Robert F. Kennedy posted the following piece in the Huffington Post on May 19. I reposted the opinion piece from his blog in its entirety because it spoke to a time that apparently is no longer with us; when patriotism was more important than partisanship.
My uncle, President John F. Kennedy’s Pulitzer Prize winning best-seller Profiles in Courage recounted the stories of courageous U.S. Senators — Republicans and Democrats — who chose patriotism over partisanship and sacrificed personal ambition to national welfare. The GOP’s recent efforts to gin up presidential scandals in punitive hearings, media lynchings, and weekly calls for impeachment, evince a party-wide pathology that puts partisanship over patriotism. For Republicans who believe that patriotism ends with lapel pins and cowboy costumes, it might be useful to consider some historical examples of true patriotism by a political party.
At 6:22 a.m. on Sunday, October 23, 1983, a suicide bomber drove a six-ton truckload of high explosives through a lightly fortified plywood fence, past two marine guards with no bullets in their rifles, and detonated his payload at the Beirut airport. The largest non-nuclear explosion ever recorded toppled the four story U.S. marine barracks from its foundation and killed 241 sleeping soldiers. It was the deadliest day for the Marine Corps since Iwo Jima.
Ignoring protests by Congressional Democrats and his own Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinberger, President Reagan had sent the marines to protect Beirut’s airport during the bloody civil war that followed Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon to expel the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Citing the April 1983 U.S. embassy bombing in Beirut, where 63 people died including 17 Americans, Weinberger and Congressional Democrats had argued that Reagan’s plans for deploying additional marines to Beirut would make the American soldiers “sitting ducks.” Worse yet, because Reagan had labeled the marines “peacekeepers,” he ordered them not to appear “warlike.” Their orders forbade them from erecting fortifications or perimeter fences or loading their weapons. Weinberger had entreated Reagan to station the soldiers in a less vulnerable redoubt, instead of the highly exposed and indefensible airport barracks building. Weinberger later lamented.
I was not persuasive enough to persuade the president that the marines were there on an impossible mission. They had no mission but to sit at the airport which is just like sitting in a bull’s-eye. I begged the President to put them back on their transports as a more defensible position.
The American press pilloried President Reagan for putting the marines and servicemen in harm’s way without ammunition or any clear mission during a violent civil war in a country rife with sophisticated suicide bombers and a history of successful attacks against Americans. CBS Evening News reported,
the marines rely on the inexperienced Lebanese army to check vehicles. Today, all kinds of vehicles were being waved right through without the slightest verification… the question remains what are the marines doing in Beirut? They are here to prop up a government that still controls only a part of Beirut and none of the rest of the country, and are being told to sit at the Beirut airport where they became prime targets.
Richard Threlkead of ABC’s World News Tonight invoked the bitter refrain from Alfred Lloyd Tennyson’s Charge of the Light Brigade, the poet’s rant against idiotic commanders and chicken-hawk politicians; “Tennyson would have understood it,” he said angrily. “‘Theirs is not to reason why, theirs but to do or die.'”
Reagan’s response to press badgering about the absence of ammunition and protective barriers only stirred public anger about the president’s lack of concern for troop safety. Reagan’s explanation for the blunder seemed flippant, “Anyone who ever had a kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would be.”
Late on the evening of the deadly attack, top Congressional leaders including House Speaker, Tip O’Neill became even more unsettled while attending a secret meeting with the president, his cabinet and Joint Chiefs of Staff in the White House residence where they had been spirited in separated cars and through secret corridors from the Old Executive Building.
Reagan began with a story of the Filipino people who supposedly greeted American marines with flowers and flags as they landed on Philippine beaches during World War II. A flummoxed Tip O’Neill considered that story to be apocryphal — perhaps, a scene from an old movie. Reagan next pledged to the stunned Congressional leaders that he would never allow the terrorists to drive the marines from Beirut and promised that the U.S. would only abandon its watch when peace was assured. He predicted, “I can see the day, not too many weeks from now when the Lebanese people will be standing at the shore, waving and cheering our marines when they depart.”
Impatient, O’Neill pounded the table, interrupting Reagan’s sentimental flight of fancy. O’Neill demanded loudly, “Mr. President, you are going to have to tell Americans why Americans are in Lebanon?” O’Neill’s forceful response shocked Reagan speechless. Majority Senate Leader Howard Baker, soothed Reagan gently, “Mr. President, he’s not being critical. He’s one of your strongest supporters… he’s trying to give you the facts of life.” As the meeting ended, O’Neill in a gesture of warmth and support, reached out and touched Reagan’s sleeve, “Good luck.” O’Neill had considered Reagan’s Lebanon enterprise a fool’s errand from the outset, and had predicted it would end tragically. But the following day, he made what Congressional Democrats called the most passionate appeal of his tenure as speaker. He told the closed Democratic caucus that “it was their duty, now, not to criticize but to support their President and to do nothing to undermine him no matter what the political advantage.” O’Neill told them that it was time for “patriotism over partisanship.”
