I have been carrying on an adulation regarding Stanford Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, the darling of the neo-conservative liberal poseur Alexander Cockburn; only to find out recently through an exploratory combined congratulatory letter and admonishment that he really considers himself as an unabashed trickle-down godfather of supply side economics and further feels that he is a man of the people as he views Ronald Reagan to be as well. Were it not for the combined poisoning of the 'well of truth' of both these souls of the Wall Street Journal pundit pool along with David Brooks I would have considered it an unfortunate anomaly. But upon contacting Mr. Roberts it appears that he actually believes that he is carrying the crucifix of humanity right alongside the Pontiff of Putriditity Ronald Wilson Reagan.Get this:
I have been enjoying your articles while allowing for the Republican tag which may provide some sort of credibility for Alex Cockburn in his insular isolated global sphere, I would like to ask you to make the change to progressive and drop the Republican tag which carries no distinction for any prescient being since WWII. Like David Stockman your allegiance to Reagan Patrician authoritarianism is something which hinders your street credibility in the modern world of justice. Get off this foolishness and break away and become human. Please do it now!!
Stockman was the opposite of loyal to Reagan. Don't
you mean by pat. auth. Reagan was a man of the people
disliked by the Republican establishment. So was I
Reagan was a man of the people
disliked by the Republican establishment. So was I
The tenured middle class patricians and the old money but not the people.
Not the people of whom Lincoln spoke, "God must have loved the common people because he made so many of them."
Certainly not the people whom he sent the national guard and the dogs after.
He was not the man of the people but rather "The Man", as in the hobnail boot on the neck of a citizen.
The people hated Reagan and still do. You are a much better human being than him, and need to maybe break away from the association with him.
That was my suggestion.
Anyway you may still disagree but I want you know that I like your writing and your willingness to stand up to the current excessively dangerous government we find ourselves under now. Kudo's
the post war era
you are misinformed
Paul I couldn't agree less-
Ronald Reagan had less than 20% support of the country at the height of his popularity:
A media president, media manipulated into media prominence just like the current liar president and media darling G. W. Bush.
In 27 years you are the first person I have ever met who liked Reagan.
Upon hearing he had been shot, my fellow working, suffering Americans in San Francisco were hoping for a fatality.
We travel in different circles to say the very least.
The "love" for Ronald Reagan had to do with his 20 Muleteam Borax Days and GE Theatre and his good looks in a bathing suit when he was a lifeguard as a young man.
These images created a host of false impressions where silly hayseeds equate photogenic qualities found in actors for honesty and decency. Women swooned over him and men shaved their body hair to look like him to win back their wives. This was not the acceptance of a diligent politician but rather red hair dye and makeup assisting star glamour which has been well chronicled by the insiders in his inner circle. Joan Quigley at the request of his wife Nancy was more significant in creating the fiction of Reagan than any other person excepting perhaps George Bush Sr. who manipulated intelligence in the background and threatened committee members including John Kerry to make Ron look good during Iran Contra and the constant murders of civilians by intelligence agents like Eugene Hassenfus in their immoral efforts to over throw duly elected governments. Ronald Reagan renewed the horror show in Central America and is the main reason governments in "the south" started pushing their people up over the border here which is threatening to collapse our economy completely. The economic fictions which Reagan sold to a desperate and undereducated American population regarding supply side BS was perfectly packaged by his advisor's which I presume you call yourself one.
If the American people had the intellectual tools to adequately assess the policies of Ron Reagan he would be right at the bottom just above George Bush.
But then you seem intent to peg your entire output and achievement on this guy even though you have valid points to make outside of the area of this Ronald Reagan blindspot. My suggestion is to break free of this guy and go out and rub elbows with the dirty teaming masses and find out what you have been studiously avoiding because you could be a much better writer if you cut this albatross from around your neck. You are a good writer, be better!
One man's opinion. Oh and by the way John F. Kennedy Jr. was a post war President with real staying power in the popularity polls and if you were to poll today he would beat your man Reagan in a landslide. But in the end it's about deeds and not popularity and both men are tarnished.
See No Evil, Speak No Truth
Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 04:01:07 PM PDT
A month ago, Ali Hassan al-Majid -- better known in the media as "Chemical Ali" -- was sentenced to death. Ali was condemned for his role in use of poison gas on two Kurdish villages, including the attack on Halabja, where several hundred people (at the very least -- possibly several thousand) were killed on two horrible days in 1988. The people in Halabja that day were subject to a deadly cocktail of mustard gas and nerve agents that left the streets littered with bodies.
|The use of chemical weapons against civilians was one of the justifications cited often in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Though Halabja was fifteen years in the past by the time "Chemical Ali" landed on a playing card, the Kurds who had fallen a decade and a half earlier became a rallying cry for invasion.|
High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists.
The nuclear and biological programs mentioned in that 2002 Washington Post article proved to be nothing more than hot air, as did the contacts with terrorists, but the use of chemical weapons was real enough -- if not exactly current.
Even the mainstream media back in 2002 recognized that the manufactured outrage over chemical weapons was complicated by our history with Saddam's regime.
Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.
The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.
But only a few months later, the media seemed to have developed amnesia on the subject, and though the chemical weapons attacks on the Kurds were frequently mentioned as the war got underway, it's hard to find any mention of US weapons sales to Iraq, much less a connection to St. Ronnie.
Now a new book, A Poisonous Affair, by Joost R. Hiltermann, recalls not just the US connection in the chemical weapon attacks, but how that connection played into Iraq's past, present, and future.
While the international community was quick to condemn the Iraqi regime in the days that followed, within a week the US State Department began floating the suggestion that Iran had also played a role inthe gas attack and even might be responsible for the majority of the chemical fatalities. This contention, which originated in the Pentagon, soon took on a life of its own and helped dilute a UN Security Council resolution that should have condemned Iraq.
Eventually, a watered down condemnation of chemical weapon use was produced that blamed both sides. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush not only provided chemical weapons to Iraq, they actively covered up the use of those weapons. It wasn't just a matter of standing by, it wasn't even a matter of providing imagery that helped the Iraqis plan their attacks, the US helped to cover up the very same massacres that were later used as justification for the invasion.
Saddam Hussein ultimately proved not guilty of hiding chemical weapons in Iraq previous to the invasion. However, Ronald Reagan was guilty of covering up not just the presence, but the use of chemical weapons against civilians. Having already been caught breaking the law in Iran-Contra, both Reagan and Bush I were anxious to avoid scrutiny of their support for Iraq. As a result, they purposely confused the facts about events in Kurdistan.
When the first western journalists reached the affected areas, this is what they found.
"No wounds, no blood, no traces of explosions can be found on the bodies," he reported. "The skin of the bodies is strangely discoloured, with their eyes open and staring where they have not disappeared into their sockets, a grayish slime oozing from their mouths and their fingers still grotesquely twisted. Death seemingly caught them almost unawares."
As Chemical Ali gets ready to meet the noose -- which should happen any day now -- it needs to be remembered that he had unindicted friends who helped preserve his ability to use those weapons again, and again, and again.
When that platform swings open, will there be a moment's pause in the fishing at Kennebunkport by the man who helped deliver and cover up the weapons Ali used? Will there be a toast from a former Secretary of Defense who justified Saddam's use of chemical weapons, then used them again as an excuse to invade? Will the death be noted between pretzels by the son who used massacres to justify still more deaths?
Will the press -- and the public -- note the passing of a monster, or register the final, brutal result of a cynical, bloody policy made by two generation of men who thought they could manipulate events in the Middle East?