(this is a response of sorts to rightwinger's strange view of the world located here: Link.  more specifically, it's a reply to this statement:

"You always seem to have a good grasp and command of some particular facts that I do not have. Admittedly, this often frustrates me because I just don't have the time to look everything up in order to give you a really good thrashing.
That's all well and good, but as for this article, I'm not seeing you addressing the actual point of the post itself. You're using this grasp of these facts I refer to in order to chip away at smaller issues you have with my line of reasoning. Fine, I understand were you're coming from, but I have yet to see from you an outright, firey dismissal of my point itself, that liberals (and in general the Left as a whole) love and suck up to dictators.
All I'm getting is you trying to cloud the issue with your "Nyah, Nyah....your side does it, too....Nyah, Nyah!"

Is this because even you can't/won't deny something of which you can't debate the truth?")

as requested, i'm gonna deal with as much of your original post as i'm able.  you've managed to combine such a mix of inaccuracies, suppositions, mischaracterizations, it's gonna require a buncha words.  rather than use up all your blog space and to ensure i'll be able to utilize some or all of this again as needed, i'm gonna do that here. 

your article  winds and wanders so much i see no way to do this but start at the beginning: 

"Why does the Left, that entity which claims to so admire things like freedom of speech, the press, thought and things like Human Rights, why do they always seem to embrace the totalitarians and tyrants? The dictatorships and despots?
Why do they, these arbiters of unfettered personal expression, always find ways to explain away their favorite tinpot Hitler's oppressive indescretions and apologize for their abuses?"

my perspective is the exact opposite.  you'll recall my list of dictators who, very sad to say, were either helped into office or helped to remain there by our government?  they didn't find sympathy nor support from the left.  their patrons weren't merely republicans (altho many of them were) nor always conservatives (i make a definite distinction between conservatives and umm rightwingers). 

all of them used--and were used by--the american right wing.

"I've seen these questions debated again and again here on JU; why do the dictatorships get a pass, while the democracies, the ones they SHOULD be supporting, always seem to come under their fire?
Like when they do things such as impose sanctions against dictators and their nations, and especially when they increase their building of arms to stand against the oppression symbolized by the totalitarians. Instead of working to free the oppressed, it seems the liberals are more than happy to let their favorite tyrants go merrily about their business unmolested."

yeah yeah yeah...nothing in the paragraph above but restating your premise and garnishing it with your opinion.  i'll pass.

"For example, as Jimmy Carter spent four years coddling the Soviets and schmoosing Fidel Castro, all the while ignoring, and even lending tacit support to, Leftist stirrings in Central Amercia and Africa, democracy lost ground the world over. We got weaker by the day.
Ronald Reagan went into office and, eight years later, against the warning cries and apologizing of Democrats in the House and Senate, and that of liberal elements among our "allies" (all of whom would have been much more than content with some level of peaceful co-existence with the USSR), had virtually ended forty years of Cold War, advancing the frontiers of democracy everywhere."

ok.  let's start with central america.  actually let's focus on nicaragua beginning in the early 1900s.

fact: america involved itself in nicaragua's affairs by invading the country in 1909 on the very flimsy pretext that warships and a force of marines were needed to protect american lives.

fact:  communism was not a factor in any conflict involving nicaraguan combatants. 

fact:  500 revolutionaries were captured and executed by then-president zelaya.  two of them were americans. 

fact: the real reason for the invasion was twofold:

•  the country had potential for a viable waterway between the atlantic and pacific oceans to compete with roosevelt's canal thru panama
•  like the other central american countries, nicaragua had a lotta resources and american business wanted to exploit them as cheaply as possible.

fact:  president zelaya resigned shortly thereafter. 

fact: the marines left but returned to occupy nicaragua from 1912-1925 and again from 1926 -1933. 
 
prior to the us invasion in 1909, nicaragua had a history of political conflict between so-called conservatives and liberals.  they could as easily called themselves hatfields and mccoys.  both factions were comprised of descendants of the non-mixed european minority  (70% of the country's population is mestizo; 10% is black,  5% are non-mixed native peoples)  who also owned or controlled a great deal of the country (either by grants issued by the spanish crown prior to independence in the mid-1800s or taken by force).   essentially conservatives were monarchists who wanted to preserve their faux aristocracy...liberals wished to emulate upper class victorian brits.

