LOL! This article is so biased, non-sensical, lacking in the total, complete facts, and asinine, that all I can do is laugh!
You're correct however, President Reagan's record does speak for itself. On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:41 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > his record speaks for itself > --- > > In fact, Reagan’s presidency was marked by a record-setting number of > scandals and crimes. > 10Throwing Mental Patients Onto The Streets > > [image: ronmentalhealth] > > Reagan’s mass purging of mental health hospitals first began when he was > the governor of California. As governor, Reagan threw more than half of the > state’s mental health patients out of hospitals and onto the streets. He > abolished > <http://www.povertyinsights.org/2013/10/14/did-reagans-crazy-mental-health-policies-cause-todays-homelessness/> > the > hospitals’ ability to institutionalize patients with severe mental illness. > With nowhere else for these mental patients to go—most with disabilities > that prevented them from working—they simply became homeless. > > As a result of the actions of Ronald Reagan and others like him, America’s > mental health system as a whole deteriorated > <http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html> > so > much that Congress was compelled to act. President Jimmy Carter signed into > law the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 > <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=32339>. The legislation sought to > reform and rebuild America’s mental health system by developing community > mental health programs and provide mental health services for Americans > suffering from chronic mental illnesses. > > Curiously enough, one of the first major legislative actions Reagan > undertook as president was to repeal this reform of America’s mental health > system and slash federal funding for mental health care by 30 percent. As > his presidency progressed, Reagan continued his former practice of throwing > patients out of mental health hospitals, albeit on a much grander scale > than what he undertook as California’s governor. During his presidency in > the 1980s, some 40,000 beds > <http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/> > in > state mental hospitals were eliminated. > > During the aftermath in 1988, the National Institute of Mental Health > estimated that 125,000–300,000 > <http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/> > mental > patients with chronic mental illness were homeless. > > As a result of Reagan’s actions, America’s mental health care system > remains debilitated. Despite lawsuits, states like Nevada continue to > illegally empty their mental hospitals and place their mental patients on > buses thattake them out of state > <http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/09/10/nevada-pushes-back-against-san-francisco-patient-dumping-claims/>, > thus avoiding the bill. > > 9Supporting And Creating Islamic Terrorists > > [image: ronosamabinladen] > > At over 13 years in length, the War in Afghanistan is the longest war that > America has ever fought. Over those 13 years, the United States has spent > as much as $4 trillion, lost the lives of 3,500 troops, and injured another > 23,000 fighting the Taliban > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html>. > But amid all of this protracted chaos, we seem to have forgotten how > Afghanistan got into such dire straights. > > Before Reagan, Afghanistan more closely resembled Ohio than a Stone Age > war zone. In 1978, the Saur Revolution saw the Middle Eastern country turn > from an Islamic monarchy into the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. The > new DRA government modernized and secularized Afghanistan in a way no other > Middle Eastern government had in history. One of the most noticeable of > these revolutionary reforms was a massive leap forward in women’s rights > that has yet to be matched in the region, let alone Afghanistan. Needless > to say, these reforms were not without their detractors, which included the > odd alliance of both Islamic extremists and United States President Ronald > Reagan. > > It just so happens that the Soviet Union supported these advances. > Therefore, the Reagan Administration sought to overthrow the DRA > government. Publicly and privately, Reagan and the CIA began to support, > fund, and even arm a series of jihadist militants in Afghanistan, loosely > known as mujahideen. Reagan was so fond of these Islamic jihadists that > after arming and funding them with almost $5 billion of taxpayer money > <http://books.google.com/books?id=meihAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=reagan+mujahideen+$630+million&source=bl&ots=GImNDEEqQW&sig=7094UD9lHgXG58u9YTtx21EKIRI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8nJ1VPvFN6a1sQTRnoGYAw&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=reagan%20mujahideen%20%24630%20million&f=false>, > he invited them into the White House and called them “freedom fighters.” > > With the blessing of Reagan, the mujahideen militants violently overthrew > the DRA government and instituted a repressive Islamic state in its place. > They removed all advances in women’s rights, economic reforms, and > education reforms. > > However, the mujahideen would soon fracture. Some of the mujahideen forces > became the