By Brigitte L. Nacos
When Karl Rove in his recent speech in New Hampshire attacked critics of the administration's Iraq policy as once again opting for "cutting and running," he revealed a central theme in his party's election year tactic: Democrats are soft on terrorism. Implicit here is the notion that Democrats embolden terrorists. This is actually an old charge that goes back to the Iran Hostage Crises and the 1980 presidential campaign, when Pres. Carter's alleged 'do nothing" stance and the failed rescue mission were exploited by the Reagan campaign. Once in office, Pres. Reagan warned terrorists that on his watch there would be swift retribution for terror strikes. Ever since Republicans have claimed that they, contrary to Democrats, are tough on terrorism. And implicit here is the idea that Republicans discourage terrorism. Incredibly, nobody seems to challenge these claims--although they are contradicted by the history of anti-American terrorism in the last 25 years.
Until the more recent advent of catastrophic terrorism, the 1980s witnessed most anti-American terrorism in the annals of modern history. These are but the most devastating and consequential terrorist deeds during the "decade of terrorism," when Presidents Reagan and Bush I resided in the White House:
- 1983: Truck bomb destroys part of the U.S. embassy in Beirut and kills 63 persons.
- 1983: Truck bomb destroys U.s. Marine barracks near Beirut killing 241 Americans.
- 1985: TWA hijacking and hostage crisis--one U.S. serviceman is killed.
- 1985: Terrorists take over the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and brutally kill a wheel-chair-bound New Yorker.
- 1988: PanAmFlight 103 is bombed and destroyed over Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 persons aboard and eleven persons on the ground were killed.
- 1982-91: Americans are kidnapped and held by terrorists in Lebanon--more than half-a dozen for years. Three captives were brutally executed by their captors.
How tough on terrorism were Republican presidents during those years? President Reagan concluded correctly that without knowing terrorists' hiding places,indiscriminate counterstrikes would only kill innocent civilians and make us just like the terrorists.
In response to the attack on the Marine barracks, he withdrew the American military from Lebanon. Cutting and running?
In dealing with the difficult hostage ordeals in Lebanon, the Reagan White House made arms-for-hostages deals with Iran. Was it a demonstration of being soft on terrorism, when the administration dealt with a sponsor state of terrorism--ultimately to get the last Lebanon hostages released during the Bush I term?
In 1986, when Libyan agents were involved in bombing a Berlin bar that was frequented by American GIs., Libya was bombed in ratiliation strikes. But that did not prevent Gaddafi's involvement in the attack on PanAm Flight 103 two years later.
I believe that neither Pres. Reagan nor Bush should be blamed for terrorism or responses to terrorism during their terms. I assume that both men believed that they acted in the best interest of the nation and of the victims of terrorism. And just as I do not recall Democrats blaming Pres. Clinton's predecessor for the first World Trade Center bombing in February 1993--just a month into Clinton's first term, Republicans should not blame the predecessor of Pres. Bush II for the 9/11 strikes-eight months into the President's term.
Truth Twisters have gotten away in the past, and they still get away today with the myth of Republicans being tough and Democrats being soft on terrorism. Since nobody bothers to set the record straight, opinion polls show consistently that Americans have bought into the myth so that majorities and pluralities believe that Republicans handle terrorism better than Democrats.
June 21, 2006
Comments