LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.Best Political Blog Winner, 2007 Webby Awards, People's Voice and Jury.   Maggie Award Winning Truthdig Book Reviews
 
May 17, 2008
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Reports

Arts & Culture

Digs
Inside the Data Mine

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Reports

The GOP’s Reaganesque Tall Tales

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on May 10, 2007

By Joe Conason

Sensing their own smallness, contemporary politicians often seek to puff themselves up by appealing to myth and legend. For Republicans, there is no mythology more appealing than that of Ronald Wilson Reagan, as the party’s presidential candidates eagerly demonstrated during their May 3 debate in the library that bears his name.

Those charmless imitators seem to believe that the late president’s image can not only win primary votes but vanquish America’s enemies. As Rudolph Giuliani explained, a Reaganesque glare should be enough to scare the Iranian despot into surrendering any nuclear ambitions: “He has to look at an American president and he has to see Ronald Reagan. Remember, they looked in Ronald Reagan’s eyes, and in two minutes, they released the hostages.”

Such belligerent invocations of the old actor are standard fare on the GOP primary circuit. The actual circumstances of American relations with Iran during the Reagan years—and indeed of security policy in general back then—were more complex and less inspirational.

The tough gunslinger described by the Republican candidates resembles the real Reagan about as accurately as his movie roles resembled his real life. It was strange to hear him mentioned in the context of Iran, the scene of the worst foreign-policy fiasco of his administration—and the topic that most clearly demonstrates the distance between right-wing fantasy and historical reality.

And it was especially strange to hear those words uttered by Giuliani, who wants everyone to remember that he once served as a top official in the Reagan Justice Department, yet seems to have forgotten the criminal case and constitutional crisis known as the Iran-Contra affair. But let’s begin at the beginning.

Available evidence strongly indicates that when the Iranian regime released American hostages in January 1981, within hours of the first Reagan inauguration, that decision had nothing to do with fear of the new president and everything to do with a pre-arranged deal. While no proof of that plot has ever emerged, the covert sequel that commenced three years later certainly arouses suspicion.

Between 1984 and 1986, the Reagan administration tried to free American hostages in Lebanon from their Shiite captors, not by confronting the terrorists militarily but by negotiating with their presumed Iranian sponsors. By then, Reagan had already retreated from Lebanon, withdrawing the Marines after the terrorist bombing of their Beirut barracks had claimed 241 American lives.

Instead of retaliating against Iran or any of the organizations that claimed responsibility for the Lebanon attack, Reagan approved a secret initiative to “improve relations” with the Iranian leadership by shipping advanced missiles to them. The immediate objective was to get the Iranians to lean on Hezbollah in Lebanon to release a group of six American hostages.

National Security Adviser Robert (Bud) McFarlane visited Tehran, carrying a Koran and a cake as tokens of presidential esteem. Meanwhile, the profits from the arms transactions—conducted by private citizens working with White House and CIA personnel—were diverted to finance the Contra rebellion in Nicaragua.

These bizarre intrigues breached U.S. law and policy in myriad ways, including repeated violations of the statute forbidding aid to regimes that support terrorism. At first Reagan tried to deny that he had “traded arms for hostages,” then reluctantly confessed many months later, while seeking to blame his subordinates.

Although there was much more to the amazing scandal that nearly ended Reagan’s presidency—including the starring role of neoconservatives who have since masterminded another and worse disaster—the basic outline is clear: Terrorists killed our troops, and Reagan responded by retreating from Lebanon, kowtowing to the terrorists’ sponsors, meeting their demand for advanced weapons and pleading for the release of our hostages.

It is easy to imagine how the Republicans would have reacted to this kind of behavior by a Democratic president—and how they would recall such behavior today. Words such as “strong” and “resolute” would not leap to their lips.

With Reagan, however, myth replaces memory. The truth is that he saved his presidency by ousting the hawks and neoconservatives who had almost destroyed it, and by entering into the unprecedented negotiations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that helped to end the Cold War peacefully. For that momentous decision, he suffered angry public attacks by many of the same conservatives who lionize him today.

