Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

"Douglas Brinkley: What Reagan Would Do in Egypt"

written by David A. Patten in Newsmax

Democrat historian Doug Brinkley thinks Reagan would have "turned his back on Mubarak, even though there’s a long friendship between the United States and Egypt....and supported the Democratic movement.”

..."Reagan was a pure liberation, free-and-fair election American. I think he would have been cautious, would have been doing what he could to get Americans out of Egypt like Obama’s done, and to try to embrace this perhaps-Democratic movement that is sweeping throughout the Middle East,” Brinkley said."...

Read more on Newsmax.com: Douglas Brinkley: What Reagan Would Do in Egypt

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/ronald- ... ode=B9D5-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Same thing Obama's doing. Only option, really.

Never mind, skelly beat me to it.

Oh, ye of little scholarship...


There is historical precedent and good reason to accept Brinkley's analysis. Reagan abandoned Ferdinand Marcos when the situation called for it:

"...President Reagan listened carefully. Then he turned the corner: he authorized a message to Marcos in response to threats of the use of force urging Marcos ‘to avoid an attack against other elements of the Philippines Armed Forces,’ and continued, saying that the United States ‘cannot continue our existing military assistance if the government uses that aid against other elements of the Philippine military which enjoy substantial popular backing.” (T&T, p. 636)

At 6:45 on Sunday night, President Reagan approved a second message to Marcos: it was time for Marcos to make the transition from power.” (T&T, p. 636)

Despite the president’s having sent the messages, Shultz felt Reagan had not yet turned an emotional corner with Marcos. Marcos, meanwhile, rejected the message from Reagan and continued his preparations to fight the opposition, calling for his supporters to come in from the countryside armed.

Eventually, Marcos called Special Envoy Laxalt—wanting to bargain. He hoped to broker a power-sharing deal with the new government. “No” came Reagan’s terse reply and Reagan, via Laxalt, instructed Marcos to “cut and cut clean.” (T&T, p. 637) Finally accepting he no longer had a place in the Philippines or the backing of the U.S. government, Marcos made arrangements to leave on a U.S. Air Force plane. ..."

From "Turmoil and Triumph: The George Schultz Years"

http://www.turmoilandtriumph.org/reagan ... aquino.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

native wrote:Oh, ye of little scholarship...


Reagan abandoned Ferdinand Marcos when the situation called for it:

"...Secretary Baker listened carefully. Then he turned the corner: he authorized a message to Marcos in response to threats of the use of force urging Marcos ‘to avoid an attack against other elements of the Philippines Armed Forces,’ and continued, saying that the United States ‘cannot continue our existing military assistance if the government uses that aid against other elements of the Philippine military which enjoy substantial popular backing.” (T&T, p. 636)

At 6:45 on Sunday night, President Reagan approved a second message to Marcos: it was time for Marcos to make the transition from power.” (T&T, p. 636)

Despite the president’s having sent the messages, Shultz felt Baker had not yet turned an emotional corner with Marcos. Marcos, meanwhile, rejected the message from Baker and continued his preparations to fight the opposition, calling for his supporters to come in from the countryside armed.

Eventually, Marcos called Special Envoy Laxalt—wanting to bargain. He hoped to broker a power-sharing deal with the new government. “No” came James Baker's terse reply and Baker, via Laxalt, instructed Marcos to “cut and cut clean.” (T&T, p. 637) Finally accepting he no longer had a place in the Philippines or the backing of the U.S. government, Marcos made arrangements to leave on a U.S. Air Force plane. ..."

From "Turmoil and Triumph: The George Schultz Years"

http://www.turmoilandtriumph.org/reagan ... aquino.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FIFY

native wrote:Oh, ye of little scholarship...


