Quantcast

«

»

Sep 09 2013

Republican Invokes Imaginary Reagan

St. Ronald the Perfect, the entirely mythical Ronald Reagan that lives in Republican imaginations, was invoked in the debate over whether to authorize missile strikes against Syria for the use of chemical weapons. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) appeared on Fox News and delivered this whopper:

ROS-LEHTINEN: It is against the norms of international standards and to let something like this go unanswered, I think will weaken our resolve. I — I know that President Reagan would have never let this happen. He would stand up to this. And President Obama — the only reason he is consulting with Congress, he wants to blame somebody for his lack of resolve. We have to think like President Reagan would do and he would say chemical use is unacceptable.

Hey, let’s invite reality over and ask for a response. The real Ronald Reagan, as opposed to the fictional one, not only did Reagan “let this happen,” he helped make it happen and helped cover it up. Only a week or so ago, CIA documents were released showing that the Reagan administration helped Saddam Hussein with the targeting of his chemical weapon attack against Iran and then helped cover it up by lying and blaming Iran for it. We already knew that, but now it’s been conclusively confirmed.

And when Hussein was also using chemical weapons against the Kurds, not only did Reagan not respond with any military action, he refused to even impose a trade embargo in response to such genocide. Because Iran was the real enemy and Iraq was our ally, so we excused whatever they did as long as they continued to do our bidding.

Yet again, St. Ronald the Perfect is shown to have never existed.

17 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Modusoperandi

    Sir Saint Ronald Reagan (ret.) wasn’t perfect. For one thing, he compromised with the Democraty Party, rather than burning it all down.
    And, sure, he so-called “helped” Saddam Obama Hussein with so-called “chemical” so-called “weapons”, but that was totally different. Because shut up, that’s why.

  2. 2
    Larry

    But at least Ronny acted with resolve when helping Sadaam gas his own people, unlike that mooslum in the WH. And his lying, well that was simply part of steely-eyed determination to cover it up.

  3. 3
    raven

    Reagan also cut and ran in Lebanon after a sucide truck bomber leveled a marine barracks.

    Which admittedly was a smart thing to do.

  4. 4
    machintelligence

    And in their search for scandals to tie to the Obama presidency, they completely ignore the Iran-Contra scandal that should have ended with the impeachment of Regan. As it was, fourteen Republican officials were indicted, and eleven convicted (although some were overturned on appeal and all the remaining were pardoned by Bush Sr.)

  5. 5
    montanto

    Not to mention Assad’s Daddy was one of our “allies” too and Reagan and Bush let him get away with murder just as long as he stayed a good little playing piece in the cold war.

  6. 6
    nimsudo

    Relevant

  7. 7
    Alverant

    Reminds me of what happened when someone reminded Rush Limbaugh that Reagan raised taxes on the middle class 7 of the 8 years he was in office. Rush was stunned then said, “You’re the type of person who needs to be beat” or some other vague threat like that.

  8. 8
    karmacat

    I watched NBC news one night and was amazed by how biased they were ( I really shouldn’t be surprised). Two of the stories were biased in favor of doing something about Syria. They told the stories of refugees who are hoping the US will intervene and stories about how Obama will look weak to the rest of the world if he doesn’t intervene in Syria. There was no discussion of who exactly will think the US is weak and no discussion of the consequences/results of bombing Syria. Reagan himself presented himself as strong in terms of not negotiating for hostages yet was doing just that with Iran. I’m tired of this idea that the US has to look strong.

  9. 9
    Michael Heath

    machineintelligence writes:

    [contemporaneous partisan Republicans] completely ignore the Iran-Contra scandal that should have ended with the impeachment of Regan.

    I’m fairly confident that the criteria required to either impeach President Reagan in the House, or removal him from office due to the results of impeachment proceedings in the Senate, would have all presidential tenures ending with impeachment and removal. So why distinguish President Reagan for this event? Especially when the evidence is unconvincing he even participated in the illegal aspects of the Iran-Contra scandal.

    As for President Obama, his impeachable offense is his failure to prosecute the Bush Administration for its use of torture, which is directly contra to his legal duties under the anti-torture treaty President Reagan signed. And as much as I’m a fan of President Obama overall record of performance within the context he operates, I advocate such proceedings against him occur. Though such advocacy is coupled to my also arguing AG Holder immediately indict President Bush, VP Cheney, and some other senior officials from the Bush administration for their torture policy.

    From my perspective Obama’s failure in not indicting Bush et. al is far more egregious, especially when we consider the implications for future generations, relative to what we know President Reagan did around the Iran-Contra scandal, which I perceive as a fairly trivial scandal in terms of its geo-political implications.

  10. 10
    D. C. Sessions

    Those weren’t real CIA documents. Besides, St. Ronnie would never have let classified documents leak out.

    What really happened was that Obama, to cover up for Benghazi, had those documents faked up and “released.”

  11. 11
    Michael Heath

    karmacat writes:

    I watched NBC news one night and was amazed by how biased they were ( I really shouldn’t be surprised). Two of the stories were biased in favor of doing something about Syria. They told the stories of refugees who are hoping the US will intervene and stories about how Obama will look weak to the rest of the world if he doesn’t intervene in Syria. There was no discussion of who exactly will think the US is weak and no discussion of the consequences/results of bombing Syria. Reagan himself presented himself as strong in terms of not negotiating for hostages yet was doing just that with Iran. I’m tired of this idea that the US has to look strong.

    Where the arguments I’m hearing on the anti-interventionist side largely ignores the suffering already occurring.

    The only compelling arguments I’m seeing is by those who aren’t sure what to do. The reasonable conclusion if that observations is true is that we need more debate. In the mean-time, I see mostly upsides from rattling some sabers, e.g., Russia is now advocating that Syria relinquish its chemical weapons.

  12. 12
    machintelligence

    Michael Heath @ 6

    From my perspective Obama’s failure in not indicting Bush et. al is far more egregious, especially when we consider the implications for future generations, relative to what we know President Reagan did around the Iran-Contra scandal, which I perceive as a fairly trivial scandal in terms of its geo-political implications.

    I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Prosecution (or failure to prosecute) is a discretionary act , much like a pardon. Regan broke an actual law about trade with Iran and shipped weapons to a country holding U S hostages. I believe this would qualify as giving aid and comfort to an enemy. I also recall he appeared on TV and “assumed full responsibility for those actions.”

  13. 13
    Ichthyic

    I knew heath wouldn’t be able to resist regurgitating his delusional view of ronnie’s tenure, yet again. Sad, but predictable.

    His defense of ronnie looks starkly similar to rabid catholic defense of their pedophile-enabling church.

  14. 14
    Ichthyic

    The only reason russia jumped on the notion to have assad turn over chem weps was to try to cause the US to lose face. Think about the timing, moron.

  15. 15
    colnago80

    Re Ichthlkyic@ #13

    MH’s defends his heroes, Ronnie the Rat and Michigan Governor Rick the prick Snyder.

  16. 16
    Michael Heath

    machineintelligence writes:

    Prosecution (or failure to prosecute) is a discretionary act , much like a pardon.

    Not in this case. As I already noted, the treaty President Reagan signed was written in a way that leaders who failed to prosecute for torture was itself an indictable offense.

  17. 17
    yoav

    So Obama is a tyrant who rule by executive orders and ignore congress and how dare he consult congress. I don’t know why I even bother buying irony meters any more.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site