I have no clue why people defend the Reagan Administration

[V Nura]

Ms Heartland-
Thank you for your opinion
I promise you I wont go start any threads on why Im befuddled on how some presidents who I feel sucked duped the American people.
And Im not even a "neutral" college professor

DB9

your more like gilligan

 

[HeartlandGirl]

Ms Heartland-
Thank you for your opinion
I promise you I wont go start any threads on why Im befuddled on how some presidents who I feel sucked duped the American people.
And Im not even a "neutral" college professor

DB9

You're welcome!

All presidents dupe the American public on some level. I, for one, would rather be duped in regard to the president's sex life than be duped in regard to the selling of arms or how trickle down economics works (or doesn't work, as the case may be).

Peace to the diamond sexy one.

 

[diamond]

Ahem Arun-

To arun-
Whatever you say "Mrs Howell"



Dave

 

[diamond]

You're welcome!

All presidents dupe the American public on some level. I, for one, would rather be duped in regard to the president's sex life than be duped in regard to the selling of arms or how trickle down economics works (or doesn't work, as the case may be).

Peace to the diamond sexy one.

Yo
Peace
Sister.

Out
diamond
xxox

 

[V Nura]

If there are ANY doubts that reagan created saddam


read this article


http://www.msnbc.com/news/807688.asp#BODY



Also...for the sake of the education of all interferencers


There are no elected officials in pakistan it is a military dictatorship. Mushareff came to power as the result of a military coup within the last 5 years.

tyler...you are right on with yoru take on pakistan, The UN resolutions are clearly against them and they know that the US will side with india. It' unfortunate that The nixom administration set relations with india so far back that it took bill clinton to set it right again.

 

[Dreadsox]

Thanks for the link Arun!

I will be reading it tonight.


By the way has anyone claimed the title of "The Professor"?

Peace to all!

 

[STING2]

Arun,

That article did not say "Reagan created Saddam". Its "how we helped create Saddam" supposedly. The article is full of what is more speculation rather than fact. Diplomatic meetings, allowing the sell of duel use technology, that was allowed for other countries as well back then, and unsubstantiated "economic aid" is not evidence that we "created" Saddam. Information on the supposed sell of US tanks to Egypt and then Egypts sell of the tanks to Iraq is simply false. I have the complete Iraqi military weapons tables listing all conventional military equipment that Iraq has as of June 1989. What should come as a surprise to most of you is the vast amount of Soviet Equipment(including key area's like tanks and fighter aircraft) that Iraq has, and the lack of almost any US equipment, aside from a few US weapon systems that were captured from Iran during the Iran/Iraq War. These weapon systems were sold to Iran when the Shah was still in power.

My information comes from the internationaly respected London based thing tank, IISS, The International Institute Of Strategic Studies. It is either terrible sloppy journalism by newsweek or the simple desire to sell more magazine's through controversy, based on little fact, and taken out of the context of where ALL and MOST of Iraq's military machine came from. I'll post what is known about Iraq's military machine before the start of the Gulf War, which will include the list of all major conventional weapons systems and where they came from. While WMD weapons are threatening as terror weapons against civilians and unprotected military, they are not the weapons that helped Iraq defeat Iran, nor are they the main weapons in surpressing Kurds or Shia's or other opposition in Iraq. Nor are they the weapons that he used to attack Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel with. I'll post the information on Iraq's military and where the weapons came from, when I get the chance.

 

[V Nura]

Arun,

That article did not say "Reagan created Saddam". Its "how we helped create Saddam" supposedly. The article is full of what is more speculation rather than fact. Diplomatic meetings, allowing the sell of duel use technology, that was allowed for other countries as well back then, and unsubstantiated "economic aid" is not evidence that we "created" Saddam. Information on the supposed sell of US tanks to Egypt and then Egypts sell of the tanks to Iraq is simply false. I have the complete Iraqi military weapons tables listing all conventional military equipment that Iraq has as of June 1989. What should come as a surprise to most of you is the vast amount of Soviet Equipment(including key area's like tanks and fighter aircraft) that Iraq has, and the lack of almost any US equipment, aside from a few US weapon systems that were captured from Iran during the Iran/Iraq War. These weapon systems were sold to Iran when the Shah was still in power.