Reagan abandoned Ferdinand Marcos when the situation called for it:

"...President Reagan listened carefully. Then he turned the corner: he authorized a message to Marcos in response to threats of the use of force urging Marcos ‘to avoid an attack against other elements of the Philippines Armed Forces,’ and continued, saying that the United States ‘cannot continue our existing military assistance if the government uses that aid against other elements of the Philippine military which enjoy substantial popular backing.” (T&T, p. 636)

At 6:45 on Sunday night, President Reagan approved a second message to Marcos: it was time for Marcos to make the transition from power.” (T&T, p. 636)

Despite the president’s having sent the messages, Shultz felt Reagan had not yet turned an emotional corner with Marcos. Marcos, meanwhile, rejected the message from Reagan and continued his preparations to fight the opposition, calling for his supporters to come in from the countryside armed.

Eventually, Marcos called Special Envoy Laxalt—wanting to bargain. He hoped to broker a power-sharing deal with the new government. “No” came Reagan’s terse reply and Reagan, via Laxalt, instructed Marcos to “cut and cut clean.” (T&T, p. 637) Finally accepting he no longer had a place in the Philippines or the backing of the U.S. government, Marcos made arrangements to leave on a U.S. Air Force plane. ..."

From "Turmoil and Triumph: The George Schultz Years"

http://www.turmoilandtriumph.org/reagan ... aquino.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Did he do that before or after Iran-Contra, or providing weapons support for Saddam Hussein against the Iranians, or arming what would eventually become the Taliban in Afhanistan, because you know how liberating those folks were.

Professor Native takes it in the shorts from kalm, again.

kalm wrote:

native wrote:Oh, ye of little scholarship...


Reagan abandoned Ferdinand Marcos when the situation called for it:

"...President Reagan listened carefully. Then he turned the corner: he authorized a message to Marcos in response to threats of the use of force urging Marcos ‘to avoid an attack against other elements of the Philippines Armed Forces,’ and continued, saying that the United States ‘cannot continue our existing military assistance if the government uses that aid against other elements of the Philippine military which enjoy substantial popular backing.” (T&T, p. 636)

At 6:45 on Sunday night, President Reagan approved a second message to Marcos: it was time for Marcos to make the transition from power.” (T&T, p. 636)

Despite the president’s having sent the messages, Shultz felt Reagan had not yet turned an emotional corner with Marcos. Marcos, meanwhile, rejected the message from Reagan and continued his preparations to fight the opposition, calling for his supporters to come in from the countryside armed.

Eventually, Marcos called Special Envoy Laxalt—wanting to bargain. He hoped to broker a power-sharing deal with the new government. “No” came Reagan’s terse reply and Reagan, via Laxalt, instructed Marcos to “cut and cut clean.” (T&T, p. 637) Finally accepting he no longer had a place in the Philippines or the backing of the U.S. government, Marcos made arrangements to leave on a U.S. Air Force plane. ..."

From "Turmoil and Triumph: The George Schultz Years"

http://www.turmoilandtriumph.org/reagan ... aquino.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Did he do that before or after Iran-Contra, or providing weapons support for Saddam Hussein against the Iranians, or arming what would eventually become the Taliban in Afghanistan, because, you know how liberating those folks were.

Apples and oranges, k, as well you should know.

All revolutions are not the same. Brinkley is NOT saying that Reagan supported revolutions and would have supported future revolutions. Brinkley's analysis was much more narrow and focused. He is saying that Reagan supported freedom and democracy wherever practicable.

The comparison with the Philippines is apt, IF you take a moment to read the Brinkley article and consider what he is actually saying, and then read the Schultz article and consider the historical parallels.

EDIT: With all due respect to TTBF, it matters not whether the first message to Marcos cam from the Secretary of State with the President's approval or directly from Reagan himself. The second message came indisputably from Reagan and was unequivocal.

The Philippines episode highlights the strength of Reagan's appointments, his ability to listen and make sound and moral decisions, and the consistency of his vision and policies.


...in stark contrast to Obama, with the notable exception of Hilary Clinton's excellent performance as Secretary of State.

native wrote:

kalm wrote:
Did he do that before or after Iran-Contra, or providing weapons support for Saddam Hussein against the Iranians, or arming what would eventually become the Taliban in Afghanistan, because, you know how liberating those folks were.

