| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/4 |
| 2004/6/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30753 Activity:moderate |
6/11 1985: Kerry Asks to Postpone Anti-satellite
Weapons Test until After Reagan-Gorbachev Summit
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1152045/posts
Why delete an article form the Wash. Post???
\_ Why post an article from 1985? Oh, yeah, because the Right has
nothing stronger on Kerry than whether he toed the Gipper's line.
God, I'm going to enjoy watching Kerry win.
\_ It's called 'history'. The man has a ~20 year record in public
office. You're saying we're only allowed to see him for his
last 6 months or something? Next you'll be bitching about not
getting URLs from the early 80s.
\_ If that's what it is, link to that, not freeper garbage. Here's
a real link to wash. post: (Robert G. Kaiser is communist?)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32927-2004Jun10.html
"...Gorbachev brusquely dismissed the suggestion that Reagan had
intimidated either him or the Soviet Union, or forced them to make
concessions."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25142-2004Jun8.html
Washington, D.C.: Your piece in the Post today was excellent. What do
you believe Gorbachev is thinking when he reads this week's Economist
or all of the other nonsense about how Reagan won the Cold War?
Robert G. Kaiser: I haven't seen the Economist piece, but I think
Gorbachev made clear his reaction to me: "That's not serious!" In my
view it is profoundly insulting to Gorbachev, and to the citizens of
the former Soviet empire, to give an American primary credit for what
happened at the end of the 1980s in Eastern Europe. Every American
president from Truman onward was vigilantly, and expensively,
anti-communist and anti-Soviet. As Gorbachev pointed out, this cost us
trillions of dollars. But it did help prevent any spread of communism
beyond the borders of the empire Stalin created after World War
II. Reagan's biggest historical advantage was to be on duty when the
end came. But I am confident that my grandchildren will read that
Gorbachev himself was the principal hero of this drama.
\_ So if Carter, that simpering wimp was on duty when the USSR fell
you really think we'd give him credit for it? No. Because he
\_ No, of course you wouldn't.
didn't do jack. Oh yeah, there was that great malaise speech and
we tired yellow ribbons on trees and posts for the hostages he
couldn't do a damned thing about. |
| 4/4 |
|
| www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1152045/posts John Kerry attempted to deny President Reagan a chief bargaining chip in his upcoming summit with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The test, like the problem-plagued, antisatellite system itself, has provoked controversy in the United States and threats from the Soviet Union. US critics have argued that the proposed system will trigger a new type of arms race in space. The amendment, which would have been meaningless without House approval subsequent signature by the president, was tabled 62 to 34. In 1978, the Carter administration funded the initial development of the F15 system as a bargaining chip for negotiations it hoped would lead to an overall ban on all antisatellite weapons. After talks began with the Soviets in 1979, they quickly bogged down when Moscow's negotiators demanded that the US space shuttle be included as an antisatellite weapon. The Reagan administration, however, pushed the project, citing the existing Soviet orbiting system as a threat to US security. View Replies To: nwrep The article even notes: The Soviets also sought to upgrade their system since the United States possessed measures that easily jammed the radar guidance of the Soviet weapon. Between the late 1970s and 1982, the Soviets tested a new, infrared-guided version of their orbiting antisatellite weapon six times, and each time it failed. View Replies To: AmericaUnited While his Oath of Office obligated him (at least one would hope so) to look after the security interests of this country, for questionable reasons he was looking after security interests of USSR. View Replies To: Zeroisanumber While we would hope it doesn't have to be tried in real life, if it does and fails, we'll be sure to credit your account with one I-told-you-so for each nuke that gets through and debit the account for each nuke stopped. View Replies To: RightWhale I'm a part of the "envy the dead" crowd. I'd really like the ABM system to work, and I wish that the current one was worth deploying. But I don't think that it's terribly conservative to spend billions and billions on a weapon that doesn't work. View Replies To: Zeroisanumber The only towns N Kor can reach are Anchorage and Fairbanks, so it doesn't matter if the ABM actually works, but if it does work can you imagine the embarrassment they would feel in Pyongyang? View Replies Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. |
