Reagan didn’t remain silent on Poland

posted at 11:34 am on June 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

In mid-December 1981, the Polish government declared martial law, hoping to suppress the Solidarity uprising that started in Gdansk earlier that year.  The Soviet puppet Wojciech Jaruzelski imprisoned thousands, including Solidarity leader Lech Walesa, and attempted to suppress self-determination by the Poles through force and intimidation.  Then-President Ronald Reagan immediately reacted to the imposition of martial law by publicizing his conversation with Pope John Paul II the next day (emphases mine):

The President. “Your Holiness, I want you to know how deeply we feel about the situation in your homeland.”

“I look forward to the time when we can meet in person.”

Our sympathies are with the people, not the government.”

Three days later, Reagan made his point crystal clear in a press conference:

All the information that we have confirms that the imposition of martial law in Poland has led to the arrest and confinement, in prisons and detention camps, of thousands of Polish trade union leaders and intellectuals. Factories are being seized by security forces and workers beaten.

These acts make plain there’s been a sharp reversal of the movement toward a freer society that has been underway in Poland for the past year and a half. Coercion and violation of human rights on a massive scale have taken the place of negotiation and compromise. All of this is in gross violation of the Helsinki Pact, to which Poland is a signatory.

It would be naive to think this could happen without the full knowledge and the support of the Soviet Union. We’re not naive. We view the current situation in Poland in the gravest of terms, particularly the increasing use of force against an unarmed population and violations of the basic civil rights of the Polish people.

Violence invites violence and threatens to plunge Poland into chaos. We call upon all free people to join in urging the Government of Poland to reestablish conditions that will make constructive negotiations and compromise possible.

Certainly, it will be impossible for us to continue trying to help Poland solve its economic problems while martial law is imposed on the people of Poland, thousands are imprisoned, and the legal rights of free trade unions — previously granted by the government — are now denied. We’ve always been ready to do our share to assist Poland in overcoming its economic difficulties, but only if the Polish people are permitted to resolve their own problems free of internal coercion and outside intervention.

Our nation was born in resistance to arbitrary power and has been repeatedly enriched by immigrants from Poland and other great nations of Europe. So we feel a special kinship with the Polish people in their struggle against Soviet opposition to their reforms.

The Polish nation, speaking through Solidarity, has provided one of the brightest, bravest moments of modern history. The people of Poland are giving us an imperishable example of courage and devotion to the values of freedom in the face of relentless opposition. Left to themselves, the Polish people would enjoy a new birth of freedom. But there are those who oppose the idea of freedom, who are intolerant of national independence, and hostile to the European values of democracy and the rule of law.

Two Decembers ago, freedom was lost in Afghanistan; this Christmas, it’s at stake in Poland. But the torch of liberty is hot. It warms those who hold it high. It burns those who try to extinguish it.

Note what Reagan did not do.  He didn’t say we needed to declare war on Poland, the reductio ad absurdum offered as a criticism of conservatives by progressives intent on defending Barack Obama’s weak response.  Reagan kept his options close to the vest, both in this statement and during the subsequent questions asked by reporters at the presser.  Reagan chose to stand for freedom and to publicly support those taking great physical risks in demanding it, keeping the pressure on the oppressors.

Compare that to the reaction that came three days later from Barack Obama during a somewhat similar (although not completely analogous) crisis in Iran:

Obviously all of us have been watching the news from Iran. And I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football — or discussions with the United States.

Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I’ve been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process — free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they’re, rightfully, troubled.

My understanding is, is that the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place. We weren’t on the ground, we did not have observers there, we did not have international observers on hand, so I can’t state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election.

But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed. And I think it’s important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views.

Now, with respect to the United States and our interactions with Iran, I’ve always believed that as odious as I consider some of President Ahmadinejad’s statements, as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on a range of core issues, that the use of tough, hard-headed diplomacy — diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries — is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests, specifically, making sure that we are not seeing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East triggered by Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon; making sure that Iran is not exporting terrorist activity. Those are core interests not just to the United States but I think to a peaceful world in general.

We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we’ll see where it takes us. But even as we do so, I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we’ve seen on the television over the last few days.

And what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was. And they should know that the world is watching.

And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected.

Reagan took a stand on freedom, where Obama sounds desperate for engagement with the forces of oppression.  Germany’s Angela Merkel took a much tougher stand than Obama did, calling the oppression “totally unacceptable,” while all Obama can say is that it’s “deeply troubling”.