The subsequent Defense Department investigation placed blame directly on the White House for the tragedy. Following the bombing, a bitter Weinberger refused a direct presidential order to launch retaliatory strikes against Shiite encampments in Beirut and summarily withdrew the remaining 1,600 marines from Lebanon.
Four years later, Reagan was caught illegally selling 2,000 missiles to the Iranian terror state in violation of American law and a U.S.-led international arms embargo. Reagan had used the proceeds of that criminal enterprise to illegally fund Nicaraguan terrorists in violation of American laws forbidding the president from financially supporting the Contras. Secretary of State George Shultz and Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger had opposed the Iran/Contra deal from the outset. Shultz warned the president during its planning stages that funding the Contras was “an impeachable offense.” The fact that the White House traded some missiles for hostages, set off a brisk bout of new hostage taking across the Mid-East. Looking directly into the television camera Reagan publicly told the American people that he had known nothing about the caper. A week later, the press uncovered documents authorizing the arms for hostages deal — signed and approved by Reagan in his own handwriting. Reagan was forced to publicly acknowledge his deceit. Instead of politically exploiting this impeccably documented spree of high crimes and felonies by the president and his henchmen, the Democratically controlled Congress instead pursued a deliberate path to avoid impeachment proceedings that might distract the country from urgent economic and foreign policy concerns. Tip O’Neill working side by side with Senate Republicans took impeachment off the table and then hammered out a quiet deal under which Reagan fired his high level staff and brought Senator Howard Baker in to supervise a house cleaning and allow Reagan to serve out his term in dignity.
That was an era when patriotic politicians put their country’s interest above their narrow political agendas, a time when politics was an honorable profession and the men who wielded gavels loved their country more than they loved power.
“The GOP’s recent efforts to gin up presidential scandals in punitive hearings, media lynchings, and weekly calls for impeachment”
Question:
1.) Exactly what scandals are the GOP trying to ‘gin’ up? Benghazi? IRS? VA (which he just found out about in media reports)? Fast and Furious? What is he talking about?
2.) “media lynchings”? The GOP now controls the media and are “lynching” Obama with it? What is he talking about?
3.) “weekly calls for impeachment”? Can anyone please provide examples of the Republican party calling for President Obama’s impeachment each and every week? What is he talking about?
Also, his references to the Regan era are supposed to be an example of how “patriotic politicians put their country’s interest above their narrow political agendas”, right? Correct me if I’m wrong but during this time Democrats had “weekly calls for impeachment, punitive hearings, media lynchings”. I’m not seeing much of a difference here….
If you ask me it’s an odd, clumsy article claiming that the GOP is not patriotic because they are doing the same thing Democrats did during early to mid 80’s. Weird…
I don’t recall the Democrats doing that but perhaps I was distracted with my full time job and raising kids. I believe the emphasis was also on Tip O’Neil and how Democratic leadership tried to act decently after the Marine Barracks event.
Jack, you obviously read the piece with a different eye than I had.
@Moon-howler
Tip O’Neil could not get elected in today’s partisan Democratic Party.
Robert Kennedy is one of the more partisan people in Congress.
And he ignores the current policy of the Democratic party to support party over all else.
I believe you are wrong about Tip O’Neil. That doesn’t even make sense. Some mighty unalike people are in the Democratic party. Warner and Kaine spring to mind.
I think your right Moon-howler, to me the piece read as if it were calling Republicans unpatriotic for doing what Democrats did in the 80’s. It seems like a clumsy and/or lazy hit piece on the GOP without offering any specifics about any of the accusations he throws out there.
Just vague references to hearings, lynchings and weekly calls for impeachment. No mention of who, what, where, when or why. Just the ole boogy man, the GOP.
Does anyone here actually KNOW why Reagan opted to deal with Iran?
It really doesn’t matter why. He shouldn’t have.
If one wants to play deflecting historical blame games with Kennedy Jr., why stop with Reagan?
Quiz: Under which President did “Black Hawk Down!” happen because the boots on the ground in Somalia were denied protective armor?
