Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ronald Reagan was angry. It was October 1986, & his veto against the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid... [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)64. Nice story.
Who really ran Washington all those years?
Through a Glass Darkly
Alexander Cockburn
Lies Of Our Times (p. 12-13)
November 1991
What was surprising to me was Reagans condition. He was exhausted to the point of incoherence throughout much ofthe interview and could not remember the substance of any subject that had been discussed apart from Mitterrands expression of anticommunism. I had not seen Reagan at such close rangesince the assassination attempt nearly four months earlier, and was shocked at his condition.... Reagan simply was unable to recall the contents of the talks in which he had just participated.... The interview concluded at a signal from Deaver,who did not seem to find the presidents condition unusual.
Thus ran Lou Cannons recollections of an interview with the Commander-in-Chief in 1981, as set forth in his book President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime (New York: Simon & Schuster,1991), published earlier this year. But how did Cannon describe Reagans condition to the readers of the Washington Post when he wrote up his interview? In the July 23, 1981, Washington Post,Cannons story appeared under the headline Reagan Describes Summit Meeting as Worth Its Weight in Gold. Cannons report gives the impression of a lucid chief executive returning home after a fruitful colloquy with other western leaders at the economic summit held in Ottawa in mid-July. Cannon did mention in the tenth paragraph that Reagan appeared tired to the point of near-exhaustion, but this observation was quickly qualified by the opinion of aides that the president had been doing a lot of prep for the conference and was also worried about the Middle East.
Cannon shared his brief session with Reagan aboard Air Force One with Hedrick Smith of the New York Times, who similarly gave his readers the impression of a president in touch with things rather than the incoherent old man they had actually encountered. As did Cannon, Smith wove the few quotable remarks from Reagan into a tapestry of attributed presidential dicta passed on and no doubt confected by Meese, Deaver,and Speakes. It is clear from Cannons account of the conference itself that Reagan was fogged up throughout the actual conference, occasionally interjecting trivial observations or homely jokes into the proceedings and then relapsing into bemused silence. Cannons memoir is one more indication of the cover-up that took place in the wake of Hinckleys assassination bid on March 30, 1981. At the time of the shooting, the press was full of phrases like bouncing back, iron constitution, and other terms indicating that Reagan had emerged from the ordeal in good shape. In fact Reagan very nearly died on the operating table and was a dotard afterwards. He never fully recovered.
Conclusion: Unless a president is actually dead, the WhiteHouse press corps can be relied upon to present him as both sentient and sapient, no matter how decrepit his physical and mental condition.
SOURCE:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TDRhVP5cMkEJ:liesofourtimes.org/public_html/1991/Nov1991%2520V2%2520N10/Nov1991%2520V2%2520N10.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
PS: Welcome to DU, happyfunball!
Through a Glass Darkly
Alexander Cockburn
Lies Of Our Times (p. 12-13)
November 1991
What was surprising to me was Reagans condition. He was exhausted to the point of incoherence throughout much ofthe interview and could not remember the substance of any subject that had been discussed apart from Mitterrands expression of anticommunism. I had not seen Reagan at such close rangesince the assassination attempt nearly four months earlier, and was shocked at his condition.... Reagan simply was unable to recall the contents of the talks in which he had just participated.... The interview concluded at a signal from Deaver,who did not seem to find the presidents condition unusual.
Thus ran Lou Cannons recollections of an interview with the Commander-in-Chief in 1981, as set forth in his book President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime (New York: Simon & Schuster,1991), published earlier this year. But how did Cannon describe Reagans condition to the readers of the Washington Post when he wrote up his interview? In the July 23, 1981, Washington Post,Cannons story appeared under the headline Reagan Describes Summit Meeting as Worth Its Weight in Gold. Cannons report gives the impression of a lucid chief executive returning home after a fruitful colloquy with other western leaders at the economic summit held in Ottawa in mid-July. Cannon did mention in the tenth paragraph that Reagan appeared tired to the point of near-exhaustion, but this observation was quickly qualified by the opinion of aides that the president had been doing a lot of prep for the conference and was also worried about the Middle East.
