Skip to main content

View Diary: Ronald Reagan Caused 9/11 (206 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You left a few things out (4.00)
    Saddam, for one thing. The single glaring offense that caused Osama bin Laden to direct his ire toward the United States was the establishment of US military bases in Saudi Arabia. Those bases were needed to contain a dictator/CIA Asset gone bad

    Ronnie created Saddam to challenge the Islamic revolution in Iran, and George H W Bush lost control of ronnie's puppet, causing a need to reign in Saddam. The other half of the 9/11 equation is Osama's training at the hands of CIA assets in Afghanistan

    if you're interested, I once heard of a military operation called "Hard Surface", supposedly ordered by Eisenhower, and executed in the 1950s. It was said top be the first time America's military assets were used directly to defend Saudi Arabia's oil fields. I don't have any details, except to say that I think it involved mostly fighter aircraft

    if your theory about America's oil dependence being the root cause of 9/11 is correct, then the beginnings of the disaster lie way before ronnie to control

    •  beginnings of the disaster lie way before ronnie (3.14)
      and after Ronnie

      He also missed the 8 years Clinton was in the White House. How can anyone say Clinton did not have an impact on world events.

      •  Exactly. (4.00)
        This is not a one person blame game. Many are responsible for it. The author missed a lot of the facts concerning the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East (which came out of the disgust many respected Isalmic figures felt concerning Western overindulgence, particularly in the 50's), as well as the rise of Christian fundamentalist in the United States (the rise of the Neo-Conservatives that almost matches the rise of Middle East Islamic fundamentalism). The articles also misses the calls for peace by Arabs after years of this brutal Islamic fundamentalism, and the heavily renewed interest in it post 9/11 (strange how that seemed to work the same way in this country, eh?).

        There are many pieces to this puzzle, not one man to blame it on. Some are more guilty than others. If anything, American citizens are also to blame for not caring about the Middle East until a post 9/11 world.

        "In such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners." -Albert Camus.

        by BrianL on Fri May 06, 2005 at 05:49:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  missed a lot of the facts (2.50)
          Lets just say, his FACTS are all one sided.

          But thats how some think the world runs, perfectly fine (didn't Clinton and Carter have superior Energy Policies?) when their guy is in office, and down the tubes when the other takes over. The reality just never hits them that BOTH are to blame.

          •  If it's any comfort (3.88)
            I thought Clinton's efforts at energy sucked rotten eggs.  There was a recognition that we were falling further and further into dependence on foreign oil, but the issue never got the priority it deserved (but then, I'm an energy wonk, energy is always my #1 issue).

            However, he was hampered by a congress that seemed hell-bent on defeating anything that looked like a reasonable compromise.  Watching Kit Bond stand up and rail against the CAFE standards, then argue just as loud that we have to open up the Arctic Refuge... Heck, I wish I could blame Reagan for him, too.

            (maybe I can.  Let's see, connect tab A to slot B, insert wooden dowel...hmm)

            TwoTaboos -- Politics and Religion.

            by Mark Sumner on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:08:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Good answer (4.00)
              but you put more thought into this one response than this guy has put into all his comments here taken together.

              "There are only murderers in this room" - John Rooney in The Road to Perdition

              by jlb on Fri May 06, 2005 at 10:58:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Good connection of the dots (none)
              And if the Dem position on Energy is so good why don't I have a clue on what it is?

              By the way, energy had a solution. The politics just will not let it happen by either party.

              •  I'll give this a try and see if we can be serious (none)
                [This is from a comment to samddoberman about going back to change the 1 I gave you to a 2 but finding that a TU had already troll-rated your comment, and with it the whole thread, out of existence]

                Part of the answer is that the media bought so totally into the idea of Reaganism being absolutely necessary (see Mark Hertesgaard's book On Bended Knee), that they ignored or ridiculed Gore's serious ideas about this matter - he wrote a whole book dealing with the environment and energy - and Kerry's detailed energy policy positions during his campaign. That's why you haven't heard anything about it. And because, as I think you're saying, the energy, auto, and highway industries are enormously powerful and hugely subsidized by us. The opportunity cost of 1980 was that 70's trauma, like the Great Depression, could have made a real change possible.

                And yes Clinton didn't do much of anything about this probems, except of course catch a number of Islamic terrorists and prevent at least one major terrorist act in the US and really try to make peace in the Middle East. But as anyone who reads anything on dkos knows, the Dems have been part of many problems.

                The moral signifigance of this matter is best conveyed here, I think, in BenGoshi's "Last Clear Chance" comment, if blame is the issue more than clear causes. If you have a real chance to prevent something bad from happening and you say I didn't start this chain of events and so I don't have to stop it and can even profit from it, then the effective blame is yours. When I think of Iraq now, I often think of Reagan's budget chief David Stockman saying in 1981, "We don't need alternative fuels, we just need Strategic Reserves and Strategic Forces" - there couldn't be a line to the present any clearer or straighter than that.

                "There are only murderers in this room" - John Rooney in The Road to Perdition

                by jlb on Sat May 07, 2005 at 07:10:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Look I read the enery policy (none)
                  from Kerry's web site. You have to be kiddin if one can call more coal burnin, no windmills in my back yard, and the rest of you conserve for me, an energy policy.

                  An energy policy, if there was one by either party, would GROW, the amount of energy available, in significant amounts.

                  I have yet to see one.

