You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (748)
PLAYS: (794)
Bob Schieffer fawns over Scott Brown during this cringe-inducing commentary segment on Face the Nation. And I thought Tweety was bad. Of course in typical Villager fashion Schieffer uses this as an excuse for calls of bi-partisanship without bothering to explain to his audience which party is caving into the other one and which one is obstructing. Hint to Schieffer, it's your miracle worker's party that's causing the gridlock along with the ConservaDems who are pretending to be Democrats.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Finally, there's been so much wonder expressed about the election of Scott Brown, I'm beginning to think that if it had happened in ancient times it might have been included in the Bible.
For sure, back then people were always looking for signs, and the politicians saw Brown's victory as more than just a sign. It gave them Old Testament-level shivers worse than Moses felt when he realized that burning bush was talking directly to him.
But was it more than that? I wondered. Did it herald a new Age of Miracles? Utter Brown's name and the waters part? Think about it.
Republicans tried for a year to kill health care reform. If Brown's victory didn't kill it in a second for sure it shoved it to the back burner.
And with great fanfare and the blessing of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the
administration planned to try the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in lower Manhattan. But Brown railed against civilian trials for terrorists, and in an epiphany worthy of the road to Damascus, the mayor of New York suddenly wanted no part of the trial--too expensive.
The heavens also parted for the administration: No backdown on civilian trials yet, but it looks like the proceedings will be moved.
And when the President went to Baltimore and had a very adult debate on issues with
Republicans--a debate that did both sides proud--I thought, stars above, maybe they are ready to work together. Well, silly me. An hour later that the partisan sniping and nastiness was going again full bore.
It's going to take a real miracle to stop that. But, we can hope.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (43)
PLAYS: (99)
Someone want to explain to me just where in this poll it says that the voters of Massachusetts wanted Brown to work with Democrats "to get Republican ideas into legislation". Papermoon at Daily KOS has a nice breakdown of that poll which flies in the face of Schieffer's hackery here--New Poll Explains Massachusetts.
Of course Schieffer can't help himself and has to get his little shot in on the blogs as well, saying politicians shouldn't be listening to the "fringes". Well Bob, it looks like "the fringe" at the Great Orange Satan is doing a better job of breaking down that poll than you are. And given the Democrats accepted 180 amendments from the Republicans on the health care bill and didn't get a single vote for them, just what else does Schieffer think they should do to show they'll work with the other side? Just another example of someone pretending to be a journalist while pushing Republican talking points.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Finally today, figuring out what Scott Brown's victory meant has set off a fiercer debate than trying to divine the meaning of the Book of Job. We were all certain it meant something profound, we just weren't sure what. Well, a Washington Post poll yesterday provided some clues. Sixty-three percent of Massachusetts voters thought the country had gone off course and the big part of them voted for Brown. That's pretty simple actually.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 435
PLAYS: 312
(Sen. Chris Dodd - 1983 - Warning signs the size of Buicks)
Another look back at our Foreign Policy the last 25 years. When Senator Chris Dodd was questioned by a panel on Face The Nation on April 10, 1983, no one really knew the extent of aid we were sending to Central America, but it did cause some on the Hill to ask questions.
George Herman (CBS News): “Senator Dodd, you’re one of the Foreign Relation Committees leading experts on Central America, let me ask you this; what is the Reagan Administration trying to do in Nicaragua, what is it’s ultimate aim and is it breaking the law trying to do it?”
Sen. Christopher Dodd: “Well, let me take the second part first. I think they’re clearly breaking the law. The Boland Amendment as adopted in the continuing resolution last fall clearly and explicitly prohibits the kind of activities that the Reagan Administration is engaged in, in Nicaragua and Honduras. Clearly the Administration, beginning at the Republican convention, if you will, in 1980 has as its central aim and goal in Central America, the de-centralization and overthrow of the Sandanista government.
