Reagan 1983: How a president should respond to the shoot down of a civilian plane

President Barack Hussein “Flexibility” Obama is giving a whiny statement about the situation in Ukraine surrounding the Russian shoot down of Malaysian Flight 17.

Basically ol’ Flexibility is begging Vladimir Putin to do something, so he can “lead from behind Vladimir.” What are the consequences to Putin? He will “further isolate himself from the international community” — bet that has the former KGB Colonel so scared he’s getting a cramp in his side from laughing so hard.

Nothing of substance, just words, rhetoric, a nice lecture to Russia about its responsibility and role. Nothing.

This was a waste and a further embarrassment to our nation. What a weakling. What a coward we have as a president — except for when it comes to attacking political opposition with the weight of “my government.” Heck, even Samantha Power showed more chutzpah. Contrast today with Ronald Reagan’s statement after Russia shot down a Korea Airlines civilian plane in 1983.

177 COMMENTS

  1. There are going to be two wars going on by the end of this year, if not three. One will be a war with either Russia or Iran. Neither of these countries respect the US or Obama, or Kerry despite what he likes to believe.
    2nd will be the internal invasion of the US by illegals who will continue to come here and flood our nation with 3rd world disease and drain our resources that it will eventually come down to a war.

    The third war, and probably the scariest of all will be another Civil war. The first was started over the freeing of the black man. This one will start over the irresponsible actions of one. That is not meant to be racist, but it is how it will be seen. People who fight to remove him will be fighting to protect this country. People who will fight to protect him will be doing so not even truly because he’s president but because he’s the first black president.

    This country is literally tearing itself apart. Every single word anyone uses now is called either racist, anti-Semitic, non-PC, or some other stupid euphemism. We will be lucky to be alive by the end of 2016.

    • Sit back down in your chair Les and we’ll plug it in for you. We’ll give you some crayons too, just in case you hurt yourself…

      • Since you are clearly not a US citizen, and you have nothing intelligent to contribute, why don’t you keep your opinions to yourself.

      • Ooooh, cage well and truly rattled. Why don’t you tell us about Iran Air 655? Remind me, which country shot that particular A300 down????????????????

      • WOW, you are probably the most ignorant person I’ve seen on here in years. And since your other comment is waiting to be moderated because you felt the need to swear at me, I’ll answer you here.

        So the US ship Vincennes exchanging fire with Iranian ships is considered small arms fire? Really? In what world do you live in that war ships are armed with small arms. Small arms fire is hand guns, and maybe a few other things. Ships firing on each other is anything but small arms fire.

        The Iranians by trying to take off a civilian plane in the middle of battle is open to attack, but unfortunately was destroyed. More than likely is Iran intentionally launched the civilian plane during the battle because they wanted the US to shoot down a civilian plane.

      • You obviously haven’t done your research on IR655. Therefore I won’t bother to try and educate you as you’re beyond help.

        No KAL007 wasn’t an accident.

      • “I won’t bother to try and educate you” = the cry of someone with a weak argument, who can’t stand people refuting what he says. Boo Hoo.

        Having someone who’s been able to refute your arguments doesn’t sit well with you, does it? You have no proof on MH17 being an accident just as you have no proof of IR655 being intentional. So as I said at the very first response, you are not a US citizen, so keep your nonsense outta here.

      • You’re right. It’s not. It’s up to you to educate yourself with the facts. You can lead a horse to water…

      • Either make your point, or be quiet. You have not proven anything by your statements. You are unwilling to prove them (which you can’t apparently). I have researched enough to know you are full of it. So I’m done with your ignorance.

      • The plane, an Airbus A300B2, registered as EP-IBU and flown by Captain Mohsen Rezaian, a veteran pilot with 7,000 hours of flight time, left Bandar Abbas at 10:17 am Iran time (UTC +03:30), 27 minutes after its scheduled departure time. It should have been a 28-minute flight. After takeoff, it was directed by the Bandar Abbas tower to turn on its transponder and proceed over thePersian Gulf. The flight was assigned routinely to commercial air corridor Amber 59, a twenty-mile (32 km)-wide lane on a direct line to Dubai airport. The short distance made for a simple flight pattern: climb to 14,000 feet (4,300 m), cruise for a short time, and descend into Dubai. The airliner was transmitting the correct transponder “squawk” code typical of a civilian aircraft and maintained English-speaking radio contact with appropriate air traffic control facilities.

        On the morning of 3 July, the Vincennes was passing through the Strait of Hormuzreturning from an escort duty. A helicopter from the USS Vincennes received small arms fire from Iranian patrol vessels as it observed from high altitude. The Vincennesmoved to engage the Iranian vessels, in the course of which they all violated Omani waters and left after being challenged and ordered to leave by a Royal Navy of Oman warship. The Vincennes then pursued the Iranian gunboats, entering Iranian territorial waters to open fire. The USS Sides and USS Elmer Montgomery were nearby. Thus, the USS Vincennes was in Iranian territorial waters at the time of the incident, as admitted by the US government in legal briefs and publicly by Admiral William Crowe on Nightline. Admiral Crowe denied a U.S. government coverup of the incident and claimed that the USS Vincennes’s helicopter was in international waters initially, when it was first fired upon by the Iranian gunboats.

