Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 23, 2014 - 11:36am
Facts do not appear to support the contention that Obama's initial reactions to the shooting down of Malaysian airliner in Ukraine paled in comparison to Reagan's initial reactions to the downing of a Korean airliner in the Soviet Union in 1983.
Sometimes, ‘What Would Reagan Do?’ is the wrong question
After the public learned last week that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 had been shot down, killing all 298 people on board, it wasn’t long before an obvious comparison came to mind: in September 1983, a Russian fighter jet shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007. The attack left 269 passengers and crew dead, 62 of whom were American, including a member of Congress.
Olivia Kittel noted that for many Republicans, President Obama should not only follow Ronald Reagan’s example from 31 years ago, but also that Obama is already falling short of the Reagan example.
In the wake of a Malaysia Airlines jetliner crash, Fox News has rushed to conveniently rewrite history to disparage President Obama by drawing false comparisons to former President Ronald Reagan’s response to a 1983 attack on a Korean airliner.
After Fox News said Obama wasn’t Reagan-esque enough, plenty of other conservatives soon followed.
Let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane in case some have forgotten what actually happened in 1983.
After the Soviet pilot killed 269 people on a civilian airliner, Reagan’s aides didn’t bother to wake him up to tell him what happened. When the president was eventually briefed on developments, Reagan, who was on vacation in California at the time, announced he did not intend to cut his trip short. (Reagan’s aides later convinced him to return to the White House.)
Last week, Obama delivered a public address on the Malaysia Airlines plane about 24 hours after it was shot down, calling the incident an “outrage of unspeakable proportions.” Reagan also delivered stern words, but in contrast, he waited four days to deliver public remarks.
On the July 17 edition of Fox News’ The Kelly File, host Megyn Kelly connected the July 17 tragedy to the 1983 Korean airliner crash, highlighting Reagan’s speech in response and noting in comparison that Obama has “been accused of ‘leading from behind.’ ” Fox contributor Chris Stirewalt compared Reagan’s response to Obama’s, saying Reagan’s response made Americans feel “reassured and resolute,” and Kelly echoed that Obama’s response “makes him look unconnected and makes a lot of Americans feel unrepresented.”
Such comparisons applauding Reagan’s 1983 response to attack Obama have reverberated throughout Fox News. Andrew Napolitano invoked Reagan’s response to insist Obama should “get on national television and call Vladimir Putin a killer.” Fox correspondent Peter Johnson Jr. said of Obama, “I think the president needs to take a page out of Ronald Reagan,” while Fox strategic analyst Ralph Peters suggested Obama’s strategy should reflect “clear speech, a la Ronald Reagan, backed up by firm action and with follow-through.”
This over-the-top Reagan worship isn’t just wrong; it’s ironic. In 1983, some of the prominent conservative media voices of the day actually complained bitterly that Reagan’s response was wholly inadequate.
George Will – yes, that George Will – called the Reagan White House’s arguments “pathetic” at the time, insisting, “It’s time for to act.”
The president responded publicly with rhetoric that made the president sound rather helpless. “Short of going to war, what would they have us do?” Reagan said. “I know that some of our critics have sounded off that somehow we haven’t exacted enough vengeance. Well, vengeance isn’t the name of the game in this.”
One wonders what the reaction would have been from the right and the Beltway media if Obama responded with similar rhetoric to a comparable situation.
The New York Times (7/22/14) didn't mince words in its editorial on the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17: "Whoever unleashed a lethal missile not knowing how to distinguish between a military and a civilian plane is not only irresponsible and stupid, but a war criminal."
That seems pretty unequivocal. But if you look at the New York Times' archives, you'll see that some people who unleash lethal missiles without knowing how to distinguish between military and civilian planes aren't irresponsible, stupid or criminal–they're just doing what they had to do. Of course, if you're going to shoot down a civilian jetliner–from the Times' point of view–it helps to be working for the US Navy when you do it.
When the Navy shot down Iran Air 655 over the Persian Gulf in 1988, killing all 290 people on board (Extra!, 7/88), the Times editorial (7/5/88) insisted that "while horrifying, it was nonetheless an accident. On present evidence, it's hard to see what the Navy could have done to avoid it."
Far from denouncing Will Rogers, the captain of the USS Vincennes that brought down the passenger plane, as "irresponsible and stupid," let alone a "war criminal," the Times invited readers to "put yourself in Captain Rogers' shoes." He "had little choice," the paper assured. "It is hard to fault his decision to attack the suspect plane."
Bear in mind that this is not one of the ragtag separatists the Times points to in the Malaysia Airlines case–so unsophisticated that the Times suspects they must have had outside help to learn how to use a surface-to-air missile. Rogers was a high-ranking professional military officer who had at his command the finest surveillance and computer technology that the Cold War produced. Still, it's his "not knowing how to distinguish between a military and a civilian plane," not the separatists', that the Times finds easy to empathize with.