So it would appear while questions of legality were being tossed about, the Reagan Administration were quietly thumbing their noses at the Foreign Relations Committee and setting up secret arms deals. Needless to say, the whole thing would blow up two years later. But by then the damage had already been done and the President sat smiling, shaking his head and not recalling anything.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (47)
PLAYS: (157)
Bob Schieffer throws this stink bomb without naming any names. Anyone want to take a guess as to who he was talking about? My guess is if you got a straight answer out of him there would be some false equivalencies in there. I don't disagree with him that's it is good that Americans are coming together to try to help the people of Haiti.
Now maybe if his news organization decided to start doing its job and quit pretending our government had nothing to do with the state they're in now with the extreme poverty making this disaster worse, that would be something.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Finally today, in a reporter's life there are stories--some interesting, some not; and then there are moments to remember. This weekend was one of those. When George Bush and Bill Clinton sat down together and said helping those in Haiti overrode politics, it symbolized that this was one of those times when the country came together. That seems to happen less often nowadays. In this day of mean and polarized politics we find no shortage of one-upmanship, pettiness, and those seeking partisan advantage. The politicians love it and have somehow come to believe it helps them when, in fact, it is has just the opposite effect.
My evidence of that, well, there was a time when people wanted their children to go up to be President. How often have you heard anyone express that wish lately? Or even that their child would grow up to have anything to do with politics.
But here is the good news. When Americans have to come together, when we have to put those things aside, we always do, as we did after 9/11. The reaction to Haiti may have been more remarkable than our response to 9/11 because 9/11, after all, was about us. This past week was about the suffering of others. Yet, with the exception of a few loonies and professional partisans, Americans opened their hearts and their billfolds and they did so even though America itself is in the midst of an economic crisis.
So it was good to see Bill Clinton and George Bush sitting together, good to know that in times past they drew strength and counsel from each other. That's how Americans want their leaders to act. Too often, they just don't.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (481)
PLAYS: (590)
When asked about our policy of releasing prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (DINO-CA) agrees with Rep. Pete Hoekstra that we should not be releasing anyone to a country with an al Qaeda presence.
SCHIEFFER: Dianne Feinstein , what about that, that we shouldn’t release anybody to a country where there’s an Al Qaida presence? Do you go along with that?
FEINSTEIN: Yes, I tend to agree with that, actually. And if you look at Yemen-- and we’re taking a good look at Yemen-- what you see is I think at least 24 or 28 are confirmed returns to the battlefield in Yemen. And there are a number of suspected.
If you combine the suspected and the confirmed, the number I have is 74 detainees have gone back into the fight. And I think that’s bad.
And here’s the reason. They come out of Gitmo and they are heroes in this world. This world is the only world that’s going to really be accepting of them. Therefore, the tendency is to go back. And I think the Gitmo experience is not one that leads itself to rehabilitation, candidly. I think it leads to....
SCHIEFFER: Let me -- let me ask, do you think that maybe we just ought to keep Gitmo open for a while and not release anybody that’s down there, or at least put them in some other place but not release them?
FEINSTEIN: Well, I agree with those that have said that Guantanamo has really been a recruiting tool for Al Qaida, that it has not been helpful to us. And I think that, you know, the Senate is now engaged in a huge study on the interrogation and detention of the some 33 high-value detainees. What happened to them, how were they treated? What success did the interrogation have? Were the laws followed? That kind of thing. And we should have the report completed within the next three months or so.
SCHIEFFER: All right.
FEINSTEIN: However, the problem is that this is very difficult. And I happen to know the prison system rather well, so I believe the safety of America is assured in the federal prison system. I don’t worry about the safety element.
SCHIEFFER: It sounds to me like what you’re saying here, Senator Feinstein, is that we ought to be very, very careful about releasing anybody right now. That seems to me your (inaudible).
FEINSTEIN: I think right now, until we sort this out, the answer is yes.
SCHIEFFER: All right. I want to thank both of you for being with us this morning. Very enlightening discussion.
Gee Senator, who would have ever thought torturing people would make them want to come back and kill us later? The Gitmo experience--isn't that lovely?
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 33
PLAYS: 9
(David Stockman - Forecast: Murky with periods of Fog)
If the panel of interviewers on this Face The Nation broadcast from February 6, 1983 seemed baffled by the Reagan economic program, most of the people in country watching and listening weren't any clearer.