The macho posturing in Reagan’s name is comical and demeaning, but not without danger. Let’s hope this is all just campaign bluster—and that none of the pretenders who may someday achieve power believe in their own fakery.

Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer.

© 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Email Newsletter

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.

Previous item: Give Moms Their Due -- They've Earned It

Next item: The Good American

Jump to Comments

Advertisement


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By Skruff, May 22, 2007 at 5:26 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

When Reagan is mentioned by either those who love him, or those who do not, there is a HUGE hole in the conversation where the Army-McCarthy hearings should be. 

Reagan ratted out his friends and submitted testimony which ruined several careers, and proved his yellow-dog run with the pack mentality.

I believe if Carter had made an issue of this in 1980, the world would be a different place BUT as mentioned below, the left can’t play in the big sandbox.

Reply to this | Report this

By Shag, May 21, 2007 at 6:40 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Joe,
Excellent reporting, as usual. I miss you on Al Franken’s AirAmerica show. I looked forward to that every Friday. I would love to know where to find that info on the those neocons who say said used to demonize Reagan, and are now praising him.

Reply to this | Report this

By Jim, May 16, 2007 at 1:23 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

He always has been depicted as larger than life. Though the media has always ignored Bush’s many failures, Bush is alwsys depicted as small in editorial cartoons while Reagan was always larger than life. Bluster and personality has always meant more than substance in American public life. Look at Donald Trump.

Reply to this | Report this

By Lefty, May 14, 2007 at 5:58 am #
(952 comments total)

Re: #69690 by Skruff on 5/13 at 8:06 am
(Unregistered commenter)

* * *
So the left says they don’t want to “play dirty” well, guess that’s tough for those of us who would like to see a left turn.  Politics is a dirty game...we (on the left) better find someone who knows how to play....or....get used to losing market share.
---------------------------------------------------
Here here, Skruff! That’s why Bill and Hillary are so successful, and so hated by the fascist/republicans.  Not that Bill and Hillary are anything close to liberal, but, they can play as dirty as any republican scum.

Reply to this | Report this

By Allan Wheeler, May 13, 2007 at 9:48 pm #
(21 comments total)

And please don’t forget that Reagan started the deregulation of media ownership.
Certainly this one thing is most responsible for the dumbing-down of the American voter.
However, I agree that we should not bash Reagan as part of a winning strategy. Why bother? There are still too many people who are unable/unwilling to connect the dots from his administration to the present band of thieves. There is more than enough corruption in the present administration to hang every last one of them as traitors.

Reply to this | Report this

By Ga, May 13, 2007 at 7:41 pm #
(178 comments total)

The Republicans cannot be elected on or by the truth. They can only speak in broad and general “values” terminology, i.e. propaganda—“glittering generalities” is their stock and trade.

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.wg.gg.html

Reagan gave great speeches. That was all.

The Republican public at large are just easily swayed by “glittering generalities.” The Republican public at large are those kinds of people who can be lead to vote simply by “evocation of a belief.” That is all.

Reply to this | Report this

By Skruff, May 13, 2007 at 8:06 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

I must say I share the blame I am about to heap of political activists of all stripes. 

Most folks just want to go about their daily lives, make enough money to pay the rent, and put their children through college, and retire in a sunny-warm place.

Iran Contra, NAFTA, The hunger on the horn of Africa are too big for them. 

The right made a advertising jingle, or bumper-sticker length case for the general vote. AND they got it.  I Knew Reagan had won six months before the election when Atwater first unleashed the “It’s morning in America” ads. I hated Reagan and those ads put tears in my eyes.... You have to remember that many of us were out of work during the Carter years...not his fault, BUt definetly his burden. so Massachusetts, the only State to vote for George McGovern, gave Reagan it’s vote twice.  Oh, BTW Reagan’s defense build up put Massachusetts back to work… no doubt about that…

So the left says they don’t want to “play dirty” well, guess that’s tough for those of us who would like to see a left turn.  Politics is a dirty game...we (on the left) better find someone who knows how to play....or....get used to losing market share.