fact: from 1927-1933 a guerilla army fought both the conservatives and the us occupiers under the command of general sandino (who gave his name to the sandinistas).  in 1933, after the us set up a troika, the marines withdrew.   sandino was one of the three co-rulers.  another was carlos jarquin.

fact: before they left, the us marines created an army/police organization called the guardio nacional.  its purpose was to protect american business interests.   a nicaraguan named anastasio somoza garcia   was put in charge of the guardio before the marines left.   somoza was also the third co-ruler.

fact: thanks to support from the us, somoza garcia was able to take control of the country as its sole leader (sandino was assassinated in 1934).  for the next 40 years, somoza and his family ruled nicaragua as if it were his private fiefdom. 

fact: as head of the guardio, somoza controls most government enterprises including the radio networks, railroads, post office, telegraph utility, health services.

fact:  there was a small population of german immigrants who'd established themselves in the country during the 19th century.  during wwii, somoza 'helped' the us by confiscating their land and giving it to himself.   by 1979,  the somaza family and its friends--a full 4% of the population--owned 52% of the country.

fact:  on paper, nicaragua benefitted financially by supplying the us with produce during wwii.  most of the revenue winds up in somoza's pockets.

by the end of wwii, somoza was the country's largest landowner (he owned most of nicaragua's cattle ranches and coffee plantations, all the banks, the national railroad and airlines, a cement factory, textile plants, electric power companies and urban rental property.   in 1945, he was believed to be worth $60 million usd.

wikipedia provides one reason why somoza was happily supported by american business interests:

"From 1945 to 1960, the U.S.-owned Nicaraguan Long Leaf Pine Company (NIPCO) directly paid the Somoza family millions of dollars in exchange for favorable trade terms, such as not having to re-forest clear cut areas. By 1961, NIPCO had cut all of the commercially viable coastal pines in northeast Nicaragua. Expansion of cotton plantations in the 1950s and cattle ranches in the 1960s forced peasant families from the areas they had farmed for decades. Some were forced by the National Guard to relocate into colonization projects in the rainforest. Some moved eastward into the hills, where they cleared forests in order to plant crops. Soil erosion forced them, however, to abandon their land and move deeper into the rainforest. Cattle ranchers claimed the abandoned land. Peasants and ranchers continued this movement deep into the rain forest. By the early 1970s, Nicaragua had become the United States' top beef supplier. The beef supported fast-food chains and pet food production. Six Miami, Florida meat-packing plants and the largest slaughterhouse in Nicaragua were all owned by President Anastasio Somoza Debayle.

Also in the 1950s and 1960s, 40% of all U.S. pesticide exports went to Central America. Nicaragua and its neighbors widely used compounds banned in the U.S., such as DDT, endrin, dieldrin and lindane. In a later study (1977) it was revealed that mothers living in León had 45 times more DDT in their breast milk than the World Health Organization deemed safe."

by the late 40s/early 50s, other wealthy landowners--who'd been somoza's supporters--began to worry they were next on his list. 

fact: anastasio somoza garcia was assassinated in 1956. his oldest son luis somoza debayle assumed his father's position while the younger son, anastasio somoza debayle, became head of the guardio.  luis would die within 10 years from heart trouble.  anastasio, who graduated from west point and was close to american military commanders, wound up holding all the cards.

fact: in 1972, managua--the capitol of nicarauga--was hit by a devastating earthquake.  10,000 people died and another 500,000 were left homeless.  in the aftermath, members of the guardio nacional began looting the city.  it was then discovered that somoza debayle was diverting much of the international aid contributions to his own bank accounts.

starting in the early 60s, nicaraguan rebels began organizing a revolution.  by the early 1970s, they were beginning to hurt the regime.  in 1974, somoza voided the law prohibiting him from running for another term as president.  after the election, he ordered the guardio nacional to wipe out the rebels.  in the course of doing that, they razed rural villages and alienated the nicaraguan people even more

fact: while human rights groups condemned somoza and his thugs, gerald ford continued to supply him with arms and money.

fact: in 1978, the publisher of nicaragua's opposition newspaper is assassinated, touching off open rebellion.

