Hitch On Dutch: "He Was Dumb As A Stump"

My defintive send-off to Uncle Ronnie has just been posted. Please read the entire column to experience the full blast of my vitriol. Here's a taste:

Some of us remember Reagan in very different terms. The single moment that most stands out in my mind was the early evening of March 23, 1983. Not a significant date for most. But that afternoon I was driving a dangerous highway back to the capital of San Salvador from the war-embattled eastern province of Morazan. I switched on the AM radio in my rented van and found the scratchy, static-laden frequency of the Voice of America. It was carrying a live broadcast of a much-heralded Reagan speech on national security — a speech in which he not only painted Central America as a dire, imminent threat to America and its people but also unveiled his sweeping Strategic Defensive Initiative, known popularly as Star Wars.

I had just come a few days earlier from a week in Guatemala, where a U.S.-supported and visibly deranged army general by the name of Efrain Rios Montt — who shared Reagan’s view that the locals were a threat to world peace — was carrying out a scorched-earth campaign against hundreds of rural Mayan communities, killing thousands of indigenous and scattering even more to the winds. The devastation I saw was heartbreaking, almost biblical in the scope of destruction.

I had also recently been in what Reagan called in that speech "Marxist" Nicaragua — the second poorest country in the hemisphere. Most of its 3 million people couldn’t scare up three squares, it had few roads, little infrastructure, and what was there rarely worked. Up along the Honduran border I saw subsistence Nicaraguan farming communities bury their young in rolling, rocky pastures as Reagan’s "contras" — the right-wing army led by officers of the former Somoza dictatorship that Reagan funded and compared to "our Founding Fathers" — took their toll. The ruling Sandinistas, given to revolutionary bravado, left much to be desired by democratic standards. But to posit, as Reagan did, that they threatened the security of the United States makes George W. Bush’s similar arguments about Saddam look, in comparison, downright compelling.

These scenes were rolling through my head as Reagan spoke that night. But I was mostly obsessed with what I saw right before me as I headed west on the Pan-American Highway: El Salvador. Here the Reagan administration was spending hundreds of millions of dollars per year (eventually a couple of billion) to bankroll what was without any question one of the most murderous regimes in the world. In the name of crushing a small leftist insurgency, the U.S. stood by as literally tens of thousands of civilians were arrested, tortured, and often mangled and mutilated, before being dumped in one or another killing field.

What was so astounding, so galling, as I listened to that speech wasn’t that Reagan was defending our support of what essentially was the wrong side. It was rather the obviously false, I would say delusional, premise of his argument. The unrest in Central America, he argued, was nothing but a direct product of Soviet (and Cuban and Nicaraguan) regional subversion. I’m not going to rehash that argument 20 years later other than to say it was a downright and simplistic lie.

But now Reagan was going a step further. After imposing a Cold War matrix on local regional conflicts, he was now proposing — via Star Wars — to project that Cold War into outer space. As darkness set down on that Salvadoran highway and Reagan finished his speech vowing to spend billions more to erect a space shield against a hardly credible threat of Russian attack, I felt like I was driving ever deeper into an endless, black void.

If my rant on Reagan doesn't piss you off enough, then see what my old buddy Christopher Hitchens has to say about the Gipper. How about: "He was as dumb as a stump."

More from The Hitch:

Reagan announced that apartheid South Africa had "stood beside us in every war we've ever fought," when the South African leadership had been on the other side in the most recent world war. Reagan allowed Alexander Haig to greenlight the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, fired him when that went too far and led to mayhem in Beirut, then ran away from Lebanon altogether when the Marine barracks were bombed, and then unbelievably accused Tip O'Neill and the Democrats of "scuttling." Reagan sold heavy weapons to the Iranian mullahs and lied about it, saying that all the weapons he hadn't sold them (and hadn't traded for hostages in any case) would, all the same, have fit on a small truck. Reagan then diverted the profits of this criminal trade to an illegal war in Nicaragua and lied unceasingly about that, too. Reagan then modestly let his underlings maintain that he was too dense to understand the connection between the two impeachable crimes. He then switched without any apparent strain to a policy of backing Saddam Hussein against Iran. (If Margaret Thatcher's intelligence services had not bugged Oliver North in London and become infuriated because all European nations were boycotting Iran at Reagan's request, we might still not know about this.)