Reply to this | Report this

By Ernest Canning, May 12, 2007 at 8:16 am #
(1624 comments total)

Re comment #69486 by G. Anderson.  Mr. Anderson’s observation that Ronald Reagan simply told Americans stories they wanted to hear reminded me of Reagan’s moniker as the “Teflon President.” Then it dawned on me.  This current crop of Republi-crooks are simply an assembly of craftsmen applying a new coat of Teflon to what long ago should have been a thoroughly tarnished image.

Reply to this | Report this

By G. Anderson, May 11, 2007 at 11:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s easy to believe in lies, they are so safe, so comforting. People always vote it seems, for pretty lies, because you don’t have to do anything about them, you just have to believe.

This is the legacy of Ronald Reagan, he was a great story teller, nothing more. He told Americans the story that they wanted to hear, that we were good, and the Commies were bad. He made people, believe in America again, and it was so very comforting.

His happy talk was so powerful, that even now Republicans, in what could be their darkest moment cling to it, like a child clings to a Teddy Bear during a terrible nightmare.

The truth on the other hand, takes some effort, some hard work and some guts. Time will tell, whether or not the Democratic party is up to the task at hand.

Reply to this | Report this

By Verne Arnold, May 11, 2007 at 6:46 pm #
(494 comments total)

Re #69356 Ernest Canning

Yes, this nation of sheep must wake up.  “Electable” is unfortunately the byword for the sheep and will rule the next election.  Certainly Gravel and Kucinich are honorable but are off the radar of the general population.  I am abhored by the shallowness and passivity of my fellow Americans.  I was in the streets against the war in Viet Nam.  Where is that passion during the great danger; the devil walks among us.

Nixon was a piker compared to this administration and yet the people act as if it’s just another day.  Our democracy is mortally wounded, but not because of Bush; it’s because the people have allowed it to be stolen by the corporatists.  By Musollini’s own definition “fascism is more correctly called corporitism”.

Reply to this | Report this

By Salvatore R. DeBlasi, May 11, 2007 at 6:34 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

The aticle left out one very important myth about Ronnie.  At their Presidential Convention in Albany (held in Sept. 1984)the N.Y. State Right To Life Party (the most savvy pro-lifers in the nation) did NOT give Reagan-Bush their Presidential-Vice Presidential endorsement--they preferred to leave the line BLANK, despite heavy GOP pressure to tgive the line to Ronnie & Papa Bush.(But how can you report facts you are ignorant of?  You’re forgiven).

Reply to this | Report this

By Ernest Canning, May 11, 2007 at 8:00 am #
(1624 comments total)

Re comment #69324 by Verne Arnold.  The concept of “electable” candidates is a ploy of the conglomerated corporate media pundits used to dissuade voters from looking at the substance of where candidates stand on issues that are truly important to the vast majority of Americans--the middle and working classes.  “Coverage” is limited to those candidates who are acceptable to the military-industrial complex--the same candidates whose campaign coffers swell with the corporate dollars needed to buy expensive but meaninigless 30-second spot ads on TV.  They will talk about money.  They will talk about polls.  When they do that they don’t have to talk about what is important.

It is time for all of us to stop being passive consumers who limit our choices to the packaged commodities (aka “leading candidates) that the corporate media places before us.  Instead, each American needs to assume the responsibility of active citizenship.  Go to the web sites of each candidate.  Compare what they say (or don’t say) about issues that truly matter.  (Try Kucinich.us).  Instead of permitting the corporate media to limit your choice to the so-called “electable” candidates, you decide on the basis of substance.  Only when each of us does that will we achieve the democracy envisioned by this nation’s founders.

Reply to this | Report this

By Lefty, May 11, 2007 at 6:22 am #
(952 comments total)

Re: #69272 by kevin99999 on 5/10 at 8:44 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

The myth about Reagan, the old actor who couldnt answer even the simplest of questions, is just that, a myth created by corporate America who was the beneficiary of his administration’s policies. As Cuomo once said, the Reagan’s biggest achievement was that he made us feel good about poverty in our midst. Why is that every Republican administration since Nixon has created a constitutional crisis. Its because they don’t give a damn about constitution, individual freedom or the like though they give a lot of lip service. The Republican party has nothing to offer.
-----------------------------------------------------
Ronald Reagan initiated the rise of fascism in America.  Although Nixon was certainly a fascist, it was Reagan’s de-regulation movement which was the catalist for the corporate takover of the federal, state and local governments.  He was, IMHO, the third most destructive president, in U.S. history behind GHWB and GWB.

