Jump to content

Reagan was a madman


Hotcorner
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is from a Czech website

 

Prague TV link

 

Long, but.... wow. :blink:

Not a big fan, apparently.

 

He was a madman

by Colin Shea

 

Ronald Reagan is dead, and the world is no worse off for it. At the best of times, he was an ineffectual dunce. At the worst, he was a dangerous madman who threatened humanity?s very survival. He destroyed any residual respect for the presidency left over from Nixon, his moral predecessor. He created unprecedented deficits while simultaneously gutting the principles of the New Deal and the Great Society. He presided over a White House famously unable to govern properly because of his abysmal ignorance and tolerance of a Byzantine mess of corrupt internal fiefdoms. His endless rotation of advisers was a contemptible assortment of thieves, quacks, hypocrites and imbeciles who regularly broke the law of the land, lied shamelessly to Congress and the American people, and hopelessly ensnared themselves in ugly webs of shady and illicit dealings. Reagan claimed to be leading a conservative revolution, but he left the presidency with America mired in debt, more authoritarian, militarized and centralized than ever before, and with a foreign policy that was the laughing-stock of the civilized world.

 

It was morning in America, but the dawn was black indeed. A black dawn where Christian greed was celebrated over Commie compassion, where a family man could now walk out of church and taunt a homeless family, secure in the knowledge that their poverty was their own fault. A black dawn where a lie, repeated five times, could become a simple truth. A black dawn where the Attorney General could commit crime after crime without consequence, where the National Security Advisor could sell weapons to terrorists in order to finance more terrorists, where B-grade science fiction movies served as policy papers and C-grade farce served as the script for governance in the halls of power of the mightiest nation the world has ever known.

 

As I write, the man is being canonized as a saint by the press and the political establishment. The bright moments are being recalled: the fall of the Soviet Union, the monumental arms reduction treaties, the resurgence of conservatism as a credible political philosophy. The stupendously dangerous ?evil empire? days of the early 1980s, when as a child I lay in quivering fear of imminent nuclear immolation, are conveniently forgotten. The astonishing case of White House amnesia seen during the Iran-Contra hearings is mostly topic non grata. That?s a pity, since I would enjoy seeing rerun footage of a smoke-wreathed, imperturbable Poindexter murmuring cryptic non-responses like some sort of Delphic oracle, and Ed Meese, hissing and spitting and snarling like a disemboweled jackal. Together they managed to say ?I don?t know? 524 times in seven days of collective testimony in a reprise of every college student?s worst classroom humiliation nightmares.

 

Mining Nicaraguan harbors, a violation of federal law and an act of war, is nowhere mentioned. Micheal Deaver?s indictment on multiple counts of perjury is just a dull footnote, as are Paul Thayer?s years in the pen for obstruction of justice. I doubt there will be speculation as to whether William Casey was fortunate to croak when he did, thus being spared the ignominy of being frog-marched out of CIA headquarters in handcuffs. Elliot Abrams, one of the darlings of the current Administration, will probably not be seen ?acknowledging? that ?misleading Congress may have been a mistake?, not to mention ?misplacing? ten million dollars which mysteriously ended up in a Swiss bank account instead of financing Central American death squads like it was supposed to.

 

I doubt we?ll see Ed Meese, putative Attorney General, claiming that ?the Supreme Court does not set the supreme law of the land?, or James Watt stating blithely during his confirmation hearings that conservation ought not be a priority since he didn?t know ?how many generations we can count on before the Lord returns.? Not to mention Alexander Haig, gripping the podium like an amphetamine-crazed baboon, screaming at reporters that he was ?in charge? after the assassination attempt on Reagan.

 

Then there?s George Senior. Toasting Ferdinand Marcos for his ?adherence of democratic principle? and processes?. When he wasn?t being forced to fire practically his entire campaign staff amid allegations of anti-Semitism, he was dishing it out himself. ?I hope I stand for anti-bigotry, anti-Semitism, antiracism?. He also wanted to be remembered for ?a complete and total ban on chemical weapons. Their destruction forever,? though it is more likely he will be remembered for casting several tie-breaking Senate votes to resume production of nerve agents. After the USS Vincennes blew an Iranian airliner out of the sky, killing nearly 300 people, he set the standard for accepting responsibility in that and future Republican Administrations with his memorable howl ?I will never apologize for the United States! I don?t care what the facts are!?

