What Sarah Palin forgets (or never knew) about Ronald Reagan

[foxpaws]

Joe Conason

She warbles a macho fantasy about our 40th president. But the real Reagan wanted a world free of nuclear arms

Listening to Sarah Palin, it is often difficult to determine whether her remarks demonstrate ignorance or dishonesty. She frequently waxes on about Ronald Reagan, for instance, revered ancestor of today's far right, whose real record bears little resemblance to the fantasies of extremists like her.

While attacking President Obama's nuclear weapons policies the other day -- and the strategic arms reduction treaty that he signed with Russia -- Palin said, "We miss Ronald Reagan, who used to say, when he would look at our enemies, he would say: 'No. You lose. We win.' That's what we miss. And that is what we have to get back to."

Now, Palin usually sounds bereft of even the most basic knowledge of history, let alone diplomacy, but in this case she had already graduated from college by the time Reagan decided to encourage peaceful change in the Soviet Union and rid the world of nuclear weapons entirely. In other words, she might be expected to remember those events, however vaguely, without reading a book.

Reagan's utopian aspirations were never achieved, of course, but the elimination of nuclear weapons was certainly what he proposed, more than once, in negotiations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The actual history of the Reagan era is worth recalling for the edification not only of Palin but of the many right-wing politicians and commentators who blather on in the same clueless (or disingenuous) way.

<snip>

A boiling zeal to discredit Obama as dupe or traitor has led critics on the right to falsify the content and implications of both the START treaty and the Nuclear Posture Review. Their lying necessarily includes a distorted account of the Reagan presidency -- very much in the old Soviet style of making inconvenient history disappear. But facts are stubborn things, as the Gipper once quipped, and the undeniable fact about Palin's sainted idol is that in his approach to nuclear disarmament, he was closer to Barack Obama than to belligerent kooks like her.

 

[shagdrum]

If you are willing to simplify to any degree, it is easy to draw a comparison between anything; even polar opposites.

This blog serves two purposes for propagandists like Foxpaws, it misrepresents Reagan and furthers the narrative that Palin doesn't know what she is talking about.

Reagan premised his approach to Nuclear disarmament on the idea of realistically eliminating nuclear arms as a threat. That is why he pursued the Star Wars initiative.

Neville Chamberli..., I mean Obama's approach is simply to disarm ourselves and idealistically hope that others follow suit.

The two approaches are not at all similar or comparable unless you misrepresent one or the other. That is what foxpaws is doing.

As the "Crash the tea party" website pointed out; leftists will go to any non-violent lengths to ostracize. Integrity be damned.

 

[foxpaws]

Reagan premised his approach to Nuclear disarmament on the idea of realistically eliminating nuclear arms as a threat. That is why he pursued the Star Wars initiative.

At the time of Reykjavik, Gorbachev (and Reagan) knew that SDI was an impossible dream, at least in the form it was presented at that time - as a missile defense system based in space, available to go online within the decade. It is often referred to now as a form of Lysenkoism (and the Soviets would know all about that, since it was named after one of their scientists - Lysenko). Why then was Gorbachev so insistent on adding it in the treaty? Because he thought it was hiding America efforts to put nuclear weapons in space. He couldn't understand why the US would be backing such a flawed system, unless it was a cover for something else. In fact, soon after Reykjavik, and with the Soviets completely understanding the futility of SDI and the fact we probably weren't putting nukes in space, Gorbachev headed back to the bargaining table and ended up signing INF, CFE and START.

And maybe you haven't been reading your favorite - Townhall... where Chapman is quick to point out this isn't disarmament - it isn't even close

Republicans think that is the problem. Through the "New Start" agreement and other policies, claims former Reagan administration official Frank Gaffney Jr., Obama is "condemning the nation to unilateral disarmament."

Those are the claims. The reality is that the United States, after this treaty takes effect, will have 700 missiles and bombers carrying 1,550 warheads. That's enough to turn any country on Earth into smoking, radioactive rubble, and then turn the rubble into gravel.

Yet for the critics, the only thing better than too much is even more. They somehow imagine that an enemy willing to risk being visited with1,550 nuclear blasts will back down at the prospect of 1,560.
<snip>
In practice, reports the Federation of American Scientists, the United States will have to get rid of just 100 warheads, while the Russians will scrap 190. It's not disarmament, and it's not unilateral.​

Reagan's arms agreements went well beyond 100 warheads - in fact, at Reykjavik he proposed to get rid of all nuclear weapons...