        Contrary to the accounts of various USS Vincennes crewmembers, the Vincennes’ shipboard Aegis Combat System recorded that the Iranian airliner was climbing at the time and its radio transmitter was “squawking” on the Mode III civilian code only, rather than on military Mode II.[15]

        After receiving no response to multiple radio challenges, the USS Vincennes fired two surface-to-air missiles at the airliner. One of the missiles hit the airliner, which exploded and fell in fragments into the water. Everyone on board was killed.[16]

        The event triggered an intense international controversy, with Iran condemning the U.S. attack. In mid-July 1988, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati asked theUnited Nations Security Council to condemn the United States saying the U.S. attack “could not have been a mistake” and was a “criminal act”, an “atrocity” and a “massacre.” George H. W. Bush, at the time Vice President of the United States in the Reagan administration, defended his country at the United Nations by arguing that the U.S. attack had been a wartime incident and that the crew of the Vincennes had acted appropriately to the situation.

        According to the U.S. government, the Vincennes mistakenly identified the Iranian airliner as an attacking military fighter. The officers misidentified the flight profile being flown by the Airbus A300B2 as being similar to that of an F-14A Tomcat during an attack run; however, the ship’s own Aegis Combat System recorded the flight plan of the Iranian airliner as climbing (not descending as in an attack run) at the time of the incident. The commercial flight had originated at Bandar Abbas, which served dual roles as a base for Iranian F-14 operations and as a hub for commercial, civilian flights. According to the same reports, the Vincennes tried unsuccessfully to contact the approaching aircraft, seven times on the military emergency frequency and three times on the civilian emergency frequency, but never on air traffic control frequencies. This civilian aircraft was not equipped to pick up military frequencies and the messages on the civilian emergency channel could have been directed at any aircraft. More confusion arose as the hailed speed was the ground speed, while the pilot’s instruments displayed airspeed, which was 50-knot (93 km/h) different.

        At 10:24 am, with the civilian jet 11 nautical miles (20 km) away, the Vincennes fired two SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles, both of which hit Flight 655. After the attack, the Vincennes’ crew realized that the plane had been a civilian airliner.

      • Yes it was shot down by US Navy. Yes it was a civilian plane that took off from an airport used by civilian AND Military planes. Yes it took off in the middle of a firefight between US and IRAN forces in the gulf.

        Your point?

      • Therefore your countryfolk shouldn’t make comments about my country, but they do. Idiotic comments such as “If it weren’t for us, you’d be speaking German now” is one often quoted by US citizens. If I had a dollar (pound) for every time I’d heard that, I’d be rich….

      • You HONESTLY believe that we’d be speaking German? Hell, you lot didn’t even know there was a war going on until Pearl Harbour. By then, we’d kicked Hitler back into Europe. Name me one country that has changed its language as a result of losing a war.

        If it wasn’t for your school teachers, you’d be speaking English.

      • You know, you are right. you wouldn’t be speaking German. You’re ancestors would have been put down like animals for not fitting into the Aryan race.

        Oh, and while we were taking care of the Germans for you, we were also fighting the Japanese and defeating them as well. You could barely keep your lights on. And your “kicked Hitler back into Europe was done with equipment and ammunition supplied by who? (waiting for it to click) THE USA!!

      • Oh please send me a needle and cotton so I can stitch my sides back together. They’ve split from all the laughter. We defeated Hitler using Supermarine Spitfires and Hawker Hurricanes. You might want to research those. Oops forgot. You don’t do research, do you?

      • Hey get real, learn your history. I guess you never heard of the Normandy Invasion. Once again you put your feet your mouth.

      • lol, your so sadly mistaken! Our country knew that whole time! Roosevelt did his best not to involve the U.S. Pearl Harbor was the last straw on the camel’s back!

      • What does that have to do with this post. Thus you are an idiot and you proved it all by yourself.

      • No thank you, we just got rid of him. The UK doesn’t want him either. He was an/is an Obama supporter.

      • Really? Slavery was not the key instigator of the civil war? Well then, educate me oh master of no comments ever before now.

      • State rights vs. Federal Rights. The South was tired of big government. Slavery, which was also very prevalent in the North, is not the reason for the war. That being said, the Virginia Battle Flag which many refer to as the Confederate Flag is not racist.

      • You are only partially correct. States rights were a reason, but so was unfair taxation, and Slavery. So maybe it wasn’t the only reason, or the key reason, but it was part of why the Civil War started.

        No one here said the battle flag was racist, so why even bring it up?

      • Not very. There were 5 States and they were the first to outlaw slavery all on their own.

