Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (58596)	10/12/1999 7:37:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Here is the link to an opinion column in today's Washington Post written by David Abshire, who served in the Reagan White House during the investigation of Iran-Contra ~ his opinion was that Reagan did not know about the diversion of arms for money for the Contras: washingtonpost.com Frankly, I don't care whether Reagan knew about funding for the Contras, in fact, I wish he did. I am glad we gave money to the Contras. I'm sorry that people were killed, but that does seem to happen in revolutions. The Sandinistas killed a lot of people, too. Similarly, I am glad we funded the Afghanis who were fighting the Soviet Union. The Iran-Contra affair was so convoluted, and poorly managed, that I am sure you can pick and choose among incidents and express shock and horror. But, overall, our support for the Contras helped prevent the establishment of a Castro-style government in Nicaragua, which is a good thing. If the Sandinistas had actually been what Carter thought they were, I don't think Iran-Contra would have happened. And I am not convinced that it was illegal, I've read the Boland Amendment, and I don't see how it violates the letter of the Boland Amendment, although it probably violates the spirit. I am a lawyer, I go by the letter of the law. I think it's significant that what North, et al., were convicted of was lying to Congress, not violating the Boland Amendment. And yes, I voted for Ollie when he ran for Senate. I know he's got a veracity problem, but the thought of watching Dan Rather, et al. say "Senator North," was too good to pass up. And he was the Republican candidate against Chuck Robb. I was a delegate to the nominating convention, and I did vote for Jim Miller as senatorial candidate, but when North got the nomination, I voted for him in the general election. I even have a copy of North's book, autographed by him to me.

To: E who wrote (58596)	10/12/1999 12:20:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

>>I am sure that the thousands of dead Nicaraguan civilians, if they could speak from the darkness into which his policy innovations cast them, might add a plaintive chord to the current symphony of praise. Who knows the untold lives Reagan's policy ultimately saved. The people of Nicaragua did, however, speak, thanks to Reagan. It was an inconvenience called an election and your side lost. That's history.

To: E who wrote (58596)	10/12/1999 1:06:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

>>The full judgment of what contribution Reagan's policies made during the period of Soviet collapse awaits further releases of material from the Soviet archives. Not really. But releases from Stasi files are illustrative. They profiled Reagan as unlike past US leaders, Reagan was different - resolute and could not be bullied. Reagan would not shortchange strategic interests for domestic political gain. From Ronald Reagan by D'Sousa: When Gorbachev in 1988 announced that Soviet troops would pull out of Afghanistan, for example, doves in the State Department implored Reagan to "reward" the Soviet leader with economic concessions and trade benefits. Reagan recognized that this approach ran the risk of restoring the health of the sick bear - Gorbachev's goal, of course. But Reagan never forgot that it was not his goal. Rather, his goal was - as Gorbachev himself once joked - to take the Soviet Union to the edge of the abyss and then induce the regime to take "one step forward". Thus Reagan judiciously encouraged Gorbachev's reform efforts while applying constant pressure on him to move faster and faster. This was the significance of Reagan's trip to the Brandenburg Gate on June 12, 1987. President Kennedy had visited Berlin a quarter of a century earlier and won the favor of the locals by claiming in German that he too was a Berliner. This was uplifting rhetoric, but it was only rhetoric. Reagan, by contrast, used his speech to drive Gorbachev into an awkward position, to compel him to prove his sincerity before the world. Reagan said, "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" As with Reagan's reference to the Soviets as an "evil empire", the State Department kept deleting from Reagan's speech the reference to dismantling the Berlin Wall. Even the more hawkish National Security Council was opposed. But Reagan kept putting it back in. "That wall has to come down", he kept telling speechwriter Peter Robinson. "That's what I'd like to say." Reagan kept up the drumbeat of pressure. A year later, in May 1988, Reagan stood beneath a giant white bust of Lenin at Moscow State University where in front of an audience of Russian students he gave the most ringing defense of a free society ever offered in the Soviet Union. On that trip he visited the ancient Danilov Monastery, which had been recently returned to the Russian Orthodox Church, and preached about the importance of religious freedom and a spiritual revival. At the U.S. ambassador's residence, he hosted a highly publicized meeting with dissidents and "refuseniks" and told them to take heart because the day of freedom was coming soon. All of these measures were calibrated to force Gorbachev's hand... pp 193-4