 

The Reagan Revolution looked as though it was on its way to becoming a Nixon-esque fiasco by 1986. Countless members of the Administration were languishing in prison, fleeing to Paraguay, or being consumed in the toxic flames of Iran-Contra. Even the chittering rats of the Republican-owned Senate had to abandon Old Dutch?s leaking ship of state over South Africa when he started yammering about how ?they have eliminated the segregation we once had in our own country?. They say a person?s character is defined by the company he keeps, and Reagan?s gamut of buddies from Ed Meese to Ferdinand Marcos to the savage apartheid enforcers of South Africa did the man no favors.

 

There are those who say that the end justifies the means, that these criticisms pale into insignificance next to the achievement of winning the Cold War and toppling the Berlin Wall. Like Ahmed Chalabi, he is one of the great ?heroes in error?. But touch the excuse, and it rings equally hollow as Chalabi?s. Like Hussein?s Iraq, the fearsome Soviet behemoth was a crippled husk by the 1980s, already in its death throes. The best that can be said for Reagan is that he may have slightly accelerated its demise: at worst, he may have veered crazily close to nuclear holocaust and wrecked the American economy for no reason at all. It was not Reagan who won the Cold War for America, but Stalin. As with so much of his career, Reagan was just an empty vessel acting out a script written long before.

 

Some say it is cruel and needless to assault the legacy of a crippled old man who ultimately wanted the best for his nation. But to spare him this would be to show compassion he never demonstrated himself. Time and again, he insisted the homeless somehow wanted to sleep on sidewalk grates; that the poor, the hungry, the indigent were there because of their own laziness. In the strange, refracted light of Reagan?s black dawn, soup kitchens were full because eating food there is ?easier than paying for it?; his 155 billion dollar deficit was the result of some demonic collusion between Congress and the press; a gaggle of drug-smugglers and assassins in the Nicaraguan jungle were the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers; and trading arms for hostages to the same people who had just killed hundreds of marines in Beirut was somehow, inexplicably, something completely other. No one, including the Vice President and the presidential spokesman could say exactly what it was, but it sure wasn?t that.

 

Truth be told, I could forgive the old man all of this. But what I will never forgive him is that, in spite of all this, in the face of overwhelming evidence that he should have been run out of town like a syphilitic dentist, he left office with the highest approval ratings of any president, ever. (Leaving aside Roosevelt croaking in the arms of his mistress in a hot tub, god bless the old man?s lecherous soul).

 

The true crime ensconced within this astonishing bit of black magic was the genesis of the monstrous creature that is the modern Republican Party. It has been ?morning in America? ever since Reagan?s genial smile flooded our living rooms with warmth twenty five years ago, and our minds have steadily softened in tandem with his. Joe Six Pack fervently believes that if he just lands that third job or gets the right break, that Hummer will soon be his. The blacks have all conveniently been turned into felons and thrown off the voter rolls. Hundreds of billions wash through the Pentagon in a grotesque charade of crony capitalism, and whenever the ammo surplus builds up too high we go out and find some pathetic, wretched excuse for a country to bomb to smithereens so we can plant the flag in the smoldering ruins and congratulate ourselves on transplanting democracy.

 

Bush II is Reagan redux in its most awful sense. The bald-faced lies without any hope or even attempt for justification, a servile and simpering press, a public which forgives and forgets and yes, even loves while their leaders deliver powerful kicks to their genitals again and again and again. Cross-eyed apocalyptic madmen once again roam the halls of power while slimy political hacks sharpen hooked knives in back rooms. Both had to make obligatory pilgrimages to Bob Jones University to kneel at the altar of Nixon?s ?Southern Strategy? and claim, oh no, it?s not about racism at all, it?s about state?s rights and religious freedom. Nudge nudge, wink wink. Katherine dear, did you finish scrubbing the Florida voter rolls yet?