  2. Damn, I miss real leadership. A man who said what he meant and meant what he said. Obama had the chance to follow the gippers lead and call Putin out since the whole world understands that his fingerprints were all over the downing of the airliner with close to 300 innocent souls on board. Obama had a chance to show so testicular fortitude and he threatened more severe sanctions instead. How has the present sanctions worked so far to deter Putin? The world is looking for America to lead but all they got was more empty threats.

    • Actually sanctions are working. It’s not the US to take lead. Europe buys 70% oil from Russia, they are the one’s that have to step up and stop buying and trading with Russian . They lost people. Why is it always just the US?

  3. Funny how you reps are rewriting history. George Will (FOX) and Richard Reeve didn’t’t think so.

    – but it is worth recalling that Reagan’s own response in 1983 did not get good reviews from the Fox News of the day. According to Richard Reeves’s “President Reagan,” (see p167-70), the administration was seen as far too weak.

    True, the president’s nationally televised address on Sept. 5 was full of strong rhetorical condemnation: Reagan called the Soviet action “monstrous,” “murderous,” and “born of a society which wantonly disregards individual rights and the value of human life.”

    But little action followed. Reagan demanded an apology to the world and continued a number of sanctions — but he decided not to end grain sales to the USSR or to suspend arms control talks. George Will argued that “the administration is pathetic…. We didn’t elect a dictionary. We elected a President and it’s time for him to act.” The Manchester Union-Leader editorialized that “if someone had told us three years ago that the Russians could blow a civilian airliner out of the skies – and not face one whit of retaliation from a Ronald Reagan administration, we would have called that crazy. It is crazy. It is insane. It is exactly what happened.”

      • West forgot to mention, Reagan made his statement before he had ALL INFO. The plane flew INTO Russian territory and Russian Air Force tired contact 3 x unsuccessfully before they blew up plane. After the investigation, Russian apologized and everybody hugged it out.

  4. If we only had a president this competent and involved, things would be so different. Now, all we get is “it’s not my fault” & “ain’t I great?”.. America is being damaged in such a way that we’ll never recover.

  5. In the wake of a Malaysia Airlines jetliner crash, Fox News has rushed to conveniently rewrite history to disparage President Obama by drawing false comparisons to former President Ronald Reagan’s response to a 1983 attack on a Korean airliner. The reactions of many Fox figures praising Reagan stood in stark contrast with that of Fox’s Chris Wallace, who accurately noted Reagan’s apparent reluctance to cut short his vacation in order to address the issue.

    On Heels Of Tragic Plane Crash, Fox Rewrites Reagan’s Legacy In Effort To Jab Obama

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/18/on-heels-of-tragic-plane-crash-fox-rewrites-rea/200144

  6. Let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane in case some have forgotten what actually happened in 1983.

    After the Soviet pilot killed 269 people on a civilian airliner, Reagan’s aides didn’t bother to wake him up to tell him what happened. When the president was eventually briefed on developments, Reagan, who was on vacation in California at the time, announced he did not intend to cut his trip short. (Reagan’s aides later convinced him to return to the White House.)

      • It’s the way he wants to generate $$,, he’s found people who
        like all this “Hussain” crap,,and prayer rugs,,and mexican
        muslims running thru out the country crap,,,make for lots of clicks,,,

      • Lydia, if you read major’s post, they wrote: “he did not intend to cut his trip short” (though aides later convinced him of that. Major got their info from Reagan’s published diary.

  7. This over-the-top Reagan worship isn’t just wrong; it’s ironic. In 1983, some of the prominent conservative media voices of the day actually complained bitterly that Reagan’s response was wholly inadequate.

    George Will – yes, that George Will – called the Reagan White House’s arguments “pathetic” at the time, insisting, “It’s time for [Reagan] to act.”

    The president responded publicly with rhetoric that made the president sound rather helpless. “Short of going to war, what would they have us do?” Reagan said. “I know that some of our critics have sounded off that somehow we haven’t exacted enough vengeance. Well, vengeance isn’t the name of the game in this.”
    Ronnie Raygun Pathetic??
    who knew??

      • Puh-leeze. Of course, he would. Today’s Republican Party is a lot better than today’s Democratic Party. There hasn’t been a good Democrat since John F. Kennedy and that’s stretching it a bit, too.

      • the party is to far to the right now,,,pandering to the christian
        “moral minority”,, crazy tea-baggers obstructing everything,
        and that’s why they won’t win,,they can’t be to the extreme right
        and expect to tack to center, where most of the country is….

        And the last great Republican was Eisenhower…

      • He was very good at giving speeches and talking tough.
        Lucky for him, most Americans weren’t actually checking to see if his actions matched his words.

  8. Reagan treated the attack in 1983 seriously and with reverence. He assessed the situation, expressed outrage both to connect with the families, and for the honor of the country, and laid on the table a form of punishment (if you will) in response to the attack. All in all, the speech lasted approximately 16 minutes. Obama, in contrast addressed the attack with a “casual mention” when he said, “‘It looks like it may be a terrible tragedy,” and didn’t seem to know any of the details that were reported about the crash before he made the speech (like the reports that mentioned that 23 Americans were dead). All in all, his “mention” of the tragedy lasted approximately 40 seconds. The problem is that it was not prepared and was ill advised. The rest was okay. Yet there is no “may be a terrible tragedy” about it. It definately was a terrible tragedy, and you’re not going to initiate a war with Russia by simply stating so.

