Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
June 19, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Obama ScandalWatch
  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Tim Graham's blog
  • The Inconvenient Suffering of China’s Laogai Prisoners
  • Serena Williams Slams French Taxes: 'Seventy-Five Percent Doesn't Seem Legal'
  • Bozell Column: Censoring the 'Anti-Gay' Viewpoint
  • Martin Bashir, Who Compared Conservatives to Hitler, Now Decries Nazi Comparisons
  • Bob Herbert: There Would Be Tons of Outrage on Left if Bush-Cheney Pursued Obama’s Policies
  • Liberal College Students Sign Petition to Make Spying on Fox News Legal
  • ABC Hypes Obama Family's 'Beautiful' Vacation, Avoids Any Hint of Extravagance
  • Piers Morgan Defends the Nanny State: 'People Need Nannying'

Rewriting Ronald Reagan: Reagan and National Defense

By Tim Graham | February 03, 2011 | 18:43

A  A
Tim Graham's picture

Ronald Reagan may have won the Cold War by forcing the Soviet Union to realize that it could not compete financially or technologically with a revitalized United States. But to the American media, the Reagan defense buildup seemed like a plot designed to deny government aid to poor and hungry people. It was seemingly the only spending that caused the budget deficit, even bankrupted the country. Cranking up spending on supposedly unworkable new ideas like a national missile defense system was “absolute nonsense,” as ABC’s Ted Koppel told Phil Donahue in 1987.

A 1985 Los Angeles Times survey of reporters found out how McGovernite liberalism dominated the press: 84 percent of reporters and editors supported a so-called “nuclear freeze” to ban all future nuclear missile deployment; 80 percent were opposed to increased defense spending; and 76 percent objected to aid to the Contra rebels fighting for democracy in Nicaragua. One side of this debate had an eye on permanent “peaceful coexistence.” The other side had an eye on victory.

■ “The Reagan Administration has made a bad situation worse in two ways: first, by convincing the Soviet leaders that the U.S. no longer accepts military parity as the basis for relations with Moscow; second, by challenging the legitimacy of the Soviet regime, calling the USSR an ‘evil empire’ doomed to fail.”
— Time’s Strobe Talbott on pre-Olympics U.S.-Soviet relations, May 21, 1984 issue.
    
■ “The [Reagan] administration spun the nation out of its torpor with such fantasies as supply side economics, the nuclear weapons ‘window of vulnerability,’ and the Strategic Defense Initiative.”
— U.S. News & World Report Senior Editor Harrison Rainie, January 1, 1990.

■ “Ah yes. The dreaded federal deficit, created, for the most part, by the most massive peacetime military buildup in America’s history.”
— Reporter Jim Wooten on ABC’s Nightline, January 29, 1990.
 

■ “Some say Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by spending so much on defense that the Kremlin went bankrupt trying to keep up. That won’t wash. During Reagan’s presidency the United States itself became a bankrupt country.”
— Commentator (and former anchor) John Chancellor on the November 20, 1990 NBC Nightly News. [MP3 Audio]

■ “When you talk about the spending during the Reagan years on defense, you’re talking about absolute abdication of responsibility to domestic policy and issues in this country, and it’s totally without regard to the fact that these people were spending hundreds of dollars on toilet seats, not even this advanced technology.”
— Washington Post reporter Juan Williams on Inside Washington, January 19, 1991.

■ “The Reagan-Bush years took America from the heights of a rich creditor nation down to a pit of the world’s worst debtor nation. The reason was weapons purchases. No other expense came close.”
— ABC 20/20 co-host Hugh Downs in an ABC Radio commentary, March 18, 1991.

■ “The Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War ended almost overwhelmingly because of internal contradictions and pressures within the Soviet Union and the Soviet system itself. And even if Jimmy Carter had been reelected and been followed by Walter Mondale, something like what we have now seen probably would have happened.”
— Time Editor-at-Large Strobe Talbott on Inside Washington, September 21, 1991.

■ “People who want to give Ronald Reagan the entire credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union ignore the fact that the Soviet economy was collapsing and the Reagan Administration covered it up...The CIA concealed what was happening over there so they could keep the defense budget over here high.”
— Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift on The McLaughlin Group, January 15, 1994.