Reply to this | Report this

By Verne Arnold, May 11, 2007 at 4:33 am #
(494 comments total)

Obviously the Republicans are delusional.  Iran contra alone should be enough, but to that one can add the Iranian hostage crisis and Grenada...get a grip guys.

I only wish there was an actual, honest, straight talking, “ELECTABLE” candidate out there...there isn’t!  We are doomed!!

Reply to this | Report this

By JNagarya, May 11, 2007 at 12:16 am #
(289 comments total)

“#69241 by Hank Van den Berg on 5/10 at 5:51 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

“I notice others who have responded are anxious to bash Reagan.  True, Reagan was not anywhere near as good a president as he is made out to be, but let’s keep the current administration in focus.  The fact is, despite his many mistakes, he would eventually admit a mistake, he could reverse a policy, and he proved to not be a war monger.  Let’s stick to the point of the article: The current neocons and Republican candidates are completely misrepresenting Reagan.”

My favorite memory of Reagan was when, on live TeeVee—wearing his suit jacket—he wagged his finger at the camera and said, “I never had sex with those terrorists to whom I gave the stinger missiles in violation of the Trading with the Enemy Act.”

I can still hear the Republicans cheer, and see them waving red-white-and-blue flags to blurs, and tossing their hats in the air: he didn’t have sex.

Reply to this | Report this

By rowdy, May 10, 2007 at 9:02 pm #
(300 comments total)

One always picks the easy fight
One praises fools, one smothers light
One shifts from left to right
Politics, the art of the possible.
ronald reagan,the hack actor whose most memorable role was playing president. no oscar nomination.

Reply to this | Report this

By kevin99999, May 10, 2007 at 8:44 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

The myth about Reagan, the old actor who couldnt answer even the simplest of questions, is just that, a myth created by corporate America who was the beneficiary of his administration’s policies. As Cuomo once said, the Reagan’s biggest achievement was that he made us feel good about poverty in our midst. Why is that every Republican administration since Nixon has created a constitutional crisis. Its because they don’t give a damn about constitution, individual freedom or the like though they give a lot of lip service. The Republican party has nothing to offer.

Reply to this | Report this

By Ernest Canning, May 10, 2007 at 8:31 pm #
(1624 comments total)

Giuliani and other Republi-crooks seek to revise history.  When George H.W. Bush left the CIA at the outset of the Carter administration, he took several subordinates with him, including Ted Shackley.  Together they linked up with the Reagan campaign.  Reagan’s campaign manager, William Casey, had worked for the OSS in WW II and was a long-time CIA asset.

As revealed by Joseph Trento, in “Prelude to Terror, “Ted Shackley, who had perfected the use of political organizations, public-relations firms, and publishers to carry out intelligence operations overseas, was now affiliated with a political campaign that had no hesitation about using such techniques domestically...” This meant penetrating the Carter White House at the highest levels.  Following the humiliating failure of the 4/11/80 attempt to rescue the hostages, General Richard Secord, long associated with Shackley, was placed in charge of a second rescue operation that never came.  Gary Sick, a former member of Carter’s National Security Council staff, revealed in “October Suprise” that members of the staff used code names and clandestine channels to provide top secret information about NSC and White House deliberations about the hostages, and other matters.  They even “stole Carter’s briefing book, which the Republican campaign then used to prepare Reagan for his debate with Carter...”

As Carter and Adm. Stansfield Turner, who headed the CIA, were being shut off from reliable information about Iran and the hostages by these turncoats, Casey, along with Robert Gray and Donald Gregg, arranged a July 1980 meeting with Mehdi Karrubi for the first of several meetings that led to the “October Surprise,” an arrangement wherein the hostages would be well cared for but held not only until after the ensuing November election but until the ensuing inauguration in exchange for armaments that Iran desperately needed because of the impending threat of war with Iraq.

