Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Reagan and arms reductions: re to Albrecht Message-ID: <1021@whuxl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 6-Mar-86 14:04:51 EST Article-I.D.: whuxl.1021 Posted: Thu Mar 6 14:04:51 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 8-Mar-86 15:24:10 EST References: <155@jc3b21.UUCP> <1405@mhuxt.UUCP> <560@whuts.UUCP> <1410@mhuxt.UUCP> <5044@alice.uUCp> <2384@burdvax.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany Lines: 53 From Tom Albrecht: > The only thing worth working > for is a verifiable arms reduction treaty. And that's what Reagan is > doing. We have to keep an eye on those sneaky Communists or they'll try > to get the best of us every time. > If Reagan is truly interested in "arms reductions" why has he *always* opposed a bilateral Nuclear Freeze? It would seem to me that any *reductions* imply *stopping* the arms race at the very least. This Reagan has been totally unwilling to do. If Reagan is truly interested in "arms reductions" then why does he refuse to stop all American nuclear testing while the Soviets have stopped their nuclear testing for the past 6 months? If Reagan is truly interested in "arms reductions" then why did he refuse to meet representatives of the Nuclear Freeze bearing the signatures of 1.2 million Americans asking to stop nuclear testing and the nuclear arms race? He seems to have plenty of time to meet terrorists from other countries like Jonas Savimbi and the leaders of the contras. If Reagan is truly interested in "arms reductions" then why did he instruct the US to abstain from voting for the UN resolution calling on both sides to negotiate an end to the nuclear arms race in the Geneva Summit? As for Reagan being a pathological liar, one can simply circle just about every statement in his latest stump for more funds for the arms race. Besides innumerable distortions, the most crass and blatant lie was Reagan's statement that his defense budget proposal involved a mere 3% increase. In fact, his defense budget contains a 12% increase which remains at an 8% increase after adjusting for inflation. The New York Times previously had an editorial castigating Caspar Weinberger for precisely this lie - I cannot believe that White House staffers could be unaware of that editorial in the newspaper of record. Yet Reagan repeated it and will continue to repeat it until people believe it. James Reston, a moderately liberal columnist for the NYtimes, just recently had a column entitled "Lie Detectors" in which he says the press is fed up with Reagan administration lies on Nicaragua. Flora Lewis, another moderate columnist on International Affairs, says it has become quite obvious from the Reagan Administration's refusal to stop nuclear testing in spite of the Soviet moratorium, Soviet agreement to on-site inspections, proposals by the leaders of Sweden, India, Greece, and other nations to conduct on-site inspections of Soviet testing that the Reagan administration has no intention of stopping the nuclear arms race. These moderates like Reston are generally lackluster and slow to criticize whomever is in power. But they are getting fed up with Reagan's lies. tim sevener whuxn!orb