Apples and oranges, k, as well you should know.

All revolutions are not the same. Brinkley is NOT saying that Reagan supported revolutions and would have supported future revolutions. Brinkley's analysis was much more narrow and focused. He is saying that Reagan supported freedom and democracy wherever practicable.

The comparison with the Philippines is apt, IF you take a moment to read the Brinkley article and consider what he is actually saying, and then read the Schultz article and consider the historical parallels.

EDIT: With all due respect to TTBF, it matters not whether the first message to Marcos cam from Secretary Baker with Reagan's approval or directly from Reagan himself. The second message came indisputably from Reagan and was unequivocal.

How close is the Philippines to Israel, native? That factor alone makes the comparison bunk.

Grizalltheway wrote:

native wrote:

Apples and oranges, k, as well you should know.

All revolutions are not the same. Brinkley is NOT saying that Reagan supported revolutions and would have supported future revolutions. Brinkley's analysis was much more narrow and focused. He is saying that Reagan supported freedom and democracy wherever practicable.

The comparison with the Philippines is apt, IF you take a moment to read the Brinkley article and consider what he is actually saying, and then read the Schultz article and consider the historical parallels.

EDIT: With all due respect to TTBF, it matters not whether the first message to Marcos cam from Secretary Baker with Reagan's approval or directly from Reagan himself. The second message came indisputably from Reagan and was unequivocal.

How close is the Philippines to Israel, native? That factor alone makes the comparison bunk.

Are you referring to Israel as the only functioning democracy in the Middle East?

Do you not grasp the fact that there is a legitimate democratic movement in Egypt upon which much of the current unrest is founded?

Would you please take just a few moments to read and consider the two references?

native wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
How close is the Philippines to Israel, native? That factor alone makes the comparison bunk.

Are you referring to Israel as the only functioning democracy in the Middle East?

Do you not grasp the fact that there is a legitimate democratic movement in Egypt upon which much of the current unrest is founded?

I'm referring to the fact that Israel doesn't give two shits how democratic Egypt's leadership is, as long as they aren't a threat to them. What happens if Mubarak steps down and the Muslim Brotherhood takes over?

Grizalltheway wrote:

native wrote:
Are you referring to Israel as the only functioning democracy in the Middle East?

Do you not grasp the fact that there is a legitimate democratic movement in Egypt upon which much of the current unrest is founded?

I'm referring to the fact that Israel doesn't give two shits how democratic Egypt's leadership is, as long as they aren't a threat to them. What happens if Mubarak steps down and the Muslim Brotherhood takes over?

Well then, in THAT case, gatw, your points are well taken. I agree that Israel fears change more than it embraces democracy, but I never claimed otherwise.

The Muslim Brotherhood could end up taking over, but in the case of Egypt, they are definitely not the only interest group opposing Mubarak. I don't think an m.b. takeover is the only possible scenario.

Reagan did not stop fighting commies in the Philippines after helping force out Marcos.

I am afraid, though, that Obama will not be so tough against the m.b. as Reagan was against the communists. I hope I am wrong.

Turkey is also a functioning democratic country in the middle east... just saying...

native wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
I'm referring to the fact that Israel doesn't give two shits how democratic Egypt's leadership is, as long as they aren't a threat to them. What happens if Mubarak steps down and the Muslim Brotherhood takes over?

Well then, in THAT case, gatw, your points are well taken. I agree that Israel fears change more than it embraces democracy, but I never claimed otherwise.

The Muslim Brotherhood could end up taking over, but in the case of Egypt, they are definitely not the only interest group opposing Mubarak. I don't think an m.b. takeover is the only possible scenario.

Reagan did not stop fighting commies in the Philippines after helping force out Marcos.

I am afraid, though, that Obama will not be so tough against the m.b. as Reagan was against the communists. I hope I am wrong.

