Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site mtuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtuxn!gdf From: gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Reagan and arms reductions: re to Albrecht Message-ID: <712@mtuxn.UUCP> Date: Fri, 7-Mar-86 15:53:12 EST Article-I.D.: mtuxn.712 Posted: Fri Mar 7 15:53:12 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 9-Mar-86 21:16:36 EST References: <155@jc3b21.UUCP> <1405@mhuxt.UUCP> <560@whuts.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Holmdel NJ Lines: 116 >> 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? Maybe these things aren't in the best interests of the people of the US. Besides, why stop the race when the other guy is ahead? >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. Maybe because he is the President elected by something like 60 million votes and he doesn't want to meet with people who are pushing for something he thinks isn't good for the American people. I guess anyone who opposes the Communists by force is a terrorist, right? Actually, I use a very tight definition of terrorism and by my standards most people don't use the word correctly. >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? Maybe the resolution is meaningless. Maybe the resolution is merely another way to the Communists to press the US to make agreements that are not in the interests on the American people. >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. Imagine, someone actually _disagrees_ with the NY TIMES view of things. Obviously very sick. I believe the idea is that the current request is supposed to be 3% more than what Reagan wanted last year. He is just trying to get back what Congress took away last year. Perhaps this is not entirely clear, but it is within the normal bounds of political rhetoric in the US. It is not pathological lying. >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. One person's moderate liberal is another's far leftist. That's a judgement call, not a fact. Maybe the American people a fed up with the lies of the Press. (Reston has taken to capitalizing press, along with Congress. Talk about arrogance). >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. If Flora Lewis says it, it must be true! What if she is repeating Soviet disinformation? (In general, I'm not specifically claiming that in this case.) Has Flora (however inadvertently) served as a conduit for Soviet disinformation in the past? Can you say yes? (I'll be glad to provide documentation if asked). I do feel sorry for her, I don't think it was intentional. So, you see, it's all Ronnie's fault. Sweden, India and Greece are competent to preserve the safety of the people of the United States now I guess. And if the people of the US (through their elected leaders) don't go along with the latest Soviet ideas, shame on them. Stopping the arms race is the most important thing, right? Even if the USSR could cheat on any treaty, who cares, it's the agreement that matters, not the safety of the US. >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. As opposed to what? Do you think the press has ever supported Reagan? I feel that the press has tried very hard to prevent Reagan from getting elected. In particular, Reston has consistently opposed everything Reagan has done. He _is_ polite and actually wished Reagan happy birthday in his column recently. Of course he (properly) made clear his opposition to Reagan's policies in the same column. If a person isn't grossly insulting, do you think he is a toady? By the way your description of Reston as 'lackluster' is incorrect. I don't agree with Reston very much, but he is the dean of the Washington columnists. guy > tim sevener whuxn!orb