It’s the difference between leadership and management.  Reagan led, and he inspired the Poles to continue the struggle that eventually helped free half of Europe from iron-fisted domination by the Soviet Union.  Obama wants to manage the crisis to keep from having to lead.  Big, big difference.

Update: Don’t miss the Twitterview between Jake Tapper and John McCain on this topic.  Key takeaway:

TAPPER: @SenJohnMcCain what would u say were u president? how much of a concern wd it be that “the west” supporting protestors cd be demonized? Thx

MCCAIN: @jaketapper we heard that during the Cold War when the left didn’t want us criticizing the Soviet Union b/c we could have been “demonized”

TAPPER: @SenJohnMcCain i had a feeling the memory of jailed russian dissidents hearing Reagan speak about them wd be something u were thinking about

MCCAIN: @jaketapper USA always stands for freedom and democracy!!

TAPPER: @SenJohnMcCain WH says it needs to focus on Iran’s nuke program/support for terror, must deal w Iran we have not 1 we wish we had. response?

TAPPER: @senjohnmccain to translate from twitterese: WH says “We have to deal with the Iran we HAVE, not the one we WISH we had”

MCCAIN: @jaketapper that’s revisiting the cold war arguments on how we dealt with the Soviet Union

MCCAIN: @jaketapper – we must stand strong for democracy in Iran as we stood for Democracy in Poland, Germany, and Czechoslovakia


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

One regime’s fence-sitting is another regime’s tacit endorsement.

Maquis on June 16, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Exactly.

Maquis on June 16, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Actually, I don’t think I’ve yet posted on any Zimbabwe threads. So many threads, so little brain.

Et ne moi embarrassez pas s’il vous plaît avec les compliments, mon très bon ami.

Loxodonta on June 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Oh, and using Ronald Reagan as an example of someone that “speaks out against brutal dictators and in support of the suppressed” is a bit historically ignorant.

Nonfactor on June 16, 2009 at 4:40 PM

In times like these, I’ll take Ronnie over Barry any day.

And who would you take.?

Loxodonta on June 16, 2009 at 4:48 PM

Loxodonta on June 16, 2009 at 4:48 PM

I don’t think you understand how the world works. You don’t “take” certain political figures given the cituation; you want that then play a video game. What I’m saying is that Ronald Reagan is certaintly not the ideal specimin for standing up to dictatorships and speaking out against oppression. He was inept when it came to Africa, South America, and the Middle East.

Nonfactor on June 16, 2009 at 4:56 PM

Mousavi is not asking for help from Obama and would probably be appalled if he offered it. Real change comes from within and is not imposed by outside forces. Either the people of Iran have the internal fortitude to change their government or they don’t. We will find out in a few days. Nothing the West has to say matters in the least.

Teresa on June 16, 2009 at 12:19 PM

What a stupid thing to say. Ask the Iraqi’s if real change doesn’t come from outside, or the Japanese, or the Germans or the Carthaginians. Did you got to school?

If this were true, then it would not matter WHAT O-hole said, so he should make a strong statement. He made a weak one, the world has seen it, as well as the people of Iran who said themselves that if O-hole backed Achmadinnerjacket, it was over.

This is the worst possible answer, typical of a former senator who votes “present”. By stating an answer that pleases all sides, the people fight on, but without inspiration and Dinnerjacket feels that he can roll over the people and still get recognized from the U.S. as the legitimate leader.

GunRunner on June 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Loxodonta on June 16, 2009 at 3:23 PM

Oh, and using Ronald Reagan as an example of someone that “speaks out against brutal dictators and in support of the suppressed” is a bit historically ignorant.

Nonfactor on June 16, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Let me guess: High School Junior? No, Sophomore?

What your gub’mint school teacher apparently didn’t teach you:
“Evil Empire” (what he says about race in America is possibly better than his willingness to stand against tyranny in the U.S.S.R)
“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”

There’s an old saying: “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” The only smart thing I’ve seen in your writing so far is your choice of user name.

RegularJoe on June 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM

I don’t think you understand how the world works. You don’t “take” certain political figures given the cituation; you want that then play a video game. What I’m saying is that Ronald Reagan is certaintly not the ideal specimin for standing up to dictatorships and speaking out against oppression. He was inept when it came to Africa, South America, and the Middle East.

Nonfactor on June 16, 2009 at 4:56 PM

He was playing for far greater stakes than Africa, SA or the Middle East. Read a Book.