My information comes from the internationaly respected London based thing tank, IISS, The International Institute Of Strategic Studies. It is either terrible sloppy journalism by newsweek or the simple desire to sell more magazine's through controversy, based on little fact, and taken out of the context of where ALL and MOST of Iraq's military machine came from. I'll post what is known about Iraq's military machine before the start of the Gulf War, which will include the list of all major conventional weapons systems and where they came from. While WMD weapons are threatening as terror weapons against civilians and unprotected military, they are not the weapons that helped Iraq defeat Iran, nor are they the main weapons in surpressing Kurds or Shia's or other opposition in Iraq. Nor are they the weapons that he used to attack Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel with. I'll post the information on Iraq's military and where the weapons came from, when I get the chance.

I'd like to see that...I think you should email this to newsweek..if what your saying is in fact true...this article is highly misleading

 

[U2Bama]

Saddam's parents created Saddam.

Al gore created the internet.

Ronald Reagan created a monkey by the name of "Bonzo."

God created everything else.

There is nothing further to debate.

 

[HeartlandGirl]

Don't even get me started on Bonzo the chimp!

 

[V Nura]

upon doing some fact checking


I've found this article to be more true than people in this thread were leading me to believe.

The US has shipped arms to iraq.


You know what's funny??


I have no problem criticizing Democratic administartions for stupid things...for instance Clinton and the sale of military tech to the to the chinese


however...the same people that accuse me of being too partisan will even (try to) justify allying ourselves with known terrorists, in order to keep the integrity of a republican president.

 

[STING2]

Really? What I have to post is rather lengthy and I have not had time yet to do it. If you have info on US arms shipment to Iraq, please name the weapon system and quantity shipped! Anything short of that is not evidence.

 

[STING2]

I hope this won't take me to long, but here is the military organisation and equipment holdings for Iraq as of June 1, 1989. This information comes from The Military Balance 1989-1990 published by Brassey's for THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES. The IISS is an independent, internationally staffed centre for research, information and debate on the problems of security, conflict and conflict control, arms and arms control in the modern world.

The equipment tables list all weapon systems and usually list type or name. It does not actually list country of origion, but from my own knowledge backed up by other sources on military weapons, I am able to list if the weapon system is Soviet, Chinese, French, German, USA, etc. for most of the weapons in the equipment table that have a type listed but not all. Weapon systems that are not known are from countries other than the Soviet Union, China, or the USA. The combat weapon systems that are listed as USA are captured weapons systems from Iran and are listed as inoperable. The same applies for British weapon systems found in the table. Iraq only has small numbers of both.

TOTAL ARMED FORCES:
ACTIVE: 1,000,000
RESERVES: 850,000

ARMY: 955,000
7 corps HQ.
7 armd/mech divisions.
42 inf divisions
6 Presidential Guard Force Divisions(3 armored, 1 infrantry, 1 cdo brigade)
20+ SF Brigades
2 SSM Brigades

EQUIPMENT:
MAIN BATTLE TANKS: 5,500: 2,500 T-54/-55(SOVIET) M-77(ROMANIAN), 1,000 T-59/-69(CHINESE), 1,000 T-62(SOVIET), 1,000 T-72(SOVIET), 30: Chieftain(United Kingdom), M-60(USA), M-47(USA).
LIGHT TANKS: 100 PT-76(SOVIET)

RECONNAISSANCE: BRDM-2(SOVIET), 300 AML-60/-90(?), FUG-70(?), ERC-90(FRENCH), Mowag Roland(GERMAN), EE-9 Cascavel(?), 300 EE-3 Jararaca(?)

ARMORED INFANTRY FIGHTING VEHICLES: 1,000 BMP(SOVIET)

ARMORED PERSONAL CARRIERS: 7,100: BTR-50/-60/-152(SOVIET), OT-62/-64(CZECH), M-113A1(USA), Panhard M-3(?), EE-11 Urutu(?)
TOWED ARTILLERY: 3,000: 105mm: M-56 pack(?); 122mm: D-74(SOVIET), D-30(SOVIET), M-1938(SOVIET); 130mm: M-46(SOVIET), Type 59-1(CHINESE); 152mm: M-1937(SOVIET), M-1943(SOVIET); 155mm: 100 G-5(SOUTH AFRICA), 200 GHN-45(?), M-114(?)

SELF-PROPELLED ARTILLERY: 500: 122mm: 2S1(SOVIET); 152mm: 2S3(SOVIET); 155mm: M-109(USA); 85 AUF-1 (GCT)(?)