    • There were a lot of differences.
      From day one, we had radio intercept recordings of the Soviet fighter pilot identifying the plane and confirming he shot it down.
      We knew immediately with absolute proof that the Soviets shot down KAL 007.

      We do not yet have 100% proof that it was the Russians that shot down the Malaysian airliner… though it is, of course, almost certain it was Russian backed forces.
      …and for all his tough talk, Reagan, as usual, did nothing.

      • LOL!!! Apart from economic limitations brought forth by Reagan, tough talk is the start of a much broader, and more important strategy (i.e. psychological warfare), but you actually have to be willing to act should your opponent call your bluff and implement an actual “first strike.”

        Your guy remains inexperienced at skills such as these (apart from anything really foreign policy related), as his response serves as a prelude to how he would handle similar potential tests down the road. There is a right way and a wrong way to handle matters such as these, and Reagan handled the matter responsibly, requiring no need to “fire a shot.”

      • Who is my guy?
        Reagan did nothing but talk.
        And Reagan’s foreign policy consisted of cowtowing to terrorists

      • Well if all Reagan did was talk, he did a damn fine job doing it since he was respected on the world stage, and got a lot done. His “talk” was probably his strongest asset in our national defense as our adversaries feared that he could have actually been the “cowboy” that his detractors called him. In fact, I feel more secure when that perception reigns dominant towards an American president. When people had that perception of George W. Bush, I was hoping that his opponents would keep it up with the cowboy talk, because if that gets repeated over and over again, than people who are unsuspecting of the nature of our political image making will think you’re a crazy man with access to “the button.” That perception than makes our adversarial forces think twice (if they are wise) about messing around with us and our allies since we cover the backs of our allies.

        Obama only talks, but our adversaries are finding out more and more that it’s merely hot air. His actions are not feeding a perception that he could become a cowboy, so they are getting bolder and bolder in testing him. Adversaries will always try to see what they can get away with, and Obama is looking more and more like a “paper tiger” each and every day.

        You may not realize it, but the more you define Reagan in the terms you describe, you are actually making Obama look far worse by comparison. After all, Reagan’s serious and deep rooted convictions for this nation drove him to fight for it and its best interests as he saw fit. Obama is nothing more than a self-serving, yet skillful campaigner who depends very heavily on his image to return political favors, get what he wants, and be liked (which is much different than being respected) in the world. That image is responsible for getting people to believe certain things that permit him to do things that they would never approve of. That image is sustained by his rhetorical skills, and his image is the only political capital he has left. It’s pretty scary when you think about it.

      • that’s a matter of perception… literally.
        Your nostalgia for Reagan and contempt for Obama are based solely on how you perceived them, even though they both said similar things.
        You see one as strong and the other as weak, even though their words were similar.
        it is because you choose to believe one and not the other.
        I am not a fan of Obama and I see many faults… but your criticisms of him could just as well be leveled at Reagan.
        it’s all about perception.

      • Perceptions are interesting things, but I will argue that this is not exactly the case in this matter. It is not about one’s perception of the person more than it is about how one dutifully displays their work ethic.

        We the people, in this representative Republic, hire people who we feel we can rely on to protect the Constitution, our lives, and protect and advance our liberties and economic interests. And as we hire that person, there are factors to consider that lead to how they make judgments, how they approach a matter or concern, and how much of a priority they make it.

        From this standard alone, we can see a contrast drawn between Reagan and Obama that is deep and definitive. For example, Reagan focused his job. Obama focuses more on fundraising and upholding his political image. I can name specifics if need be.

        Perceptions are generated based on your standards (whether they are ethics, morals, personal and/or spiritual convictions, concrete principles, or what have you), and how you see them honored or not. Perceptions are also generated by how well your representative’s actions match the ideals you projected on to the person you supported during the campaign.

        And while some politicians can be good celebrities due to how well they were marketed, others can be good celebrities based on how they handled the job, how they made the nation feel, and how they set their priorities when the going got tough.

      • I respect your opinion and I appreciate the polite way we have been able to disagree. That is something uncommon on internet forums.

        Again, what you wrote is a matter of perception.
        I don’t know how old you are or what you remember of the Reagan years. i am 47-years-old and spent my teen and young adult years with Reagan as my President, including my first two enlistments in the Army.

        i agree with much of your criticism of Obama… but much of what your wrote can also be applied to Reagan… popularity by how he was marketed, actions not matching his rhetoric, etc.

        Reagan was immensely popular and did, as you wrote, make much of the country feel better. He was charismatic and charming and had a very folksy image that made people feel good. He also had a very savvy way, with his team, of controlling his image.

