Since the late 1940s, Republicans have hurled the charge of “appeasement” at every Democratic President
Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton found themselves accused of “selling out” to the Soviet Union. The motive for this was usually attributed to cowardice–if not outright treason.
And now it’s the turn of President Barack Obama.
President Barack Obama
“The President is afraid of provoking Vladimir Putin,” U.S. Senator John McCain told Reuters. “Vladimir Putin is on the move because he has paid no price for his aggression.”
Another United State Senator who charges Obama with appeasement is Ted Cruz of Texas.
“Putin fears no retribution,” Cruz said on ABC News’ This Week. “Their policy has been to alienate and abandon our friends, and to coddle and appease our enemies.
“Putin is a KGB thug. When the protests began in Ukraine, the president should have stood unapologetically, emphatically for freedom. When the United States doesn’t speak for freedom, tyrants notice.”
It’s clear that the American Right–long aching for a chance to lob nuclear missiles at the former Soviet Union–is itching for the chance to do so now.
Yet America’s frustrations with Russia generally–and Putin in particular–long predate those of Barack Obama.
A major reason for this: America’s dealings with Russia have not always been as wise as they should have been.
In his memoir, Duty, Robert M. Gates, who served as Secretary of Defense for Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, candidly writes:
“I shared with [President Bush] my belief that from 1999 onward, the West, and particularly the United States, had badly underestimated the magnitude of Russian humiliation in losing the Cold War and then the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
“The arrogance, after the collapse, of American government officials, academicians, businessmen, and politicians in telling the Russians how to conduct their domestic and foreign affairs…had led to deep and long-term resentment and bitterness.”
Convincing Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to allow a United Germany to enter NATO proved a major success, asserts Gates.
But moving quickly–after the collapse of the Soviet Union–to incorporate many of its former members into NATO was a serious mistake.
U.S. agreements with Romanian and Bulgarian governments to rotate [American] troops through bases in those countries was a needless provocation (especially since we never deployed the 5,000 troops in either country.”
Gates further notes that the United States later made an even worse mistake:
“Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching. The roots of the Russian Empire trace back to Kiev in the ninth century, so that was an especially monumental provocation.
“Were the Europeans, much less the Americans, willing to send their sons and daughters to defend Ukraine or Georgia? Hardly.
“So NATO expansion was a political act, not a carefully considered military commitment.”
This “undermined the purpose of the alliance” and recklessly ignored “what the Russians considered their own vital national interests.”
Nor were relations between the United States and post-Soviet Russia helped by the naievity of President George W. Bush.
In June, 2001, Bush and Vladimir Putin met in Slovenia. During the meeting a truly startling exchange occurred.
President George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin
Putin, a former KGB Intelligence officer, had clearly done his homework on Bush. When he mentioned that one of the sports Bush had played was rugby, Bush was highly impressed.
“I did play rugby,” gushed Bush. “Very good briefing.”
But more was to come.
BUSH: Let me say something about what caught my attention, Mr. President, was that your mother gave you a cross which you had blessed in Israel, the Holy Land.
PUTIN: It’s true.
BUSH: That amazes me, that here you were a Communist, KGB operative, and yet you were willing to wear a cross. That speaks volumes to me, Mr. President. May I call you Vladimir?
Putin instantly sensed that Bush judged others–even world leaders–through the lens of his own fundamentalist Christian theology.
Falling back on his KGB training, Putin seized on this apparent point of commality to build a bond. He told Bush that his dacha had once burned to the ground, and the only item that had been saved was that cross.
“Well, that’s the story of the cross as far as I’m concerned,” said Bush, clearly impressed. “Things are meant to be.”
Afterward, Bush and Putin gave an outdoor news conference.
“Is this a man that America can trust?” Associated Press correspondent Ron Foumier asked Bush.
“Yes,” said Bush. “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue.
“I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. I wouldn’t have invited him to my ranch if I didn’t trust him.”
Of course, no one from the Right is now recalling such embarrassing words.
It’s far more politically profitable to pretend that all of America’s tensions with Russia began with the election of Barack Obama.
And to pretend that those tensions will vanish once another Right-wing President enters the White House.
(3)(1)(1).jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsilkroadsandsiamesesmiles.com%2F2011%2F01%2F26%2Froot-causes-illegal-immigration%2F&docid=undefined&tbnid=MpAe36i-e_f-BM%3A&w=576&h=421&ei=uJyeVZa6D4PwoAT3_Z2wBg&ved=0CAIQxiAwAA&iact=c)
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, ASTROLOGY, BIBLICAL PROPHECIES, CBS NEWS, CNN, CZAR NICHOLAS II, CZARINA ALEXANDRA, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, GOG AND MAGOG, GRIGORI RASPUTIN, HENRY KISSINGER, IRAQ WAR, JOAN QUIGLEY, JODIE FOSTER, JOHN HINCKLEY, MERV GRIFFIN, MIDDLE EAST, MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, NANCY REAGAN, NBC NEWS, Ronald Reagan, SOVIET UNION, STAR WARS, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE PSYCHO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: PART ONE (OF TWO)
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 15, 2015 at 12:30 amAmericans like to believe they choose rational men and women for their political leaders.