fact: in reprisal, somoza ordered his air force to  "bomb everything that moves until it stops moving."

finally we get to the point where you claim carter was ignoring the rise of communism in central america.

in fact, ford had tried a policy called (if you can believe how idiotic this was)  "somocismo without somoza" in hopes of maintaining us influence in the event somoza was taken out by his own people.  . 

after nearly 20 years of fighting and nearly 40 years of being terrorized by somozas who were enriched in return for allowing american interests destroy their country, there wasn't much american president could have done to convince the rebels we had their welfare at heart.

time was running out for the right wing's man in managua. 

here's wikipedia's account of the last days:

"By June 1979, the National Guard was carrying out massive atrocities in the war against the Sandinistas, bombing residential neighborhoods in Managua and killing thousands of people. At that point, the U.S. ambassador sent a cable to the White House saying it would be "ill-advised" to tell the Guard to call off the bombing, because such an action would help the Sandinistas gain power. When the National Guard executed ABC reporter Bill Stewart and graphic film of the execution was broadcast, the American public became more antipathetic to Somoza. In the end, President Jimmy Carter refused Somoza U.S. military aid, believing that the repressive nature of the government had led to popular support for the Sandinista uprising.

As Somoza's government collapsed, the U.S. helped Somoza and National Guard commanders escape, Somoza fleeing to exile in Miami. The rebels advanced on the capital victoriously. On July 19, 1979 a new government was proclaimed under a provisional junta headed by Daniel Ortega (then age 35) and including the Violeta Chamorro, Pedro's widow.

The United Nations estimated material damage from the revolutionary war to be US$480 million. The FSLN took over a nation plagued by malnutrition, disease, and pesticide contaminations. Lake Managua was considered dead because of decades of pesticide runoff, toxic chemical pollution from lakeside factories, and untreated sewage. Soil erosion and dust storms were also a problem in Nicaragua at the time due to deforestation. To tackle these crises, the FSLN created the Nicaraguan Institute of Natural Resources and the Environment.

The Sandinistas were victorious in the national election of November 4, 1984. The election was certified as free and fair by international observers allowed into the country by the Sandinistas, although certain groups, principally the Nicaraguan political opposition and the Reagan administration, disputed this, objecting to political restrictions placed on the opposition by the government. Some opposition political figures boycotted the election, although others took part either as opposition parties or in coalition with the FSLN."

fact: by the time somoza had fled, first to miami, then to paraguay where he was assassinated, 50,000 nicaraguans were dead, 120,000 had been exiled and 600,000 were homeless.  nicaragua is, today, the 2nd poorest nation in the hemisphere after haiti.

when reagan was elected, he began to wage war intended to help pro-somoza guardio members retake the government.   a number of bush's chickenhawks were actively involved in the us proxy war to put these thugs back into power.  throughout the 80s, america supported the worst kind of butchers kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in central america. 

ask the people of central america which side supported them in their fight to free themselves from dictators...and who supported those dictators, paid them huge sums of money and supplied them with arms and advisers. 

ask yourself what gives the us the right--after directly interfering with nicaragua's sovereignity by occupying the country for 25 years and then inflicting a family of monsters on them--to assist what was truly the central american equivalent of hussein's baathist insurgents in overthowing their democratically elected government?   
 

PART 2 continuation (or something close)....

"Ronald Reagan went into office and, eight years later, against the warning cries and apologizing of Democrats in the House and Senate, and that of liberal elements among our "allies" (all of whom would have been much more than content with some level of peaceful co-existence with the USSR), had virtually ended forty years of Cold War, advancing the frontiers of democracy everywhere."

why haven't you provided some names and statements?  surely with all those congresspeople and senators crying and apologizing, there must be something you can cite.  which liberal elements among our allies were looking forward to permanent peaceful co-existence with the ussr? 

while you may  believe reagan deserves most--if not all--of the credit for the soviet union's implosion, it's still an open question and will remain one much longer than it might have thanks to the current bush's obsession with keeping presidential papers out of public view. 

in the meantime, one needs to ask what exactly did reagan do to end 40 years of cold war?  surely you're not so foolish to believe he was some sorta neo-alladin using the magic words 'tear down this wall'? 

it clearly had nothing to do with central america; his bullying endeavors there killed a lotta nicaraguans, hondurans, salvadorans and guatemalans, enriched a lotta dope dealers, military suppliers, better equipped the iranians and helped to destroy our credibility and reputation but did no real damage to the soviet union or cuba.  