      • Ronald Reagan was genuine and sincere in his convictions. It reflects in his approach to matters, his actions (both and the forefront and behind closed doors), writings, both public and private. His private letters (like his diaries and notes) known only to him for a time, hidden from the world, add new weight and insight to this.
        His success has made him a case study (in various ways) for many in leadership, as well for those who followed him after his presidency.
        And while Obama can talk a good game, his actions and approach to matters all too often renders those words as empty.

  9. Anyone who thinks Obama is a good president keep singing his praises. There has never been a bigger joke in the White House. He lied straight to your face about healthcare, but does that matter to his minions, of course not. If your next door neighbor told a tenth of the lies this man has told to you, you would have nothing to do with him, yet you continually defend this liar. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. You Obama worshipers are utterly amazing as to how many times you have been and continue to be fooled. Quite pathetic, you will never figure it out and it’s destroying this country.

    • Wow, your a genius! At least conservatives can come to the fact that we have had some no so great presidents. But liberals will have the rest believe that he is the better than Jimmy Carter. Well I also suggest you look at your Furher’s approval rating! His followers are dropping of like flies!

      • Hate to tell you but Mr. West is military Hero regardless of your liberal logic! Did you serve your country in the military? If not, shut your pie hole!

      • Yep, served in the united states army in the 1st Armored division in germany and it taught me that you do not leave your men to face charges that you were in command of! Accept responsibility, which allen west didn’t. Hero my tookus…allen west is a disgrace to the uniform and the nation!

  10. But Allen, it took President Reagan 4 days to address the nation after the Korean Air 007 was shot down. You didn’t mention that.

      • Nice try, Allen….he said he really was looking forward to those days off. He could have made his address from Santa Barbara.

      • Was Reagan opening our country up for Socialism and Communism? Did he override congress and implement socialistic healthcare? Did Reagan say that he will bypass congress because he has a “Pen and a Chair?” Reagan had far better foreign policy with the Russia and world, then O’blamer would if he was given 8 terms!

      • Allen, you are off topic! Please! And by the way, the President’s name is Obama. I would never disrespect any President by making up a silly name. That’s rather childish. But, in President Reagan’s diary he expressed deep regret to give up his vacation…look, I am not criticizing him…he was, after all, a human being! Just like you, President Obama and any other man, woman and child. We all need our time away from the stress of the job. My point was the President was at his Santa Barbara ranch. Perhaps he could have made his statements from the ranch. Surely the nation would have understood. That’s all I meant in my comments. Back then we didn’t have such ugly discord as we do today.

      • Allen, I will address one of your off-topic claims, since you are ignorant of what happened: Congress passed the Affordable Care Act. Its constitutionality was questioned and it was held constitutional.

      • Allen, you mean this was back in the Stone Age, before modern communication? Reagan and his staff both said that he had all communications resources needed at his vacation home. Did you miss that part of the explanation? If he was so far out of the loop, then maybe he should not have been taking an average of 83 days of vacation per year!

      • James, Are that ignorant about technology today, compared to 1983? Or were you born in 2000? And your current cult leader is well over 83 days of vacation per year. Your point?

      • Allen, I was working in such matters in 1983. The technology then could easily accommodate an address from the Reagan ranch. If you research the actual vacation days taken by president, you will see that G.W. Bush is by far the leader in vacation days, closely followed by Reagan, with Obama a distant third. Your rhetoric about his vacation days is baseless.

      • Allen, I was actively involved in matters such as this back then and know that the technology was available then to present a national address from the Reagan ranch.
        Your information on vacation days is grossly wrong: G. W. Bush is the leader for vacation days, closely followed by Reagan, with Obama a distant third. You might want to research things a little more closely.

      • Needed time to get back to the White House? FOUR days?? What, did he take a train? He had a Boeing 707 at his disposal.

  11. Why do you believe the story about the plane being shot down? This could be false evidence. I am convinced that the plane exploded, deliberately, Islamic jihadists as crew. Why? Muslims want to destroy America and Russia, so get them to destroy each other, while, in the fog of war, muslims enforce sharia on civilians. I have been certain that the violent overthrow of the Ukraine government was very much an Islamic jihad. Obama is a muslim, why else would he be funding the Syrian and Iraqi jihadists? Why else did he bomb Libya and turn it into another Afghanistan? An Afghan muslim is the one that Ukraine can thank for the Kiev protest call. Sounds just like the arab spring, don’t it.

    • That’s an interesting theory, and I would be shocked if it were true. There’s plenty of evidence of Russian loyalists going psycho all over Ukraine. This plane is just big beans in the thick of the small ones.

      I’ll give you credit for creativity on the theory, though. I’m starting to believe Russian intelligence claims that Malaysian Airlines 370 was hijacked by Islamists and routed to Afghanistan; perhaps for theft of secret cargo and/or a passenger.

