Herbert W Armstrong

All sides acknowledged that the vote represented a stinging defeat for the Reagan Administration's Central American policy. "Few votes will be important to the national security of the United States," Mr. Reagan warned last week. "A vote against our proposal would hasten the consolidation of Nicaragua as a Communist terrorist arsenal." Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R­ Illinois) likened the refusal to finance the contras to "a neighbor seeing a crime on the street and pulling the shade. We don't want to get involved." The issue of U.S. security "cannot wait until we have a fight at our own borders, "declared California Rep. Robert J. Lagomarsino (R-California). Opposition Democrats, in general, did not agree.

In Nicaragua, of course, the scene was one of relief, if not jubilation. The government radio declared the House vote "a disastrous defeat for President Reagan. "The Sandinistas had done their own fair share of lobbying in order to ensure the outcome by inviting key House and Senate members to visit Nicaragua to "hear their side." They also "campaigned" hard over the three U.S. television networks. Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega, an avowed Marxist revolutionary, was seen on all three networks on the eve of the vote. NBC gave him prominent air time, in an extensive interview and profile conducted on-the-spot by anchorman Tom Brokaw. As one former Vietnam correspondent for AP said: "Today it is almost mandatory to interview guerrillas — you get to see the other side."

Perhaps it's ironic that the "green light for revolution" in Central America was given just as the nation was taking note of the tenth anniversary of the fall of South Vietnam. In fact Secretary of State George Shultz, in a speech marking the 10th anniversary of America's lost effort, warned that Central America is in danger of going the way of Indochina if the United States repeats its earlier policies.

"The ordeal of Indochina in the past decade — as well as the oppressions endured by the people of Cuba and every other country where Communists have seized power — should teach something, " Shultz said. "Do we want another Cuba in this hemisphere? How many times must learn the lesson?" He added: "Broken promises. Communist dictatorship. Refugees. Widened Soviet influence, this time near our very borders: Here is your parallel between Vietnam and Central America.

Shultz was scathing in his assessment of the results of U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. "Our retreat created a vacuum that was exploited by our adversaries, "Shultz said. "The Soviets...took advantage of our inhibitions and projected their power to unprecedented lengths: intervening in Angola, in Ethiopia, in South Yemen and in Afghanistan. The American weakness turned out to be the most destabilizing factor on the global scene," he said, adding that "the larger lesson of the past decade is that when America lost faith in herself, world stability suffered and freedom lost ground.

"The litany of apology Communists, condemnation for America and friends, is beginning again," Shultz said. "Can we afford to be naive again about the consequences when we pull back, about the special ruthlessness of Communist rule?"

Despite Grenada, American elected leadership is still paralyzed by the "Vietnam syndrome." There is no national consensus on what to do about Nicaragua. Such indecisiveness would not have happened years ago, as explained in a UPI report on April 24:

Not long ago, a president would have sent the U.S. Marines into Nicaragua and kept them there until a friendly government was in charge.... But Reagan knows an invasion would cause a huge uproar. It would anger most of Latin America, fuel anti-American sentiment elsewhere, make it even harder to deal with Congress and bring demonstrators back into the streets in this country.... So the President is trying to unseat the Marxist-led Sandinistas by subsidizing their opponents. The Communist superpowers do this all the time, calling the rebellions they aid "wars of liberation."

Columnist George F. Will put the pivotal Congressional action in the broadest strategic context. It signalled, he maintained, the end to the 38-year-long (interesting number) policy of containment. He wrote in his April 21 syndicated column:

This is the most important congressional moment since May, 1947, when Congress supported U.S. intervention through — aid on the anti-communist side in the Greek civil war. Congress thereby transformed containment from a theory into a policy. Congress...has forbidden even modest financial support for the military effort of a mass movement prepared to do the dying to prevent consolidation of the second Soviet satellite in this hemisphere and the first on this continent. The evisceration of containment is complete....

In 1947 President Harry S. Truman told Congress: "I believe it must be the policy of the United States to support free people who are resisting subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure."... An armed Nicaraguan minority, sustained by outside forces (Soviet, Cuban, East German, etc.) is Sovietizing Nicaragua in the way that was being done in Eastern Europe in 1947....

In 1947 Congress had fresh memories of the terrible price paid because of nonresistance to Hitler at the time of the remilitarization of the Rhineland. Today the historical memory of many members of Congress consists entirely of Vietnam and its putative lessons. But congressional management of U.S. policy toward Central America — too little aid, too late; pursuit of the chimera of negotiated settlement...is a recipe for another Vietnam: another protracted failure.

On Wednesday, the day after the crucial Senate and House votes, the House nailed the door shut on support for the contras by refusing to support either of two additional proposals which would have given only humanitarian aid, directly or indirectly, to the anti-Sandinista forces. In a gesture of "gratitude" to the House, the Sandinistas announced they were sending home 100 Cuban military advisors (Washington claims there are 3,000 Cubans in Nicaragua) plus arranging for the release of 107 prisoners charged with "counterrevolutionary crimes."