Palin didn't have a clue about what she was talking about. She 'assumed' that Reagan wouldn't have signed this agreement. She could be right - this agreement wouldn't have eliminated enough nuclear warheads for Reagan.

Also from that same Chapman article....

The deal represents a modest improvement over the status quo. So why the pretense that it's a big step toward the abandonment of nuclear weapons?

Both sides have their reasons. Republicans want voters to see Obama as an appeaser bent on weakening our security. Obama wants to induce other countries to forgo nukes by showing that the U.S. and Russia will eventually do the same.

Neither depiction is convincing. Both Moscow and Washington will retain unimaginable destructive capacities. We regard nukes as essential to our security, and we don't intend to give them up anytime soon, if ever.

Good thing, tobama is not the first president to envision the abolition of nuclear weapons -- Ronald Reagan tried to negotiate toward that end with the Soviet Union. But the only thing worse than a world with nuclear weapons is a world without them.​

 

[shagdrum]

At the time of Reykjavik, Gorbachev (and Reagan) knew that SDI was an impossible dream

If anyone else posted this I would simply assume they were ignorant of not only history, but how foreign policy works. However, I have no doubt that you know better and are simply misrepresenting things as is convenient for your lies.

Just because liberals have been trying to discredit SDI and Reagan since the ideas doesn't make their lies true. It is a characterization that is both wrong and utterly irrelevant. What mattered was not weather or not SDI was an "impossible dream" but weather or not the USSR truly believed SDI was an "impossible dream".

Despite the public facade put up by the USSR that they were unconcerned with SDI (a narrative that American liberals were all to happy to use to smear Reagan with, I might add) the truth is that they were very concerned with it. It was a part of every negotiation with the US; often because the USSR made it a part of the negotiations. The uncertainty about SDI had them scared.

SDI was a major factor at Reykjavik. If Both Reagan and Gorbachev knew SDI was an "impossible dream" as foxpaws claim, then why the big concern at Reykjavik over it?

As to the other points she raised, it is again misdirection that ignores the points I raised as well as the different contexts of the two negotiations. In Reagan's time, the concern was between two superpowers. The conditions today are completely different; namely terrorist states.

For anyone honestly interested in Reagan's views on nuclear arms, you might want to read Paul Lettow's Ronald Reagan And His Quest To Abolish Nuclear Weapons. SDI was the lynchpin to his strategy. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying.

 

[foxpaws]

Just because liberals have been trying to discredit SDI and Reagan since the ideas doesn't make their lies true. It is a characterization that is both wrong and utterly irrelevant. What mattered was not weather or not SDI was an "impossible dream" but weather or not the USSR truly believed SDI was an "impossible dream".

Despite the public facade put up by the USSR that they were unconcerned with SDI (a narrative that American liberals were all to happy to use to smear Reagan with, I might add) the truth is that they were very concerned with it. It was a part of every negotiation with the US; often because the USSR made it a part of the negotiations. The uncertainty about SDI had them scared.

SDI was a major factor at Reykjavik. If Both Reagan and Gorbachev knew SDI was an "impossible dream" as foxpaws claim, then why the big concern at Reykjavik over it?

Maybe you didn't read my post shag - Gorbachev was worried about SDI because he thought it was hiding the placement of nuclear arms in space... not that it was some sort of cutting edge defense system. The whole missile defense thing was a farce at that point. Both Roald Sagdeev (the director of the Soviet Space Institute) and Evgenii Velikhov (the vice president of the Soviet Academy of Sciences and deputy director of the Kurchatov Institute) had told Gorbachev it was an impossibility at the time, and would remain impossible for decades. Heck, the soviets had been trying out all sorts of missile defense systems since the 60s... they knew how hard it was, and how the technology of the time wasn't up to the task.

So, since we are once again putting up reading material... how about reading Nigel Hey's The Star Wars Enigma: Behind the Scenes of the Cold War Race for Missile Defense

And yes, times are different - but nuclear proliferation by the superpowers isn't the answer. We haven't given up anything of note, but we have shown that we (along with the Russians) are willing to start to disarm our nuclear arsenals. As we remove those threats, and show other countries our willingness to back down, they can also get 'on board'. As we know more about where nuclear arms are around the world, along with the raw materials to fashion them, we are better off. We will be better able to track 'rogue' materials and bombs, those being held by 'terrorist states' because more countries in the world will feel comfortable sharing information with the superpowers. Russia is as scared as we are regarding terrorist nuclear capacity (as well they should be, it is their missing bombs that are a big problem). This is a world effort, because it can cause world devastation. We need to lead... not follow.

 

[fossten]

And yes, times are different - but nuclear proliferation by the superpowers isn't the answer.

Nor is it the problem. The problem isn't that there are too many nukes, but that the wrong people have or will have them.

We haven't given up anything of note, but we have shown that we (along with the Russians) are willing to start to disarm our nuclear arsenals. As we remove those threats, and show other countries our willingness to back down, they can also get 'on board'.

If we show them we mean them no harm, they will see that as an act of strength and disarm as well? You REALLY believe this, comrade?

Talk about a 9/10 mindset. You really are stupid.

Speaking of quotable moments, you just marginalized yourself into the class of the politically retarded.

Russia is not afraid of countries like Iran, with whom they are friends. Iran is no threat to them. Iran is a threat to us. I guess your political knowledge doesn't cover things like alliances and friendships.

 

[THEMOJOMAN]

Nor is it the problem. The problem isn't that there are too many nukes, but that the wrong people have or will have them.

If we show them we mean them no harm, they will see that as an act of strength and disarm as well? You REALLY believe this, comrade?

Talk about a 9/10 mindset. You really are stupid.

That remark about buying shoes that cost more than some other guy makes REALLY shows what kind of person they are. SAM WALTON drove an older pickup truck.

 

[fossten]

That remark about buying shoes that cost more than some other guy makes REALLY shows what kind of person they are. SAM WALTON drove an older pickup truck.

There's another in the quotes thread where she admits she's a snob. Talk about marginalizing oneself.

She puts a lot of weight into her income. Let's hope for her sake her income doesn't go away or she might be slitting her wrists.

 

[shagdrum]

Maybe you didn't read my post shag - Gorbachev was worried about SDI because he thought it was hiding the placement of nuclear arms in space... not that it was some sort of cutting edge defense system.

Another misleading lie. He was concerned about both possibilities.

However, the fact that the USSR was scared of SDI negates your deceptive narrative.

And yes, times are different - but nuclear proliferation by the superpowers isn't the answer.

And as Fossten pointed out it is not the problem either. This is nothing more the a red herring.

The problem is where nukes threaten to get into terrorist's hands or the hands or rouge nations like Iran.

We haven't given up anything of note, but we have shown that we (along with the Russians) are willing to start to disarm our nuclear arsenals.

APPEASEMENT NEVER WORKS. Just ask Nevile Chamberlain. Only strength through power works.

However, this does confirm my point on Obama's approach (which you previously denied).

As we remove those threats, and show other countries our willingness to back down, they can also get 'on board'.

Or they can refuse get on board. This whole approach assumes that other nations will get on board. In making that assumption, especially with regards to our enemies, that approach is nothing more then dangerous, naive idealism.

It only demonstrates weakness and gullibility.

All you have done here is restate liberal talking points. It seems that is all you are going to be able to do here...

It is worth noting that in this post you have accepted the points I made concerning the difference between Reagan's approach and Obama's approach even though your initial posts purposely ignored that distinction. In short, you confirmed that you were attempting to mislead.

 

[foxpaws]

Another misleading lie. He was concerned about both possibilities.

However, the fact that the USSR was scared of SDI negates your deceptive narrative.

Hardly - the Soviets knew from experience that SDI, as a missile defense system, was technologically impossible for decades, because they had been working on similar systems for over 20 years, they had decades of experience before we even started our blueprints. They weren't worried about the 'facade' of SDI.

Yes, they were worried about nukes in space - but, they were willing to dismiss all nukes. So was Ronnie, but he held onto SDI - the Soviets figured that it was an end-around the 'no nukes' policy. They believed we would be hiding and deploying nuclear warheads from space. For the Soviets it was as though the US wasn't going to be bound by the treaty - that we would cheat and still have nuclear weapons in space.

They weren't worried about the deployment (SDI), they were worried that the nuclear playing field wouldn't be even. The Soviets would have given up their nuclear arsenal, and the US would have continued to have nukes, unaccounted for, in space.

In their eyes it wasn't 'fair'. They thought that Ronnie was going to hide something, not that the US was stronger because of SDI.

And as Fossten pointed out it is not the problem either. This is nothing more the a red herring.

The problem is where nukes threaten to get into terrorist's hands or the hands or rouge nations like Iran.

So, if nuclear proliferation by the superpowers isn't the problem then why is ridding ourselves of a few old warheads a problem? We show we are willing to lessen our arsenal, Russia shows it is willing to lessen their arsenal, and we both open ourselves up to 3rd party review.

With fewer nukes, there are fewer opportunities for terrorists to 'acquire' one. If more countries now open themselves up to nuclear review by 3rd parties, more material will be accounted for and tracked.

This show of faith basically cost us nothing. Our nuclear arsenal is aging, and removing 100 old warheads is nothing more than good housekeeping at this point.

APPEASEMENT NEVER WORKS. Just ask Nevile Chamberlain. Only strength through power works.

This is ridiculous. We always bargain from a point of 'power'. We have, by far, the strongest, most advanced military on the planet (well, except for tanks - for some reason the Russians love their tanks). Our military might is unmatched. We have 21 AC - our closest competitor - France... with 4. Nuclear subs - 71, Russia lags far behind with 40. In the air, we are more even, but the US certainly continues to have 2 to one advantage in fighter planes, bombers - less - the Chinese have invested in air, instead of sea power. We have, since the cold war, been the only 'superpower' with regards to overall military might.

And between the US and Russia we have over 21,000 nuclear weapons, 7,000 of which are active. The rest of the world... less than 1,000 weapons, about 800 active.

Or they can refuse get on board. This whole approach assumes that other nations will get on board. In making that assumption, especially with regards to our enemies, that approach is nothing more then dangerous, naive idealism.

Idealism comes at a cost of basically nothing... The rest of the world still lives in the shadow of the US and the Soviet Union with regards to nuclear power - and if by ridding the world of 300 warheads, something good happens - well great... if not - our house is a little cleaner.

It only demonstrates weakness and gullibility.

How- how can the US be looked upon as weak. You think for a moment that the rest of the world sees us as anything other than the biggest bully in the schoolyard?

It is worth noting that in this post you have accepted the points I made concerning the difference between Reagan's approach and Obama's approach even though your initial posts purposely ignored that distinction. In short, you confirmed that you were attempting to mislead.

During Reagan's time the military might of the Soviets was somewhat unknown, Reagan didn't know for certain if he was betting while holding the best hand. That is why he held onto SDI. He wanted the upper hand, a bargaining chip that he felt the Soviets didn't have. He knew the soviets probably had more nuclear weapons (as they still do), so SDI was a way to offset that imbalance. In Obama's case he knows he is dealing with the best hand. We are the strongest in the world. He can bargain consistently from a point of strength. He isn't showing weakness - that would be pretty difficult to do, since no one else matches us, he is showing a willingness to work with other countries for everyone's benefit. It is to everyone's benefit to find out where the missing nukes are, to control the raw materials, and to bring down the number of nuclear weapons in the world. Fewer weapons - less chance of misplacing one. Less chance of terrorists getting one.

Shag - if you are the best armed guy in the schoolyard, any time you talk to another student, you are automatically starting as the strongest. If you say - I'll throw away one of my 10 guns, (easy to do because the guy he is talking to only has a plastic spoon) you haven't shown weakness.

 

[fossten]

This is ridiculous. We always bargain from a point of 'power'. We have, by far, the strongest, most advanced military on the planet (well, except for tanks - for some reason the Russians love their tanks). Our military might is unmatched. We have 21 AC - our closest competitor - France... with 4. Nuclear subs - 71, Russia lags far behind with 40. In the air, we are more even, but the US certainly continues to have 2 to one advantage in fighter planes, bombers - less - the Chinese have invested in air, instead of sea power. We have, since the cold war, been the only 'superpower' with regards to overall military might.

And between the US and Russia we have over 21,000 nuclear weapons, 7,000 of which are active. The rest of the world... less than 1,000 weapons, about 800 active.

Blah blah blah...Wow. Brevity is something you're completely unfamiliar with. You should applaud Shag for being willing to read your unending swill. I'm certain very few people are interested in your infinite screeds. If this isn't a prime example of 'blithering,' I don't know what is.

And yet...one single incident known as Black Hawk Down convinces Osama bin Laden that this mighty country is a paper tiger and he orchestrates 9/11. Something is wrong with your analysis, and I'm pretty sure it's your knowledge of history.

Shag gave you a historical example and you responded with a red herring. Your logic FAILS.
If appeasement makes so much sense to you, surely you can find some examples of where it has worked historically. France comes to mind - oh, wait...

Once again, you FAIL to understand the mindset of our enemies. You naively apply your twisted sense of appeasement logic to your perceived blank slate of their psyches. It's a mistake that all idiots make - not understanding geopolitics and how two bit dictators view certain behaviors as acts of weakness.

 

[fossten]

He isn't showing weakness

Who looks stronger?