Posted on 06/09/2004 12:05:12 PM PDT by spycatcher
Driven half-crazy by five days' worth of tributes to Ronald Reagan, some liberals have finally snapped and are now blaming the American icon for the rise of Osama bin Laden.
On Democrats.com - a Web site run by refugees from the Clinton-Gore administration - one liberal academic writes:
"Although it would be an exaggeration to say that Ronald Reagan created al Qaeda, it would not be a vast exaggeration. ... By the mid-1980s, Reagan was giving the holy warriors half a billion dollars a year. His officials strong-armed the Saudis into matching the US contribution, so that Saudi Intelligence chief Faisal al-Turki turned to Osama Bin Laden to funnel the money to the Afghans."
Actually, WABC Radio's resident communist Ron Kuby has been arguing that bin Laden was Reagan's fault since the moment he hit the airwaves on Monday. But by Wednesday, even mainstream liberal venues had begun to incorporate the claim into their storyline.
Wednesday morning the Washington Post front-paged an analysis on Reagan's Legacy that contained this gem:
"Following in the footsteps of the Democratic Carter administration, Reagan surreptitiously supported mujaheddin rebels in Afghanistan in their prolonged battle against occupying Soviet forces. As part of that initiative, the CIA supported Muslim radicals from other Islamic countries. One of the first non-Afghan volunteers to join the ranks of the mujaheddin was Osama bin Laden."
By mid-morning the Post's report was featured prominently on MSNBC.com.
Even Reagan critics on the other side of the Atlantic have picked up this theme.
Here's how Glasgow's Herald newspaper handled it:
"Of course, there was his support to Osama bin Laden, now U.S. public enemy number one. The Reagan administration channeled millions of dollars and sophisticated training to bin Laden and the Afghan Arabs to help them in their struggle against the Soviet invasion, with no thought being given as to what bin Laden might do with all the training and weaponry afterwards. We know now, don't we?"
A Reuters report also featured a paragraph contending that Reagan had helped bin Laden.
Of course, if the same logic was applied to FDR's relationship with "Uncle Joe" Stalin, journalists might blame him today for the deaths of nearly 100,000 Americans who died fighting Cold War battles in Vietnam and Korea. But if the Washington Post has ever front-paged that analytical tidbit, somehow we missed it.
None of the aforementioned media outlets, by the way, have seen fit to report Bill Clinton's admission two years ago that he turned down a chance for the U.S. to take the 9/11 mastermind into custody.
Clinton even noted at the time that he nixed bin Laden's arrest "though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
No wonder frustrated Democrats want Ronald Reagan to take the fall for this one.
Listen to NewsMax.com's exclusive recording of Bill Clinton admitting that he let bin Laden go free.
We funded rebels fighting for Afghanistan against the communists. Usama just happened to be a member. Doesn't wash.
Entirely predictable, since it's an article of faith that Pres. Reagan didn't end the cold war, nor have anything to do with the fall of the old Soviet Union. Since the media outlets are falling over themselves to now claim that he did... Well, y'all can figure it out.
LOL I know. I truly think that after the 2000 election the Democrat Party became the Demented Party.
Nothing new. I've been seeing the argument on & off since 9/11. The CIA blah, blah, blah...
Peggy Noonan was right. The lib media types wouldn't last a week before they started this crap.
OMG, I'm laughing here! They're just filling the air with horsedung, hoping something will stick.
What desparation!
Like Rush says, "for liberals, history began this morning."
Let them keep it up. They continue to reveal themselves for the sick pathetic pukes they are.
They've finally gone overboard. It's fun to watch and don't throw a lifeline to them, please...
Yeah, and Daschle and Clinton complaining about not being allowed to be funeral speakers is a disgusting attempt to poison the funeral and to hammer on his widow, Nancy, for her "partisanship."
What low-life slugs the Democrats are! They desperately want to make up for their Wellstone Memorial "Hatefest" Jamboree by claiming the Republicans are doing the "same thing" by not allowing rabid partisan Dems to give backhanded compliments and veiled smears of Reagan at his funeral.
If I recall correctly, the 19 9-11 hijakcers were Arab (15 Suadis, 3 Egyptians and a Moroccan).
None of them were from Afghanistan.
Yeah. And with all that horse dung, there just has to be a pony in there somewhere!
It is running rampant on the liberal forums. How quickly they forget that they were the ones at the Wellstone Memorial who booed Trent Lott when he entered the hall and they wouldn't allow Dick Cheney to attend. They like to do it to Repubs but they can't take it when it is done back to them.
Grasping at straws. The very public honored funeral for Reagan must be killing the demoRATS leftists-communists liberal wackos. hehehehe
Don't you see! Reagan was off of the radar screen for a long time and he was not top of mind. With all the talk about Reagan they just thought of this as a new and fresh angle. (They are a little slow on the uptake).
Good point in the article about FDR and Stalin! Excellent.
Reagan didn't know what he had in Usama---clinton did, and refused to arrest him.
There is the story.
But, also, I must admit that Reagan's lack of military action and his missle strike into Libya, contributed to the boldness of terrorists. Bush has done a better job of dealing with terrorism than Reagan did, imo. Reagan's sites were set on the Soviet Union. And his job was accomplished.
I would like to see that sign in DC: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
Reagan did what he set out to do. Bush will to, if we give him a chance.
I guess that's why I'm not a leftist I never got the secret decoder ring to figure out the reverse logic, er no logic, talking points.
"What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"full story
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.