On January 26, 2012, just days before the Florida primary, a massive orchestrated attack on Newt’s perceived relationship with Reagan began with an article by Elliot Abrams on NRO where he took clips of Newt’s speech out of context and slammed Newt as spewing hate and vitriole against Reagan. A slew of headlines on the Drudge Report slammed Newt as a direct result of Abrams’ smear. The massive smear campaign effectively took down Newt’s front runner status and despite protestation from Jeffery Lord, Rush, and Mark Levin, Newt lost Florida. At the risk of looking like I am flogging a dead horse, I am determined to dig up the truth behind the smear. If it is indeed a smear, guys like Abrams must not go unpunished and Romney must not be rewarded for falsehood.
I got a copy of the actual speech and true enough, Newt was talking about the weakness of Reagan’s anti-Soviet policies versus his rhethorics against them. In other words, Reagan’s tough talk was not matched by tough actions. The State Department was responsible for implementing Reagan’s agenda and in the case of the Soviet, they were frustrating Reagan at every turn. The State Department was more interested in accomodating the Soviet in the hope that they will stop their aggressive transnational expansion. Newt main complaint in his speech was that America’s response to the Soviet transnational expansion (via the State Department) was failing and will continue to fail unless massive policy changes are put in place.
Ben Hart in another article talked about the same thing. As a 20-something working for Heritage Foundation, Ben Hart wrote an article titled “Rhethoric vs Reality: How the State Department betrayed Reagan’s Vision” which provided the ammunition for what Newt was saying in his speech on March 21, 1986 about how Reagan’s appointees at the State Department were undermining and sabotaging Reagan’s stated policy of wanting to arm and supply anti-Soviet resistance movements around the world — including the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the Contras in Nicaragua, and Jonas Savimbi in Angola.
Abrams who was working for the State Department at that time vehemently protested the article and even went to Heritage top brass to get Ben Hart fired. Ben was called in to see the Top Brass and got to present his paper and they loved it and Ben’s job was safe!
This paper received a lot of media coverage at the time and was cited by many conservative leaders and commentators (including George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Newt, and others) who were concerned that Reagan’s appointees at the State Department were not carrying out Reagan’s objectives — who were, in fact, undermining the Reagan Doctrine.
It is vital that the truth about Newt’s relationship with Reagan be communicated far and wide. Newt is running on shaking Washington DC and the one Department that needs shaking is none other than the State Department. Please read the rest of the article and disemminate this info far and wide.
Here are some clips of what Ben Hart had to say about Abrams:-
He (Abrams) did get caught up in the Iran-Contra scandal and ended up pleading guilty to some misdemeanors for withholding information from Congress. Without the plea deal, he might well have been convicted of felony perjury. So that was yet another example of Abrams using deception to achieve what he wants, this time deceiving Congress. He doesn’t even let the law stop him from doing whatever he wants to do — the classic Machiavellian “ends justify the means” mentality. That’s Elliot Abrams for you.
So now Abrams has decided he’s for Mitt over Newt. He seems to have a habit of lying about, and trying to destroy, all who get in the way of what Elliot Abrams wants. I was a target of Elliot in the 1980s. Now Newt is a target of Elliot over the very same issue. The problem for Elliot Abrams is that what he’s saying is a provable lie . . . by a proven liar who was even convicted of, well, lying (that is, convicted of unlawfully withholding important information from Congress). So this guy has zero credibility. Why any publication would give any credence to anything Abrams writes, even publish it without checking it, is a mystery.
True enough, Newt was distracted from what he wanted to say in Florida. True enough, Newt did not have the money nor the organization to get the truth out to every primary voter in Florida in the 48 hours since Abrams’ article was published. But it is not true that Romney will get the nomination because of Abrams’ lie and it is our job to make sure of that!