                  The problem with the easy way out is that it has already been mined. Murphy's Laws of Combat

                  by Sub Hunter on Sat May 07, 2005 at 01:09:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Conservation (none)
                    doesn't do it for you, then? Waiting for cold fusion? Or "the market" to come up with something once the Texans have gouged every time they can out of this country? Looking forward to that 6 months of energy 7 or 8 years from now from the ANWR? Because that's about it otherwise, which makes me think that you're not that serious about the issue. If the bottom line is you like - and still like - Reagan's call to uncontrolled consumption, and you're down with oil wars, then you maybe need to come clean about it instead of pretending that it's something else. You might be more coherent that way. As it is, you sound like a partisan Republican trying ineptly to pass himself as open-minded and dissapointed. Best of luck to you - hope you don't have an ARM.

                    "There are only murderers in this room" - John Rooney in The Road to Perdition

                    by jlb on Sat May 07, 2005 at 03:47:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You answer (none)
                      with accusations, not debate. I am for an energy policy that's really an energy policy.

                      I.E. it grows the amount of ENERGY.

                      Think out of the box, and quite yellin your platitudes. Every energy source should be considered, from nuke, coal, renewable etc. But just make a policy that's a real policy.

                      Yea, when I see the dem's say they want renewable energy sources, just not in my back yard. Well. That means they are just pontificating again.

                      Its not an energy problem, it's a political problem. Where is the politician with GUTS, willin to actually do something?

                      The problem with the easy way out is that it has already been mined. Murphy's Laws of Combat

                      by Sub Hunter on Sat May 07, 2005 at 07:33:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Fine (none)
                        you're getting more specific. What mix of coal, nuclear, etc. and for how long since coal is filthy and nuclear - as it's done in the US - is simply not safe from terrorists? (They order these things better in France.) And how much domestic drilling, considering there's not really not much left that's profitable, unless all other alternatives are squelched through politics? And why are you so opposed to conservation, which was the main point of the diary that you never addressed? Great gains were made in efficiencies, and it actually stimulated business. If you're, say, a loyal sub/exurbanite and your lifestyle and the value of your home are completely dependent on cheap gas or if you own an SUV delareship or whatever, that should be made clear. And if you're fine with oil wars for the rest of our lives and beyond, then just say so. But enough of this. Vaya con dios.

                        "There are only murderers in this room" - John Rooney in The Road to Perdition

                        by jlb on Sun May 08, 2005 at 05:21:34 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  conservation (none)
                          Did you notice that conservation was always for the other guy to accomplish? Lets see here, we can tax the other guy, we can force CAFE on the other guy.... Wow, nothing thats a policy, just make "the other guy do it policy".

                          NO thanks. A real policy would not care how I use energy, but would seek to make USA energy rich, thus independent.

                          Also you missed the real point. We can drop oil use. But the political will is just not there.

                          By either party.

                          The problem with the easy way out is that it has already been mined. Murphy's Laws of Combat

                          by Sub Hunter on Mon May 09, 2005 at 01:31:53 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

        •  tall buildings (none)
          Osama said he got the idea of attacking "tall buildings" in the US when he saw the Israelis strike the buildings of Beirut.
      •  JHC (4.00)
        Did you read the entire diary, or just it's title?  If you had done more than perused the piece before criticizing it you would know that the diarist traces the issue's history to a point prior to the Reagan Presidency.

        Second, this is a diary, not a book, the diarist is attempting to summarize a few quick points in order to invite a deeper discussion.  Of course all the facts aren't here.  We don't know all the facts to begin with, and furthermore it seems as if you couldn't do more than skim this short article, why would you have read a longer essay?

      •  yes, beginnings lie way before RR (none)
        OBL has stated, and his followers truly believe that 9/11 was only one salvo in their war, which is really a clash of civilizations.  

        They see this as a hundred year struggle and trace its roots back to ancient times.  For the west, maybe for some it's really about oil, but this is really a cop-out (admittedly, not an easy one) for what this "war" is really about.

        As it stands now, the US (thanks mainly to W) has found itself in a truly "Vonnegut-esque" position where the past, present and future have intermixed, almost at random.  Sample world opinion now and you find a growing number of people who believe the US deserved 9/11.  How sick and wrong and untrue is that? but almost even more disturbing, as we expend our energy here trying to right things, is the notion that some of us can truly understand this point of view.  And we're left to wonder what in the hell is left to do about it all.

    •  "History is the study of the (none)
      improbable becoming the inevitable."

      This story is people's evidence 1.

      Feel free to use the quote, pass it around.  It's gonna be big one day.

    •  Saddam antedates Reagan (2.50)
      Re: Ronnie created Saddam to challenge the Islamic revolution in Iran

      Wasn't Hussein already in power by the beginning of the Reagan presidency?
      I don't doubt that for a while American foreign policy saw Iraq as a good countreweight to Iran, but I think that began earlier than 1981.

    •  re: You left a few things out - Afghanistan (4.00)
      The whole idea to use foreign fighters motivated by religious solidarity was the brainchild of the U.S. Apparently, the most likely ethnic group for an indigenous nationalist insurgency was considered a threat to our ally, Pakistan.

      So the worldwide Islamic jihad was our very own Frankenstein monster. Talk about Karma. Terrorism against the Soviets = "Freedom Fighters." Terrorism against us = ...umm  ...! a great way to manipulate the American public! (Sorry. I digress.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site