Gazizza.Net

My high expectations were exceeded. It provides an interesting account of how these three revitalized the West and freed the East and other Communist enclaves around the world.

Interesting tidbits included:
- Ted Kennedy (D-MA) meeting multiple times with Soviet leaders attempting to undermine American foreign policy and weaken American negotiating positions at summits.
- Contrary to media and liberal stereotypes, Reagan was not the crazy man with an itchy trigger finger on the button. (Which normal Americans knew all along.) In fact, his ultimate goal was the elimination of nuclear weapons completely.
- While Soviet apoligists in the West were urging further detente with the Soviet Union since they were going to beat us anyway, the Soviet leadership knew what Reagan knew: their time was limited and their empire crumbling.
- In fact, once the Soviets realized the direness of their econmic situation and the fact they had no credibility in much of their Empire, they realized thy had no place to turn by to their liberal sympathizers in the West. Although O'Sullivan doesn't use the term that I recall, the "useful idiots" have always been there for the Soviets.
- Contrary to the common perception, Gorbachev was not eager to let the empire go and people be free, rather he merely accepted it as inevitable and therefore nothing to prevent it. (As O'Sullivan points out, it's a remarkable sign of how little we expect from Communist leaders that we laud him for not violently repressing Eastern Europe when they sought independence.) In fact, when the Baltic states declared their independence, he did use violent actions to attempt to keep them in the Russian empire. (He had declared that the freedom movement in Eastern Erope would stop at the borders of the Soviet Union.)
- America and some Western allies were sadly ready to go along with the, despite having spent decades denying the legitimacy of Soviet occupation of Lativa, Lithuania and Estonia. (The more I learn about then-Secretary of State James Baker, the less I like him.) Fortunately, Margaret Thatcher put a stop to that.
- Just like Reagan reversed America's policy of detente, John Paul II reversed a similar policy of conciliation within the Catholic Church. In Eastern Europe, he refused to recognize the legitimacy of Communist regimes, which had been gaining in favor among some in the Vatican and the Eastern European dioceses. In Latin America, he made it clear that liberation theology was not an acceptable Christian doctrine, which undercut Communist claims to be acceptable under Christian doctrine.
- Reagan was far from an enthuiastic supporter of the Contras. In fact, he rejected the first proposal to fund them as he preferred non-violent options when possible. We only ended up supporting them because it was by far the least bad option.
- By focusing the Iran-Contra investigation on the transfer of funds to the Contras, the Democrats seriously misplayed it. The American people liked funding anti-Communist rebels. The Democrats would ahve been far better off focusing on the transfer of arms to Iran, which the American people hated.
- Similarly, years of denoucing Reagan as an out-of-touch President controlled by his handlers (far, far from the truth) also hurt the liberals in the Iran-Contra investigations: how could Reagan be responsible for all that happened if he was so out of touch?
- It stunned me how quickly liberals have lined up to makes apologies for and defend America's enemies. It began to be true starting in the 70s and continues to this day.
- SDI was never about allowing us to be able to launch an uncontested first nuclear strike. It was about allowing all nations to destroy their nuclear weapons, switching from weapons of offense and destructive retaliation to a position of true defense. (He repeatedly offered to allow all nations to participate in its use for defensive purposes.) It was a shield, not a sword. This would also have allowed us not to worry so much about rogue states acquiring nuclear weapons. We would not be worrying so much about Iran and North Korea right now if we had listened to the Gipper on this one.

I would consider this book a must-read. You'll learn a lot and gain a deeper appreciation for Reagan. He was a truly revolutionary figure, who I respect even more now after reading the book. Read it!