He strong armed the Saudi’s into lowering oil prices to fuel a economic boom in the West to meet the Soviet threat (See “In the Face of Evil”) while running a four front war against the Soviet threat. He gave the Mujaheddin stinger missiles to shoot down Soviet helicopters which forced a Soviet retreat in Afghanistan (Middle East), He funded the Contras (Central and South America) while Liberals in the U.S. became “Sister Cities” to the Communist regimes there, he confronted Soviet expansion in Africa while draining the Soviet money to fuel this expansion through the squeezing of credit.

We trolls with more education here.

GunRunner on June 16, 2009 at 5:16 PM

Are you serious? That’s it?

He held a press conference.

BOLD LEADERSHIP, PEOPLE. RONALD REAGAN WAS A TRULY FEARLESS MAN.

Lizza on June 16, 2009 at 5:18 PM

He was inept when it came to Africa, South America, and the Middle East.

Nonfactor on June 16, 2009 at 4:56 PM

Specific examples, please. Does no good to make such a statement without backing it up. And it would get extra credit if you could give examples that rose to the level of the threat of the Soviet Union.

And name a President that has been “ept” in your examples.

A please warn me if you are going say “Carter”. I want to make sure I’ve not just taken a drink. I don’t want to spew it all over my keyboard and monitor.

Fed45 on June 16, 2009 at 5:26 PM

He was inept when it came to Africa, South America, and the Middle East.

Nonfactor on June 16, 2009 at 4:56 PM

I’ll agree that Reagan erred in pulling troops out of Lebanon. Once committed, they should have remained. But he provided aid to the Mujahideen, who were (at that time) freedom fighters, not exporting terror to innocents.

As for Africa, I’d be interested to know what you think he should have done, given a country that would NOT have supported any intervention in Ethiopia. He sent aid, and lots of it. He worked within the U.N. to try to end the suffering there. He probably could have been stronger against South Africa, but just as terrorism is the main enemy today, communism was the main enemy then; but he was on record opposing apartheid: “America’s view of apartheid is simple and straightforward We believe it is wrong. We condemn it. And we are united in hoping for the day when apartheid will be no more.” He just wasn’t willing to support S. Africa jumping from the frying pan of apartheid into the fire of communism.

As for S. America, he was ready to do whatever it took to defeat the communists in Nicaragua and El Salvador, but Congress refused aid to their enemies. His passion to help was so great he arguably (though not indisputably) overstepped his bounds by providing covert aid (I make no attempt to defend sale of weapons to Iran — no one is perfect, and you can’t do as many things as Reagan did without SOME bonehead moves).

Freedom has seldom had a better friend than Reagan. If your argument is that he left office without having freed every person on the planet — well, tell me who has done MORE for the cause of freedom.

RegularJoe on June 16, 2009 at 5:28 PM

Lizza on June 16, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Yes Lizza, you are free of the Soviet Union and billions of people are living under freedom because Reagan held a press conference. Please remain ignorant all the other things military, economic, political, Covert Ops, Diplomatic, Strategic, etc. that were going on.

Now go play with your dolls.

GunRunner on June 16, 2009 at 5:28 PM

Actually, I don’t think I’ve yet posted on any Zimbabwe threads. So many threads, so little brain.

Et ne moi embarrassez pas s’il vous plaît avec les compliments, mon très bon ami.

Loxodonta on June 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM

I’m covered on the Zimbabwe bit by citing your “freshness,” et, si vos amis ne peut pas vous embarrasser, qui peut? ;)

Maquis on June 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Mousavi is not asking for help from Obama and would probably be appalled if he offered it. Real change comes from within and is not imposed by outside forces. Either the people of Iran have the internal fortitude to change their government or they don’t. We will find out in a few days. Nothing the West has to say matters in the least.

Teresa on June 16, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Jeez! Did you not read what Ed wrote? Did you not read Reagan’s statements. Look what happened initially to Lech Walesa and his fellow citizens when he initially tried to inovke “change from within”. Worked out pretty well for them, huh? Look at what is currently happening to the people of Iraq that are wanting to invoke “change from within”. Seems it’s meeting with HUGE success, huh?

It wasn’t until Walesa started receiving support from the rest of the world, coupled with Reagan’s pressure on Gorbechev that the Soviet Union saw they needed to back down.

Now, will Leisure Suit Mahmood succumb to external pressure? Unknown. But it is fairly obvious that if left to his own devices, he has no interest in listening to anyone inside his country that wants free elections.

