God knows I love Reagan, but what Buchanan claims here is pure Bravo Sierra. By pulling Marines out of Lebanon, Reagan did indeed engage in a very rash action; one that validated the terrorism of the Islamists and emboldened them to further attack America without fear of meaningful reprisal. And the airstrikes on Libya were just more of the same. Libya exported far less terrorism than Iran, but we only struck Libya because Khaddafi was a loudmouth.
As for precipitate action, what the hell does Buchanan think Grenada was? If that wasn't a pre-emptive action, what the hell was it, Pat?
Reagan's legacy is great enough without piling fiction on to it. I should hope Buchanan will refrain from such nonsense in the future.
Sorry, but Reagan hit the Colonel in Libya because he killed several U.S. soldiers in a bombing in a German pub. I know. I was in the administation at the time. And the reason Reagan didn't strike back after our Marines were killed by car boms in Lebanon is because he wasn't exactly sure where or how to hit them. It's becoming an urban myth that he just turned tail and ran, which is false. It doesn't even make any sense. Reagan was never of such a mind in anything he did.