So when David Stockman came on to explain just what was going on with the budget, the panel and the audience were treated to more bobbing and weaving than a remedial arts and crafts class.
George Herman (CBS News): “You said that domestic spending hasn’t come down as projected nor, you said ‘do I think it can’. Are you getting with domestic spending to the point where you’re bumping up against what the American people want for their poor or their elderly and so forth, things that you cannot really politically or in America’s idea of what it wants to be that you cannot further reduce?”
David Stockman: “Well I think there’s some element of that. I think there’s some element of the practicalities of the legislative process. I think if you look at the half-trillion dollars, that we have in this budget that’s being criticized for domestic programs, and that’s the truth; one half Trillion dollars, and you hear the criticisms what people on the Hill are really saying is that here and there we disagree with the priorities, but in the aggregate we could probably do with less. The problem is, the Congress isn’t capable of making decisions in the aggregate that result in less because of the way it’s organized . . .
Herman: “Well I’m not sure it’s fair, Mister Stockman, to blame it all on the Congress. When you get to questions of ‘should we cut Social Security’s Cost-of-Living Adjustments, or as you call them ‘cola’s’, should we reduce Medicare and so forth. This just isn’t Congress, the American people are troubled by . . .
Stockman: “I indicated that my statement reflected some of both elements. The bi-partisan solution on Social Security for instance, indicated that yes, in the last four years Cost of Living Adjustments have been 50%, wages have gone up 38% , we can have a six month delay. The speakers agree that will save $25 billion over several years. On the other hand, it was also felt as part of a consensus that no abrupt reduction in benefits ought to be imposed in that big system.”
Dodging, bobbing and weaving. In short, pay no attention to the men behind the curtain. You will hopefully forget soon enough.
Stockman would leave in 1985 and go on to another story.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 394
PLAYS: 192
(Oh?)
Former Nevada Governor, Senator and newly appointed General Chairman of the Republican National Committee Paul Laxalt (R-Nevada) faced a panel of interviewers on CBS News Face The Nation in January 1983. A shade less than two years into his first term as President, Reagan was already being asked if he was planning on running for a second term. Clearly the age factor was beginning to concern people. But more than that, the policies, the deficit, the taxes and the program slashings (i.e. Medicare) were starting to concern people as well and maybe more so. And who better to put a positive spin on things to the media than Reagan's old friend Paul Laxalt.
Phil Jones (CBS News): “The Democrats are going to confront you, as you know, with a choice between canceling that third phase of the Tax cut, at least for those over $40,000 a year in income, rather than cutting the Medicare payments for those who have to go into the hospital. Why would you prefer to keep the tax cut and cut Medicare?”
Paul Laxalt: “Well because, first of all this President made a commitment to the American people that would be his program. I see no compelling reason to do otherwise. To do that, really would be to affect a political compromise that I think is undesirable. We have a total package here which, if we can get some cooperation from our Democrat colleagues I think we can pass and which will serve the country well. You’re going to have negotiation, I know you are I hear it from the House side. So listen, we’ll deal with you on the social side if you’ll deal on military and if you’ll deal on the third year tax cut. That’s an academic exercise, because Ronald Reagan has indicated, in no uncertain terms, that if they fool with the third year tax cut that’s veto-grabbed. As far as the defense situation is concerned, again they’re going to stand firm on the defense. So I just think you’re dealing academic exercise if you’re talking about these kind of tradeoffs.”
Laxalt was considered a pretty likable guy who had friends on both sides of the aisle. But even this level of spin was hard to pull off.
Even in 1983 we had the eternal deficit and people screaming about taxes. It never seems to stop no matter what and no matter who. But memories are often short, especially when it's not convenient.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 47
PLAYS: 12
(1986: A year of contradictions)
Continuing our Thousand Yard Stare at years gone past, I came across 1986 and this year-end wrap up from Lesley Stahl on Face The Nation. It's a quick gloss over, probably because each story is good for about a weeks worth of posts. Nonetheless, it gives a good introduction to just what kind of year 1986 was. A lot of contradictions, not to mention denials. Between Libya, Iran-Contra, the upheaval in the Phillippines, Chernobyl - it was a busy year.
