"As long as a conservative dictator was not losing his grip on power or was not becoming a household name for evil in the United States, the Reagan administration was generally happy to be a friend." -Thomas Carothers, 1991 The perceptions of the U.S. public are being manipulated on a systematic and constant basis. It is the most cynical and effective type of propaganda. The kind that is presupposed and never asserted. Yesterday I just happened to catch CNN's Jake Tapper outright LYING to viewers in an apparent effort to whitewash the crimes of the Reagan administration in the 1980s. You mean this, Jake? Jake Tapper's dishonesty in this regard is nothing new. The corporate media as whole almost totally ignored the genocide as it was happening, as well as the U.S. commitment there throughout the war and it continues to this day: For a detailed history of U.S. management of the slaughterhouse, see the Guatemala Civil War page in Wikipedia (I wrote a lot of it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War#United_States_Involvement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War#Support_for_Army_Intelligence
The US's relations with South America have often turned out to be a firm grip on the tail of a serpent.
Latin America and the Caribbean is to the United States as Eastern Europe was to the Soviet Union. Except with Free Trade Agreements the US's grip on the region is far more secure. It doesn't matter who the peasant masses elect, their country's economies will remain in step with the United States. With the complicity of the corporate media: Hondurans in 'Sweatshops' See Opportunity - The New York Times The New York Times, for example, explicitly advocates imposing "Free Trade" around the world: Very few people here seem to be able to comprehend this no matter how rational these policies are. The fruits of the neoliberal Washington Consensus:
REAGAN, IN TOAST TO SUHARTO, NAMES AN ENVOY - The New York Times Obituary: Suharto, former Indonesian dictator: 1921-2008 - The Guardian
I did not read a lot of the above. My view is that Trump loves, praises, and admires dictators because he wants to be one. He verbally attacks Democratic leaders in a callous manner, which will only hurt America. Reagan, on the other hand, may have supported dictators for America's benefit and not for his benefit. And we see the horrible results of that.
For Americas benefit? You sure didn't read any of the above. Guatemalan Genocide for America's benefit and not sweatshop owners and other multinationals? Please no one else comment unless you do read it. I can't believe someone just said this. How do you just assume something like that without looking into it first?
I don't agree with your analysis of the motives. I don't think his report had anything to do with making Reagan look good. I think he was trying to appeal to those who he considers reasonable-people-who-can-be-swayed. Ronald Reagan is pretty much a hero to most Trump supporters. I think he is also well regarded by moderates. If he can hold up this political icon and claim Trump is so much worse, he can help to further the negative view toward Trump. If the goal is to damage Trump, it wouldn't be helpful to raise any negatve aspects of the hero to those he is trying to sway. If he speaks well of Reagan, he might be persuasive. If he speaks ill of Reagan, he would likely alienate them and they won't be persuaded.
I think it was motivated by both. The media has always whitewashed or ignored US crimes. There was a media blackout as the genocide was happening and it continues to this day. How many Americans have even ever heard of Rios Montt or anything at all about US clandestine terror there?
NOTE: I didn't claim it wasn't having that effect. My opinion is that it wasn't their motive. Again: It is less effective to attempt to negatively compare someone to a popular figure, if the comprison puts the popular person in a bad light as well. The people they are trying to influence will just stop listening. In the case being discussed, any extranneous facts would not be helpful.
Contrary to popular right-wing assumptions, Michael Deaver, President Reagan's Deputy Chief of Staff, observes: And that's despite or likely due to him being the butcher of Central America and a strong supporter of General Suharto of Indonesia, Marcos of the Philippines, Duvalier of Haiti, Mobutu of Zaire, Chun of South Korea, the Apartheid regime in South Africa, the Persian Gulf tyrannies, and the list goes on. Indeed among media elites it rose to the level of:
OK, I don't understand why you are quoting my posts. Typically, when a post is quoted, the text of the quoted post is responded to. At least, that's been my experience.
No. I see my posts quoted in posts of yours. Then I see the text and images you post beneath the quotes. I guess I'm just used to there being some relevance to the quoted post.
Oh, I was reinforcing my original argument that it was motivated by both. Do you understand the point I was making?
I saw you reinforcing your original point and seemingly ignoring the alternate point of view I suggested. I strongly agree with this part: "The perceptions of the U.S. public are being manipulated on a systematic and constant basis. It is the most cynical and effective type of propaganda. The kind that is presupposed and never asserted." I don't doubt this part: "Yesterday I just happened to catch CNN's Jake Tapper outright LYING to viewers" I disagree, for the reason I stated, with this part: "in an apparent effort to whitewash the crimes of the Reagan administration in the 1980s" I am in no way arguing those events didn't happen, nor that Tapper's report denies them. My only point is that I believe no such "whitewashing" motive ever even occurred to Jake. He may not even remember those events. I believe his only motive was to bash Trump; however he could.
And I provided evidence showing precedence of the media whitewashing or ignoring Reagan's crimes. You like everyone else I've come across here lately only provide your own opinions. Never any counter-evidence.
I'm sorry. I forgot to comment on your thinking that Tapper didn't remember. That would seem plausible except for the fact that he works for CNN which surely knows about it. Tapper does what his producers want him to do.
You are not hearing me. I haven't even argued about the truth of the "media whitewashing" point. You are claiming that I have done something which I haven't. I was simply arguing motives; what the goal of the report was. Reagan was only a useful prop. History was irrelevant to the specific CNN report. I give up.
If a serial rapist raped another woman who just so happened to be his morher-in-law who had interfering with his marraige, would anyone argue that he did it just to get revenge?
Reagan described apartheid South Africa as a “good country.” “Can we abandon a country that has stood beside us in every war we’ve ever fought, a country that strategically is essential to the free world in its production of minerals we all must have?” -President Ronald Reagan, 1981 US government considered Nelson Mandela a terrorist until 2008 - NBC News