■ Thomas Friedman, New York Times reporter and columnist: “Governor, I’m kind of a foreign policy wonk, and it scares the bejesus out of me to have someone as President of the United States, Commander-in-Chief, and finger on the nuclear button who is such an outsider to Washington and American foreign policy.”
Lamar Alexander: “Well, did Ronald Reagan scare you, Tom?”
Friedman: “He sure did.”
Alexander: “Did he? He didn’t scare me. I thought he was the best national defense and Commander-in-Chief and foreign policy President we’ve had since Eisenhower.”
Friedman: “Ask 245 Marines in Beirut about that.”
— Exchange on CBS’s Face the Nation, March 5, 1995. [MP3 Audio]

— Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.

About the Author

Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Tim Graham on Twitter.
  • Hugh Downs
  • John Chancellor
  • Juan Williams
  • Strobe Talbott
  • Tim Graham's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop George Soros

Comments

Reagan and his defense spending

Submitted by Rush to Judgement on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:08pm.

It is undeniable the tremendous accomplishments the Reagan administration should be credited with including but not limited to national defense, but it should not be ignored that the nation's deficit increased mightily along with defense spending. National security should always be a country's utmost concern, but debt is debt.

I can deal with the debt, and while Reagan remains the face of the Soviet Republic's ultimate collapse, his missteps in dealing with the occupation of Afghanistan and the funding of the Afghan resistance ultimately led to an even greater danger... A new holy war aimed at the United States and a new military leader for the movement, Osama bin Laden.

As we look back in remembrance at the former president, it is difficult to apply accolades when his decisions created an evil far worse than Gorbachev.  IMHO.  

  • Login to post comments

Let's not forget,

Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 8:50pm.

all Federal spending originates in the House...sure the President can initiate a discourse on a spending plan, unless the House decides to implement the POTUS' agenda, it goes nowhere.  Much like the recent few years, a Dem House held the purse strings.

  • Login to post comments

Presidents have decisions to

Submitted by Smartypants on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 9:36pm.

Presidents have decisions to make, period.  Any leader makes decisions with the best available information combined with his/her own instinct and judgment.  Decisions that make sense at the time could lead to long term problems, but the long term impact of presidential decisions cannot always be known.  Overall, Reagan's policies ushered in the longest period of peacetime economic growth, even planting the seeds for the economy of the 90s, which Clinton took credit for in the end.  Soviet Communism did indeed fall largely due to the pressure placed upon it by Reagan's policies.  Was Reagan perfect?  Of course not.  Was he the best damn president in my lifetime?  Absolutely.

 

 

  • Login to post comments

Not difficult at all---

Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:28pm.

to allow for earned accolades for Reagan.

Granted, no president has ever been perfect in his international affairs and policy performance, ever; but to underscore so much of today's unrest and danger by tracing it back to RR is a fool's errand.

Or a dyed-in-the-wool liberal's.

MD 

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

A President must

Submitted by dirtydan64 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:00am.

respond to or make decisions on the information that is put before him on any given day and that is the only information he must consider, it's no different than a Judge or Jury in a court of Law, they must make a decision on the information or testimoney presented at the present time and thus must make hair pin decision none of us would want to make nore are we paid enough to make such decisions IMO !!! Regan was Great and though in the forseeable future I don't think there will ever be another but I'm optimistic and have hopes another like minded American will rise just as Regan did.

What we have to deal with on a daily basis with the MSM, talking heads day in and day out is something that must be dealt with regardless whose in office but in the times ahead I think the MSM has made themselves irrelavant by there past perfromance over the Pelosi/Ried Congress and it's gonna take a long time for them to gain back the people's trust and the reporters that a majority of Americans have come to trust now is the Left's enemy of today FNC, Briebart, Pajama's Media and a host of other blog's whose reporting on the current issues of today completely over shadow anything the MSM could every do to a Regan today, especially after Obama is out of Office. It's just a shame the Media of Old before Regan could have held togeather for the sake of the American People where such a President like Obama would never had made it to the Oval Office.

  • Login to post comments

American Strength Embarrasses MSM

Submitted by Boil It Down on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:55am.

Despite the protestations of the liberal media, Amerca's way of governance and it's effect on the world have been a force for good. It has been a thorn in their side that we achieved greater strength in the world because of Reagan's unique leadership skills. We could negotiate from a position of strength, which we no longer have.

Prostrating ourselves before the world is a lousy bargaining position.

  • Login to post comments

Reagan didn't win the Cold

Submitted by bob loblaw on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:15am.