Taliban, which the United States has spent countless dollars and > American lives fighting. Others worked with Osama bin Laden and became > Al-Qaeda, which carried out a litany of terrorist attacks including those > of September 11. Perhaps one of the most notable figures supported and paid > by the Reagan Administration and CIA was Ayman al-Zawahiri, whose group of > jihadist fighters received a portion of the $500 million > <http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/17/yemen.islam> that the CIA > sent to Afghanistan. Al-Zawahiri was closely associated with Osama bin > Laden and orchestrated a variety of terrorist attacks > <http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/people/shows/zawahiri/profile.html>, > earning him the title of “terror mastermind.” After September 11, the State > Department placed a bounty on his head, offering $25 million for any > information leading to his capture. > > One of the mujahideen fighters was even Osama bin Laden > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/155236.stm> himself. In fact, bin > Laden got his start in the terrorism game by joining the mujahideen > bolstered by Reagan and the CIA. Before joining the mujahideen, bin Laden > wasn’t even ensconced in terrorism or Islamic radicalism; he was studying > to get a degree in economics and business administration at a Saudi Arabian > college before he abandoned his education to join the mujahideen in 1979. > > Controversy remains to this day as to whether or not Reagan and the CIA > directly funded bin Laden himself, particularly because bin Laden was > fighting with the mujahideen based in Pakistan, while the initial > mujahideen forces bolstered by Reagan were based in Afghanistan. In 2004, > the BBC claimed that bin Laden himself was not just supported by, but given > military > training <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1670089.stm> from > Reagan’s CIA. Others have corroborated the claims, includingBritish > government officials > <http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development> and an FBI > whistle-blower > <http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-nafeez-mosaddeq-ahmed/whistleblower-alqaeda-chi_b_3305954.html>. > Unsurprisingly, United States government officials have denied > <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/back-front> the reports. > 8Involvement With McCarthyism > > [image: rondaltontrumbo] > > Before he entered into politics, Ronald Reagan was your average B-list > actor. However, it was recently discovered that Ronald Reagan led a double > life at that time as an informant > <http://www.salon.com/2012/08/19/ronald_reagan_informant/> for the FBI. > > Even more interesting is whom Reagan was spying on. They included fellow > actors, writers, and directors in Hollywood who held what he and other > right-wing politicians suspected were “un-American” views. Reagan was > contracted by the FBI to spy on actors and filmmakers as part of Joseph > McCarthy’s House Un-American Activities Committee. > > Reagan used his position as president of the Screen Actors Guild to invade > the privacy of other actors, writers, and directors whom he thought had > un-American > views > <http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/108/110880/ch26_a5_d1.pdf> and > labeled them as budding communists to the FBI and Un-American Activities > Committee. > > As a result of Reagan’s snitching and the House Un-American Activities > Committee witch hunt, a series of artists were blacklisted and prevented > from working in the industry again. Some were even imprisoned merely for > the political beliefs they held. Targets of the committee ranged from > Spartacus and The Brave One screenwriter Dalton Trumbo > <http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/dalton-trumbo-a-list-blacklist-article-1.294499> > to On the Waterfront director Elia Kazan > <http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/the_browser/1999/01/blacklist_and_backstory.html>, > to Shampoo actress Lee Grant > <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lee-grant-on-life-beyond-the-hollywood-blacklist/>, > all Academy Award winners. > > The blacklist not only marked one of the most shameful moments in American > history, but it also demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the First > Amendment and the freedom of speech in America by Reagan and those like him. > 7The Grant-Rigging Scandal > > [image: ronhudgrnat] > > You may have heard of the Savings and Loan Scandal > <http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/26/news/economy/where_bailout_stands/?postversion=2008112615>, > which occurred when President Reagan began to deregulate the banking > industry. Soon after 747 financial institutions failed as a result of the > deregulation, they were bailed out with $160 billion of taxpayer money. > Among others, five sitting senators—the Keating Five > <http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1848150,00.html>—were > investigated for corruption following the bailout to institutions they had > close ties to. However, a lesser-known case study in corruption happened > around the same time with closer ties to President Reagan: the HUD Grant > Rigging Scandal. > > The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the Reagan > Administration hatched a scheme to funnel