Fed45 on June 16, 2009 at 5:38 PM

As for S. America, he was ready to do whatever it took to defeat the communists in Nicaragua and El Salvador

Err…ummm…those countries would be in Central America (just because they are south of the U.S. doesn’t make it South America)

Fed45 on June 16, 2009 at 5:41 PM

From Reagan’s speech. I cannot find one time he refers to himself. He refers to our nation or the Polish people or to those who love freedom.

We’re not naive.
We view the current situation in Poland in the gravest of terms
We call upon all free people
We’ve always been ready to do our share to assist
Our nation was born in resistance to arbitrary power
So we feel

The false messiah’s speech. It’s all about himself.

And I want
I am
I’ve been
I think
I see
I think
My understanding is
I can’t
I can say
I think
I’ve always believed
I consider
I think
I think
for me
I would say
I would say
I want

JellyToast on June 16, 2009 at 6:09 PM

JellyToast on June 16, 2009 at 6:09 PM

Your post provides an incredibly stark comparison of the difference between a traditional American patriot and a contemporary left-wing narcissist. Beautifully done post. Thank you.

Loxodonta on June 16, 2009 at 6:16 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt1fYSAChxs

I know it’s long, but watch this 1964 GOP convention speech. As correct today as it was in 1964. For you too young to remember this, it’s worth more than a whole semester of a liberal college history course.

Jeff from WI on June 16, 2009 at 6:38 PM

JellyToast on June 16, 2009 at 6:09 PM

**Standing up and applauding!**

Bravo.

GunRunner on June 16, 2009 at 6:52 PM

JellyToast on June 16, 2009 at 6:09 PM

Concise and accurate. Kudos.

mperek on June 16, 2009 at 7:02 PM

csdeven on June 16, 2009 at 3:51 PM

You don’t have a clue about Iranians or their history going back to the early 1950′s.

Bill Blizzard on June 16, 2009 at 7:17 PM

So, what have we got left:

We ppl of US, to form better union, w/ Justice, Peace, defence, Welfare, get Liberty for us & our kids, agree to this Constitution of the US

Here is the Gettysburg Address, presented in Powerpoint, in just six slides.

aengus on June 16, 2009 at 7:22 PM

JellyToast on June 16, 2009 at 6:09 PM

That explains so much. Bravo.

TheQuestion on June 16, 2009 at 7:23 PM

But he provided aid to the Mujahideen, who were (at that time) freedom fighters, not exporting terror to innocents.

There’s no such thing as Mujahideen freedom fighters. They were fighting for Islam, we just didn’t know it. At the time they didn’t have the capability to export terror to innocents as they were busy fighting a jihad against Soviet troops.

aengus on June 16, 2009 at 7:28 PM

There’s no such thing as Mujahideen freedom fighters. They were fighting for Islam, we just didn’t know it. At the time they didn’t have the capability to export terror to innocents as they were busy fighting a jihad against Soviet troops.

aengus on June 16, 2009 at 7:28 PM

Funny I lived at this time and they existed then. They were fighting the INVASION of their country by the Soviets. Or do you think the Soviet soldiers just moved there for the hashish?

Yoda says:

Better educated Trolls much we need.

GunRunner on June 16, 2009 at 7:41 PM

JellyToast
Well done and points to the difference between the two. Applauding!

24K lady on June 16, 2009 at 7:46 PM

They were fighting the INVASION of their country by the Soviets.

The mujahideen were mostly foreign soldiers from the Middle East tasked by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to come to Afghanistan and fight a jihad against the Soviets. In other words it wasn’t their country – they were foreign jihadists fighting for Islam. When the Soviets troops had finally been expelled from Afghanistan the mujadhideen moved on to the jihad in the Balkans to carve out Islamic states from terrorities that were not traditionally majority-Muslim. Religious wars of this kind transcend national loyalties.

Yoda says:

Better educated Trolls much we need.

I’m not a troll, I’ve been posting here for years and I’m better educated on this subject than you are.

aengus on June 16, 2009 at 7:50 PM

Lizza on June 16, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Given who you’ve obviously voted for it is apparent you do not know what leadership is. And because of insolent cowards like you and your bastard-in-chief people suffer.

jdkchem on June 16, 2009 at 8:03 PM

aengus on June 16, 2009 at 7:50 PM

You’re half right. Yugoslavia may not have been majority Muslim put parts of Yugoslavia were. And those “Islamic” states are by and large pro western, unlike the Middle East.

jdkchem on June 16, 2009 at 8:08 PM

You’re half right. Yugoslavia may not have been majority Muslim put parts of Yugoslavia were.

