in general, tended to make up the vision of the world that suited their assumptions. Since it was convenient to defend a pro-business foreign policy by labeling all meaningful reformist activism as "subversive Communism," wherein Communism was a synonym for the Dark Side of human existence, this then was the frame of reference. The policy under both the Carter and the Reagan administrations was to keep a leftist government from coming to power in ES. It was a policy better served by viewing the opposition in simplest black-and-white terms, by using labels such as terrorists, Marxist-Leninists, ... or Communist-led insurgents. [Footnote:] By contrast, Reagan administration officials, and most reporters, did not politically label as rightists the forces that the United States trained and equipped and that were trying to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. They were usually referred to as simply guerrillas, rebels, insurgents, or counterrevolutionaries (often shortened to the Spanish contras). President Reagan called them freedom fighters. ... "There would almost never be a discussion of the ideological issues involved" ... Feinberg explained. "It was basically labeling. The information from the CIA would basically be: These guys are Marxist." ... "We didn't know shit about the [ES] left," said a senior member of the Carter administration." ... An embassy officer who served in ES until mid-1982 said that the US embassy "knew very little about who exactly is out there in the hills. ... We know that they receive arms through Nicaragua. But beyond that I don't think