| www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32927-2004Jun10.html Ronald Reagan 1911-2004 Gorbachev: 'We All Lost Cold War' By Robert G Kaiser Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, June 11, 2004; Page A01 In the throngs of mourners passing through the Capitol yesterday afternoon, one stood out -- a vigorous senior citizen with a distinctive birthmark on his bald pate, whose tight gestures and bright eyes brought back memories of some of Ronald Reagan's greatest moments. Mikhail Gorbachev had flown from Moscow to pay respects to Nancy Reagan and to the man with whom he changed the course of history. "I gave him a pat," Gorbachev said later, reenacting the fond caress he had given Reagan's coffin. Last evening, in an ornate conference room at the Russian Embassy on Wisconsin Avenue NW, Gorbachev gave a kind of personal eulogy to his first and most important American friend. It combined emotion, rigorous historical analysis and an interesting appraisal of Reagan's place in American life and history. Reagan, said Gorbachev, 73, was "an extraordinary political leader" who decided "to be a peacemaker" at just the right moment -- the moment when Gorbachev had come to power in Moscow. He, too, wanted to be a peacemaker, so "our interests coincided." two months later, Gorbachev was elected general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party. But if he had warm, appreciative words for Reagan, Gorbachev brusquely dismissed the suggestion that Reagan had intimidated either him or the Soviet Union, or forced them to make concessions. "That's not serious," Gorbachev said, using the same words several times. "I think we all lost the Cold War, particularly the Soviet Union. We each lost $10 trillion," he said, referring to the money Russians and Americans spent on an arms race that lasted more than four decades. By Gorbachev's account, it was his early successes on the world stage that convinced the Americans that they had to deal with him and to match his fervor for arms control and other agreements that could reduce East-West tensions. "We had an intelligence report from Washington in 1987," he said, "reporting on a meeting of the National Security Council." Senior US officials had concluded that Gorbachev's "growing credibility and prestige did not serve the interests of the United States" and had to be countered. A desire in Washington not to let him make too good an impression on the world did more to promote subsequent Soviet-American agreements than any American intimidation, he said. "They wanted to look good in terms of making peace and achieving arms control," he said of the Reagan administration. The changes he wrought in the Soviet Union, from ending much of the official censorship to sweeping political and economic reforms, were undertaken not because of any foreign pressure or concern, Gorbachev said, but because Russia was dying under the weight of the Stalinist system. "The country was being stifled by the lack of freedom," he said. was achieving a new technological era, a new kind of productivity. And I was ashamed for my country -- perhaps the country with the richest resources on Earth, and we couldn't provide toothpaste for our people." Reagan had been a kind of reformer in the United States, Gorbachev suggested. His first term as president "came at a time when the American nation was in a very difficult situation -- not just in socio-economic terms, but psychologically, too," because of "the consequences of Vietnam and Watergate" and turmoil at home. Reagan rose to the occasion and "restored America's self-confidence. "He was a person committed to certain values and traditions," Gorbachev continued. By the end of that first term, Reagan was "the preeminent anti-communist," Gorbachev said. "Many people in our country, and in your country, regarded him as the quintessential hawk." Did Reagan's success in his first term, and the huge build-up of military power that he persuaded Congress to finance, affect the decision of the Soviet Politburo to choose a young and vigorous new leader in 1985 -- someone who could, in effect, stand up to Reagan? "No, I think there was really no connection," he replied, chuckling. He said he was chosen for purely internal reasons that had nothing to do with the United States. The Soviet Union could have actually decided not to build more weapons, because the weapons we had were more than enough." was elected to a second term, he, and especially the people close to him, began to think about how he would complete his second term -- by producing more and more nuclear weapons . and conducting 'special operations' around the world, etc. The Soviet leadership, Gorbachev said, evidently referring to himself, concluded that instead, Reagan would "want to go down in history as a peacemaker" and would work with Moscow to do so. "A particularly positive influence on him -- more than anyone else -- was Nancy Reagan," Gorbachev said. Once Reagan decided to try to make peace, he found an eager partner in Moscow, Gorbachev said. "The new Soviet leadership wanted to transform the country, to modernize the country, and we needed stability, we needed cooperation with other countries. A war could start not because of a political decision, but just because of some technical failure. "A lot of forces on both sides had an interest in prolonging the arms race," Gorbachev