I said they weren’t traditionally majority-Muslim, which they weren’t. The Muslim population exploded in one generation and war broke out. Even then none of the already existing states were two-thirds Muslim so new ones were carved out. You could easily carve a majority-Hispanic state out of California if you gerrymandered it properly.

And those “Islamic” states are by and large pro western, unlike the Middle East.

Yeah cause NATO bombed their enemies for them. I’m sure the Palestinians would be pro-Western too if NATO bombed Israel and forcibly partitioned it.

aengus on June 16, 2009 at 8:18 PM

The McCain-Tapper Twitter had me thinking, “If only…” at least when it comes to strong foreign policy.

Yakko77 on June 16, 2009 at 8:39 PM

When the Soviets troops had finally been expelled from Afghanistan the mujadhideen

Exactly. In the NINE years of Soviet occupation, right? 1979-1988, right? We are talking about Reagan and the support that the USA gave to the Afghanistan fighters to free their lands of the Soviet invaders. Reagan’s influence brought that war to a swifter end by supplying advanced weapons with a limited storage life like Stinger Missiles and satellite recon, right? So all those guys were OTHER foreign invaders who crossed the border, won the loyalty of the Afghanistan people and the CIA and fought for freedom in Afghanistan.

Right?

GunRunner on June 16, 2009 at 9:38 PM

Number of times Reagan used the pronoun “we”: 7
Number of times Reagan used the pronoun “I”; 0

Number of times BO used the pronoun “we”: 9
Number of times BO used the pronoun “I”; 15

MarkT on June 16, 2009 at 9:52 PM

Based on Obamalogic people should have remained slient during American slavery, segregation and other civil rights violations in order to minimize the possibility of reprisals against blacks who were demonstrating. Good thing for him (and all of us) we didn’t. Lincoln he isn’t.

Reality Check on June 16, 2009 at 9:54 PM

O’Reilly floated the idea that Iran has backed off in Iraq and Afghanistan in return for a hands-off from the US, so Obama is doing nothing so as not to imperil those battles.

I’d like to think that. I really would. But still, his words are so flippant I can’t take it.

PattyJ on June 16, 2009 at 10:05 PM

Barack Obama refuses to lend verbal support to the people of Iran in their desire for some democratic reform because he doesn’t want to hurt his chances of sweet talking the mullahs and Ahmadinejad out of their nuclear ambitions. His thinking, such as it is, does not take into account two realities.

Firstly, there is no chance – none whatsoever- that he will talk the mullahs and Ahmadinejad out of forsaking nuclear weapons. Secondly, the only possible way of peacefully preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons is to replace the theocracy with some form of democratic government that is more interested in providing for its people than in menacing its neighbors.

The nascent revolution in Iran should be vigorously supported by all western nations.
The arrogance and narcissism of Obama is standing in the way of progress. Ironically, he is against hope and change in Iran

Basilsbest on June 16, 2009 at 10:24 PM

Obama is a rudderless child.

Saltysam on June 16, 2009 at 10:39 PM

I agree with O’s stance on this. We have no real facts.

It’s a media event.

AnninCA on June 17, 2009 at 12:11 AM

I miss Reagan.

elduende on June 17, 2009 at 12:14 AM

I agree with O’s stance on this. We have no real facts.

It’s a media event.

AnninCA on June 17, 2009 at 12:11 AM

Of course you support O-hole’s stance, because Kennedy’s words: “Bear any Burden, Support any Friend, Oppose any Foe, to Serve the Cause of Liberty” have no meaning to you.

Reagan’s words of the U.S. being the “Shining City on the Hill” have no meaning to you.

You are far more worried that someone has to pay $250.00 a month and $10.00 copay for their medical exam and Medical Insurance.

If you are at all interested, you should listen to the Iranians calling into radio stations here in this Country, it would break your heart.

But of course it will has nothing to do with the “HealthCare” debate.

GunRunner on June 17, 2009 at 1:16 AM

I agree with O’s stance on this. We have no real facts.

It’s a media event.

AnninCA on June 17, 2009 at 12:11 AM

If we have no “real facts,” why did President Obama state, “I am deeply troubled by the violence that I’ve been seeing on television?” Or, “I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting?” Is he being hoodwinked by a “media event?”

And what kind of governments “clamp down on foreign media,” as the BBC reported, because of a “media event?”

