This weekend, twenty-five years ago, it was all about The Persian Gulf and the U.S. decision to re-flag Kuwaiti Oil Tankers within the next ten days. Amid reports that Iran was mining the Gulf and the U.S. was inching closer to a shooting war. With the Iraqi bombing of the USS Stark, which claimed 37 crewmen, it would seem a showdown was inevitable.

Despite all that, there was no concrete Policy in place, with reference to our position on The Persian Gulf. This episode of Face The Nation was titled "Persian Gulf Policy: A Sea Of Confusion", and it reflected just how off the charts we were in handling crises overseas.

Joining Moderator Leslie Stahl were Under-Secretary of State Michael Armacost and Chairman of The House Armed Services Committe, Les Aspin, discussing what was becoming a fractured and and confusing policy and whether or not the re-flagging of Kuwaiti ships should be postponed.

Here is that broadcast. You get to decide.

Continuing the backward look at Presidential elections past, we're taking a stop at the 1984 Democratic Primaries and this interview by Leslie Stahl with Democratic Presidential hopefuls Alan Cranston and Gary Hart on the eve of the New Hampshire Primary.

This broadcast of Face The Nation from February 27, 1984 covers a number of subjects, among them; Cranston's age (69 at the time), Jesse Jackson's slips-of-tongue, Gary Hart's 16% showing in Iowa and his surge in the polls before New Hampshire, Foreign Policy, Republicans in general - who will be left standing after Tuesday in particular.

Politics in 1984. 28 years and another planet later . . .

(Even hair was perplexed)

For all the spin, analysis and hand-wringing going on over our economy of late, we often forget it got a start somewhere. Fingers often point in the direction of the 80's where conflicting stories abound, but it's a good bet that the "supply side" theory of the economy had something to do with it.

As this episode of Face The Nation from May 29, 1988 illustrates, Treasury Secretary James Baker just couldn't break himself away from his rose colored glasses, even for a minute.

James Baker: “I noticed the intro to your program, the “yes, but . .” – but if I may say so, people have been out there saying “yes, but” since the spring of 1983. They’ve been telling us that “yes, things are okay now, but the wheels are gonna fall off, the economy’s gonna go in the tank, and it hasn’t. And it is not going to.”

Leslie Stahl: “How long is it not going to?”

James Baker: “Well . . .well into the foreseeable future. Well into the foreseeable future”

Yes, well into the foreseeable future - hopefully the future where nobody will notice what happened in the 80's. Hopefully by that future, some miracle will magically occur and all our economic woes will vanish. Or all those practitioners of Voodoo Economics will be dead, senile or too in-disposed to care.

Welcome to the future.

(The McMartin Pre-school Scandal - when in doubt, blame the Carter Administration)

It was labeled "Americas Dirty Little Secret", the result of allegations (later proved false) that wholesale child molesting was going on in, of all places, a Daycare Center. The trial and the bizarre proceedings surrounding the McMartin Pre-School Scandal went on for years, eventually ending in acquittal for the defendants. But what it did was create an awareness that yes, America did have a dirty little secret, and that the Reagan Administration was so busy slashing funds and programs it abandoned an entire segment of our population; children.

When the CBS News program Face The Nation did a feature on Child Molestation, based not only on the developing story around the McMartin scandal, but also on the recent disclosure that Senator Paula Hawkins (R-Florida) had been a victim of child molestation, the White House sent Margaret Heckler, then Secretary of Health and Human Services to perform damage control - not very convincingly.

Leslie Stahl (CBS News): “When the Administration originally cut funds in this area, we as a society were not really aware of the extent of this problem. Now it seems to be a problem everywhere, all across the country, cases are turning up every day. Is there any change in attitude that maybe some of these funds should be restored to treatment centers and prevention centers, those are the areas where the money was cut.”

Margaret Heckler (Secretary of Health and Human Services): “Uh, Leslie you have to understand that the amount of money that’s involved here is not vast. And that if we had reinvested the same money that had been spent under the Carter Administration . . the program went from, overall from twenty million to about sixteen or seventeen million dollars . . we could not have had a sufficient um . . monitoring effort, enough social workers, enough police to prevent the tragedy, the horror of Manhattan Beach.”

Stahl asks Heckler twice about the cuts in funding and Heckler dances completely around the issue both times. After fifteen minutes Stahl lets her slide away and the subject changes to the role of the social worker and the courts and is never brought up again.

And so went the Reagan Years.

(Sen. Alan Cranston - Majority Whip and Tap Dance - 1980)

As the hostage crisis in Iran dragged on, the finger pointing season was in full swing. Everyone from the President to the State Department had their fair share of blame to pass around. Our attempts at diplomacy and negotiation were failing miserably and there seemed to be no positive outcome to the story.

So when Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Whip appeared on Face the Nation on March 30, 1980 he was barraged with questions on what, if any, next moves were on the horizon. From the sounds of it, there were none.

Sen. Alan Cranston: “I think you have to go all the way back to the beginning of the crisis to really fault what has occurred. I do not fault the decision to permit the Shah to enter this country, I think that that was necessary and appropriate, given our past relationship with him and his health. I do feel that, in retrospect it would have been far wiser for the President to have taken steps to insure the safety of our people in Iran. There apparently there were reasons to fear what might happen when the Shah came in. And I think we should have closed our embassy and removed our personnel simultaneously with the permission of the Shah to come this country. Since that time, I think the President has handled a very difficult situation with restraint and wisdom and imagination in seeking ways to go and resolve an incredible situation.”

In short, there was no solution and a lot of blame to pass around. But bear in mind, it was only going to get worse with an ill-fated rescue attempt a little over a month away.

And thirty years ago it was very possible to make a bad situation worse.

(Iraqi Nuclear Power Plant - Post Operation Opera 1981)

Rather interesting story that got a bit buried in events surrounding it. The Israeli Airforce conducted a raid on Iraq's Nuclear Power facility on June 7, 1981. It effectively got rid of Iraq's bid for making potential nuclear weapons.

John Blackstone (CBS News): “Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin predicts that his action in ordering the destruction of an Iraqi nuclear plant has set a precedent for future Israeli governments".

Fingers were pointed at the Saudi's who said their radar was not sophisticated enough to track the Israeli jets going through their air space. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee made noises about the jets being U.S. made and promised an investigation, which never came to pass.

The interesting point is how Begin later went on to add during that Face The Nation segment, that Israel would not hesitate to stage similar raids on other Middle East nuclear power facilities in the future. Particularly those deemed threatening to Israel.

Makes you wonder about the current state of affairs with Iran, doesn't it? Or is that just a matter of time?

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

and that cheerful reminder . . .