Has the Times just grown less forgiving over the years? Well, not really. A few years before the downing of Flight 655, the Times published a blistering editorial (9/2/83) about the Soviet Union shooting down Korean Airlines Flight 007. "There is no conceivable excuse for any nation shooting down a harmless airliner," it began. (...)
By George C. WilsonWashington Post Staff Writer Monday, July 4, 1988; Page A01
A U.S. warship fighting gunboats in the Persian Gulf yesterday mistook an Iranian civilian jetliner for an attacking Iranian F14 fighter plane and blew it out of the hazy sky with a heat-seeking missile, the Pentagon announced. Iran said 290 persons were aboard the European-made A300 Airbus and that all had perished.
"The U.S. government deeply regrets this incident," Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference.
What do you want him to do? Make a strongly-worded speech?
No. I did not make the post as a criticism of Obama. It was about the reaction of the markets and how his statement was received.
The US really doesn't have a role in Ukraine the way I see it. And I do not wish to see the US get more involved in Ukraine. This is the EU's problem. The EU will do little because of its energy dependence on Russia.
No one has any leverage over Putin. That is the take away. The markets are relieved that little will come of this. Stating this was the sole intent of my post.
Obama spoke on Ukraine just a bit over 45 minutes ago.
Nothing remarkable, but the take away is that no actions or consequences lie ahead for Russia. The market response confirms this as nearly all indicators are reversing their big drops and may close in the green.
It seems that Putin will skate on this, and we're back to square one in Ukraine as if nothing has happened.
What do you want him to do? Make a strongly-worded speech?
Obama spoke on Ukraine just a bit over 45 minutes ago.
Nothing remarkable, but the take away is that no actions or consequences lie ahead for Russia. The market response confirms this as nearly all indicators are reversing their big drops and may close in the green.
It seems that Putin will skate on this, and we're back to square one in Ukraine as if nothing has happened.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 20, 2014 - 8:16pm
kurtster wrote:
Yes you doubt the statements to be accurate ?
Let me just get to it and save you the trouble.
k Do you doubt that the governments mentioned did issue statements at the times stated ?
s Yes they are not true.
k And what do you have to prove that they are false statements ?
s I have not found anything that contradicts the statements in question
k Since you have found nothing to disprove the statement it will be considered to be true.
or ...
k Do you doubt that the governments mentioned did issue statements at the times stated ?
s No, I believe that the statements made are accurate.
k good, then we can also maintain that the government statements were made based on confirmations or verifications sufficient for 3 governments
s If 3 governments make separate statements all on the same subject and there is nothing conflicting then it would be reasonable to conclude that something real and verifiable happened as maintained.
k Since we cannot prove the statements are false, we can consider it settled until contradicting evidence is produced.
Do you doubt that the governments mentioned did issue statements at the times stated ?
yes, there were reports of statements made by officials in various countries.
Yes you doubt the statements to be accurate ?
Let me just get to it and save you the trouble.
k Do you doubt that the governments mentioned did issue statements at the times stated ?
s Yes they are not true.
k And what do you have to prove that they are false statements ?
s I have not found anything that contradicts the statements in question
k Since you have found nothing to disprove the statement it will be considered to be true.
or ...
k Do you doubt that the governments mentioned did issue statements at the times stated ?
s No, I believe that the statements made are accurate.
k good, then we can also maintain that the government statements were made based on confirmations or verifications sufficient for 3 governments
s If 3 governments make separate statements all on the same subject and there is nothing conflicting then it would be reasonable to conclude that something real and verifiable happened as maintained.
k Since we cannot prove the statements are false, we can consider it settled until contradicting evidence is produced.
That's local Malaysian time. It was in afternoon broad daylight in Ukraine and it was about 10 or 11 am here in EDT.
I'm making some assumptions and saying so. We no doubt have at least one bird parked over Ukraine and no doubt have pictures from the satellite in real time. The pictures are good enough to read headlines on newspapers laying on the ground. We have been monitoring Russian troop movements for months. For me to assume anything less of the US is to be stupid and foolish.
I watched this unfold live for the hours before and leading to and watching Obama's initial statement live as it happened and to more for several hours afterwards. I had seen video of the plane impacting well before Obama's speech.
If our government is incapable of figuring out simple things like this in short order, then great googidty moogidty we are in one heap of trouble. I will assume that our government has the capability and did know exactly what happened within a couple of hours. We are watching this area 24/7. I simply cannot believe that our government is incompetent at everything it does. And if it turns out to be incompetence that kept our President from being properly informed, once again, then WTF ? ...
I stand corrected on the timeline. I do think you are overly harsh on the statement.
I have reviewed tonight the Reuters accounts from that day.
Your focus on Obama making a qualified statement seems misplaced. And it belies your assertions made here that first day that we were talking about something unimportant in the scheme of things. Now you seem to find it to be of utmost importance what Obama said in his initial comments.
I have read a number of stories the last few days and watched and listened to Kerry's statements today . I find the US to be pursuing the matter.
You did not answer the question. It was a yes or no question.
dude ... its the nytimes ... 