I brought up Israel because I think they've played a big role, albeit not an overt one, in how the administration has responded to the whole thing, and they certainly haven't made it easier.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Turkey is also a functioning democratic country in the middle east... just saying...

I thought about that, TTBF, and am willing to consider Turkey quasi-European. The Arabs certainly have NOT considered the Turks to be one of their own, and resented the Ottoman Empire as much as any other.

We would do well to recall that the Turkish Republic began under the iron-fisted rule of Ataturk. Even though there is no doubt that he was a despot, neither can there be doubt that he gave the Turks useful reforms which have so far allowed Turkey to avoid becoming an Islamic theocratic state. ...if only Mubarak had been as intelligent and thoughtful...

But your point is well taken. ...just saying...

Grizalltheway wrote:

native wrote:
Well then, in THAT case, gatw, your points are well taken. I agree that Israel fears change more than it embraces democracy, but I never claimed otherwise.

The Muslim Brotherhood could end up taking over, but in the case of Egypt, they are definitely not the only interest group opposing Mubarak. I don't think an m.b. takeover is the only possible scenario.

Reagan did not stop fighting commies in the Philippines after helping force out Marcos.

I am afraid, though, that Obama will not be so tough against the m.b. as Reagan was against the communists. I hope I am wrong.

I brought up Israel because I think they've played a big role, albeit not an overt one, in how the administration has responded to the whole thing, and they certainly haven't made it easier.

Aw, he11, Israel's role has been pretty overt if you ask me ... although I agree that there is probably plenty more going on behind the scenes.

native wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Turkey is also a functioning democratic country in the middle east... just saying...

I thought about that, TTBF, and am willing to consider Turkey quasi-European. The Arabs certainly have NOT considered the Turks to be one of their own, and resented the Ottoman Empire as much as any other.

But your point is well taken. ...just saying...

that's because Turks, like Iranians aren't ethnic Arabs... but they sure as hell are in the Middle East...

and Turkey proves, pretty well that Islam and democracy are compatible... when the Islamic party came to power in Turkey, the country turned more conservative... but remains decidedly western looking and peaceful...

by the way - because there may be no better place to put this on the site ever...

[youtube][/youtube]

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

native wrote:
I thought about that, TTBF, and am willing to consider Turkey quasi-European. The Arabs certainly have NOT considered the Turks to be one of their own, and resented the Ottoman Empire as much as any other.

But your point is well taken. ...just saying...

that's because Turks, like Iranians aren't ethnic Arabs... but they sure as hell are in the Middle East...

and Turkey proves, pretty well that Islam and democracy are compatible... when the Islamic party came to power in Turkey, the country turned more conservative... but remains decidedly western looking and peaceful...

Although Persian language, customs, culture, ethnicity, history and even religion (Shia vs Sunni) are distinct and separate from the neighboring Middle Eastern Arab states and Israel, Iran is certainly in the Middle East geographically and in many ways culturally.

Turkey, on the other hand, is more like a geograhic and cultural bridge between Europe and the Middle East. With the Anatole sitting on the south side of the Black Sea, and with Turkey astride the Straits of Bosporus, bordering several European states, serving as a full member of NATO, and enjoying a customs union with and associate membership in the European Union, Turkey can also be considered European - as distinct from Middle Eastern.

Considering the last 1500 years of the existence of Islam, Turkey's 87 year experiment as a "secular" Republic - which includes the banishment of any non-Islamic religious training - can hardly be taken as "proof" that democracy and Islam are compatible.

While I share your hopefulness that the Turkish model shows democracy and Islam to be potentially compatible, I see no modern Ataturks on the horizon; specifically none, as yet, in Egypt.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:by the way - because there may be no better place to put this on the site ever...

[youtube][/youtube]

In the first place, I would obviously take Oliver North over Van Jones or any of the other quasi-commies in Obama's cabinet.

In the second place the Contras were and are better that the Sandinistas, including "Danny Gucci."

Yes, I have met Contras personally.