It is difficult to overstate the gravity of the October Surprise.  This wasn’t just a Donald Segretti dirty trick played out in the snows of New Hampshire. Carter wasn’t just a candidate.  He was the President of the United States, legally bound to carry out this nation’s foreign policy.  In devulging secret deliberations, the turncoats on the NSC staff undoubtedly violated federal law.  The use of these state secrets to actively interfere with this nation’s foreign policy bordered upon an act of treason--and now Giuliani touts it as some badge of honor!

Tell me, Rudy, have you no sense of shame!

Reply to this | Report this

By DennisD, May 10, 2007 at 6:44 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Comparing themselves to a president that was mentally less than all present and accounted for says everything you need to know about these cartoon character candidates. If that’s the best GOPeeing on us President they have to call attention to - well we’ve all had a front row view of the worst in the office right now. Eisenhower was their best in the last 50 + years but his name doesn’t score points with the corporate sponsers of these clowns.

Reply to this | Report this

By Hank Van den Berg, May 10, 2007 at 5:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

I notice others who have responded are anxious to bash Reagan.  True, Reagan was not anywhere near as good a president as he is made out to be, but let’s keep the current administration in focus.  The fact is, despite his many mistakes, he would eventually admit a mistake, he could reverse a policy, and he proved to not be a war monger.  Let’s stick to the point of the article: The current neocons and Republican candidates are completely misrepresenting Reagan.
I would urge fellow Democrats to not get into a Reagan bashing mood; the middle of the road Rebublicans (who mostly like Reagan) are precisely the people we need to join the Democrats in cleaning out Washington.  I still think that John Kerry lost his second debate with George W. when he replied to George’s claim that he was the new Reagan by ineptly criticizing some Reagan policies.  Kerry’s bumbling attack on reagan only pushed wavering Republicans bask to George’s camp.  Kerry should have replied resolutely to George: You are no Ronald Reagan!  True conservatives do not support your war, your budget deficits, or your suspension of the the Constitution!
I hope Democrats will respond the same way to the 10 bozos who compared themselves to Reagan.  We can’t destroy a myth very easily; but we sure can use the myth to our advantage by pointing out those who so fraudulently compare themselves to a myth.

Reply to this | Report this

By jbart, May 10, 2007 at 3:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

I always believed that Nixon (the consumate liar and self-proclaimed King)was our worst President with Ron (the bad actor) a close second.  As a matter of fact, after Tricky Dick’s landslide victory (good old MA. prevented a sweep) I made the conscious decision to not play the fixed game we call voting.  It was the “Boll weavils then” and it’s the same people now.  I decided that, after NOT participating since 1972, I was going to get back in to try to help stop the “Idiot” Dubya.  I wasn’t crazy about Kerry, but a much better choice than Bush.  After that debacle we called a Presidential election (the Reds vs. the Blues)I’ve reverted back.  This country obviously doesn’t care about it’s own well being.  After the damage that has been caused to American society by Bush & his neocons, I made him my #1.  He’s worse than Nixon or Reagan.  Action is required before he totally rapes America.  Impeachment? Not likely, too much $ to be had.  Assasination?  Not enough crazies out there for that.  BTW...When does Sirhan-Sirhan get out?  Anybody know?  FYI - Getting weapons is real easy in today’s America. And the Red states have some pretty good deals, I hear.  Hmmm.
I remember Reagan was the first President to give speeches using a teleprompter.  Sure, they all do, but not exclusively.  I remember that the questions were set up and, one time, they had a couple of females wear certain color dresses so he would know who to pick.  It was said, at the time, that he was dumb.  The dumbest ever.  But, as records get broken and fall, so has this.  Dubya makes Ronnie seem to be an worldly intellectual.  The guy is in Forrest Gump’s class.  But, since they got all that oil$, he gets to rum America into the ground for 8 very long years.  But, on par with Forrest, is the majority of the America’s voting public.  “Stupid is as Stupid does”.