 

The same well-honed policy apparatus is in place once more: Bush?s ?blind man in the room full of deaf people? is today?s equivalent of Reagan generating policy ideas from trashy sci-fi novels. Don Quixote tilting at windmills had nothing on these guys. Just as Reagan was prepared to throw away a decade of arms control for the sake of his non-existent space lasers, Bush insists on implementing a non-functioning missile shield to defend against a non-existent missile threat. Reagan?s doomed American medical students and Cuban military airfields on Granada set the stage for the desert mirage of Iraqi WMD. And whether it?s Iran-Contra or Abu Ghraib that?s the cause of enraged Congressional scrutiny, both Reagan and Bush have the sense to hunker down in the undisclosed location and shrug. ?Hey, don?t look at me! I?m just the President ? these guys don?t tell me anything!?

 

But for all that, even Reagan had some limits. He funded nun-killing death squads from El Salvador to South Africa, but even he couldn?t stomach Ariel Sharon tearing through Lebanon and engineering made-for-TV massacres of women and children. But he set the stage for those who could, and now the ?hard boys? are back in the saddle, calling all the shots. Sharon can wade in blood if he wants, while the American people sit back and write checks to pay for the bulldozers squashing peace activists and razing refugee camps.

 

Ronald Reagan was not a great man. He was a dangerous and incompetent president who brought dishonor and disgrace to his office and to his country. The adulation and reverence being heaped on him today is an obscene affront to truth, history, and the millions who are worse off today because of him. The modern Republican Party?s new ?muscular conservatism? - with its nutty imperial dreams, voodoo economics, a worldwide gulag archipelago, contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, and blind and bumbling ignorance of fact and history - is his creation. And so in this time of crisis, we must not let our memory of Reagan be shrouded in sentimentalism and glory. He takes with him to his grave ineluctable responsibilities he would never accept during his tenure, or indeed his life. The seeds he sowed so long ago have come to monstrous fruition. Let us use this poignant moment not to create a false and unworthy idol in the pantheon of American democracy, but to carefully consider how we have come to this dreadful pass, and whether and how we may yet turn back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The sort of personal attack represented in this article is not just historically inaccurate, but it is in poor taste considering the timing. Reagan did some good; and Reagan did some bad -- a fair statement for any president.

The timing's the point. This dude is all about being contrarian and crap, he's like "Well all these people are feeling sorry for Reagan, but I know better so I'm gonna list everything bad that happened from 1981 to 1989 and call him a douchebag, that way I'll be controversial and I'll get totally laid at the next Democrat Socialist mixer. Kickass"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's so much crap on that article that I don't want to reply to all of it. I'll just say that this is the typical writer who criticizes our support for anti communist groups (who weren't that better either) and fails to realize that at the moment, it was either supporting those anti communist groups or supporting the communists themselves. Anyone who talks about "compassion towards the commies" has never experienced the brutality of a communist regime. It's pathetic and ludicrous that in the 21st century there's still individuals that dare defend communism after dozens of communist governments have miserably failed, costing the lives of over 100 million people worldwide...yes, 100 million! There's no peace with the communists, there's no negotiations, because they always find a way to screw you over...it's their nature.

 

Reagan might have done bad things...all presidents do. But he realized that the only way to beat communism was to fight it...and he certainly did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that article has probably been written for years, just waiting for Reagan to die.

you never know.... :lol hey all the US media outlets have had all their footage ready for years also. you think so??

 

I wouldn't be surprised. I mean, the guy was 93, had Alzheimer's...he was going to die eventually, so might as well be prepared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that article has probably been written for years, just waiting for Reagan to die.

you never know.... :lol hey all the US media outlets have had all their footage ready for years also. you think so??

 

I wouldn't be surprised. I mean, the guy was 93, had Alzheimer's...he was going to die eventually, so might as well be prepared. i know so.

 

 

 

i'm sure they got footage planned for any major worldwide figure, just updated periodically depending on how much they are still in the public's eye.

 

 

such as all US presidents, the pope, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that article has probably been written for years, just waiting for Reagan to die.

For the past several years lots of the hard left have been keeping chilled bottles of bubbly in their fridges waiting for this day... I actually don't think they sit around and wait for an old man to die. Futhermore, if anything they are outraged over the "Reagan Love Fest" going on with his death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually don't think they sit around and wait for an old man to die.