Lesley Stahl (CBS News): “What would happen to your country if Mrs. Aquino becomes President?”
Ferdinand Marcos (Philippine President): “The country will become Communist.”
The oft-used famous last words, but another indication of where 1986 was heading.
We'll be spending a lot of time there in the weeks/months ahead - fear not.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (32)
PLAYS: (119)
We all knew this was coming, right? On this week's Face the Nation, Olympia Snowe cites the lack of time for Republicans to further amend the health care bill none of them ever had any intention of voting for as the reason she won't vote for it. Steve Benen has more this:
By all appearances, the White House, from the outset, made an effort to garner bipartisan support for health care reform. At least in the Senate, that now appears impossible. Democrats no longer need Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-Maine) vote, but they sought it out anyway, to no avail.
Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican who had been considered a possible Democratic ally, said she would oppose the measure because it was being rushed. "It is a take-it-or-leave-it package," she said.
I just can't figure out what on earth Snowe is talking about. She voted with Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee reform plan, but now appears to be looking for an excuse to oppose the effort. But to sound even remotely credible, Snowe will have to do better than this.
I agree. Weak indeed. How's the bipartisanship working out for you President Obama? Snowe reminds me of her buddy Susan Collins talking about wanting to "improve" a bill she had no intention of voting for either. As Steve notes in his post, both of them have had ample chance to make this bill as bad as it is now.
"You have to take out the Medicare buy-in. You have to forget about the public option. You probably have to take out the class act which was a whole new entitlement program that will in future years put us further into the deficit," Lieberman told CBS' Bob Schieffer Sunday.
"I want to tell you, we could pass a health care reform bill this week with more than 60 votes and it would be bipartisan if we just took a few things out of the bill as it is today," said Lieberman.
Lieberman wants to pass a Republican health care package, which is no plan at all. This bitter man is hijacking the entire health care reform effort for no other reasons than his petty, narcissistic agenda. He is a traitor to the liberal policies that once, as a vice-presidential nominee in 2000, he would have never signed onto.
Greg Sargent comes up with video proof which exposes Lieberman of being a bad-faith participant in health care negotiations. Holy Joe just three months ago was saying that he supports a Medicare buy-in plan. Oh, my!
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
In the vid, Lieberman appeared to go further than the current Senate deal, which would expand Medicare to those aged 55-64, saying he supported the idea of expanding it to people aged 50 and over. Lieberman referenced his proposal along these lines during the 2006 campaign, and added:
“My proposals were to basically expand the existing successful public health insurance programs Medicare and Medicaid…
“When it came to Medicare I was very focused on a group — post 50, maybe more like post 55. People who have retired early, or unfortunately have been laid off early, who lose their health insurance and they’re too young to qualify for Medicare.
“What I was proposing was that they have an option to buy into Medicare early and again on the premise that that would be less expensive than the enormous cost. If you’re 55 or 60 and you’re without health insurance and you go in to try to buy it, because you’re older … you’re rated as a risk so you pay a lot of money.”
It’s not entirely clear that Lieberman was offering a full-throated current endorsement of the proposal, but his tone is clearly positive and approving. It’s yet another sign, as if you needed one, that Lieberman’s current opposition to the Senate proposal doesn’t appear to have any roots in a genuine policy disagreement.
It appears that Holy Joe wants to destroy health-care reform because his feelings have been hurt by liberals who disagreed with his warmongering behavior. The pettiness he holds dear to his heart is being used to destroy any chance that working-class Americans will be getting meaningful health care reform. You can't go lower than that.
Again it boils down to leadership, and President Obama and Harry Reid have not led this fight well from the beginning. They knew they had to deal with Joe, so he was bowed down to. The problem is that he felt no repercussions after he threw his full support to John McCain in the 2008 election. "He's with us on everything except the war," was what Harry Reid said. How did that work out for ya, Harry? Joe is destined to destroy health-care reform altogether.