Comments

[topo gigio]

I don't know, Marchetto. Looks like you're the only one left (no pun meant) who gets his lizard juiced by the vinous mumblings of the Barstool Bombardeer (TM--Alexander Rugburn.

Anyway, it's not Reagan and his moronic turpitude that we should be wrapping in our rawer breath, but the American people who "loved his ass" and their own moral bankruptcy. The latter persists and is pushing us into a black hole; Reagan Roi is now beginning to go a progress through the guts of a beggar.

And let's not forget that at least Ronnie, as a ham actor who became president, was far less odious than Clinton, a republicrat president who became a ham actor.

[topo gigio]

I don't know, Marchetto. Looks like you're the only one left (no pun meant) who gets his lizard juiced by the vinous mumblings of the Barstool Bombardeer (TM--Alexander Rugburn).

Anyway, it's not Reagan and his moronic turpitude that we should be wrapping in our rawer breath, but the American people who "loved his ass" and their own moral bankruptcy. The latter persists and is pushing us into a black hole; Reagan Roi is now beginning to go a progress through the guts of a beggar.

And let's not forget that at least Ronnie, as a ham actor who became president, was far less odious than Clinton, a republicrat president who became a ham actor.

[Louis]

Hey Marc, great article and thanks for the link to Hitchens hit piece. Why can Hitchens be so right about every president but Bush?

[steve]

It is a curious thing indeed. There really is no difference between Bush and Reagan, save Reagan actually worked to get where he got.

[Mork]

Wow! What's with that last paragraph? It's like his head is about to explode trying to reconcile all his sneers.

[Mindy]

He probably had too many straights, no chaser.

[steve]

No doubt they wish that Mondale had been in the White House when the U.S.S.R. threw in the towel, just as they presumably yearn to have had Dukakis on watch when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

--That's the strangest line of Hitch, the one that shows least analysis. Mondale possibly wouldn't have pursued SDI, though Clinton did. I don't know what Mondale would have done that would have been all that important anyhow, the SU was crumbling from within without the US' help in any event. Short of invading the SU, what would Hitch have had Mondale do if elected in the 80's? His sense of Dukakis as a Dem also seems off. My guess is Duke would have given into the Republican pressures to go to Gulf War 1, look at Clinton, he continued most of the Republican war policies. Dems hate being tagged as anti-war, they dread it so they often are more bellicose than many Repubs. And so many of them are closely tied to military contractors' donations, ya'd think the Dems were really the Peace Party that Hitch imagines them to be.

[steve]

A good article refuting the myth of Reagan 'ending the cold war'

http://counterpunch.org/blum06072004.html

[Island Dave]

Marc, you nailed just about what I was thinking about the Jipper...I mean the Gipper. While I have no problem with the ceremony surrounding the death of Reagan, the overflowing crap from most media is more than I can take. Reagan was an awful president whose foreign policy moves, along with his attempt to circumvent the authority of Congress, left our nation open to the abuse of Bush2. Reagan oversaw the downfall of our bitter rival without a thought to the power vaccum such an implosion would cause. Without a serious challenger to the US, and no one to take the place of the USSR, we now wield the power of two superpowers instead of one.

Clinton used this for a great many foreign policy victories. Bush uses this power to pursue a new neo-Manifest Destiney.

http://islanddave.blogspot.com

[Susan Wilson]

Cooper --- let me tell you as I am about to crash out for the night, I did not read Hitchens Article as you suggested, as he has gone astray in manners unknown to me, not in particular concerning Reagan, but overall of late...but just DID read your thoughts - which are of more interest to me, so take note of that if you will...!

I have the most simplistic and sincere thanks I want to bestow on you Marc, regarding the "Reagan Reign" in terms of what you have posted the past two days -- in your personal writings here on your site -- your writings put me back in touch with a great deal of the angst/anger and dismay "I had on the deepest level forgotten from that Era" -- EEh Gads, how did I forget so quickly?..."she said rather rhetorically"...