Reply to this | Report this

By THOMAS BILLIS, May 10, 2007 at 10:57 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

When I was hearing the the Republican candidates invoke reagans name so many times in a positive light I thought to myself I may have fallen asleep for eight years and missed the Presidency of this great President Reagan.Well thank God for the internet there was no other Reagan listed as President in the 200 + history of this country.Then it came to me the Republicans are just lying again.Whew I thought those drugs from the 60s were kicking in again.
Joe it is true that Republicans no matter how many children they have they name each one of them Reagan.

Reply to this | Report this

By Dale Headley, May 10, 2007 at 10:41 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Ronald Reagan was among the worst presidents in my lifetime (beginning with FDR).  The myths surrounding him are just that - myths.  The fantasy that Reagan brought down the Soviet Union is nonsense.  Most experts on poliical history say that other factors having nothing to do with Reagan’s belligerence caused the collapse, including the disillusionment of the Russian people.  After all, it wasn’t Reagan who faced down those Russian tanks.  Gorbachev and Yeltsin were the prime architects of the fall of Soviet communism.  In fact, most Russian historians credit Jimmy Carter more than Reagan, because his moral and ethical example was an inspiration to ordinary Russians.
Reagan’s “trickle down” economic policies were a crashing failure.  The deficit rose sharply.  There was a recession that resulted.  Reagan deregulated the savings and loan industry, thus allowing their owners to speculate recklessly.  The U.S. taxpayers had to pay through the nose to bail out those institutions.  Reagan raised taxes massively to pay for these fiscal mistakes. 
I don’t know whether or not Reagan was aware of the treasonous machinations of Oliver North and others in the Iran-Contra scandal, but he certainly did nothing to stop it.  I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, though, because by that time he was plainly showing the effects of Alzheimer’s.
But what I find most unforgivable is that Ronald Reagan initiated the processs of shrinking the middle class and growing the divide between rich and poor, a process that continues unabated to this day.
Try as I might, I can’t think of a single thing Ronald Reagan did that helped this country, other than deliver comforting, optimistic, speeches.  I guess that should count for something, though.

Reply to this | Report this

By C.P.T.L., May 10, 2007 at 6:07 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Let us hope that sentences like “Let’s hope this is all just campaign bluster—and that none of the pretenders who may someday achieve power believe in their own fakery,” are just convenient wrap-up sentences to magazine pieces and not representative of common American sentiment.

The lesson of George W. Bush boiled down to one sentence is: as shallow as he speaks is as shallow as he is.

I’m not hoping a damned thing; I’m calling spades - spades, and Guiliani: a simpleton - because he talks like a simpleton; consistently - like a simpleton.

Hope is extended to those who have earned some benefit of the doubt. None of the Republican candidates have.

Reply to this | Report this

By James Yell, May 10, 2007 at 5:41 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Reagan is over hyped and not really a very good president. The criminals in his government are much the same ones in the Bush governments. Reagan had the good fortune to be lucky, otherwise his shallow presidency would be all to apparent.

His was the start of turning away government mandates for energy efficiency and developement away from Petroleum. It is thanks to his policies that we are still today so dependant on what happens in the middle east.

Let us not forget his haste to de-regulate Savings and Loans, without withdrawing government guarantees which resulted in major fraud and the tax payer making up the lost funds.

Let us not forget his haste to leave Lebanon, after a military presence that, if it had been done by a Democratic President would still be trumpeted as an example of flecklessness.

Let us not forget that his huge military expendature wasted much money on military play toys, which did not make us safer. Let us remember that the strength of the USSR had been over hyped by the CIA once again for political reasons and a good thing it was in error or Reagan instead of nearly bankrupting the country, bankrupted the USSR in in its knee jerk response to trying to keep up. I don’t believe the Reagan Administration ever wanted the USSR to fall as it was the only thing that made justification for the outrageous waste in the Defense Department.

That’s all I can remember, but I am sure there was much more. Oh wait a minute, I almost forgot that exercise in Imperial Arrogance the invasion of Grenada. The only reason that didn’t make a stink was that the British were glad they didn’t have to move against a member of the Common Wealth.

Reply to this | Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!






Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox

Privacy Policy

 
Click here to advertise with Truthdig
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
Robert Scheer's new book offers first-hand insight into the presidential mind
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.