A highly polished orator capable of generating mass appeal through optimistic but fairly vacuous claims while striking back door deals that are often times contrary to the rhetoric. In other words, the ultimate pragmatist.

Who am I describing?

kalm wrote:A highly polished orator capable of generating mass appeal through optimistic but fairly vacuous claims while striking back door deals that are often times contrary to the rhetoric. In other words, the ultimate pragmatist.

Who am I describing?

The word "vacuous" tells us that you must be trying to describe Obama's oration. Although Obama has clearly struck numerous corrupt, back door deals with unions, corporations and Dem-only politicians, his speeches do not generate mass appeal, and he has not yet demonstrated himself to be the "ultimate" pragmatist.

As a partisan, I am grateful that Obama has chosen to invoke comparisons with Reagan, and that his partisans such as yourself have chosen to take up the banner. In comparison to Reagan, Obama will always be judged a failure by the majority of voters.

The "substance" of Obama's partisan and socialist "achievements" are counter-productive to liberty and prosperity. He has encouraged tyranny, incurred unprecedented and unfathomable debt, and is consequently responsible for damaging America's economic and geo-strategic future. In contrast, the substance of Reagan's achievements are the preservation of liberty and prosperity and the peaceful destruction of the greatest evil empire of the modern world.

Obama does not and cannot measure up and will always pale in comparison with Reagan.

1) Would have consulted the astrologers.
2) Would have forgotten a minute later what he was told to do


You're comparison is apples and oranges. The opposition in the Phillipines was pro-American. So no worries about supporting the wrong side. If anything, the Opposition was friendlier to the US than Marcos.

native wrote:

kalm wrote:A highly polished orator capable of generating mass appeal through optimistic but fairly vacuous claims while striking back door deals that are often times contrary to the rhetoric. In other words, the ultimate pragmatist.

Who am I describing?

The word "vacuous" tells us that you must be trying to describe Obama's oration. Although Obama has clearly struck numerous corrupt, back door deals with unions, corporations and Dem-only politicians, his speeches do not generate mass appeal, and he has not yet demonstrated himself to be the "ultimate" pragmatist.

As a partisan, I am grateful that Obama has chosen to invoke comparisons with Reagan, and that his partisans such as yourself have chosen to take up the banner. In comparison to Reagan, Obama will always be judged a failure by the majority of voters.

The "substance" of Obama's partisan and socialist "achievements" are counter-productive to liberty and prosperity. He has encouraged tyranny, incurred unprecedented and unfathomable debt, and is consequently responsible for damaging America's economic and geo-strategic future. In contrast, the substance of Reagan's achievements are the preservation of liberty and prosperity and the peaceful destruction of the greatest evil empire of the modern world.

Obama does not and cannot measure up and will always pale in comparison with Reagan.

You rarely dissapoint.

native wrote:

kalm wrote:A highly polished orator capable of generating mass appeal through optimistic but fairly vacuous claims while striking back door deals that are often times contrary to the rhetoric. In other words, the ultimate pragmatist.

Who am I describing?

The word "vacuous" tells us that you must be trying to describe Obama's oration. Although Obama has clearly struck numerous corrupt, back door deals with unions, corporations and Dem-only politicians, his speeches do not generate mass appeal, and he has not yet demonstrated himself to be the "ultimate" pragmatist.

As a partisan, I am grateful that Obama has chosen to invoke comparisons with Reagan, and that his partisans such as yourself have chosen to take up the banner. In comparison to Reagan, Obama will always be judged a failure by the majority of voters.

The "substance" of Obama's partisan and socialist "achievements" are counter-productive to liberty and prosperity. He has encouraged tyranny, incurred unprecedented and unfathomable debt, and is consequently responsible for damaging America's economic and geo-strategic future. In contrast, the substance of Reagan's achievements are the preservation of liberty and prosperity and the peaceful destruction of the greatest evil empire of the modern world.

Obama does not and cannot measure up and will always pale in comparison with Reagan.

Sure thing, Lee Greenwood.