This is especially true when it comes to deciding who will govern the country for the next four years as President of the United States.
And those voters like to believe that, once elected, the new President will base his or her decisions on a firm foundation of rationality and careful consideration.
And in an age when a Presidential decision can, in a matter of minutes, hurl nuclear bombers and missiles to lay waste entire nations, it’s essential for Americans to choose such leaders.
Unfortunately, Presidential leadership hasn’t always been based on rationality.
A classic example of this was Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States from 1981 to 1989.
Ronald Reagan
His wife, Nancy, resembled the last Empress of Russia in her quest for answers from “the other side.”
In the case of Czarina Alexandra, wife of Nicholas II, the last “Czar of all the Russias,” those “answers” came from Grigori Rasputin, the “mad monk” from Siberia.
Rasputin claimed the ability to work miracles on behalf of Alexandra’s hemophilic son, Alexei, heir to the Russian throne.
Similarly, Nancy Reagan had her own Rasputin–an astrologer named Joan Quigley. The two met on “The Merv Griffin Show” in 1973.
Quigley supposedly gave Nancy–and through her, Reagan himself–astrological advice during the latter’s campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1976.
That effort failed to unseat President Gerald Ford–who was defeated that November by Jimmy Carter.
Four years later, in 1980, Reagan defeated Carter to become the 40th President of the United States.
On March 30, 1981, a mentally-disturbed loner named John W. Hinckley shot and critically wounded Reagan. Hinckley’s motive: Fixiated on actress Jodie Foster, he believed that by shooting the President he could gain her affection.
For Nancy, the assassination attempt proved a watershed.
Shortly after the shooting, Merv Griffin told her that Quigley had told him: If Nancy had called her on that fateful day, she–Quigley–could have warned that the President’s astrological charts had foretold a bad day.
From that moment on, Nancy made sure to regularly consult Quigley on virtually everything that she and the President intended to do.
Click here: The President’s Astrologers – Joan Quigley, Nancy Reagan, Politicians and Their Families, Ronald Reagan : People.c
Many–if not most–of these calls from the White House to Quigley’s office in San Francisco were made on non-secure phone lines.
Joan Quigley
This meant that foreign powers–most notably the Soviet Union and Communist China–could have been privy to Reagan’s intentions.
Nancy passed on Quigley’s suggestions in the form of commands to Donald Regan, chief of the White House staff.
As a result, Regan kept a color-coded calendar on his desk to remember when the astrological signs were good for the President to speak, travel, or negotiate with foreign leaders.
Green ink was used to highlight “good” days, red for “bad” days, and yellow for “iffy” days.
Forget relying on Intelligence supplied by the CIA, the National Security Agency or the Pentagon. Statecraft-by-astrologer was now the norm.
A list provided by Quigley to Nancy made the following recommendations–which Nancy, in turn, made into commands:
Late Dec thru March bad
Jan 16 – 23 very bad
Jan 20 nothing outside WH–possible attempt
Feb 20 – 26 be careful
March 7 – 14 bad period
March 10 – 14 no outside activity!
March 16 very bad
March 21 no
March 27 no
March 12 – 19 no trips exposure
March 19 – 25 no public exposure
April 3 careful
April 11 careful
April 17 careful
April 21 – 28 stay home
Donald Regan, no fan of Nancy’s, chafed under such restrictions: “Obviously, this list of dangerous or forbidden dates left very little lattitude for scheduling,” he later wrote.
Forced out of the White House in 1987 by Nancy, Regan struck back in a 1988 tell-all memoir: For the Record: From Wall Street to Washington.
The book revealed, for the first time, how Ronald Reagan actually made his Presidential decisions.
All–including decisions to risk nuclear war with the Soviet Union–were based on a court astrologer’s horoscopes. Rationality and the best military intelligence available played a lesser, secondary role–at best.
In 1990, Quigley confirmed the allegations an autobiography, What Does Joan Say?: My Seven Years As White House Astrologer to Nancy and Ronald Reagan.
Click here: What Does Joan Say?: My Seven Years As White House Astrologer to Nancy and Ronald Reagan: Joan Quigley
The title came from the question that Ronald Reagan asked Nancy before making important decisions–including those that could risk the destruction of the United States.
Among the success Quigley took credit for:
Thirty-four years after he became President, Ronald Reagan remains the most popular figure among Republicans.
His name is constantly invoked by Right-wing candidates, while his deliberately-crafted myth is held up as the example of Presidential greatness.
Conveniently left out: The small latter of his government-by-astrologer.
Share this: