Ron Paul Deceived. BucEyedPea Believed. (The Fabricated Reagan Quote)

[patteeu]

I mentioned this in an earlier thread, but I wanted to create a separate thread where BucEyedPea can feel free to admit that Ron Paul was wrong or argue endlessly with me about it if she's still in denial without hijacking another thread.

In July of 2006, Ron Paul got up in front of the House of Representatives to speak in opposition to a resolution condemning Hezbollah's attack against Israel. In his statement, he quoted Ronald Reagan to bolster his case. I should say he "mis-quoted" Reagan though, because as it turns out the quote was FABRICATED.

Since then, BucEyedPea has repeatedly referenced that quote here on the pages of ChiefsPlanet. At last count, I've seen her reference it no less than 16 times. What's with these appeasement conservatives and their need to pretend that Ronald Reagan would have approved of their misguided, neo-isolationist message?

See my next two posts for the details.

[NewChief]

Originally Posted by |Zach|

I'm surprised people arguing with her haven't just started pasting the URL to this thread in reply to everything she says.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by orange

The anti-communist rebels garnered support from the United States. As stated by the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and current US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in his memoirs From the Shadows, the US intelligence services began to aid the rebel factions in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime.

Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated: "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, December 24, 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting US policy, which, unbeknownst even to the mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled: "We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap ... The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter "We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."[21]

Additionally, on July 3, 1979, Carter signed a presidential finding authorizing funding for anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan.[22] As a part of the Central Intelligence Agency program called Operation Cyclone, led by their elite Special Activities Division, which included the massive arming of Afghanistan's mujahideen.[23]


http://www.answers.com/topic/soviet-war-in-afghanistan

I'm not taking anything away from Carter by saying that Reagan's policies fueled the Soviet defeat. Carter deserves some credit for getting the ball rolling, kind of like a kicker getting credit for kicking the ball out of the endzone for a nice touchback at the beginning of the game. Ronald Reagan QB'd the team to victory though.

[orange]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'm not taking anything away from Carter by saying that Reagan's policies fueled the Soviet defeat. Carter deserves some credit for getting the ball rolling, kind of like a kicker getting credit for kicking the ball out of the endzone for a nice touchback at the beginning of the game. Ronald Reagan QB'd the team to victory though.

A better analogy would be Carter = Naismith, Reagan = Jordan.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by orange

A better analogy would be Carter = Naismith, Reagan = Jordan.

OK, I'll accept that.

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Presidents usually have less influence on events -- both economic and world wide, than they are given blame or credit for.

Like Reagan with the USSR, Clinton's economic success is a combination of a little dose of good policy and a large dose of luck.

I know, I know. Here is a good example of what you are saying: The economy turns around in the next 6 months, and the unemployment rate goes down to 9%, and BRC will be in here starting threads touting the success of Obama's stimulus plan.

[Jenson71]

Would now be a good time to ask BucEyedPea to explain the enormous discrepancy between the Ron Paul movement's idea of military use and Ronald Reagan's idea of military use, and why the Paul movement insists on a tie with Reagan (before the Neocons took over)?

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

Would now be a good time to ask BucEyedPea to explain the enormous discrepancy between the Ron Paul movement's idea of military use and Ronald Reagan's idea of military use, and why the Paul movement insists on a tie with Reagan (before the Neocons took over)?

I think this ties into a lack of understanding. Also related: founding father misunderstanding.

[|Zach|]

bump

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

Would now be a good time to ask BucEyedPea to explain the enormous discrepancy between the Ron Paul movement's idea of military use and Ronald Reagan's idea of military use, and why the Paul movement insists on a tie with Reagan (before the Neocons took over)?

That doesn't take much explination. Ron Paul has always been very vocal about where he parts ways with Reagan.

The insistance on a tie with Reagan is that Reagan brought the libertarian party into the Republican fold. His rhetoric leading into the whitehouse was very libertarian oriented. When Bush won the Whitehouse the first time, his message was very libertarian as well. In fact, Rove straight stole lines out of the Ron Paul platform. When Republicans want to win elections, they start talking like libertarians.

[Jenson71]

Originally Posted by Taco John

That doesn't take much explination. Ron Paul has always been very vocal about where he parts ways with Reagan.

Where has he been vocal about where he parts ways with Reagan in regards to foreign policy?

The insistance on a tie with Reagan is that Reagan brought the libertarian party into the Republican fold. His rhetoric leading into the whitehouse was very libertarian oriented. When Bush won the Whitehouse the first time, his message was very libertarian as well. In fact, Rove straight stole lines out of the Ron Paul platform. When Republicans want to win elections, they start talking like libertarians.

I clearly remember Paul citing Reagan as an example for future U.S. foreign policy, mostly because of his actions regarding the withdrawal of troops in Lebanon. Am I misremembering? I think the insistence on a tie with Reagan is more political strategy than honest talk about policy visions.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

Where has he been vocal about where he parts ways with Reagan in regards to foreign policy?

Hell, I don't know. I probably listened to over 150 hours of Ron Paul speeches and audio during the campaign. He got challenged on where he parts ways with Reagan all the time.

I clearly remember Paul citing Reagan as an example for future U.S. foreign policy, mostly because of his actions regarding the withdrawal of troops in Lebanon. Am I misremembering? I think the insistence on a tie with Reagan is more political strategy than honest talk about policy visions.

Ron Paul defends Reagan's retreat from Lebanon, to be sure - but mostly on the grounds that we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

[Taco John]

You know, for all the "we're going to nail Buc to a wall on the technicality of this quote," Ronald Regan's retreat from Lebanon speaks louder than any quote he could have possibly gave. Even if that faux quote isn't 100 taken in context, it doesn't change the fact that Reagan pulled up stakes and left.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You can disagree on that point (because what would this place be without you clinging to wrong), but you can't disagree with the idea that Reagan's policies were instrumental in handing the Soviets a Vietnam-style defeat along with the attendant treasury drain, prestige loss, and morale damage.

Though I agree, I also happen to think that the strategy was so obvious that it's hard to give a heck of a lot of credit to anyone for it.

IMHO there was no viable alternative strategy. We can quibble about post-Soviet planning or lack thereof, but it's screamingly obvious that if your superpower rival invades a country that is difficult to control, you support whatever opposing factions you can and make it tougher for them to conquer/control.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'm not taking anything away from Carter by saying that Reagan's policies fueled the Soviet defeat. Carter deserves some credit for getting the ball rolling, kind of like a kicker getting credit for kicking the ball out of the endzone for a nice touchback at the beginning of the game. Ronald Reagan QB'd the team to victory though.

More like Reagan came into the game late in the 4th quarter...

Actually, the analogy isn't even all that accurate becuase time wasn't much of a factor. Unless the US really screwed the pooch on its strategy -- strategy that had been established long before Reagan -- the USSR was going to collapse eventually.

So really it's more like Reagan was the winning pitcher in the last game of the World Series for the 1927 Yankees. The guy who sealed the deal on what was pretty much inevitable anyway.

Or do you argue that Communism is a viable and efficient economic system, capable of competing with capitalism, and that the USSR was somehow going to win the Cold War?

[NewChief]

Originally Posted by Taco John

You know, for all the "we're going to nail Buc to a wall on the technicality of this quote," Ronald Regan's retreat from Lebanon speaks louder than any quote he could have possibly gave. Even if that faux quote isn't 100 taken in context, it doesn't change the fact that Reagan pulled up stakes and left.

I don't want to nail her to the wall, as this isn't really a big fulcrum, game changing deal anyway. Hell, I don't even really know what technicality they're arguing over. I was just curious to see if BEP was capable of admitting that she just might have been incorrect on something. It appears we have our answer.