Media event: a publicity event staged for coverage by the news media (Webster’s Dictionary)

How many deaths of unarmed civilians, how many arrests, how many thousands or tens of thousands or millions of Iranians must demonstrate in the streets before you would consider this not to be simply “a media event?”

How do you support appeasement and such a tepid response to a tyrannical government that is developing nuclear weapons and vows to wipe Israel off the map? How do you justify sending a message to tyrants around the world that the United States will not even denounce such treatment of unarmed civilians? How do you turn on and off your empathy like this?

Loxodonta on June 17, 2009 at 1:23 AM

Also:

Number of times Reagan used the word “free”: 4 (1 in reference to “free trade)

Number of times Reagan used the word “freedom” :3

Number of times Barry used the word “free”:1 (“free speech”)
Number of times Barry used the word “freedom”: 0

Fed45 on June 17, 2009 at 1:56 AM

He was inept when it came to Africa, South America, and the Middle East.

Nonfactor on June 16, 2009 at 4:56 PM

You need to do some reading on Reagan. That the Soviet Union failed while he was president was not an accident. He became president to deal with the threat and leader of oppression that the Soveit union was to the world. He did that and the world was better for it. Ask yourself just how much is bambi going to do for Africa, South America and the Middle east. What would be more fun would be to ask him over cheese burgers. Don’t ecxpect much more that sound bites an campain slogans.

Franklyn on June 17, 2009 at 5:09 AM

GunRunner on June 16, 2009 at 9:38 PM

Yes, I never disputed that any of that. All I said was that the foreign mujahideen fighters were fighting for Islam. That’s how Pakistan’s ISI coaxed them into coming to Afghanistan in the first place. Not “come and fight freedom” but rather “come and fight a jihad for Allah and be a martyr”. That’s why it was so natural for them to go from attacking the Soviets to attacking the Serbs to attacking New York. It’s all the same to them as Momhammed ordered them to slay the non-believers – Hindu, Presbyterian or Jew.

aengus on June 17, 2009 at 6:05 AM

Reagan also fired the Air Traffic Controllers when they went on strike.
Obama will never even approach the level of Reagan.
Obama is a kite that just blows where the wind takes him.
Reagan was an F-15 Strike Fighter.

Read this from Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Retired)

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/06/lt-colonel-allen-wests-column-.html

izoneguy on June 17, 2009 at 6:24 AM

Apples and oranges. Communism was our sworn enemy back then. Islam is our majority religion and our current president’s BFF.

warden on June 16, 2009 at 12:26 PM

All forms of oppression are our enemies.

fourdeucer on June 16, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Correct – and Obama is the biggest oppressor of the American people.
I HOPE we can CHANGE our president ASAP. Obama and his policies are anti-American. He and his liberal overloads must be stopped.

izoneguy on June 17, 2009 at 6:32 AM

I agree with O’s stance on this. We have no real facts.

It’s a media event.

AnninCA on June 17, 2009 at 12:11 AM

Bull, YOU have no facts on this, Obama has more information than any private citizen and that is why he is not saying anything. I don’t agree with bummers stance on anything.

izoneguy on June 17, 2009 at 6:34 AM

As for S. America, he was ready to do whatever it took to defeat the communists in Nicaragua and El Salvador

Err…ummm…those countries would be in Central America (just because they are south of the U.S. doesn’t make it South America)

Fed45 on June 16, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Oops. Geography is probably the largest of the gaping holes in my gub’mint education. I stand rightly chastised and corrected.

RegularJoe on June 17, 2009 at 8:56 AM

Wait I’ll be right back. Gotta get that ticket off my parked car sitting in my driveway.

johnnyU on June 17, 2009 at 9:17 AM

I agree with O’s stance on this. We have no real facts.

It’s a media event.

AnninCA on June 17, 2009 at 12:11 AM

Wait a minute…….You’re not Baghdad Bob are you?

Fed45 on June 17, 2009 at 10:10 AM

I agree with O’s stance on this.

AnninCA on June 17, 2009 at 12:11 AM

Other than waiting for another opportunity to make a speech where he can reference himself, what exactly is Barry’s stance on this?

Fed45 on June 17, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Reagan had a set, Obama does not have a set. We are a weaker nation because of his lack of conviction.

workingforpigs on June 17, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Wait a minute…….You’re not Baghdad Bob are you?

Fed45 on June 17, 2009 at 10:10 AM

She voted for Obama. Yet she claims she voted for McCain. She changes her story because she is a concern troll.

Geochelone on June 17, 2009 at 6:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3