That's completely disingenuous and I suspect you know that. It wasn't "losing" and then "winning" when Reagan signed a piece of paper. The CIA and those that would go on pressuring the Reagan administration had differing views on the level of input in terms of weaponry. The insurgency was already funded with weaponry up to advanced explosive delivery systems. It wasn't Reagan's own idea nor his own will that got him to sign that piece of paper. Select people wanted more advanced weaponry in the insurgents hands then the CIA was willing to give, so they asked and pressured Reagan until he did it. That doesn't make him responsible for the funding that was already pouring in from Congress, it just makes him partly responsible for the stingers (yes I will concede that). But as we have all seen, it doesn't take stingers to mire an advanced army down and achieve goals against them.
Again, the only part Reagan actually enters the process is him signing the paper. Once again, the right wing takes that small part of the equation that involves him and gives Reagan full credit and responsibility. I might be wrong in leaving him completely out of the equation, but you are dead wrong in making it out that if he didn't sign the paper that the insurgents would be doomed with only billions of American dollars and a large surplus of American delivered firearms weaponry. He helped, but was not the catalyst for success by far. By your logic, presidents are responsible for every single major event and policy that happens during their term.
Bookmarks