Generic Sandinistas
On Thursday, Mr. Bush addressed
a student audience at St. Michael’s
College in Winooski, Vt., and in
answering a question on Central
America said: “The Sandinistas came
in,” he said. “They overthrew So-
moza, killed him, and overthrew him.
Killed him, threw him out.”
The Nicaraguan dictator, Anastasio
Somoza Debayle fled Nicaragua for
the United States after the Sandinistas
took power. He later went to Para-
guay, where he was assassinated in
1980. Two members of the Argentine
Marxist People’s Revolutionary [sic]
were charged with the killing. Asked
to clarify what he said, Mr. Bush said
the next day: “I can’t say clearly who
it was.” Then he added: “I will just
stay with what I said yesterday.”
Asked if he meant the Sandinistas,
Mr. Bush said he was referring to the
Sandinistas in a “generic” sense.
The New York Times
September 22, 1984
Sandinista or Sardine?
“We’re going to lose Central
America, as we lost Vietnam, because
the U.S. Congress refused to provide
the aid in this protracted conflict,” the
Senator [John P. East, R-NC] said. “I
hate to say it, but the average Ameri-
can doesn’t know the difference be-
tween a contra and a caterpillar, or be-
tween a Sandinista and a sardine.”
The New York Times
October 12, 1984
Punishment for Signing Contadora
The State Department’s negative
response to Nicaragua’s acceptance of
a Central American peace plan was
based partly on concerns that the San-
dinistas’ announcement would be a
public relations coup, Reagan Admin-
istration officials said today.
The officials said that the an-
nouncement by Nicaragua on Friday
that it was prepared to sign the draft
treaty might undermine the Adminis-
tration’s efforts to portray the San-
dinistas as the primary source of ten-
sion in Central America. [ …. ]
[A]nother official familiar with the
issue said that [Daniel Ortega’s] pro-
posed trip [to Los Angeles] was dis-
cussed at senior levels in recent days,
with a number of officials arguing that
the trip should not be approved, in
part, to punish Mr. Ortega and the
Sandinistas for accepting the Contad-
ora peace proposal. [. . . .
“I’m not sure what there’s left to
talk about at Manzanillo,” one State
Department official said. He added,
“The whole point was to get the
Nicaraguans to accept the Contadora
proposals. Now they have, but we say
we aren’t satisfied. I’m not sure I
would blame the Nicaraguans if they
were confused.”
The New York Times
September 24, 1984
From “Ridiculous” to “Absurd”
Grenada joined Nicaragua today in
charging that it was the target of “an
imminent attack” by the United
States. [. . . .] The charge was made
at a news conference here by For-
eign Minister Unison Whiteman, who
said he had “evidence” of a Wash-
ington plot. Asked for details, Mr.
Whiteman said, “You’d have to ask
the CIA for the evidence.”
A State Department spokesman,
Alan Romberg, today termed the
charge made by Grenada’s govern-
ment “ridiculous.”
The New York Times
March 29, 1983
We acceded to the request to be-
come part of a multinational effort
[to invade Grenada] with contingents
from Antigua, Barbados, Dominica,
Jamaica, St.Lucia, St. Vincent and
the United States. I might add that two
of those, Barbados and Jamaica, are
not members of the organization but
were first approached, as we were, by
the OECS and asked to join in that un-
dertaking. And then all of them joined
unanimously in asking us to partici-
pate.
President
Reagan
October 25, 1983
The formal request that the United
States and other friendly countries
provide military help was made by the
Organization of Eastern Caribbean
States last Sunday at the request of the
United States, which wanted to show
proof that it had been requested to act
under terms of that group’s treaty. .
The wording of the formal request,
however, was drafted in Washington
and conveyed to the Caribbean leaders
by special American emissaries.
Paradoxically, the driving force for
seeking American aid was [Barbadian
Prime Minister] Adams, whose coun-
try is not a member of that organiza-
tion.
The New York Times
October 30, 1983
Q. Mr.President, does the success of,
Grenada, as you view it, does that op-
eration mean that you might be able to
apply the military in similar situations
elsewhere?
A. No, I can’t foresee any situation
that has exactly the same things that
this one had. It had exactly what we
announced in the beginning, the need
to protect the lives and the safety and
freedom of about 1,000 Americans
[. . . .] and in answer to a request on
the part of the other nations bound by
treaty together in the east Caribbean
that we lend our support to them in
freeing this up because they lacked the
strength and capability of doing it.
Q. If somebody else asks, would you
be willing to do it again?
A. As I say, if all the conditions were
the same, I don’t see why our reasons
would be any different. But I don’t
foresee any similar situation on the
horizon.
President Reagan
November 4, 1983
“New plans are being prepared in
the Pentagon and the CIA, this time to
prevent the November 4 elections in
Nicaragua.” [Daniel Ortega] added,
“The military offensive is ready to
begin October 15.”
Alan Romberg, a State Department
spokesman, termed Mr. Ortega’s
claim “obviously absurd.” The Pen-
tagon spokesman, Michael Burch,
said in Washington that it was “abso-
lute nonsense.” And in Brownsville,
Texas, the presidential chief of staff,
James A. Baker 3rd, said the assertion
was “absolutely not true.”
The New York Times
October 10, 1984
The Department of Defense said today
that the United States would respond
“with whatever assistance was neces-
sary” if Honduras or El Salvador
asked for military help in repelling an
Continued on page 13
Continued from page 5
invasion from Nicaragua.
The New York Times
November 14, 1984
Asked whether the United States in-
tended to invade Nicaragua, as the
Nicaraguan government has been as-
serting in recent days, Mr. Shultz said
that “the invasion concerns seem to
be a self-inflicted wound on the part
of Nicaragua.”
“Obviously they are trying to whip
up their population,” he said. Asked
if he would guarantee that the United
States would not invade Nicaragua in
the future, Mr. Shultz said only that
past predictions of invasion had been
false and “the same is true of all the
alleged plans that the Nicaraguans are
talking about now.”
The New York Times
November 13, 1984
Menu