money to contributors to Reagan’s > campaign by rigging housing bids > <http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/14/us/hud-grants-under-reagan-a-case-study-in-connections.html> > in > their favor. Grants for low-income housing were rigged so that Republican > lobbyists and contributors to Reagan’s campaign received them over other > bidders who were otherwise more qualified to receive them. > > The HUD scandal wasn’t uncovered until Reagan left office, but when it > was, it saw the convictions of 16 players in the Reagan Administration and > Department of Housing and Urban Development. Reagan’s Secretary of the > Interior, James Watt > <http://articles.latimes.com/1996-01-03/news/mn-20444_1_grand-jury>, was > indicted on 24 felony counts. Watt pleaded guilty to only one of the > charges and was sentenced to five years probation and ordered to pay a > $5,000 fine. High-ranking HUD officials testified that Samuel Pierce, > Reagan’s HUD secretary, was “intimately involved in decisions to award > contracts > <http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/19/opinion/the-hud-scandal-widening.html> to > personal or political friends.” Pierce admitted responsibility for the > corruption as the head of the department, but the prosecutor in the case never > charged <http://articles.latimes.com/2000/nov/04/local/me-47066> him with > a crime, citing Pierce’s poor health. > 6The Office Of Public Diplomacy > > In the middle of his presidency, Ronald Reagan created a secret agency > known as the Office of Public Diplomacy (OPD) with one nefarious purpose in > mind: propaganda. This was no ordinary propaganda. It was deemed “white > propaganda,” designed to be used on the American people. > > The Office of Public Diplomacy began a widespread and sophisticated > propaganda campaign both in and out of the United States with a special > focus on manipulating politics in South America. > > One of its specialties was manipulating the media. They planted fake news > stories throughout newspapers about the right-wing Contra terrorists Reagan > was arming to try to overthrow the Nicaraguan government. > > Some “white propaganda” by the agency ran in newspapers ranging from theWall > Street Journal to the Washington Post to the New York Times. The Office > of Public Diplomacy created a widespread media tour for the Contra > terrorists and even created a fake news segment that aired on the NBC > Nightly News after sending NBC reporter Fred Francis > <http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/05/world/state-dept-linked-to-contra-publicity.html> > on > a fake trip to see the Contras (who were really actors coached by the > Reagan Administration.) > > The OPD also surveiled, harassed, and intimidated > <http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-05-09/news/0105090043_1_latin-america-otto-j-reich-helms-burton-act> > journalists > who were not reporting what the Reagan Administration wanted. Employees in > the OPD would routinely show up to major newspaper and TV news offices to > bully reporters and editors into changing their news coverage into what the > Reagan Administration wanted. When reporters and editors didn’t follow the > orders of the Reagan Administration, the OPD waged their own war on the > non-compliant journalists. They planted fabricated stories that claimed the > anti-Contra journalists received sexual favors from male and female > prostitutes paid for by the Nicaraguan government the Reagan Administration > was trying to overthrow. > > The OPD’s activities were uncovered by the Comptroller General—a > Republican appointee—in September 1987 and declared illegal > <http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB40/> soon after. In his > report on the illegal propaganda agency, the Comptroller General claimed > the Office of Public Diplomacy engaged in “prohibited, covert propaganda > activities” which were “beyond the range of acceptable agency public > information activities.” > > 5Using Taxpayer Money To Influence Election Outcomes > > [image: rontoxicwaste] > > Under the Reagan Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and > its Reagan-appointed employees became embroiled in a host of scandals > <http://books.google.com/books?id=NUZ1AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT108&lpg=PT108&dq=reagan+twenty+high+level+epa&source=bl&ots=kauODcHj4p&sig=SBW2MYAqClxY_-omCkoPGX2-Txc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vGZ2VL2tBtffsATauILICw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=reagan%20twenty%20high%20level%20epa&f=false>. > In Reagan’s first three years as president, over 20 high-ranking EPA > employees were removed from their positions and in some cases imprisoned. > Perhaps the most roundly illegal of these scandals was a scheme to fix > elections with taxpayer money, otherwise known as “Sewergate.” > > The scheme was principally orchestrated by Rita Lavelle, a > Reagan-appointed EPA administrator who began to tap into the EPA’s > “Superfund” for quite nefarious purposes. The EPA’s Superfund is designed > to be used to help clean up environmental disasters, but instead Reagan’s > EPA administrators began to divert the fund > <http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1697&dat=19830520&id=FzUqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RUcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5155,4006054> > into > the campaigns of Republican candidates for state-level elections. > > An investigation began into Lavelle and the EPA after an EPA > whistle-blower brought forward evidence that Lavelle had misused Superfund > monies. The roughly $1.6 billion in Superfund monies were supposed to be > used to clean up toxic waste dumps, but that didn’t quite happen. The > cleanup efforts were used as opportunities to announce grants in Republican > districts right before reelections > <http://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/18/us/trial-is-started-for-ex-epa-aide.html> > while > Democratic districts were ignored. Allegations were made that the money had > acquired a political tinge. Lavelle was convicted of lying to Congress > during the investigation and was stripped of her position, then convicted > of perjury > <http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-7563-how-reagan-and-the-largest-epa-scandal-in-history-may-explain-why-valmont-butte-is-still-contaminated.html>. > She was sentenced to six months in prison and fined $10,000. > > Lavelle wasn’t the only Reagan confidant in the EPA who was penalized for > the scandal. Another employee of the Reagan-era EPA named Anna Burford > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3418-2004Jul21.html>refused > to turn over the records of the Superfund during a Congressional > investigation into their scheme. She cited “Executive Privilege” as her > reason for refusing to turn over the criminal evidence, suggesting the > Executive branch directly dirtied its hands with the criminal activity. She > was found in contempt for refusing to turn over the evidence, and resigned > her position in the EPA. > 4Selling Illegal Arms To Iran > > [image: Oliver_North_mug_shot] > > After Congress passed a law making it illegal for Reagan to fund > right-wing terrorists known as the Contras in South America, the Reagan > Administration attempted to work around the law. They hatched a series of > schemes to launder money to the Contras in a way that would be untraceable > to the prying eyes of the American public. One of these schemes involved > illegally selling weapons to Iran for a profit while Iran was holding > American citizens hostage. > > The Iran-Contra plan > <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/> > was > first devised to trade illegal arms for American hostages being held in > Iran. However, Reagan’s Lieutenant Colonel of the National Security > Council, Oliver North, had the bright idea of making a hefty profit from > the illegal arms sales and then using the proceeds to illegally fund the > Contras in South America. > > The weapons included thousands of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles > <http://articles.latimes.com/1987-05-05/news/mn-4099_1_contra> sent to > the Iranian government on multiple occasions between August 1985 and > October 1986, making tens of millions of dollars in the process. The money > soon began to flow to the Contras in South America as they prepared to > overthrow the Nicaraguan government. > > In November 1986, the illegal arms dealing was uncovered after a plane > carrying a shipment of guns crashed in Nicaragua. After the news broke, > members of the Reagan Administration destroyed evidence of their > involvement in the scheme en masse. Fourteen major players in the Reagan > Administration, CIA, and military were indicted. Those indicted ranged from > John Poindexter (Reagan’s National Security Advisor who was convicted of > five counts of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury, defrauding the > government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence) to Fawn Hall > (Oliver North’s secretary who was indicted for helping North destroy a > trove of evidence when the scandal was first brought to light). > > The grand irony of the Iran-Contra scandal is that Reagan won the > presidency by marketing himself as tougher on Iran than Jimmy Carter was > during the Iranian hostage crisis. According to a slew of allegations, > Reagan may have developed a cozy relationship long before the Iran-Contra > dealings when he allegedly asked the Iranian government to delay their > release of American hostages > <http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/22/books/the-case-for-a-conspiracy.html> until > after his election campaign against Jimmy Carter ended and he was elected > president. If Reagan did deliberately delay the release of American > hostages to benefit his election campaign, he would be guilty of treason. > > Congress investigated the allegations now known as the October Surprise > Conspiracy Theory twice—first in 1992 in the Senate, and a second time in > 1993 when the House launched the House October Surprise Task Force. Both > Congressional investigations ended when they turned up insufficient > evidence > <http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/24/opinion/dialogue-last-word-on-the-october-surprise-case-closed.html> > . > > Major world leaders of the time have also corroborated the claims. Former > Iranian president Abolhassan Bani-Sadr > <http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19887898> claimed that Reagan’s > campaign demanded that he delay the release of the American hostages until > after Reagan’s first election or else Reagan would actively bolster > Bani-Sadr’s opposition party. > > Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir > <http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NG14Ak01.html> has also confirmed > the allegations, as did an aide to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat who > claimed that a senior Reagan adviser flew to Lebanon to lobby with the > Palestinian > leader > <http://articles.latimes.com/1988-11-03/local/me-556_1_plo-abu-sharif-yasser-arafat> > to > use his influence with Iran to delay the release of the hostages until > after the election. But without conclusive proof, we may never know for > sure. > 3Supporting Apartheid > > [image: ApartheidSignEnglishAfrikaans] > > Ronald Reagan’s legacy on race is tenuous to say the least. Before he > found himself in elected office, Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act of > 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. > Although these political stances may seem morally reprehensible today, > holding them was not in and of itself criminal. Reagan’s criminal actions > with regards to race came when he supported apartheid > <http://www.thenation.com/article/158506/remembering-reagans-record-civil-rights-and-south-african-freedom-struggle> > in > South Africa. > > In 1986, as the horrors of South African apartheid shocked the world, the > United States Congress passed what was known as the Comprehensive > Anti-Apartheid Act. The law imposed a series of sanctions against the South > African government and aimed at crippling the apartheid regime that carried > out some of the worst racial segregation and human rights violations in > human history. According to the law, the sanctions would be only lifted if > the South African government put an end to apartheid. However, despite the > fact that the law was passed by Congress, it did not go into law—at least, > not at first. President Ronald Reagan opposed the sanctions and also vetoed > the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act. > > Despite an international coalition which set out to end apartheid, Reagan > kept close ties with the racist South African regime behind it. Reagan met > privately with P.W. Botha > <http://www.salon.com/2011/02/05/ronald_reagan_apartheid_south_africa/>, > the South African leader behind apartheid on multiple occasions. Reagan > helped prop up P.W. Botha by denouncing the African National Congress that > was determined to end his racist regime as dangerous and communist. > > After Reagan’s veto of the sanctions, an overwhelming bipartisan majority > of Congress was able to achieve the rare act of overriding the > president’s veto <http://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/03/politics/03REAG.html>with > a 78 to 21 vote in favor of the sanctions. Soon after, the Comprehensive > Anti-Apartheid Act became law and helped cripple South Africa’s > pro-apartheid government. Apartheid in South Africa was officially repealed > a few years later in 1991. > 2Smuggling Cocaine > > [image: Rocks_of_crack_cocaine] > > Although the term “Iran-Contra” was initially coined to reference the > scandal involving the Reagan Administration’s illegal selling of weapons to > Iran to fund Contra terrorists in Nicaragua, the scandal is a bit more > expansive than the name would suggest. It was later discovered that they > had another source of funding for the Contras: crack cocaine. > > The Reagan Administration and the CIA hatched a plan to conspire with the > Contras to smuggle cocaine from South America into the United States. They > turned a blind eye to cocaine smuggling by the Contras and shielded the > drug smugglers from investigations. Reagan’s officials in the White House, > including Oliver North, began to nurture the cocaine smuggling > <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/cia-turned-a-deliberate-blind-eye-to-contras-drug-smuggling-1183305.html> > and > funnel the proceeds to the Contra army in Nicaragua. > > Soon, the Reagan Administration and CIA took a more active role in drug > smuggling. While American flight crews > <http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/20/world/contra-arms-crews-said-to-smuggle-drugs.html> > began > smuggling arms down to Nicaragua, they were also smuggling in cocaine on > their return flights. Members of the smuggling crew claimed to have > protection from Oliver North. Some hangars used to dock the cocaine-filled > airplanes were owned by the CIA and National Security Council > <http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-01-26/news/9303172520_1_el-salvador-edwin-corr-supply-operation>, > and some were operated by Oliver North himself. > > After the cocaine was smuggled into the United States by the CIA, it would > then be sold to a drug distributor or kingpin like “Freeway” Rick Ross. The > distributors would then convert the cocaine into crack cocaine > <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/10/gary-webb-dark-alliance_n_5961748.html> > and > distribute it to street-level dealers, who sold it to addicts, mostly on > the streets of the poorest neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Rick Ross was > making as much as $3 million per day and $300 million in total > profit—that’s $850 million adjusted for inflation—selling crack cocaine in > Los Angeles. Freeway was sentenced to life imprisonment > <http://articles.latimes.com/1998/sep/11/local/me-21557> after he was > arrested in a sting operation. According to his lawyers, the crack cocaine > Ross sold was supplied by the CIA. > > The CIA’s inspector general, Michael Bromwich > <https://books.google.com/books?id=xwYXAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=bromwich+report+reagan+drug+investigations&source=bl&ots=rdoQvZ6mCM&sig=eUvAiwiQyEKcz2xhhp76Id1JX54&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bxSVVLbbIoaRyATWgIGgAw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=bromwich%20report%20reagan%20drug%20investigations&f=false>, > testified that the Reagan Administration thwarted federal investigations > into drug trafficking. At the same time, the Reagan Administration was > ironically waging the War on Drugs, enacting harsh drug laws that gave > possession of crack cocaine a sentence 100 times harsher than powdered > cocaine, triggering a mass incarceration epidemic > <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law-july-dec10-sentencing_08-03/> that > remains to this day. > > The actions by the CIA and Reagan Administration are credited with > sparking the crack epidemic by flooding the drug market with an > unprecedented amount of high-quality cocaine at a low cost. > 1Supporting South American Terrorists And Genocide > > [image: 1024px-Contra_commandas_1987] > Photo credit: Tiomono > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras#mediaviewer/File:Contra_commandas_1987.jpg> > > For the United States, the 1980s seemed to be a peaceful time; the Vietnam > War had finally ended and the United States was not at war any longer. > However, the time period was actually one of the bloodiest periods in the > history of the Western hemisphere, but almost all of it was isolated in > South America. > > The Reagan Administration was guilty of crimes like the Iran-Contra > affair, but the true crime committed was their support of the Contra army > itself and other genocidal groups in South America. > > After the Reagan Administration armed and trained the Contra terrorist > army, they soon tried to to overthrow the Nicaraguan government. In the > chaos that ensued, the Contras began kidnapping and torturing civilians, > raping women, executing civilians—including children—seizing and burning > civilian houses, and assassinating health care workers. Nicaragua also > claimed the Reagan-backed Contras killed an American citizen > <http://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/29/world/nicaragua-says-contras-killed-american-civilian.html>. > When all was said and done, as many as 50,000 people died > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29546-2004Jun9.html> in > the Contra killing spree. > > In the aftermath, Reagan and the United States government were tried in > the International Court of Justice for their part in the death and > devastation. The Reagan Administration was convicted of violating > Nicaragua’s sovereignty and convicted of encouraging the widespread crimes > against humanity by training them to commit the atrocities with a manual > they supplied to the Contras entitled “Psychological Operations in > Guerrilla Warfare.” The CIA-penned manual > <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_in_Guerrilla_Warfare> > recommends > the “selective use of violence for propagandistic efforts.” It told the > Contras to “provoke riots or shootings” and “provoke mass murder so that it > can be used as a propaganda tool.” > > Reagan claimed the Contra terrorists were “the moral equivalents > <http://www.businessinsider.com/reagan-freedom-fighters-taliban-foreign-policy-2013-2> > of > america’s founding fathers.” > > Nicaragua was to receive $17 billion > <http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/07/21/nicaragua.us.claim/> in > damages from the United States for the crimes, but despite the conviction, > the United States government refused to pay the retributions. > > But the Reagan-sponsored bloodshed wasn’t restricted to Nicaragua. Reagan > also dirtied his hands in El Salvador’s civil war > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29546-2004Jun9.html>, > giving over $4 billion to El Salvador’s military dictatorship, which caused > the deaths of over 75,000 in the war. In Guatemala, Reagan supported and > propped up brutal dictator Efrain Rios Montt, who killed as many as 200,000 > Guatemalans. > > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 4:52:16 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: >> >> I'm no George Will fan, but Will is "Spot On" in his assertion. I've >> read Killing Reagan, and it reads like a Kitty Kelley gossip novel, with >> facts that even I can show are bogus. There are a number of speculative, >> besmirching attacks on predominately Nancy Reagan within the book, and >> many of the allegations are just flat out untrue. O'Reilly (and Martin >> Dugard) even cite a number of videos that he makes his assumptions upon; >> for instance the Reagan's appearance at the Nixon funeral, where >> O'Reilly/Dugard claim that Reagan is befuddled, confused, frail and Nancy >> is leading Reagan around by the hand. The video is easily obtainable on >> You Tube, and clearly, what O"Reilly wrote is just flat out inaccurate. >> When I watched the video after reading the allegations, it was clear that >> nothing was even remotely accurate as to what was