added, including military-industrial lobbies on both sides. His predecessors in Moscow had concluded that continuing the race was the only way they could achieve security for the Soviet Union. But by his new calculation in 1985, the situation was ripe for change. He and his comrades concluded that it was really inconceivable that anyone in the White House actually wanted to blow up the Soviet Union, just as they ruled out the possibility of ever deliberately trying to destroy the United States. So it would make more sense "to find ways to cooperate." His first meeting with Reagan in Geneva in November 1985, "confirmed the correctness of our assessment of the situation," he continued. This was the first Soviet-American summit in seven years, and it did not begin well. After the first session, he recounted, his comrades asked for his impressions of Reagan. "He's a real dinosaur," Gorbachev quoted himself as saying. "And then I learned," he added, "there was a leak from the American delegation, that . They initiated a batch of new cooperative enterprises intended to improve relations. At subsequent meetings at Reykjavik the next year, in Washington in 1987 and in Moscow in 1988, relations got better and better. By the time he came to Moscow in 1988, Gorbachev recalled with evident satisfaction, Reagan had changed his views. "An American reporter asked President Reagan, while we were taking a walk . Staff writer David E Hoffman contributed to this report. Permission to Republish Mikhail Gorbachev bows his head at the casket of his old adversary, who "restored America's self-confidence." In an interview, Gorbachev said US pressure was not responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. "The country was being stifled by the lack of freedom," he said. Former senator John C Danforth, an Episcopal priest, will officiate. Former Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney, former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, former president George HW Bush and President Bush will eulogize Reagan. Sunset burial service: Reagan to be buried in a wooded grove overlooking the Pacific Ocean at the presidential library. |
| www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25142-2004Jun8.html Nation Transcript Reagan's Legacy Robert G Kaiser Washington Post Associate Editor Friday, June 11, 2004; Reagan succumbed to a 10-year struggle with Alzheimer's disease last Saturday at his home in California. Washington Post Associate Editor Robert G Kaiser was online Friday, June 11 at 1 pm ET, immediately following the National Cathedral funeral service, to discuss Reagan's life, presidency and political legacy. com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; This is the end of an extraordinary week, one that has clearly brought forth many conflicting emotions in many of you. I will post a lot of your comments without comments of my own, because they don't need any help from me. I had an extraordinary experience myself yesterday when I saw Mikhail Gorbachev for 45 minutes at the Russian embassy here, and talked with him about Reagan. We'll give you a link to my story on the interview here. I have known Gorbachev since 1988, one of the great treats of my journalistic career, I freely confess. And I have written a book about him (WHY GORBACHEV HAPPENED). His views of Reagan are interesting, and revealing, I think. Gorbachev: 'We All Lost Cold War', (Post, June 11) Ammon, New Brunswick, Canada: What do you make of the collective amnesia regarding the Reagan Administration's initial inability to take advantage of or even recognize the opportunities that were being offered them by Mikhail Gorbachev? I can remember public opinion polls in the United States during the late Eighties when the American people considered Gorbachev more of a "peacemaker" than Reagan. Now -- in 2004 --conservatives have seemed to, in media if not historical terms, co-opted the entire event, ie "Reagan Won the Cold War" because of his intentional huge arms build-up -- despite the fact that when the Soviets/Gorbachev wanted to negotiate the Reagan Administration was, at the very least, diplomatically unprepared for the very outcome they now insist they had intended all along to achieve with their massive defense spending. What has changed and how did the Reagan White House -- which seemed so unsupportive of Gorbachev's attempts for months, if not years -- begin to receive credit in the US for Ronald Reagan "winning the Cold War?" As Gorbachev makes clear in his memoirs, and did again in conversation yesterday, he was initially very frustrated that the US and the West generally didn't initially take him seriously when he said he wanted to reform the Soviet Union and abolish nuclear weapons. For 40 years Soviet communists had been our enemy, had behaved badly, had repeatedly shown their true, and extremely unappealing, colors. Gorbachev did want to change those colors, but it's no surprise, I think, that we in the West were initially skeptical. That said, I have written many times, and strongly believe, that ultimately, the end of the Soviet Union and the collapse of communism will b e understood as first of all internal