A couple of weeks ago, I attended a debate in Los Angeles on the question of congressional aid to the contras. There were six participants, three on the right (pro-aid), three on the left. One of the latter was actor Ed Asner, president of the Screen Actors Guild. His hatred for President Reagan was so evident, it flashed like a beacon. He always referred to the chief executive as "Reagan," (usually with a pejorative push in his pronunciation) never President Reagan, or Mr. Reagan, or even "the President." Another panelist, Congressman George Brown of Riverside, California, while not such a doctrinaire leftist, expressed the prevailing liberal view of the House of Representatives. He denied that the U.S. was confronted with a spreading political cancer in Central America. He admitted that there were Cubans and other communist agents in Nicaragua, but he said, "None of them pose a threat to U.S. security. If you see this then you see this as something that few members of Congress see." Congressman Brown saw President Reagan's concerns as fundamentally flawed in the larger context: "We're putting millions [of dollars] into the fight against the Communists around the world."

Of itself, a Communist Nicaragua, or even El Salvador would not pose a direct immediate threat to the U.S. — except, of course, that the Nicaraguans are building a 10,000 foot long air strip of the type that was so worrisome in Grenada. Long-range missiles based in Central America would be only eight minutes from U.S. targets. Nicaragua would be, claimed a participant on the other side, an "earthen aircraft carrier." However, experts stress that the real threat comes from a solidified Nicaragua becoming a staging ground, a regional headquarters for the further spread of Communism up to the north, through Mexico, and south, enveloping Panama and the Canal, and into the northern tier states of South America, including a vulnerable Colombia.

The arguments of Asner, Congressman Brown and Blase Fontaine (a pro-Marxist ex-Maryknoll priest) were countered by Dr. Alejandro Bolanos, a Nicaraguan refugee. He pointed out that the top Sandinista command were all dedicated Marxist revolutionaries, many of them educated in the East Bloc. "Comandante" Ortega, for example, is a graduate of Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow. Dr. Bolanos charged that Americans and their representatives in Congress were naive as to the real intent not only of the Sandinistas, but the Cubans and Russians. "Wake Up America!" he shouted in conclusion to his remarks.

The April 25 editorial titled "The Politics of Inaction" in the WALL STREET JOURNAL had a lot to say about the real nature of the threat in Central America, and especially how the Sandinistas have cleverly campaigned in the U.S. for their position:

We now know more about the current condition of the American political process. It has become, more than ever before, internationalized. And some of the players have no high regard either for democracy or the future well-being of the U.S.

For example, Danny Ortega, the Nicaraguan president, was able to predict on Monday that the U.S. House would hand him a victory over his contra foes. In a show of religious devotion not evident in the policies of his government, he even went to a church to pray for that victory. But on the chance that the Almighty might not be listening, he had previously enlisted two freshman U.S. senators, Kerry of Massachusetts and Harkin of Iowa, as his ambassadors to Ronald Reagan, assigned to tell the president that Mr. Ortega was offering what Sen. Kerry called a "wonderful opportunity" for peace.

Mr. Ortega had also offered concessions...before a House vote on contra aid last summer, then reneged after Congress gave him what he wanted. Even if the senators didn't know that, they should know that bait-and-switch tactics are an old game for authoritarians trying to consolidate power. Hitler constantly made promises he didn't intend to keep during the early '30s....

A still unresolved issue is the nature of the threat, Mr. Reagan's strong rhetoric notwithstanding. The Sandinistas don't plan to launch their 75 tanks and 12 helicopter gunships against Houston. But they, the Cubans and the other foot soldiers in Moscow's imperial crusade are going to continue doing some other things. They will continue to dabble in U.S. politics, partly by subterfuge and deception. They will continue building the drug trade, which nets them huge piles of dollars, spreads degeneracy and undermines law enforcement in the U.S. They will continue to train terrorists who, partly through the networks developed in the drug trade, will sow further disorder and try to destabilize democratic regimes in this hemisphere....

Finally, some congressmen probably represent what the polls suggest is a common view among Americans generally, that $14 million in aid to the contras doesn't look like we are very serious about beating the communists. Do we intend to win or don't we? If not, poll respondents seem to be saying, don't get us bogged down in any more losing struggles. It is to that final misgiving, especially, that the administration must find an answer...because this problem, and indeed the larger problem of Soviet imperialism, is not going to go away just because the House tried to wish it away Tuesday night.

An article in the April 23 WALL STREET JOURNAL, entitled "A Lobbying Drive Began in Managua," gives further details about how the Sandinistas were able to sway Congressmen to their side. Just think of what Nazi master propagandist Josef Goebbels could have done today, enlisting public relations firms in his big-lie techniques! This article was written by Jim Denton, executive director of the National Forum Foundation, a public­ policy group in Washington.