People need to send the link to this to all the press and the villagers they can think of to show just how perfidious their favorite "man of integrity" is being on this. Thy won't care about the substance, but this helps expose Lieberman's pettiness which villagers always find uncomfortable. (The exposure, not the pettiness.)
Please sign this petition to progressive Senators Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Roland Burris, and Sherrod Brown:
PETITION: "Don't let Joe Lieberman win! Americans need you to stand strong and block any 'compromise' without a strong public option. If necessary, demand that Sen. Harry Reid and President Obama support budget reconciliation and pass a bill with just 51 votes -- at which point, Joe Lieberman will be irrelevant and the public option can be made even stronger."
Key Democrats have said they won't support a bill without a strong public option:
That said, I agree with Chris Bowers that in a lot of ways the real story here is that the Senate leadership has, at every step of this process, underscored that a “reconciliation” path to a health care bill is off the table. That means Lieberman has unlimited control over what happens, and no incentive to compromise, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he’s being uncompromising. Can’t liberals be just as stiff-necked as Lieberman? Sure, they could. But liberals members do have an incentive to compromise—the tens of thousands of people who die every year for lack of health insurance. The leverage that Lieberman and other “centrists” have obtained on this issue (and on climate change) stems from a demonstrated willingness to embrace sociopathic indifference to the human cost of their actions.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 60
PLAYS: 6
(Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan - At every turn, some new loose cannon)
We talk about how unhinged and fear-driven the Republican "base" is lately, but seem to forget there is a long history that goes with it. One that goes back for decades if not longer.
I almost forgot how freely and how often President Reagan invoked the Evil Empire theme and played on fears of how Russia was superior militarily to the U.S. - how we were unprepared for a nuclear threat and how a threat could come at any time.
It was the fear then and it's the fear now. Fear, it would seem, is the driving force behind the Right wing agenda and the mainstream media.
So when Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was interviewed on Face The Nation in April 4, 1982, he displayed a goodly amount of disbelief over the lack of responsibility Reagan was showing by proclaiming the U.S. no match for a Soviet showdown during a recent Press Conference.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “There is a leakage of reality in this Administration. The Commander-in-Chief, what Commander-In-Chief has ever told the world that the United States is inferior to an adversary? And why would anyone say that when it isn’t even so?”
It's interesting to note that CBS Correspondent George Herman attempts to cover over the situation by claiming Reagan "wasn't really serious in his estimation" of his statement - the Mainstream Media, as always are more than willing to join in the reality leak.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (536)
PLAYS: (2091)
Sen. Joe Lieberman isn't backing down from his demand that health care reform not include a public option but now he has a few more requirements.
"You have to take out the Medicare buy-in. You have to forget about the public option. You probably have to take out the class act which was a whole new entitlement program that will in future years put us further into the deficit," Lieberman told CBS' Bob Schieffer Sunday.
"I want to tell you, we could pass a health care reform bill this week with more than 60 votes and it would be bipartisan if we just took a few things out of the bill as it is today," said Lieberman.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 591
PLAYS: 358
(White House Chief of Staff and later Treasury Secretary James Baker with "friend" - coincidence? We think nope.)
Smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand, stratagems and feints - all those characterizations to sum up the Reagan Economics plan. In this interview, part of the CBS News Face The Nation series from August 15, 1982, White House Chief of Staff, later appointed Treasury Secretary James Baker is asked point blank about the wildly varying opinions on the economic state and on the deficit.
George Herman (CBS News): “When do you personally think the deficit may be below $100 billion?”.
James Baker: “Well George, the official figure is of course is what I gave you and I recognize there are differences of opinion with respect to that. I think the point is that . .is that these ballooning deficits that we see are the reason why it is very important that the Congress implement the budget resolution that’s before it and it’s very . . .this is the reason it’s very important that we have a tax bill and that tax bill pass the Congress. Now, it’s really not important when I personally think the deficit might be below $100 billion. In the first place, I’m not an economist, and I really don’t have any independent view of that. The important thing, I think is that we need to constantly keep our eye on the fact that deficits are a major problem in this country. And that the ever expanding size of these deficits keeps interests rates up. And the fact that interest rates are remaining too high is what prevents the recovery from taking place. So it’s very important, we think, that as an administration that we . .that we do some responsible surgery, if you will, on these deficits”.