MULTIPLE ROCKET LAUNCHERS: 200: 122mm: BM-21(SOVIET); 127mm: 60 astros II(IRAQ); 128mm: Ababil(IRAQ); 132mm: BM-13/-16(SOVIET); 180mm: astros SS-40(IRAQ); 300mm: astros SS-60(IRAQ)

MORTARS: 81mm; 120mm; 160mm.(type's not given)

SURFACE TO SURFACE MISSILE(launchers): 30 FROG-7(SOVIET); Sijil(IRAQ); 36 Scud B(SOVIET); Abbas(IRAQ); Husayn(IRAQ).

ANTI-TANK GUIDED WEAPONS: AT-3 Sagger(SOVIET), AT-4 Spigot(SOVIET), SS-11(FRENCH), Milan(GERMAN), HOT(FRENCH).

RECOILLESS LAUNCHER(S): 73mm: SPG-9(SOVIET); 82mm: B-10(SOVIET); 107mm(type not listed)

ANTI-TANK GUNS: 85mm(type not listed); 100mm towed(SOVIET); 105mm: 100 JPz(GERMAN), SK-105 SP(?)

HELICOPTERS: some 160 armed helicopters.
ATTACK: 40 Mi-24 with AT-2 swatter(SOVIET), 20 SA-342(FRENCH); 13 SA-321(FRENCH), some 30 SA-316B(FRENCH), 56 Bo-105(GERMAN)
TRANSPORT: heavy: 15 Mi-6(SOVIET); medium: 100 Mi8/-17(SOVIET), 6 AS-61(?), 10 SA-330(FRENCH), 20 Mi-4(SOVIET), lt: 3 A-109(?), 5 AB-212(?), 40 Bell 214 ST(USA) Hughes 300C/500D/530F (30/30/26)(USA), 30 SA-342(FRENCH)

AIR-DEFENSE GUNS: 4,000: 23mm: ZSU-23-4 SP(SOVIET); 37mm: M-1939(SOVIET); 57mm: ZSU-57-2 SP(SOVIET); 85mm(no type listed); 100mm(no type listed); 130mm(no type listed).

SURFACE TO AIR MISSILE'S: 120 SA-2(SOVIET), 150 SA-3(SOVIET), SA-6(SOVIET), SA-7(SOVIET), SA-9(SOVIET), SA-13(SOVIET), SA-14(SOVIET), 60 Roland(GERMAN).


NAVY: 5,000

FRIGATES: 5:
4 Hittin (lt Lupo) with 1AB-212 hel(asw)(?) 2 x 3 ASTT(?); plus 8 x Otomat SSM, 1 x 127mm gun(?). 1 Khaldoum (training) with 2 x ASTT(?).
MISSILE CRAFT: 8 Nisan 7 (Sov Osa) with 4 x SS-N-2 Styx SSM(SOVIET)
TORPEDO CRAFT: 6 Sov P-6 with 2 x 533mm TT(SOVIET)
PATROL INSHORE: 20: 3 SO-1, 4 Nyryat II, 13(?)
MINE WARFARE: 8:
MCM: 2 Sov T-43 MSC, 6 MSI(SOVIET)
AMPHIBIOUS: 6
3 Al Zahraa LST(?), capacity 250tps, 20 tk, 1 hel.
3 Sov Polnocny LSM(SOVIET), capacity 180 tps, 6 tk.
SUPPORT AND MISCELLANEOUS: 3: 1 Agnadeen(lt Stromboli)(?) AOR, 2 Presidential yachts.


AIR FORCE: 40,000 incl 10,000 Air Defense personnel; 513 combat aircraft.
BOMBERS: 2 sqn:
1 with 8 Tu-22(SOVIET); 1 with 8 Tu-16(SOVIET), 4 H-6D(CHINESE)

FIGHTER'S, GROUND ATTACK: 17 sqn:
4 with 70 Mig-23BN(SOVIET)
4 with 64 Mirage F-1EQ5/EQ5-200(FRENCH)
2 with 30 Su-7(SOVIET)
2 with 50 Su-20(SOVIET)
2 with 30 Su-25(SOVIET)
2 with 40 J-6(CHINESE)

FIGHTER: 16 sqn with 25 Mig-25(SOVIET), 80 J-7(CHINESE), 70 Mig-21(SOVIET), 30 Mirage F-1EQ(FRENCH), 18 Mig-29(SOVIET)

RECON: 1 sqn of 8 Mig-25(SOVIET)

TRANSPORT: 2sqn 10 An-2(?); 6 An-12(?); 6 An-24(?); 2 An-26(?), 19 Il-76(?), 19Il-14(?)

