I was feeling much the same way. But, the eulogizing I've heard in the media over the last couple of days have been unbelievable. What has been considered a liberal media bias was thrown out the window as Reagan was wholeheartedly credited for successes that were controversial at best a week ago. It's sad that the man died, but the adulation has been a bit over the top. I'm tempted to react with something of a backlash as well (especially about his role in ending the Cold War, being a subject of especial interest of and study by me). So, I understand why some respond critically, but I'm trying my best not to do so myself (despite the baitings). Rest in peace.
Back in the day, Reagan did not get this kind of free ride from the "liberal" press. Makes me wonder how the press has changed over the years between Reagan's Presidency and his death.
Yeah, I agree with this completely. I'll say I liked his positive spirit and the fact that he had a vision. However, I've always wanted a Reagan monument/fountain that starts with gushing water at the top that somehow all is sucked back into the pumping cycle before it "trickles down" to the bottom. If anyone was in college in the early 80's and needed student loans, then you will remember his early presidency with special, let's say, feeling. And bless you if you had a family member in a mental-health care facility in the early 80's. There's a great chance the person was kicked onto the streets by enormous and inhumane cuts to those programs. The 80's were an era indeed where we regained a sense of American pride and nationalism; apparently we also started a return (which continues) to a nationalistic America of the early 1900's that emphasized wealth at the expense of conern for the poor, nutty and infirm.
As I would anybody in such a time, I wish him and his family all the best in the time of his passing. (Warning: if you don’t want to read political and moral commentary in this thread, don’t read the next two paragraphs.) I anticipate, however, some lively threads on his legacy in the near future. His was, after all, the administration that armed and trained Osama Bin Laden and his men hailing them as a “freedom fighters.” His was also the administration that played a major role in making Sadam Hussein what he was, who became his allies and benefactors as he was gassing his own people and sending his country’s children to die by the thousands in a futile war with Iran. There may never have been a better (or worse) example of the concept of “moral relativism” than in the conduct of his administration. There may never be a more appropriate time than this to bring up the Christian teaching, “you reap what you sow.” I think it’s doubtful that he understood what was going on around him, though, and the blame for the abominable acts his administration committed probably lies at the feet of the “palace guard” as Alexander Haig called them. Haig quit when, even as the Secretary of State, he wasn’t allowed past these handlers to even talk to Reagan. By all accounts Reagan himself was a very nice and personable individual, and for reasons that truly entirely escape me, he is thought well of by some intelligent Americans whose judgment in most areas I have a great deal of respect for. Clearly he had a resonance in the domestic American context that utterly escaped most of us who do not live there. As abominable as his administration was, the man himself seems to have had some genuinely good qualities on a personal level, and seems to have had a positive impact on many people in that way. For that, at least, he deserves some credit.
I'd kind of come around to the opinion it was classless to discuss Reagan's failings during his Alzheimer's -- especially while Nancy was really and truly rehabilitating her image (with me at least) by selflessly caring for him. So now he's died and I think every dead person deserves a grace period. Anyone know when it'll be okay to talk about Iran-Contra again? Cause it beat hell out of Watergate as our greatest modern scandal and it really never got solved when he was alive. After the grace period of his death it'd be great to work it out for once and for all, because it was some serious stuff. I'm okay with romanticizing the record of a guy with Alzheimer's and with doing it again when the guy dies and I also agree with those who romanticize Reagan's presidency relative to Bush 43's, but some time very soon we should also remember how the whole thing actually went down. RIP Reagan and wake me up when we can talk frankly, free of the sensitivity every dead guy (famous or not) deserves.
Me too. His shortcomings against terrorism prove very embarrassing to some of his worshippers around here.
<a HREF="http://www.endtimesnetwork.com/oldnews/afga.html">THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN: IT'S NOT WHAT YOU THINK</a> <i>....... <b>Brzezinski:</b>: "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 December 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. <b>Interviewer:</b> "In other words, when the Soviets justified their intervention (in Afghanistan) by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan ... they were telling the truth. You don't regret that today? <b>Brzezinski:</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 insupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire."..........</i>
On a side note can anyone find me an mp3 or wav of Reagan's days as a radio broadcaster? I heard them on ABC news the other night but cannot find them anywhere. Thanks. Chance PS - Oh yeah...I am terribly saddened by the loss of a great leader. I am sure history will look kindly on a man who was, regardless of political arguments, the right guy in the right place at the right time. +
Yeah, TOUCHDOWN! High-five, man! Oh, wait, we're not on the same team. Damn. Mango, excellent post. Thanks. Despite being forced to wear the "liberal" jersey, I've never seen merit in all the criticism over funding Bin Laden in the early days. We thought we were doing the right thing, obviously. I was very alive and attentive in 1980, and I remember the tangible fear we had of the USSR.
Good point! You can't know how things will turn out in the future. Maybe the signs were there that OBL was going to be some kind of religious nutjob wanting to kill inoccent people for what ever reason he has for killing them, or maybe they weren't. But at that time, the USSR was our biggest concern.
People knew at the time that the mujahadeen were bad news. I can remember vividly my brother who was a Pashtu linguist with the Marines in the '80's, telling me that the guys we were helping in Afghanistan hated the U.S.
Hi giff, I didn't have such a brother or contact at all. For the sake of argument, don't you think it's possible that we'll look back on Pakistan with similar hindsight? If we quit working with all people who hate us (especially now!), we're not going to be working with many people.
I think we could very well suffer blow back from our relationship with Pakistan. I would say engage where and when we can do some good, promote stability/democracy etc. There will be places and times when there is no opportunity for constructive engagement.
One thing that you could try is to try to understand why people hate America in general and see if there are any legitimate complaints there that could be addressed. After all, if you eliminate one enemy but create two more in the process, you’re not moving yourself ahead. You need to think through the problem quite a bit more thoroughly to find the root of it. And in terms of treating other countries and people in ways that you would not want America and Americans to be treated, the golden rule and “you reap what you sow,” are not exactly new wisdom. These have been fundamentals of ethical conduct for a long time. I don’t find it too much to suggest that administrations in the 70’s and 80’s should have understood these as part of proper moral conduct. This is not to say that there are no legitimate interventions, but if you violate basic moral codes and a people’s basic rights, there will be repercussions.