      • It would not be the first time that muslims and Cossacks join forces:

        1648-1667 – Chmielnicki’s forces included not only dissatisfied Cossacks, peasants, Ruthenian nobility, but his alliance with the Tartars allowed the rebels to field a cavalry force which could stand up to the Polish winged Hussars. The Cossack-Tatar alliance turned out to be strong enough to not only threaten Polish rule at the East, but also shook the entire Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

        The deputy leader of an al Qaeda-allied jihadist group that is led by commanders from the Caucasus and other former Soviet republics has called for Ukrainian Muslims to wage jihad against the Russia government.

        Abdul Karim Krymsky, the deputy emir of Jaish al Muhajireen wal Ansar (the Army of the Emigrants and Helpers, or Muhajireen Army), said that Crimean Tatars and Ukrainian Muslims should “start on the path of jihad.” Krymsky made the statement in a video in which he appeared with Salahuddin Shishani (the Chechen), the emir of
        the Muhajireen Army.

        http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/05/muhajireen_army_comm.php##ixzz368QEvCHB

        http://qha.com.ua/ingushetia-leader-ingush-volunteers-fight-in-east-ukraine-131580en.html

        Media in Ukraine have reported the presence of Chechen, Ingush, and Ossetian fighters in the ranks of pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine’s east, where Ukrainian forces have been fighting separatists for
        weeks.

        http://qha.com.ua/ukrainian-mufti-called-on-muslims-not-to-come-to-ukraine-for-a-war-131578en.html

        Earlier, there were reports that among the militants who are fighting in south-east Ukraine along with pro-Russian rebels are Chechen militants.

        http://rt.com/op-edge/ukraine-no-control-over-rioters-928/

        “The rioters don’t want a truce in Ukraine and they don’t want peace in Ukraine, they want all the power. And that is the same goal that the so-called moderate opposition has. In this regard the radicals and the moderate opposition are allies. When the moderate opposition says they don’t have any control over the radicals, it’s a very convenient excuse. In fact they don’t want to exercise any control because the rioters on the streets are working for the same goal as they are in meetings with western governments,” Veronika Krasheninnikova, the head of the Institute of Foreign Policy Research and Initiatives, told RT. (sound like the Islamic jihad?)
        So, what do you think of the evidence that Russia has brought forward regarding the Malaysian airline?

    • You are so clueless, Russia is one of the biggest backers of all Muslim dictators, so they are buddies. Violent overthrow? That is nothing compared to what has happened in the ME.

      • America is even a bigger backer of Muslim dictators, still does not change the fact that Islamic jihadists seek the destruction of America, just how things work when dealing with muslims. Yes, it was a violent overthrow, a successfully engineered overthrow, of a legitimate government, and sure the Islamic psychopathy in the Middle East is far more depraved than anywhere else in the world, since the “new” Islamic caliphate is rising in Iraq/Babylon, in all its resplendent glorification of death and destruction.

  12. In 1983, we had 100% proof (including recordings of the Soviet fighter pilot) that the Soviets shot down KAL 007.
    We do not have absolute proof (yet) of Russia’s involvement in the shoot down of the Malaysian airliner.

    thank God Allen West no longer holds office.

    • Yeah, because it’s so obvious. Let’s just pretend we need to investigate this. Regardless of the circumstances, the persons who shot down this plane were Russian affiliates, be they Ukrainian or not; and this was completely enabled by Russia’s operations in the immediate area. Who is to blame? DUH! Russia. Wow. Thank God you’re not in office, but Obama isn’t doing much better.

      • I guess you have a reading comprehension problem genius.
        Did you miss the part where i wrote that we don’t have absolute proof yet of Russia’s involvement?
        Do you not understand what those words mean.
        It’s almost certain that separatists that were armed by Russia are responsible, though we don’t yet have 100% proof, nor do we know exactly how directly involved Russia was.
        Do you understand that simple point?
        Do you see the difference between the evidence now and the evidence in 83 when we tracked the Soviet fighter and got audio recording of the Soviet pilot firing?

      • I see the circumstances in 83, but I’m talking about today. Even if we had definite proof – like we don’t already know – Obama would just hand Russia a red line. Then he would back up on that red line after another plane was downed, and claim it was never “his” red line, but the world’s.

  13. Sarah Palin certainly created national stink when she called for Impeachment. Crybaby Boehner reflexively twitched negative, and the pundits were all clutching their pearls. Maybe time to reiterate your position in support of her. Pundits be damned. They are too stupid to realize that impeachment is a means to an end and NOT necessarily an end in itself. Palin/West or West/Palin 2016. You guys figure it out.

  14. Mr. West, you do a great job of playing a speech made by Reagan. You do not, however, articulate what steps Reagan took or what steps the Soviets took in (fearful) response to Reagan’s speech – because he took no steps and the Soviets did nothing in reply to his speech. Empty rhetoric which the Soviets knew was empty.

    Just as after the Beirut barracks blast, when 241 Marines were killed, Reagan did nothing. But, he did nothing with a style that surely impressed you Reagan-worshippers! Perhaps, instead of recycling speeches, you report what concrete steps were (or were not) taken.