Reagan didn't win the Cold War, it was the culmination of presidents and their policy against Communism and the USSR. Second, most of what Conservative tout today about Reagan is a myth. Reagan increased government spending, and the debt rose to record highs, and he did raise taxes. And don't confuse the truth about Reagan as bashing Reagan, he was a very good president, a great speaker, charismatic, considered himself a "citizen of the world", wanted to eliminate nuclear weapons, lost his first midterm elections, had low approval ratings his first couple years in office, faced unemployment over 10% and a poor economy. Does that sound familiar? 

  • Login to post comments

Weak

Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:55pm.

Actually, Reagan in fact won it.  Why?  Because he didn't feel the need to simply co-exist with Communism.  Nixon, Ford and Carter all thought (in particular) that, well, we might as well get used to the idea of there being a Soviet Union and Communism.  Reagan identified both as a rotting corpse that still oppressed their people and resolved to do a series of things (to include upgrading the military) that would push it off a cliff. 

Your attempt to compare His Majesty The Shahinshah to Reagan is deeply flawed.  See, Reagan didn't see the government as the be-all end-all to all things as His Majesty The Shahinshah does.  Reagan signed the Kemp-Roth Bill into law, reducing tax rates and increasing government revenues, and this allowed the United States to increase GDP by a third in the 1980s.  His Majesty The Shahinshah, on the other hand, thinks the government exists to coddle, spoil, pamper, nanny and baby people, and has signed legislation into law which is meant to turn the government into a Big Babying Agency.  And personally I am surprised that He has not forcibly seized and shut down every single business that is not in the "claen energy" business - the only industry He cares about. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Vaguely familiar---

Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:24am.

sort of like what I have seen posted by liberals, trolls, and liberal trolls.

Remove "nuclear" and "USSR" from your post and there are numerous statements that can be cherry-picked and then strung together to describe every administration from FDR forward.

Sound familiar? 

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Hollywood's version

Submitted by InfidelMan on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:32am.

In the "Exchange on CBS’s Face the Nation, March 5, 1995." The "finger on the nuclear button" comment is pure Hollywood BS. It's not even a button, (unless the left is referring to the Soviet style of control.)
What scares the left is the cowboy mentality and our pioneer spirit. They hate US because we became great without their elitist and enlightened input, their support and without them .
So, here they are, in our country, hijacking our law, flipping us off and telling us that this is the "new normalcy" . They still don't get it. Never will. The left needs to be led around the world by the rings in their nose. They 'feel' they are necessary. They 'feel' the left is needed. They thumb their nose at history because their ideas don't, never did and never will work with free individuals. That's the U.S. I am not a European like my forebears were. I've been to Europe. I've studied their history and ruins. That's there. Not here.
I used to tolerate, not accept, them like I tolerated germs, but I'm finding that tolerance is a weakness to them that they 'think' they need to exploit to their advantage. Not any more. Don't get violent, just point and laugh at them and their ideas. They don't understand mirth.
"I can explain it to you. I just can't understand it for you." unknown,
  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • The regulated states of America infringe on pursuit of happiness (Niall Ferguson)
  • The rationale for wind power won't fly (Jay Lehr @ WSJ)
  • President Obama parrots false 'equal pay' statistic (Bader @ OpenMarket.org)
  • Whose war on women? (FRC)
  • Romney's revenge (Avik Roy @ NRO)
  • Relax, the Arizona voter registration ruling was narrowly drawn by Scalia (Hans von Spakovsky)
  • Snowden loses his moral authority with dangerous leaks (Rothman @ Mediaite)
  • Rapper Lil' Wayne stomps on American flag (Rare)
  • Apple releases information about data requests from NSA, other agencies (LA Times)
  • Five myths about privacy (Solove @ Washington Post)
Chuck Norris's picture
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris Column: The Superman of Dads and Grads
Cal Thomas's picture
Cal Thomas
Cal Thomas Column: Broadcast Nets, Ailes Is What's Good for You
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: If the GOP Falls for 'Immigration Reform' Ruse, It Deserves to Die
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Let People Sell Their Organs to Sick, Needy Recipients
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Anthony Weiner's Underage Girl Problem
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

Audit the Man of Steel?!
more cartoons
  • Slate Says Lack Of Emotionalism Sunk Gun Control Bill
  • O’Reilly: Obama Could Be Impeached If Evidence Shows Intel Agency Read Emails Without Warrant
  • Christie: Obama’s ‘Charm Offensive Should Have Started January 2009’; ‘Bit Late in Dating Game’
  • Howard Stern to Jimmy Fallon: ‘How You Got The Tonight Show I Don't Know. You Barely Beat Craig Ferguson’
  • National Media Skip Over Charges U.S. Ambassador Abused 'Minor Children'
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use