Quiz: Under which President was the USS Cole attacked at Aden with heavy crew losses because the deck guards were ordered NOT to shoot at any craft approaching the ship without CO permission unless fired upon first. So the American sailors, following the rules of engagement, just watched as a boat with no permission to approach bore down on the Cole.
Carry on.
Why stop with Reagan? How about because the ones howling are hard core Republicans. Reagan is usually their heroic icon. He, too, has feet of clay.
If we are going to hold Obama that accountable then Reagan must also be held accountable where far more lives were lost.
Additionally, I believe Robert Kennedy Jr. tried to point out country over partisanship which simply is vacant and void in today’s politics.
@Jack Brown
@Jack, you are a partisan Republican, no?
@Wolve
I believe Daddy Bush can share some Somalia blame. Boots on the ground were a humanitarian mission. Shame on Clinton for not changing this ill-advised course.
The USS Cole? That is pretty much a standard order in countries that are allies. So where was the commanding officer of the ship?
I don’t see you offering any excuses for “almighty” Reagan.
The CO was aboard the USS Cole, at anchor at Aden at the time. His orders to the deck ship guard reflected the rules of engagement given to him by the Pentagon. So, you are sitting at anchor in a place where terrorists (suicidal terrorists to boot) are known to reside and operate (allied country or not is irrelevant) and you just watch as a boat approaches which does not respond to queries and does not ask for the CO’s permission to approach as they are supposed to do. The ship’s guards do nothing, and then the boat just rams into the hull and kills your shipmates. Brilliant rules of engagement out of Washington. (Snark) As one petty officer, with blood all over his face, remarked: If we had shot and hit those terrorists before they got to us, we probably would have been sent to the brig for disobeying orders.
Ridiculous. The CO was exonerated by a Navy board of inquiry. The board, however, also said that the rules of engagement had to change. Which they did. Meanwhile, the CO, while exonerated by the board, was turned down for promotion to captain and had to retire as a commander.
The troops were in place in Somalia and doing their assigned mission. It was Clinton’s SecDef who allegedly refused the request of the commanders for armor support. He took the fall.
No defense of Reagan re the Marine barracks attack. That was bad planning in hostile territory. It also happened at a time when our counterterrorism effort was not fully organized and dedicated. One of the things that came out of it, however, was a reorganization of the intelligence effort to include a totally dedicated CIA counterterrorism center drawing together accomplished officers from all intelligence disciplines, as well as a dictate for the foreign and domestic security services to forget past rivalries and start working together.
Disagree totally. I was there. I agree with his decison, albeit not with the way it was carried out by the people he chose to do it.
And the legalities?
You were in Iran?
No, but I was in a position to know what POTUS faced and what his other options were.
So tell. What made it necessary for POTUS to break the law?
In the simplest terms: live hostages or dead ones. Also the likelihood of many dead among any rescuers. Tough urban warfare terrain. Tough tactical situation. POTUS chose life.
That must have been before the days where policy was not to deal with terrorists. Are we still talking about the contra arms deal?
No, the “policy” of NOT dealing with terrorists was in place at that time. Reagan broke it and the Iran arms embargo. Life does not always run by the book of slogans or ideals. Sometimes you have to back off, rethink the situation, get what you can, and regroup to deal later with the perps and your critics. Reagan brought the hostages back alive to their families. No coffins were deplaned at Dover AFB. No televised VIP eulogies. No crowds holding candles and offering each other consolation. He took a lot of heat for his decision, especially from those who have never faced a dilemma of that kind. For once, we, his troops in the shadow wars, did not have to deal with death — except for one of ours, who did not make it out of Beirut and died in tortured agony at the hands of the same kidnappers.
Not talking about Contra in Iran-Contra. That was not my territory. I had no need to know.
Can you actually say who you worked for and generally what your responsibilities were? It would be helpful. I know there are life time restrictions on some things with all branches of spook work including military.
Prefer not to. Trust me.
Or you would have to kill me?
Incidentally, I have been following very closely the Boko Haram situation in Nigeria. Some aspects of the hostage taking of the school girls are very similar to what Reagan faced in Beirut. There is a growing number of foreign intelligence specialists on the ground at Abuja trying to figure this thing out and a USAF unit in Tchad running air searches over the forest areas where the girls may be located. But, even while they do so, the Boko Haram and possibly an allied jihadist group are striking boldly in places distant from Bornu State, such as a bombing in Jos and a suicide car bombing in the Sabon Gari (Christian quarter) of the great city of Kano. One can hope for a tactical break. But I am already seeing comments from Abuja suggesting that a military rescue attempt under current conditions could well mean the deaths of all those girls at the hands of the kidnappers. Start looking for the deal making to get them back alive.