written. Anotherexample >> is the allegation that there was a meeting attended by Ron Reagan which was >> to determine whether President Reagan was able to continue to govern, in >> 1984. Ron Reagan clearly disputes this allegation, claiming that his >> father never showed any outward or mental signs of failure due to Alzeimers >> until well after his Mom and Dad had left the White House. There are >> dozens of similar anecdotes, that I took the time to go and look up only to >> find that O'Reilly/Dugard are way off the mark. >> >> In essence, the Book is more of an attack on Nancy Reagan than it is on >> the President. Will is correct in his assertion that the book is not an >> accurate depiction of the Reagans, and only those with far left Progressive >> viewpoints could even suggest that President Reagan was incompetent to >> govern.....No doubt, Reagan was the greatest President in the latter half >> of the 20th Century, his record speaks for itself. Anything less than >> this acknowledgement has to be made with either a partisan and/or >> Anti-American viewpoint. >> >> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:07 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> O'Reilly's assertion in "Killing Reagan" that the president, after being >>> almost fatally shot in 1981 by John Hinckley, spent the rest of his >>> presidency addled with diminished mental acuity and a lack of engagement in >>> running the federal government. >>> ---- >>> true ... Ronald 'I Can't Recall' Reagan should have been removed from >>> office because of mental illness ... and war crimes. >>> >>> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 8:28:29 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [[ Will is a Neocon, big gov't, warmonger. ]] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Killing O'Reilly: George Will Should Quit Fox News* >>>> >>>> [image: Description: Image: Killing O'Reilly: George Will Should Quit >>>> Fox News] >>>> >>>> By Christopher Ruddy <http://www.newsmax.com/Insiders/Ruddy/id-31> | >>>> Wednesday, 11 Nov 2015 02:15 PM >>>> >>>> I was shocked by last week's exchange between Fox News host Bill >>>> O'Reilly and esteemed syndicated columnist George Will on "The O'Reilly >>>> Factor." >>>> >>>> It was probably one of the most dramatic and angry exchanges ever >>>> witnessed on-air between two members working for the same network. It was >>>> the first time I had ever seen a paid commentator accuse the network’s top >>>> news host of being a liar and purposely misleading people. >>>> >>>> Will is a highly regarded commentator and paid analyst for Fox News. >>>> The world knows O'Reilly as the king of cable news, the man who put Fox on >>>> the map, who has dominated cable news ratings for almost two decades. >>>> >>>> The controversy at hand involves O'Reilly's newest book,* "Killing >>>> Reagan"* >>>> <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1627792414?keywords=o%27reilly%20killing%20reagan&qid=1445392921&ref_=sr_1_1_twi_har_1&s=books&sr=1-1&linkCode=as2&tag=newsmedi9a-20&linkId=JWQX7Q4SOSP2L6BP> >>>> — one in a slew of runaway bestsellers he has co-authored. >>>> >>>> Will and other historians like Craig Shirley have made legitimate >>>> criticisms of the historicity of O'Reilly's book. Newsmax has published >>>> those criticisms. >>>> >>>> The crux of the controversy is O'Reilly's assertion in "Killing Reagan" >>>> that the president, after being almost fatally shot in 1981 by John >>>> Hinckley, spent the rest of his presidency addled with diminished mental >>>> acuity and a lack of engagement in running the federal government. >>>> >>>> Will vociferously denies this claim. He even cites his wife who worked >>>> in the White House down the hallway from the Oval Office. >>>> >>>> So far, so fair. I am not a historian, and I have not researched the >>>> Reagan years as one, but I have spoken to many, many people close to >>>> President Reagan and who served in his administration. >>>> >>>> Not everyone felt he was engaged as some Reagan loyalists like to >>>> think. My take is that Reagan was 70 to 80 percent engaged. But this does >>>> not diminish the fact Reagan was a lion, a great visionary who created the >>>> greatest economic boom in American history as he brought down the Soviet >>>> Empire. >>>> >>>> Reagan was able to compensate for his shortcomings with a very strong >>>> partner in Nancy. He also surrounded himself with very strong, highly >>>> competent individuals. So strong that the Reagan White House years were >>>> marked with incredible factional infighting, with press leaks practically >>>> an everyday occurrence. We have not seen anything like it since. >>>> >>>> No one knows for sure how much the gunshot affected the president. >>>> >>>> Reagan's Secretary of State Alexander Haig himself told me that the >>>> president was a different man after he was shot and that the near fatal >>>> event negatively impacted his ability to govern. (I recently read Yehuda >>>> Avner’s “The Prime Ministers” wherein he recounts Prime Minister Menachem >>>> Begin’s first visit in 1982 with President Reagan at the White House. Avner >>>> writes that the Israeli team was stunned by the president’s lack of >>>> engagement and knowledge.) >>>> >>>> For sure, liberals have picked up on some such criticisms. And O'Reilly >>>> himself cites a 1987 memo prepared by