The likely congressional defeat of President Reagan's proposal to provide military aid to the anti-Sandinista contra forces comes in the wake of an extraordinary lobbying campaign.... Although it is not uncommon for foreign governments to try persuasion on Capitol Hill, the manner and degree to which the Sandinistas have manipulated public and congressional-opinion-is noteworthy.....

The Washington, D.C. law firm of Reichler & Applebaum is the Nicaraguan government's official registered agent in the U.S. For its services, the firm is paid an annual rate of about $320,000. From all outside appearances the firm has ably represented its client. An accounting the lobbyists' appointments with legislators and staff reads like a Who’s Who among Senate and House liberals.

But Reichler & Applebaum's lobbying efforts on the Sandinistas' behalf have gone beyond the congressional routine. In an interview, Mr. Reichler confirmed that some months ago he originated and orchestrated a plan to send a team of "professional attorneys to Nicaragua to conduct an objective, independent investigation of contra atrocities." Reed Brody, a 31-year-old lawyer, and Jim Bordeloin, a law-school student, were selected to conduct the "objective investigation." They spent four months in Nicaragua taking statements from witnesses of resistance-force atrocities, all with the full cooperation of the Sandinistas. Mr. Brody confirms that most of the investigators' in-country transportation, boarding, housing, office space, staff and, one can assume, the witnesses themselves, were provided compliments of their Marxist hosts and sympathizers in Managua.

Upon completion of the "investigation," the 141-page Brody Report, consisting of nearly 150 sworn affidavits from "witnesses," was duly processed back through the Sandinistas' lobbyists at Reichler & Applebaum. There it was prepared in final form....

The Brody document made its way into the public and congressional debate with a splash. The media fallout included articles in the Washington Post and the New York Times, and network coverage, including about 2 minutes on the CBS Evening News. None of these accounts seriously challenged the report's origins or handling, ignoring or playing down the Sandinista sponsorship to the point that it was virtually unrecognizable to the audience. The over­all impact of the press accounts and congressional responses served the purposes of a Marxist regime to distort the U.S. public and Congress's understanding of the human-rights saga in Nicaragua.

It has often been said that the Vietnam War was lost in the living rooms of America, as television journalists began to openly question, debate and distort U.S. policy. The Communists have learned this "lesson from Vietnam" well. In their latest campaign of disinformation, they are influencing the news media in order to mobilize public opinion to their cause, as well as influencing Congress to take a stand against the President. This campaign is working well, as the new Editor-in-Chief of the WASHINGTON TIMES, Arnaud de Borchgrave observed in his paper's April 8 edition (before the Congressional votes):

President Reagan told The Washington Post last week that "we've been subjected, in this country, to a very sophisticated lobbying campaign by a totalitarian government — the Sandinistas. There has been a disinformation program that is virtually worldwide, and we know that the Soviets and Cubans have such a disinformation network that is beyond anything we can match."

The Post in particular, and the liberal media in general, dismiss the very notion of Soviet and Soviet-proxy disinformation as a manifestation of mindless anti-communism. In a column headlined "Sandinista Disinformation?" — the question mark was designed to. Discredit the president's irrefutable statement of fact — The Post's deputy editorial page director, Stephen S. Rosenfeld, wrote, in effect, "Yes, but so what?" So a lot, Mr. Rosenfeld.

Vietnamese officials (e.g., General Giap himself) and defectors have confirmed that disinformation operations in the U.S. media and on Capitol Hill played a major role in changing perceptions about that war. The former justice minister of so-called National Liberation Front of South Vietnam...escaped among the boat people. He has testified that clever disinformation operations led us to believe that the 1968 Tet offensive was an unmitigated disaster for the United States. So pervasive was this perception — this misperception — that President Johnson felt compelled to abdicate a few months later. The reality, according to Truong Nhu Tang, was the other way around. Tet was an unmitigated disaster for Hanoi....

There also every indication that disinformation and Soviet­ Cuban-Nicaraguan "active measures" have played crucial role in laying the groundwork for yet another U.S. strategic defeat.

There are many groups in the United States whose media connections are an open secret. Their mission is to shade, embroider and distort the truth for their own disinformation agenda.... These groups have helped nurture an entire new generation of journalists who have made it their duty to transform America's sworn enemies — into misunderstood innocents, while at the same time portraying our own leaders as the foes of democracy and freedom....

How is it possible that so many intelligent people accept these dangerous misconceptions as the geopolitical gospel? Disinformation is the key.... How does it do this? Quite simply by distorting the data and corrupting the process of understanding in such a way that it leads public opinion to react differently than if it understood the true nature of reality.

It would behoove the Congress to take note before our elected representatives vote yet another resolution that will once again make it possible for the Marxists to steal a revolution from the people, only to impose a totalitarian dictatorship more draconian than the authoritarian regime that was over thrown.

Well, the elected representatives did not listen — or rather, listened to the disinformers. As a result, an unmitigated disaster awaits a sin-laden America not far down the road.

— Gene H. Hogberg, News Bureau