AIR TO AIR MISSILE'S: R-530(?), R-550(?) Majic, AA-2/-6/-7/-8(?)
AIR TO SURFACE MISSILE'S: AS-30 Laser(?), Armat, Exocet AM-39, C-601, AS-4, AS-5.


As one can see from the list, the Soviet Union was the chief supplier of weapons to Iraq followed distantly by China and France with others making smaller contributions. The small number of USA combat equipment listed in the totals was captured from Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. There are transport helicopters(non-combat) that were supplied to Iraq. If anyone created the Iraqi war machine it should be clear from this that its MOSCOW. The Soviets kept a force of 2,000 troops and advisors in Iraq through the Iran/Iraq war and up to a couple of months before the USA invasion of Iraq in 1991. Not only did the Soviets supply most of Iraq's weapons, but they also trained their pilots tankers and other troops in Soviet Military, tactics, doctrine, and theory's!

 

[V Nura]

1.) giving somebody funds to buy arms is just as good as giving it to them yourself
2.) I don't believe I saw the missile targetting systems on your list. (I'm not saying they are US I'm curious where tehy came from)


3.) also the chemical and biological capabilities have been linked to the US.

 

[U2Bama]

I will conced, in hindsight, that the U.S. does not always pick the classiest of friends in the international community. I do believe that it was reasonable to assume that a secularist regime in Iraq was favorable to the Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic Revolution theocracy in Iran. THOSE people were bastards! What happened to all of the Persian Jews who lived in Iran up until the overthrow of the Shah? Why did they start executing homosexuals and apostates?

I stand by my belief that Saddam's parents created him.

~U2Alabama

 

[STING2]

1. Ok, if you have a evidence of US money purchasing Soviet Military Combat Equipment for Iraq, lets see it. What weapon systems were purchased with this money and in what quantity? Keep in mind that Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves on the planet and is not exactly strapped for cash to the degree that many other countries are. Considering the fact that they had 2,000 troops and advisors in Iraq during the 1980s and in addition to the vast oil wealth of the country, It does not appear that the Soviets would have demanded funds up front for weapons if Iraq was short on funds temporarily. Iraq is still in debt billions of dollars to the "Former Soviet Union"(sanctions started in August of 1990 on Iraq), but there is nothing that shows the Soviets ever withheld any military equipment that Iraq requested. Given the large Soviet influence in the country(2,000 troops), Iraq most likely recieved aid they had never even thought of. Iraqi strategy and tactics, military organization, are all model after the Soviet military.

2. A Missile Targeting system? For what missile? Are we talking SSM, SAM, or ATGWs?

3. there are links to nearly every single country that had normal trade relations with Iraq when it comes to chemical and Biological weapons. Unless the country had sanctions imposed on Iraq at the time, nearly every single industrialized country was open for trade with Iraq to include products or substances that have duel uses for military and medical technology. Iraq also had the capability of producing many of these weapons without foreign aid back in the 1980s. Also, Iraq already had significant chemical, Biological, and nuclear weapons facilities(a reactor) and abilities(in regard to the first two) before Reagan was even elected into office.
Without global economic sanctions against Iraq in the 1980s, the Iraqi's could have gotten what ever duel use technology they supposedly recieved from the USA from over a dozen other countries.

Its correct to say that the global community through free trade indirectly aided Iraq in its pursuit of the development of chemical and Biological weapons because science and medical equipment, substances can have an alternative military use. Iraq is definitely not the only country that benifited from international trade this way.

Lets go back though to the article's title "How We Helped Create Saddam". Its a bit absurd when you look at who really helped Saddam create his war machine. Which country sold the most military equipment to Iraq? Which country invested large amounts of money to train the Iraqi military? Which country had military soldiers and advisors stationed in Iraq on a permanent basis from the 1960s to late 1990 to help them(2,000 troops) ? Which country, if any, deserves the title of: the Creater of Saddam? The facts above, which Newsweek decided not to mention, answer these questions.

 

[diamond]

Sting
Bama
Arun-
Thank you all for your contributons to this thread.

I think its easy to b an arm-chair quater-back, re issuses decades later..We only are privy to a sliver of info at the time it is actually occuring.a sliver
This is a mistake of some partisan-folk..