former White House aide James Cannon >>>> for James Baker claiming that Reagan may not be competent to be president. >>>> The memo suggested that the 25th Amendment potentially could have been >>>> invoked to remove Reagan from office. >>>> >>>> Michael Reagan has pointed out to me this was a narrative promoted by >>>> some "Bush people" during his dad’s White House years. Obviously, Reagan >>>> was competent, though his engagement may have been less than expected. I >>>> would take an 80 percent Reagan over a 100 percent Obama any day. >>>> >>>> So, O'Reilly's assertions are not off the charts. In fact, there is a >>>> bit of old news here. >>>> >>>> It is important to remember that O'Reilly never claims to be a >>>> historian. His genre of books are from a journalist's perspective on past >>>> events, giving his breezy take on what happened when great individuals >>>> died, or in Reagan's case, nearly died. Boris Johnson's recent "The >>>> Churchill Factor" had a similar >>>> “I’m-a-journalist-giving-you-my-take-on-history” approach. >>>> >>>> But the real story is not about O'Reilly's book but George Will's >>>> seemingly personal jihad against O'Reilly. >>>> >>>> Will has gone well beyond offering legitimate criticisms of the book. >>>> He has attacked O'Reilly’s integrity as a journalist. O'Reilly stated >>>> during their TV exchange last week that Will had agreed to speak with him >>>> by phone before he completed his article on the book. >>>> >>>> Interestingly, Will accuses O'Reilly of not talking to people involved >>>> before publishing his book. >>>> >>>> While I have disagreed with O'Reilly on numerous issues through the >>>> years, I don't think that there's any evidence he is a person that seeks to >>>> mislead people or is an “expert” in such activity, as Will asserts. >>>> >>>> O’Reilly is probably one of the most highly-scrutinized media figures >>>> of our time. While he sometimes has strong and passionate opinions, he has >>>> always been a straight shooter and fair-minded. >>>> >>>> Will’s very appearance on O’Reilly’s show testifies to that. >>>> >>>> But for Will, a paid Fox commentator, to allege on that same network, >>>> and media outside that network, that the network's lead news show host and >>>> personality is a liar and is purposely misleading people, that is an >>>> allegation hard for me to digest. >>>> >>>> Last Friday Will appeared on Fox's “Special Report with Bret Baier” >>>> declaring O'Reilly the “Loser of the Week” and describing him as >>>> “unhinged.” (Somehow I could never see George Will going on ABC's "This >>>> Week" to criticize their host George Stephanopoulos.) >>>> >>>> This week Will began his most recent column: “Were the lungs the seat >>>> of wisdom, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly would be wise, but they are not and >>>> he is not.” >>>> >>>> Criticism of O'Reilly's book is totally appropriate. But Will’s primary >>>> assertion that O'Reilly is “something of an expert on willfully misleading >>>> people” and guilty of “extreme recklessness” is simply not substantiated by >>>> the contents of O'Reilly's book or his long track record as a media >>>> personality. >>>> >>>> By making such a claim, Will is guilty of the very thing he is accusing >>>> O’Reilly of doing. >>>> >>>> I run my own network. It's called Newsmax TV and we encourage a healthy >>>> dialogue among anchors, commentators and guests. Disagreements make for >>>> great television. But what George Will said crossed the line. >>>> >>>> If George Will was a paid commentator on my network and made such >>>> claims about our lead news host, I would have promptly gotten Will on the >>>> phone. >>>> >>>> Here's how the brief conversation would have gone: "George, you are a >>>> respected columnist and I respect your opinions. You have every right to >>>> criticize Bill and his book. He knows you do and he had the *cojones *to >>>> put you on his own show to hear them out. But you did something more than >>>> that. >>>> >>>> "You went after him personally and said he's a liar, and that he's made >>>> a career of misleading the public. You have used other outlets to attack >>>> him. If you feel so strongly about our lead news host, shouldn't you just >>>> do the honorable thing and resign from the network?" >>>> >>>> After that I would expect Will would do the decent thing and resign >>>> from a network where he collects a nice paycheck, in part, thanks to the >>>> very host he is crusading against. If he didn’t quit, I would terminate his >>>> contract, killing George Will. >>>> >>>> >>>> __._,_.___ >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected]> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> Visit Your Group >>>> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmcGZmdTI3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NDcyODM1OTU-> >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Yahoo! Groups] >>>> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlODBzcHE2BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ0NzI4MzU5NQ--> >>>> • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> >>>> • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use >>>> <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> >>>> >>>> __,_._,___ >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> -- >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
