I'm behind the curve on posting on this, as I've been busy grading and engaging in a few end of the year social activities. But happily Hilzoy and others have posted on it so I don't have to. The record is that Ronald Reagan's presidency was a complete disaster when it came to dealing with Islamic terrorists - and the fact that praise for him and his toughness on foreign policy at the Republican debate the other night became a veritable mantra is nothing short of obscene.
Reagan provided arms to Khomeini's Iran. We're not even talking about today's disturbing conservative Iran, we are talking 1980's full-on radical, Khomenei-led Iran.
Reagan negotiated for the release of hostages.
Reagan pulled US forces out of Lebanon, more or less with our tail between our legs, after not one, not two, but three huge attacks against major US positions that result in the deaths of hundreds of US public servants and soldiers. Three huge, deadly attacks - and Reagan's response was essentially retreat, of if you prefer, surrender.
Reagan propped up the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, who at least according to the current occupant of the White House, was a big supporter of international terrorism.
In the context of indirectly fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan the Reagan administration helped lay the groundwork for the rise of Osama Bin Laden and his band of murderous zealots.
So with that being the record - why is Reagan praised by the same people who seem to believe that fighting a global war on Islamic terrorism is our country's top priority?
Posted by armand at May 5, 2007 03:32 PM | TrackBack | Posted to PoliticsReagan had bigger fish to fry at the time.
Those fish got fried.
What was your question? Want to talk about Carter's record against Islamic extremism?
Posted by: jacflash at May 5, 2007 05:10 PM | PERMALINKNobody, to my recollection, was praising Carter's anything at the debate the other night. However, they were seemingly proposing sainthood for "the Gipper", and promising to be just the tough, steadfast fighter he was. My point is that on this fight - this fight that many of them see as the most important in the world today - Reagan was soft, weak and close to being a collaborator. And of course when it came to Saddam Hussein, he was more than a collaborator.
And the "bigger fish to fry" thing is kind of irrelevant on some of these points. I don't see how that excuses his dealings with Ayatollah Khomenei (who Reagan was much closer to than Carter was) or his weak retreat out of Beirut. One can argue that not fighting back harder in Beirut was a fine policy choice - but it's ridiculous to assert that it was the kind of policy that the mythical Reagan those would-be presidents seemed ready to fellate would have carried out. And since it was what Reagan actually did ... it's yet another example of Republicans who'd think would want to be taken seriously finding it hard to exist in the Reality Based Community. Much like their convenient tendency to forget that Reagan increased taxes as well as lowering them.
Posted by: Armand at May 5, 2007 08:15 PM | PERMALINK