Peace
-diamond-

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

It's ridiculous...look at almost every major place teh US is concerned with now. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan. All places that recieved arms and support from the Reagan administration. It's a shame that most of the terrorists we fight now were actually funded by perhaps the most inept and short sighted administration to date ( I'm not counting this one till it's over).


We gave Iraq monye and arms to fight iran...now we're fighting a war with iraq, and iran hates us..brilliant. We gave Afghanistan the ability to fight off the soviets and ended up fighting a war there. And then Pakistan which is terrorist state, now needs to be propped up in order to keep nuclear arms out of extremists hands.....they dont' mention that the nuclear deployment prgram pakistan built was with US help from the reagan administration do they? The man was an actor not a president, and the fact that he is was the most popular president in US history is a shame on us Americans. He made people believe that nicaragua and El salvador were threats to the US which perhaps is one of the most profound dupings of the american people in history.


Bottom line the last 10 years of the last century and the next 50 of this one are going to be mopping up for the reagan adminisration..ended communism...hardly...china still exists people. Also...I'd liek to point out that regimes like iraq restrict freedoms a lot more than the Soviets ever did.

The american people made mistakes...I hope we learn from them. And lets' hope that whatever is done with iraq doesn't bite us in the ass again. the Reagan administration was perhaps the Greatest failure in terms of the long term protection of the american people.


also....bin laden...was a creation of the Reagan administration.


Our entire war on terror...is a result of shortsighted and in fact down right idiotic policies durign the 80's

*waits for diamond to put up a futile argument*

Ooh.

Well said.

And HeartlandGirl, I agree-so what if we were rather young when Reagan took office. If we study his presidency enough, we can be able to voice our opinions, too.

And to the person who said "Damn kids" simply because the person who started this topic is young...my parents didn't like Reagan, either, okay? It's not just "us kids" who are saying this stuff, there's adults I know that didn't like Reagan, either.

Angela

 

[diamond]

Listen
My Dad hated Clinton but Im sorta ok w Clinton.
My point Angela is that maybe we r taught to hate politicians just becuz our parents did..

diamond
damn kids

 

[Anthony]

My point Angela is that maybe we r taught to hate politicians just becuz our parents did..

Doesn't that sort of disprove your own point, though? Inversely, we are also taught to love politicians because our parents did. Right?

My point is, that doesn't really make anybody's opinion any less valid, including yours.

Ant.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Doesn't that sort of disprove your own point, though? Inversely, we are also taught to love politicians because our parents did. Right?

My point is, that doesn't really make anybody's opinion any less valid, including yours.

Ant.

Good point.

Angela

 

[diamond]

Yes to both of those...
The pt is..we as educated indivuals need to examine the issues and then make our decisions regardless of who our folks love or hate..
Whew!

DB9

 

[Anthony]

The pt is..we as educated indivuals need to examine the issues and then make our decisions regardless of who our folks love or hate..

I'll drink to that. However, what kind of educated decision is that of one that chooses to put someone who, in your own words, is clearly 'not the brightest of guys'?

What I'm trying to figure out, is why would you consider voting for such a person?

Ant/

 

[Dreadsox]

What I'm trying to figure out, is why would you consider voting for such a person?

Ant/

Most of us didn't!!!!!!!!

Dang electoral college!!!!!

Peace to all!

 

[diamond]

I'll drink to that. However, what kind of educated decision is that of one that chooses to put someone who, in your own words, is clearly 'not the brightest of guys'?

What I'm trying to figure out, is why would you consider voting for such a person?

Ant/

Ant
My view is that u dont have to have the highest IQ or be the brighest star to b a good leader..

DB9

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Ant
My view is that u dont have to have the highest IQ or be the brighest star to b a good leader..

DB9

Actually...I'd personally prefer to have someone in the White House who may not necessarily be a genius, but is still very intelligent as it is. I'd like to have someone in the White House who doesn't have to have a book made with all the things he's said wrong and mispronounced, for example.

*Shrugs*

That's just what I think.

Angela

 

[diamond]

Actually...I'd personally prefer to have someone in the White House who may not necessarily be a genius, but is still very intelligent as it is. I'd like to have someone in the White House who doesn't have to have a book made with all the things he's said wrong and mispronounced, for example.

*Shrugs*

That's just what I think.