Again Marc, thanks for the reminder -- now how to live through the endless mind boggling and brain numbing programing in all media outlets till this coming Friday - when they finally put this man to rest in the Earth...giving all of us some rest too.......in every venue.

.....till then, I opt out to pull all and any electrical plugs that transmit this insidious 5 day drama to come...and will only listen to Miles on Trumpet to relax and drown out the bad that I thought, till now, I had put aside...

[Susan Wilson]

BTW - to anyone who might be reading this post...

In Reagans second bid for his Prez election, in one of his last debates or the last debate or even perhaps his last personal "time slot" expressing his views, and I say that as it was a long while ago, and I can no longer be accurate, but he did something I never forgot...

He started talking and went off into space at the end of his monoloque for at least 3 or so minutes, and it was sooooo disconnected I was honestly taken aback, could not figure it, waited for the commentators at the end of that broadcast or at the least, the next day, to say even the smallest sentence/blurb about it, but nothing was ever said.....yet it stuck with me like glue ---- to this very day...

Now I realize it was the quite obviously the onset of his Alzheimer problem -- no, no, no -- I am not in any fashion making fun of him, quite the opposite, and my own father in law currently is suffering from the same disease.

I am only truly curious if anyone here is old enough to remember seeing that moment too, and thought the same as I did at that time...and if so, perhaps might have thought as I did at that time what was the matter with the media to overlook one of the largest gafffffffs by my take in prime time that a Prez could have ever said for minutes, and not wonder what the problem was ???.....

[steve]

.....till then, I opt out to pull all and any electrical plugs that transmit this insidious 5 day drama to come...and will only listen to Miles on Trumpet to relax

--Excellent idea!! Steve Lacy, who just passed, and was a fine progressive man, is also a fine antidote to the commercially driven hype and amnesia.

[Candi Cooper]

Right On Bro !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Michael Turmon]

steve -- I agree, the recent "imagine what Gore would have done" thread in Hitchens' writings is completely vacuous, and it's even worse to see Hitchens expand it to "what would Dukakis have done", etc.

It's just a way to project up HIS idea of what these near-presidents would have done, and judge it wanting.

[Andrew]

Here's the passage of Reagan gibberish from the end of the second 1984 debate (available at http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id366.htm):

REAGAN: The question before comes down to this: Do you want to see America retrun to the policies of weakness of the last four year, or do we want to go forward marching together as a nation of strength and that's going to continue to be strong? We shouldn't be dwelling on the past or even the present. The meaning of this election is the future, and whether we're going to grow and provide the jobs and the opportunities for all Americans and that they need. Several years ago I was given an assignment to write a letter. It was to go into a time capsule and would be read in 100 years when that time capsule was opened. I remember driving down the California coast on day. My mind was full of what I was going to put in that letter about the problems and the issues that confront us in our time and what we did about them, but I couldn't completely neglect the beauty around me - the Pacific out there on one side of the highway shining in the sunlight, the mountains of the coast range rising on the other side, and I found myself wondering what it would be like for someone, wondering if someone 100 years from now would be driving down that highway and if they would see the same thing. And with that thought I realized what a job I had with that letter. I would be writing a letter to people who know everything there is to know about us. We know nothing about them. They would know all about our problems. They would know how we solved them and whether our solution was beneficial to them down through the years or whether it hurt them. They would also know that we lived in a world with terrible weapons, nuclear weapons of terrible destructive power aimed at each other, capable of crossing the ocean in a matter of minutes and destroying civilization as we know it. And then I thought to myself: what are they going to say about us? What are those people 100 years from now whether we used those weapons or not. Well, what they will say about us 100 years from now depends on how we keep our rendezvous with destiny. Will we do the things that we know must be done and and know that one day down in history 100 years, or perhaps for those people back in the 1980's, for preserving our freedom, for saving for us this blessed planet called earth with all its grandeur and its beauty. You know, I am grateful for all of you giving the opportunity to serve you for these four years and I seek re-election because I want more than anything else to try to complete the new beginning that we charted four years ago.George Bush, who I think is one of the finest Vice Presidents this country has ever had, George Bush and I have crisscrossed the country and we've had in these last few months a wonderful experience. We have met young America. We have met your sons and daughters.

