expense of the people in whose name we presume to act?

Reagan warned that the legislation would lead to more repression, and it did. The South African government clamped down hard, immediately stopping the recognition of Black Labor Unions, and unemployment for blacks continued to rise well above the 50% it already stood, nearing close to 70%.

In his closing of his message Reagan stated;

That is why sweeping punitive sanctions are the wrong course to follow, and increased American and Western investment--by firms that are breaking down apartheid by providing equal opportunity for the vicitms of official discrimination--is the right course to pursue.

When American companies were forced to leave South Africa because of the sanctions, their very factories were bought by members of the white minority who wish to maintain apartheid. Tell me how did this help blacks??? Finally Reagan appointed the first black ambassador to South Africa in 1986.

Finally let us look at the economy. From 1982 to 1989 black unemployment dropped from 20.4% to 11.4%, 9 full points. Income for blacks increased by 84%, and black firms in the US rose 38%. Is the Labor department lying, or is the media?? As far as his domestic policies, the numbers don't lie. From 1981 until 1989 domestic spending on social programs increase 19.7%.

The simple fact of the matter is that by looking at isolated incidents and making assumptions one can justify just about anything. But in the end you only make an ass of yourself in revealing how little you actually know. It is ashame that you could not support an argument of your own, and instead had to rely upon the work of others.

dmk