Angela

Angela-
Has it ever occured to you that in our day and age UNLIKE past generations..that EVERYWORD is recorded by a President.
Ppl that oppose him -that have a motive or agenda then release every mis pronounced/mangled word as propoganda?

Think about it.
Just a little, ok?

Peace

DB9

 

[diamond]

LOL.

I can't wait to see dave --intelligently-- debate this.

*cough*

All I will say to you guys is THIS-
-Joel you were in the first or second grade when I first voted for Reagan w my older brother Mr. deep in 1980.
-Arun wasnt even a twinkle in Dr Vs eye..
-Lilly same as Arun.

I suspect you were brought up in Democratic households
Youve been "indoctrinated" to think a certain way..just as I was.

I try not to now.

What are country was coming thru at that time was-
The Carter years.

Iran was kicking our ass for 2 yrs w The Iranian Hostage Crisis
Carter appeared flustered worried and inept almost re this crisis.
The American Military was shunned thru-out the world.
American Servicemen were dispised during this time.
Inflation was outta control.
Gas prices sky-rocketed..
Interst rates were 16-19 percent to buy a home.

Our country was hurting.

Reagan came along.
He pyscologically made you feel "good" to be an American again
The Iranian hostages were released IMMEDEATELY.
Many many flustered Democrats voted for Reagan.
They were called "Reagan Democrats" back then..
I dont think your folks voted for Reagan
Hope this post enlightens you..just a tad

jackass-kids

-diamond-

 

[us3]

written Jan 2001.....


A Mash-Note
Reagan was right about almost everything.

He will turn 90 this Tuesday, but in all likelihood he will barely be aware of it. The cruelty of Alzheimer's has robbed Ronald Reagan of the capacity for clear memory. But that doesn't apply to the rest of us. He seems, in some respects, an historical oddity now, his political and cultural presence obscured in America by the Clinton psychodrama and the Bush dynasty. But the truth is, his successors do not begin to compare ? either in achievement or legacy. Reagan is still, in my view, the architect of our modern world, and nowhere is this clearer than in the United States.

Reagan stood for two simple but indisputably big things: the expansion of freedom at home and the extinction of tyranny abroad. He achieved both. When he came to office, top tax rates in the United States were in the 70 percent range. Against the odds, Reagan slashed the top rate to 28 percent and ignited an economic boom that, in some respects, is still with us. Bill Clinton nudged taxes up a little, but to nowhere near the levels of the Carter's America, and all signs now point to a reduction this year back to Reagan levels. But unlike George W. Bush, and certainly unlike the hopelessly confused Michael Portillo, Reagan understood what tax cuts were about. Back in 1976, he made the case in one of his innumerable radio addresses, the transcripts of which have just been released by the Free Press in a mammoth 500 page tome. The little speech was called, "America's Strength." Here's the relevant passage (in his idiosyncratic style), just excerpted in the Weekly Standard:

"Our system freed the individual genius of man. Released him to fly as high & as far as his own talent & energy would take him. We allocate resources not by govt. decision but by the mil's. of decisions customers make when they go into the mkt. place to buy. If something seems too high-priced we buy something else. Thus resources are steered toward those things the people want most at the price they are willing to pay. It may not be a perfect system but it's better than any other that's ever been tried."

Classic Reagan. Simple. Intelligible. True. Some people believe he was a moron, incapable of argument or intellectual engagement. A brief perusal through these dozens of talks will put the lie to that. He wrote constantly, and grappled directly and bravely with the main issues of his day. He was a believer in the press and the media as a way to communicate as powerfully as possible ideas that could change lives. In this sense, he was one of the most intellectual presidents in history. He took great pain with words, and spent a lifetime learning how to craft them.

And if he was right about taxation and the role of government, he was also right about the other great question of his day: the Soviet Union. "D?tente," he remarked in a 1975 speech. "Isn't that what a farmer has with a turkey ? until Thanksgiving?" I will never forget the moment I heard his "evil empire" speech. It was broadcast on Radio Four in snippets, festooned with sceptical British commentary about this inflammatory and dangerous new president, this cowboy who knew nothing about geo-politics or the complexities of late-Communism. But for all the criticism, what came through to my teenage brain was an actual truth. Yes, the Soviet Union was evil. Who now doubts that? But who in a position of power said so when it mattered? Barely no-one but Reagan. He alone saw that communism was destined to be put on the "ash-heap of history," as he told the House of Commons. And he helped put it there. His achievement in this respect was so monumental that a whole generation of former peaceniks now take it for granted. Think of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. In the 1980s, they were nuclear freeze supporters. And yet both now thoughtlessly enjoy the soft and easy fruits of a greater man's courage.