events in the communist countries, in which westerners played a marginal role. For some odd reason I haven't seen any mention of the importance astrology played in Reagan's life. Also, how is Jimmy Carter taking all of this talk about Reagan winning the Cold War? A persuasive case can be made that Carter's commitment to civil rights around the world was far more damaging to the Soviet Union than Reagan's military buildup and sabre rattling. There seems to be a massive PR campaign this week to rewrite history. It seems to me we should be celebrating the man for what he was, not what we wished him to be. Robert G Kaiser: Wasn't astrology important to Nancy Reagan? You are right, in my opinion, that his commitment to human rights was very important. So was Gerald Ford's decision to embrace the "Helsinki process" which had a great deal to do with undermining the communist regimes of Eastern Europe. Would you have written the same thing at the end of Reagan's second term, and would you write the same thing today? "'We've really got to start talking,' says George Ball, undersecretary of state in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Though he is shrewd enough to bend and budge under pressure (hence, for example, his abandonment of old positions on Taiwan), in his heart Reagan knows he has always been right about the nature of the world, of communism, of America's proper role." To defend myself very briefly, I'd note the date: in 1983, we had seen no sign whatsoever of the flexible Ronald Reagan who, beginning in 1986, would do serious business with Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan had very little experience of foreign affairs when he became president, and his first term was not successful diplomatically. The loss of 230-plus Marines in Beirut, with no real response from us, was the lowpoint, but there were others. I certainly could not have written those words during Reagan's second term, or today. I think it is very much to Reagan's credit that he learned in office, saw ways to change his old beliefs, and willingly pursued goals that, in 1983 I bet, still seemed inconceivable to him. Brookeville, Md: Mr Kaiser, A president's legacy should be based his personal and political achievements and on his popularity. It's awesome to be in the DC area and see how the whole region contributes to the week's events. With no intended disrespect to Mr Reagan, why did such an accomplished man feel the need to be "The Gipper?" George Gipp was a highly celebrated Notre Dame football player without equal. He died at the end of his remarkable four-year career in 1920 but his legacy lives on. He deserves his own legacy and not the actor who played him in a movie. I cringe every time I hear Reagan referred to as "The Gipper." Because he played the part, Reagan got dubbed the Gipper by friends, reporters, etc. I know of no evidence that he himself cultivated that monicker. As several of the eulogists reminded us this morning, Reagan was a genuinely modest, even humble human being. And when that time arrives, will any of us still be standing? After all, eight years is a tiny period when framed against the 225+ years our Republic has stood. And for all of his accomplishments -- those real and imaginary -- Ronald Reagan did not save our Republic. Robert G Kaiser: thanks Westminster, Md: I've heard about a potential political up-tick for Bush campaign from President Reagan's passing and the accompanying pomp and ceremony and photo ops with world leaders and Nancy Reagan but isn't there also a potential downside for Bush with people comparing the president present and the president deceased and then saying, "gee, this guy sure is no Ronald Reagan?" Robert G Kaiser: Good question, which I cannot answer today. This would have been highly improbable had not Reagan put the elder Bush on the ticket in 1980 and given tacit support to his bid for the White House in 1988 against the far abler and more accomplished Robert Dole. The 1988 race aside, Reagan passed over several Republicans of genuine character, ability and accomplishment in 1980 (eg Senators Baker, Lugar, Domenici) to pick Bush, a career-long ticket puncher who accomplished little in several posts before 1980 and was all but invisible as vice president. Do you think it is odd that this aspect of the Reagan record has been so little discussed this week? No one would write about Theodore Roosevelt's presidency with discussing how well he planned for his legacy to be built on by his successor. Since the elder Bush threw away the mortal lock on the Electoral College Reagan had left the Republicans it seems appropriate to have the same discussion about Reagan, but we aren't. Robert G Kaiser: As a number of your questions remind us, and I'll post more of these below, many aspects of REagan's life and times have been given short shrift this week. Reagan was nothing if not an extremely complicated person. His views changed dramatically on many issues over the years. He legalized abortion in California as governor, for example, then decided to become an anti-abortion crusader later. Read Lou Cannon's wonderful book, The Role of a Lifetime, if you want a f... |