"Leftwing elements the world over decried his policies as fascist, militaristic and oppressive. This, even as he funded the upgrading of Voice of America and Radio Liberty and supported and nutured the fledgling, suppressed Solidarity movement in Poland to the chagrin of the Polish government, the USSR and the "Democratic" Republic of Germany (East Germany)."

you do recall what solidarity was to begin with?  a trade union. 

perhaps you also recall how ronald reagan--who was endorsed by patco--dealt with members of that trade union?  the same way  jaruzelski.did solidarnosc...only more successfully. 

"And what of his aid to the beseiged Mujahedeen in Afghanistan? Those people, he backed against direct Soviet aggression.
Where were the cries of "militarists!" and "oppressors!" from demonstrators outside Soviet and Eastern Bloc nation's embassies"

you may find this difficult to accept (because it pretty much invalidates your whole thesis): in afghanistan, reagan simply adopted a program initiated by carter. 

here's how robert gates recalled things in an interview with the bbc last year:  Link

"Beginning early in 1979, the United States government began considering providing covert support to the potential opposition in the mujahideen in Afghanistan and, beginning in July, actually the president authorised that kind of support.

I would say though that, until the invasion, all of the support was non-lethal: in other words, once it actually began in the fall, it tended to be more in the way of medicines and supplies of communications equipment and that sort of thing.

It changed immediately after the invasion and then the president signed what we call a lethal finding which provided authority for the CIA to brief, or to provide, the mujahideen with weaponry.

The American role for the most part in this war was that of quartermaster, of logistician. We had virtually no control over ground operations or in terms of directing the mujahideen or in terms of what to attack or when or anything else. To the degree that they took any outside advice, it was probably the Pakistanis'.

Our general principle was to provide the weaponry to the groups that were doing the heaviest fighting and we had an independent view of that as well as what we heard from the Pakistanis and we worked pretty hard to direct the weaponry in that direction.

For example, the Pakistanis were generally reluctant to provide, for example, Stinger [anti-aircraft] missiles to [Ahmed Shah] Masood and the Tajiks up in the Panjsher Valley and it was under pressure from the US, from the CIA, because we knew that they were doing a great deal of the fighting and we felt that the Pakistanis were being held by some ethnic prejudices there. "

interviewed by the bbc for the same broadcast,  yuli vorontsov--former ussr ambassador to afghanistan--tells how carter drew them in...confirming both gates and brzezinski (below):

 "First of all the decision was taken in order to stop the Americans from getting involved in Afghanistan.

  It was decided to go for the surgical method of dealing with the situation and in doing so we ended up inflicting a surgical wound on ourselves

Everything that was said about helping the Afghan people and all the rest of it, well that wasn't really what it was all about.

Perhaps someone did want to help them but the main reason was to stake out the territory for ourselves and stop the Americans from getting involved.

I was Soviet ambassador in India at the time [of the invasion] and I tried afterwards to do my own personal investigation into the reasons why Soviet troops were sent in.

It was a mistake, first and foremost a mistake on the part of Soviet intelligence services. They took seriously some information - I don't know where they got it from, I couldn't establish what the sources were - but they took seriously some information that the Americans were in all seriousness planning to deploy forces in Afghanistan and open a base there.

If there had been a US base there in those days, it wouldn't have been very good for us. It would have been one more link in the chain of US military bases that in those days encircled the Soviet Union. The thought that a base might be built in the south, and that planes would be flying over and that kind of thing, was very worrying for some people.

Not for the military. They were not afraid but the politicians were. The military didn't want to invade. I discovered that later, in conversations with the general staff of the army and the KGB, with people like Marshal Akhromeyev and people like that. The military were totally against it. "

'le nouvel observateur' asked zbigniew brzezinski about the carter administration's role in afghanistan during an interview conducted in january, 1998: Link

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire"

(just as an aside, you keep asking me to disprove your unsupported assertions.  the burden of proving your claims rests on you, not me.  you're not seriously expecting me to refute your unsubstantiated personal political-mythology-presented-as-history??)