The critics harp on the enormous deficits of the Reagan era, and see them as an indictment of all he stood for. But the truth is, federal revenues boomed on Reagan's watch. Tax cuts didn't destroy public finances ? they helped them. What created the deficits was an unprecedented increase in defence spending ? the bargaining chip that eventually forced the Soviets to surrender. And you could easily argue that this was a price worth paying for an early end to an extremely expensive conflict. Thanks to the peace dividend of the post-Cold War world, and the free market expansion that Ronald Reagan initiated, America is now enjoying record surpluses. Even the straggling defenders of perestroika now concede that Reagan's intransigence and skill speeded the collapse of the Soviet empire. The deficits, from the standpoint of history, were therefore a fiscal bargain. In the long run, they paid for themselves.

And on most of the current pressing issues, Reaganism still has plenty of credibility. The main cloud on the fiscal horizon ? the long-term insolvency of the government-run pension system ? stems from a program Reagan opposed. The partial privatization of the program that George W. Bush is now contemplating is straight out of the Reagan hand-book. The most significant change in American social policy in the 1990s ? the end of the federal welfare entitlement ? was also presaged by Reagan. In the early 1970s, when Reagan was governor of California, the question of whether to federalize that entitlement was in front of the National Governors' Association. The governors voted to have Washington guarantee the benefit 49 ? 1. Guess who the hold-out was. It took thirty years and Bill Clinton to finally recognize the validity of Reagan's point. And Reagan's unlikeliest dream ? nuclear missile defence ? is also still with us. Lampooned at the time as "Star Wars," it will soon regain the preeminence it deserves in America's military defence, as Donald Rumsfeld aggressively moves it forward.

The contrast with Clinton couldn't be clearer. Clinton was a group-hugger, a man in command of every detail of government, a sex-addict, even to being fellated by a staffer in the White House itself, obsessed with the press, fixated on spin, devoted to polls. Reagan was aloof, distant even from his own family, focussed on a few important themes and a delegator of everything else. He was devoted to his second wife with a romantic zeal that even now impresses, a man who wore a coat and tie at all times in the Oval Office, a room he considered something close to sacred. He was also pricelessly funny. It is not apocryphal that, as he was wheeled into the operating room after a bullet almost took his life, he looked at the solemn, green-suited doctors and said, "Please tell me you're Republicans." The morning after, respiratory tubes stuck down his throat, he could only scribble jokes.On a pink piece of paper, he wrote to his wife, "I'd like to do this scene again - starting at the hotel." The other week, in preparation for Clinton's farewell address, the television networks included a snippet from one of Reagan's last speeches as president. He said of his impending retirement, "I'm looking forward to going home at last, putting my feet up and taking a good long nap." Pause. "I guess it won't be that much different after all."

Reagan cared about public opinion ? but only so he knew best how to challenge and shape it. It never shaped him. He didn't need spin. He had faith. A natural populist, Reagan spent hours as president hand-writing letters to friends and often obscure pen-pals from around the country he had befriended some time in the past ? never dreaming for a second that he was too important to ignore such little tasks of courtesy. He was a democrat to his fingertips who didn't need a 'common touch' because he was so effortlessly a common man himself.

Except, of course, he was anything but. It takes time to recognize greatness and it sometimes appears in the oddest of forms. A B-actor from Hollywood, a cold fish, a man unknown even to his own children at times, a hack-radio announcer for General Electric, and easily the finest president of the last fifty years. When he dies, this country will go into shock. For Americans know in their hearts that this unlikely man understood the deepest meaning of their country in a way no-one else has done for a generation. He gave them purpose again, and in return they still give him love. For what it's worth, let me now add my own.

Copyright: Andrew Sullivan

 

[Foxxern]

Angela-
Has it ever occured to you that in our day and age UNLIKE past generations..that EVERYWORD is recorded by a President.
Ppl that oppose him -that have a motive or agenda then release every mis pronounced/mangled word as propoganda?

Past generations, right. Like way back in the time of Clinton and even Bush Sr. Man, how many years has it been since then? Must be like... 2?

Bush isn't a great speaker. Accept it.