Cannon shared his brief session with Reagan aboard Air Force One with Hedrick Smith of the New York Times, who similarly gave his readers the impression of a president in touch with things rather than the incoherent old man they had actually encountered. As did Cannon, Smith wove the few quotable remarks from Reagan into a tapestry of attributed presidential dicta passed on and no doubt confected by Meese, Deaver,and Speakes. It is clear from Cannons account of the conference itself that Reagan was fogged up throughout the actual conference, occasionally interjecting trivial observations or homely jokes into the proceedings and then relapsing into bemused silence. Cannons memoir is one more indication of the cover-up that took place in the wake of Hinckleys assassination bid on March 30, 1981. At the time of the shooting, the press was full of phrases like bouncing back, iron constitution, and other terms indicating that Reagan had emerged from the ordeal in good shape. In fact Reagan very nearly died on the operating table and was a dotard afterwards. He never fully recovered.
Conclusion: Unless a president is actually dead, the WhiteHouse press corps can be relied upon to present him as both sentient and sapient, no matter how decrepit his physical and mental condition.
SOURCE:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TDRhVP5cMkEJ:liesofourtimes.org/public_html/1991/Nov1991%2520V2%2520N10/Nov1991%2520V2%2520N10.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
PS: Welcome to DU, happyfunball!
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
127 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Ronald Reagan was angry. It was October 1986, & his veto against the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid... [View all]
kpete
Dec 2013
OP
That's not being on the right side. That's being dragged along kicking and screaming.
PeaceNikki
Dec 2013
#74
Possibly. However, the guy did shine a spotlight on Pruneface that no PR can shield.
Octafish
Dec 2013
#56
Sure, but it's the blindness about the fellow at the top that intrigues me.
malthaussen
Dec 2013
#65
So the "Underlings" wielded the VETO and made the speech to the American people opposing sanctions?
yellowcanine
Dec 2013
#94
GOP Mourns Nelson Mandela, Won't Mention Reagan, Cheney, Religious Right Opposed Him
Loup Garou
Dec 2013
#8
"On behalf of the Republican Party, I send our deepest sympathies to the Mandela family..."
pangaia
Dec 2013
#122
No, it really didn't. Read the South Africa chapter in "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein
Hestia
Dec 2013
#108
Do you know that it was the first foreign policy veto overruled in the 20th century
malaise
Dec 2013
#10
Reagan was a disastrous, reactionary President and we are still cleaning up his mess
RFKHumphreyObama
Dec 2013
#11
Don't forget that Reagan's first campaign speech after the 1980 nomination was near Philadelphia, MS
bulloney
Dec 2013
#21
And the public is still naming everything done in concrete after him--pardon me while I retch.
kairos12
Dec 2013
#34
Well MY particular fantasy, if I were in office in DC, would be about adding amendments
calimary
Dec 2013
#81
I would name one thing after him--that reactor at Chernobyl because of the all out destruction
kairos12
Dec 2013
#84
Yes--let's look at the actual history. The National Party was allied with the Nazis. The National
msanthrope
Dec 2013
#52
No--I mean the The National Party. The Nazi sympathizers who were barely kept under control
msanthrope
Dec 2013
#54
I am intrigued at your defense of Reagan's attempts to engage the Nazi-sympathizing National Party.
msanthrope
Dec 2013
#69
You are often intrigued by your own fantasies. Pointing fingers at others while supporting
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#71
Sabrina, I do not know what Uzbeckistan has to do with this thread, but I like
msanthrope
Dec 2013
#75
I don't understand your opposition to support for dictators by others, but silence on
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#77
So...in the thread where I pointed out that Reagan constructively engaged with Nazi sympathizers,
msanthrope
Dec 2013
#78
Reagan constructively engaged every dictator he could find, in South America, the ME
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#87
Oh, Sabrina, you know I don't answer your questions. Uzbeckstan!!! Benghazi!!!..or wait...
msanthrope
Dec 2013
#88
Or was just the first president to be forced to take official notice of apartheid.
Orsino
Dec 2013
#55
Change, if it were to come at all, would happen incrementally." Now, where have I heard this lately?
Egalitarian Thug
Dec 2013
#72
Ted Cruz's Facebook page is filled with the most hateful, despicable comments I've read in a while
catbyte
Dec 2013
#80
The real history of racist Reagan and shows that by terrorist, Cheney means people
suffragette
Dec 2013
#118