MODERATOR: Mr. President, I'm obliged to cut you off there under the rules of the debate. I'm sorry.

REAGAN: All right, I was just going to.

MODERATOR: Perhaps I should point out that the rules under which I did that were agreed upon by the two campaigns.

REAGAN: I know, yes.

[Bonnie Spolin]

Michael......

Don't feel bad! Candi is one of Marc's sisters and so am I. That business belongs to her......How could you have possibly know who she was? No apologies neccessary.

My brother is fortunate to have a friend like you looking out for him. I am enjoying all your posts and now have become an avid reader of your Blog.

[Michael J. Totten]

Good lord. I thought Marc's sister was a spammer? Wow, now I really feel dumb even though you're telling me not to. I should have known. Her name's Cooper and she called him bro.

(Commits seppuku.)

[Bonnie Spolin]

Michael.........

Are you supposed to have a crystal ball? If you do, let me borrow it.......there are so many things I would like to know!

Stop the apologies, okay? What I wrote was supposed to make you feel better, not worse!

Bonnie :)

[Michael J. Totten]

Thanks, Bonnie. Hey, and thanks for reading, too.

Cheers.

[Michae J. Totten]

Heckuva a way for me to "meet" Marc's family. Thanks for being cool about it, Susan (and everyone else, including Marc.)

I hope everyone else in here got some entertainment value out of it. :)

By the way, Marc, my brother (who never posts on my blog, and who only has a vague flickering awareness of what a blog even is) loved your Vegas book you signed for him.

[Recovering Republican]

Sincere thanks to Marc for the best 'reality-based' remembrance of the Reagan reign of terror I've seen/read anywhere -- this piece should be syndicated and run in every major newspaper/internet site -- but of course, that'll never happen.

And along the same lines, wonder if any major editors have asked Kevin Philips to remind us how his in-depth analysis originally meant to verify and support the so-called Reagan Revolution caused him to become a major voice of criticism of the leaders and policies he once worshipped.

This whole orgiastic suspension-of-disbelief and critical-reality has been a jolting (and depressing) reminder of just how far down into the rabbit hole this country has dived, willingly, whole-heartedly and head-first (although it seems no living, engaged brains have followed).

Again, thank you Marc (and 'watch yer back' for we need your clear-thinking mind and writing)!

[steve]

at the current moment kevin phillips is patriotically incorrect, therefore he will not be televised. maybe pacifica will interview him, but don't expect him to show up on CNN/FOX.

[Michael J. Totten]

Sure, Steve. Radical right-wing neocon cabalist puppet-masters like Aaron Brown and Larry King would just as soon have Kevin Philips shot. Mmm hmm.

You're probably right that Fox wouldn't want him, though. On the other hand, someone told me Ted Rall was on yesterday. Haven't verified that. On the third hand, putting Ted Rall on Fox is one of those fish-barrel-bang type deals. Easy and fun. Philips is a bit more challenging. I've read his books. Interesting guy.

[Bonnie Spolin]

Micheal, Ted Rall was on Fox yesterday, I watched it.
Oddly enough he wasn't that prepared.

[steve]

Sure, Steve. Radical right-wing neocon cabalist puppet-masters like Aaron Brown and Larry King would just as soon have Kevin Philips shot. Mmm hmm.

--cute attempt at a rebuttal, but not very successful. i'm with noam chomsky on the irrelevance of conspiracy theory, so the smear of my 'cabalism' is silly--then again you probably think chomsky is a conspiracy theorist, much like you believe for some strange reason that the press is "anti-war". Aaron Brown is a dye in the wool DNC liberalish commentator who bought into the whole WMD scam hook line and sinker. His tributes to Reagan have been fawning like the rest of CNN's analysis of the Reagan presidency.
Let me know when Brown has Philips on to evaluate Reagan's economic legacy. Or anyone else who is as articulate and able to refute the mythology CNN/FOX are giving us about Reagan until Scott Peterson becomes the hot item of the day again.