    • The officers involved in that killing of innocent persons were awarded medals for meritorious service. Reagan refused to apologize for our major foul up. How do you confuse an F-14 for a Airbus A-300?

  15. In Reagan’s own words, in his diary, he did not express regret over the loss of life, but over the fact that he had to end his 25-day vacation 3 days early to return to Washington to make a national address on this issue. Oh, the inconvenience. Hey, Mr. Reagan, if the job was too much of an inconvenience, why not quit?

  16. Mr. West, do you realize that each time a commentator such as you complain about how weak our President is, you further weaken him and, therefore, our country.

    • A strong man is a strong man also because little rumours cannot change him. If it does , then that is not a strong man in the first place. Are you getting weak with every uncomfortable word people say about you ??…

      • Your argument is a weak effort to rationalize the reality that perception matters. If foreign leaders – including terrorists – see that many in our country do not support our president, they will sense (rightly) that that president will be handicapped in their ability to respond to issues. That is the reality of human dynamics – whether in the home or on a national level: if a child sees that the parents are divided, they can play one parent against the other.
        A president is only as strong as the willingness of our congress and the country to back them. We are not a dictatorship. Many anti-Obamaites commented how powerful Putin is. Yes, he can be that way when he is a dictator – with no national legislature with any effective control over him. Do they want a Putin as president here? Our Founding Fathers sure did not.

      • The idea to avoid saying negative things against the muslim Barrack Hussein is asinine! As stupid as saying… “Let’s always be positive”… or… “Everyone is a winner”… or… “Nobody loses”…

        Wake up James… sounds like you’re not living in “reality”.

        I refuse to be tolerant of others intolerance! If that makes me negative… good.

      • I never advocated NOT saying those things, merely pointing out that when we do, it sends a message to the world that we are divided, that the president is not all-powerful, which weakens their role on the world stage. So, if one complains that our president looks weak, look in the mirror. If our speech causes others to perceive him as weak, then those who criticize him openly need to bear some responsibility for that perception. That is reality.

      • Maybe you should look up the definition of advocate…
        Lookie here James… you are no longer in elementary school…
        And if you had any street smarts… weakness isn’t brought on by what another person says… but by how one reacts.

        In other words… no reaction means…
        1) You’re weak
        2) You’re OK with it and go along with it

        Besides… Barrack Hussein isn’t weak in the eyes of satanic worshipping muslims… they know he IS a muslim helping them expand satanic Islam across this planet.

        PS… lay off the ganja… you’re overthinking things…

        PS#2… change you little girly crusty printed underwear… this is Wednesday not Monday anymore…

      • A president in this country has limited power (as our Founding Fathers intended). The strength of a president is not how much power they actually have, but how much others perceive they have. Part of that is the perception of their ability to effect policy in our country.

      • A president’s strength is not in how they react – but more in how others perceive them and how much others perceive they can change policy. That is basic human dynamics.
        Our presidents have limited power to react and, what power they do have is primarily military and economic sanctions (which take time to take effect). I do hope that you are not advocating military action, for most would not be willing to pay that price.

    • James, lets talk about what Leftists such as yourself did to W. Bush during his tenure. Liberal hypocrisy has no limits.

  17. Remember…
    It was Reagan who signed into law the REX84 program which gave government the right to seize property and over ride the Constitution…
    Which Bush expounded on after 9/11/2001 and which Barrack Hussein has ran with ever since…
    Welcome to the Islamist States of America…
    Folks… Islam is satanic to the core!

    Also note: Putin is Orthodox… another fake church which serves satanic Islam alongside the “satanically influenced catholic fake church of thievery”…

    Hijacking is in the blood of catholicism and Islam…

    The Orthodox just put it out there with the “In Your Face” approach… A Cross with the Islamic Crescent combined…

    And don’t be duped about these Global leaders fighting against terrorism… of course they hate terrorism… they are scared that one of their loved ones or themselves could get caught in an explosion.

    Remember… a Fatwa went out to protect the wedding of Kate & William!? “No Terrorism” was announced… isn’t that just dandy… aye? You have the power to call upon the muslims and tell them when NOT to bomb an event? Nifty… aye?

    I suppose the citizens of Boston weren’t as important?

    And know this… it was the anti-American Alex Jones and Paul Watson of Infowars that were making excuses for the Boston Bombers! Yeah Right… the asswipes of Infowars! Always making excuses for satanic worshipping muslims acts of terrorism!

    • Know this people…

      The fake War on Terrorism is…
      1) designed as an excuse to send billions and billions of America’s fake fiat money into building up the Sunni Power of satanic Islam

      2) A message to the Islamists… “You don’t need terrorism to spread Islam across this planet… just saturate all the Western Nations with muslims and you can have the numbers to over ride any Constitution through Democracy”.

      Remember… It was said that “Libya was the Floodgate to the Western World”.

      Folks… It’s all about saturation… and even the “satanically influenced catholic fake church of thievery” and the pope loving Latinos are tools to forward satanic Islam.

      • So, so sad. It must be a bitch being you. Your ilk are the ones the NSA should be watching…NOT the whole freaking world.

      • Ha… you must be a C’lic… aye?
        PS… Barrack Hussein is NOT a “good Communicator”… he is a good liar.
        And what I’ve found out is… people like you who support Barrack Hussein are usually too ignorant and/or lazy to connect & follow the lies.
        Q: Do you have a problem identifying “deception”? Because it’s a natural born instinct of yours?

      • For your own sake, you should stop replying. Your hyperventilating, rabid comments only confirm what I said. BTW, nowhere in my comments do I state I am a Obama supporter. Don’t put YOUR words in MY mouth.

      • You say… “nowhere in my comments do I state I am a Obama supporter. Don’t put YOUR words in MY mouth.”

        Ah… hello… are you in there? Where in my comment do I claim you are? Fact is… I don’t.

        I see that you also have a problem with making things up.. aye?

        Do you still live in Mr Rogers “Land of Make Believe”?

        However; you do say in another comment above…

        “The only communicator since to approach his ability is, sorry, Barack Obama.”
        Which is definitely a false statement… asswipe!
        PS… get with the program.

      • You don’t even read your own posts. To Wit: “people like you who support Barrack Hussein”… an open sewer of hatred.

      • You’re right… I stand corrected…
        But the fact still stands… the teleprompter expert Barrack Hussein is not a good communicator… only a good liar.
        But you’re still my bitch… you’re now 43rd in line… be patient…

      • Being a good communicator and good liar are not mutually exclusive…one can be BOTH. Now, let’s talk about this bitch fixation you have.

      • Do you suffer from the lack of attention?

        You keep saying… “good communicator”…
        What???
        Maybe you’ve been out of the loop… Barrack Hussein is the teleprompter king of deception and stuttering. Which disqualifies him as a good communicator.
        Now then… move along…

  18. Mr West, RR was indeed the Great Communicator. I find it ironic, however, that the republican party has moved so far right in the interim that despite the republicans love of referring to St Reagan, he would have no chance to run today. He would be seen as far too moderate, nay liberal for current party tastes. The only communicator since to approach his ability is, sorry, Barack Obama. But lest we forget, great communication does not in and of itself make great leaders. Adolf Hitler was also a Great Communicator.

  19. and back in realitistan, from Tip O’Neill’s 1987 memoir:

    I’ll never forget that summer day in 1983 when Flight 007, the Korean airliner, was shot down by the Soviets. I was on Cape Cod, where Secretary of State George Shultz
    called me at 7 in the morning. After telling me what had happened, he said he was sending down a plane to bring me to Washington for an emergency meeting at the White House.

    “I’ll be ready,” I said. “But what does the President think about this?”

    “He’s still asleep,” said Shultz. “He doesn’t know about it yet.”

    “You’ve got to be kidding,” I said. “You mean you`re calling me before you’ve even notified the President?”

    “We’ll tell him when he wakes up,” said Shultz.

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/21/kate-obenshain/did-reagan-really-rush-back-dc-after-korean-plane-/

  20. Oh to have a President like Ronald Reagan or Abraham Lincoln, or an F.D.R. again instead of our current Godless, spineless one.

    • “What did Reagan aside…?”

      aside: |əˈsīd| adverb; to one side; out of the way: he pushed his plate aside | they stood aside to let a car pass | she must put aside all her antagonistic feelings.

      Did you perhaps leave out the word “do” in between Reagan and aside?

      If your brain is as good as your grammar – FOLKS WE’VE GOT A WINNER!!!!!

      (Are you the partner of Queen Latifah?)

      “The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.” – Ayn Rand

  21. Ahh but now comes the time for the Undisputed truth my friend……a true walk down memory lane from the news of the day…….”Reagan demanded an apology to the world and continued a number of sanctions — but he decided not to end grain sales to the USSR or to suspend arms control talks. George Will argued that “the administration is pathetic…. We didn’t elect a dictionary. We elected a President and it’s time for him to act.” The Manchester Union-Leader editorialized that “if someone had told us three years ago that the Russians could blow a civilian airliner out of the skies – and not face one whit of retaliation from a Ronald Reagan administration, we would have called that crazy. It is crazy. It is insane. It is exactly what happened.”

  22. Ronald Reagan when the Korean Airline was shot down, stayed
    on his Ranch in Santa Barbara for 4 more days and didn’t want to cut short his
    25 day vacation. Yeah he was real decisive. Got caught riding a horse and had
    to return reluctantly to the White House. Of course Allen West has got it wrong again. That’s why the Army was going to court martial him!

  23. He makes a speech but does nothing about Russia. Check your history books. A lot of hot air but no action against Russia. Let’s give him another Academy Award for character acting with out substance.

    • That was self defense, Iranian loaded dead body from their hospital, They found gauze, and bandages on some of the bodies, and fly it low at our ship, purposely to make us look bad, Iran has no respect for human life

      .

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here