I guess having knowledge of economics wasn't a prerequisite for being appointed Treasury Secretary in 1985, at least not in the Reagan White House. I think its' safe to say the world o' crap we're in right now didn't necessarily start on January 2001.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 577
PLAYS: 421
(The Wolf at the front door is starting to look like the family pet)
The never ending story of the Economy, and the ever perplexing world of Reaganomics of the 1980s. Probably not a revelatory view, but one given by Donald C. Platten, who was in 1983 Chairman and CEO of Chemical Bank. The interview via CBS News Face The Nation on August 14, 1983 gives some indication where things were heading.
Donald Platten (Chemical Bank): “The feeling I personally go to bed with every night is that the economy will shortly stop being in a recovery mode, in other words we will have reached the former peak of the economy and that there will be a growth that we’ll be able to talk about as far as our economy in the months ahead. I think what is going on now in the economy is very healthy. I don’t think we have to worry about it being over exuberant. I think there will be a good economy going from now right straight through the year end into 1984. I think there will be pauses. I think in certain industries there’s going to be really no basic recovery in a significant way. I’m afraid that the problem of unemployment is going to continue with us for some time to come, and that really is the biggest thing in the country today. We’ve dispensed with the word Inflation, really. It’s a non-subject, why? Because it’s down to around 3 to 4 percent as against 14 percent a couple of years, so now the unemployment factor is the one that’s on most peoples minds. And that is going to continue down as the economy continues to grow, that it will not affect everybody as well as some other people, there’s no question about that.”
Hindsight and the reading of Tea Leaves. Twenty-six years ago they were doing it. Twenty-six years later, they still are.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 530
PLAYS: 269
(Sen. John Tower . . . more or less)
The Reagan years saw Americas fair share of military excursions overseas. Between a disastrous stay in Lebanon, an invasion of the island of Grenada, the ongoing skirmishes with Libya, our clandestine involvement in Nicaragua and El Salvador - the list is pretty endless. All were done under the veil of the Cold War - the eternal "good fight" against Communist insurgency throughout the world. But more and more the real motives were being revealed and they had more to do with sources of raw materials (i.e. oil) than they did with Moscow. Russia was knee-deep in their own Afghanistan, and we were busy supplying arms to the Mujahadeen (i.e. Taliban) - but our "tinkering in internal affairs" was the subtext, while the Media attention was drawn to the splashier pictures - Mohammar Khadafi, Yuri Andropov and the Evil Empire. CBS News program Face The Nation had a panel featuring Senator John Tower (R-Texas), Chairman of The Senate Armed Services Committee discussing our latest set of situations and our Foreign Policy on August 7, 1983.
Sen. John Tower: “I think it should be understood that the United States is committed to the protection of its vital interests abroad . . . we don’t want to find ourselves more or less isolated in this world from important sources of raw materials.”
George Herman (CBS News): “Are you concerned at all about the issue of legitimacy, for example the side that we are supporting, that of President Hissene Habre` is a government which took over and forced out the previous President whose name was Goukouni Queddei, as I recall. So that we are really supporting rebels or insurgents ore revolutionaries against what was a legitimate government . . . .”
Tower: “The fact is, that is the recognized government of Chad. It is the government that is accredited to various capitals throughout the world. It is the government that is recognized by the Organization of African States.”
Herman: “But it’s a civil war, shouldn’t we . . . .?”
Tower: “I understand that . . but the point is, not involvement in the civil war, but . . trying to prevent the intrusion of others in the civil war and turning it to their own uses. Don’t think that Colonel Khadifi has any great philosophical notions about who should be in charge in Chad. Colonel Khadafi would like to be the dominant influence in Chad. And the implications for other African states and the implications for the United States and Western Europe and our interests there are very obvious to me . . . “
Eventually the lid would be blown off the Iran-Contra affair, but in 1983 it was Business As Usual.