All this frothing invective just suddenly appears out of nowhere because the left doesn't care about Reagan anymore...

 

Riiight... You may hear more now that you hear all the right trying to paintt the man as a saint... But did you hear anything at all before???? They are all worried about getting rid of Bush, that's the only thing that counts. However, if Bush wants to use Reagan for political gain, don't expect to have the left quiet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ferchrisakes, JFK getting whacked didn't generate this much 7x24 coverage.

 

Certainly there must be some terrorist somewhere who is being deprived of his comfy chair and cable that they could harp on...

I have no idea what you mean by this. :blink:

 

What does this have to do with my post beats me. :mischief2

 

I wasn't even born when Kennedy got killed, therefore I can't comment on the amount of media display on his passing. However, from the stories I still hear (conspiracy and otherwise) I guess he left sort of an impact... don't you think?

 

Now comes honesty time... If President Clinton passes, I bet my entire life savings that O'Reilly and Hannity will jump on his casket and tear apart the flag of his coffin... So stop with the hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now comes honesty time... If President Clinton passes, I bet my entire life savings that O'Reilly and Hannity will jump on his casket and tear apart the flag of his coffin... So stop with the hypocrisy.

If that were to happen, I'd be the first to criticize them...that's just wrong. Reagan now, and Clinton in the future...you have to look past the political personality and see that they're just men, and therefore deserve our respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now comes honesty time... If President Clinton passes, I bet my entire life savings that O'Reilly and Hannity will jump on his casket and tear apart the flag of his coffin... So stop with the hypocrisy.

If that were to happen, I'd be the first to criticize them...that's just wrong. Reagan now, and Clinton in the future...you have to look past the political personality and see that they're just men, and therefore deserve our respect. Fishfanpr... We can only speak for ourselves. I could believe you if you said you'd respect the memory of Clinton when he passes, but you can't expect the same sanity from some extremists on the side of your party. Neither should you expect the same from this side of the pond. There are extremists, disrespectful lunatics on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Juanky

Just because you lean heavily to one side does not mean that you should just drop whatever little ethical code we may have left and base someone recently deceased, no matter what that person did during their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you lean heavily to one side does not mean that you should just drop whatever little ethical code we may have left and base someone recently deceased, no matter what that person did during their lives.

I understand where you come from. However, you should know that there are others who do not think this way and will jump on the grave of their opponent regardless of the timing.

 

I happen to not have anything against Reagan. Specially when I wasn't even close to know what was going on in the world around his time. I was a teenager then, more concerned with getting my latest Cindy Lauper tape than politics. Reagan was very respected around the world and from what I've read (good and bad) for the most part he was a far better president than the douche we have now (sorry I had to get that in).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ferchrisakes, JFK getting whacked didn't generate this much 7x24 coverage.

 

Certainly there must be some terrorist somewhere who is being deprived of his comfy chair and cable that they could harp on...

I have no idea what you mean by this. :blink:

 

What does this have to do with my post beats me. :mischief2

 

I wasn't even born when Kennedy got killed, therefore I can't comment on the amount of media display on his passing. However, from the stories I still hear (conspiracy and otherwise) I guess he left sort of an impact... don't you think?

 

Now comes honesty time... If President Clinton passes, I bet my entire life savings that O'Reilly and Hannity will jump on his casket and tear apart the flag of his coffin... So stop with the hypocrisy. Kennedy wasn't really in office long enough to leave an impact on anything. His legacy is one of lost opportunity rather than anything actualized. He was a fairly staunch cold warrior and hawk by modern standards though, so today's left probably would have reviled him about the same as Reagan.

 

I remember well the day he got shot. I was at school, the principal came in and said the president had been shot, and we all went home early that day. The teacher was visibly shaken by the news.

 

I wouldn't make that bet if I were you - you'll lose. How much piling on from the right happend right after LBJ died? Seemed a pretty straight forward state funeral to me without a lot of bashing on the dead guy. RMN got about the same treatment from the left that RR is getting though. Those were different times though... You can't compare 1970's to today, specially when we have access to all kinds of information throught the internet and the media is much more aggressive now than then. Was there a Rush Limbaugh on radio around that time? I didn't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...