Posted on 10/24/2005 5:44:36 AM PDT by Molly Pitcher
SIMI VALLEY, Calif. -- Sometimes, the only thing a president can do is hang onto history -- the promise of that day when he has his library and all his critics have transformed into admirers who gloss over his many stumbles only to stand in awe of his accomplishments, when the naysayers and nitpickers cannot be heard, as the ears before him hear only an uplifting soundtrack of Aaron Copland.
President Bush clearly was dreaming of that day as he stood at the grand opening of the Reagan Library Air Force One Pavilion, with wife Laura and Nancy Reagan by his side. He beheld the faces of a sea of survivors of the Reagan administration.
Former California Gov. Pete Wilson, once vilified, is now how held up as an example for GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Reagan's former attorney general, Ed Meese, endured a spate of scandals that would humble Bush guru Karl Rove. Former Reagan speechwriter Ken Khachigian weathered many brutal political campaigns.
Time allows the survivors to put it all behind them -- Iran-Contra, the god-awful Beirut-barracks bombing that left 241 American servicemembers dead, a massive deficit, ketchup as a vegetable. Today, the world remembers the Westminster speech in which he laid out his belief that freedom would triumph over communism, the Normandy speech and the day an American president uttered the words, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
Today, Republicans hear the words Ronald Wilson Reagan and they smile. No wonder, then, that Bush used the occasion of this ceremony to jump on the Gipper's bandwagon. Conservatives (rightly) are angry that Bush allowed the federal government to balloon and (foolishly) miffed that he chose a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court who wasn't a member of their club.
The left, of course, is hitting Bush for the deficit, as well. And from all sides, there is the constant carping on Iraq -- from those who want more troops, a withdrawal date -- and who barely give a nod to a successful voter-approval of the Iraqi constitution.
And so Bush reminded the people before him about how his term will look if America succeeds in Iraq. U.S. Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., picked up the theme, when he said after the Bush speech that both presidents had the "spirit to take on an -ism" -- communism and terrorism.
Having been belittled for calling terrorists the "evildoers," Bush reminded the audience how Reagan defeated "the evil empire." And Dubya didn't need to remind this crowd of the ridicule Reagan endured for using that term.
Nancy Reagan made an unwitting connection when she recalled her final flight with Reagan on Air Force One as they left the White House in 1989. "As the champagne was poured and glasses were raised, someone shouted: 'Mission accomplished, Mr. President. Mission accomplished.'"
Former state Sen. Jim Brulte, R-Rancho Cucamonga, remembered the days when he was a "flunky junior nobody" in the Reagan administration. "The first Gorbachev summit," he noted, "ended in 'failure' because Reagan wouldn't give away the store." But it wasn't failure.
It was an episode in a campaign won, Bush noted, because of Reagan's "resolve." While Bush is different in many ways -- Reagan was supremely confident in himself and secure in his skin; for all his bluster, Bush is less self-assured -- they both shared a vision of what this world could be.
And so as political heat blasted this administration, amid stories of a petty feud with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and as serious legal problems threaten top White House aides, Bush had reason to dream of the day when the rancor is past -- the day when a president's children are no longer the stuff of negative stories, his work habits no longer the stuff of derision and his speech no longer fodder for late-night talk shows.
How America sees Bush depends completely on what happens in Iraq and the war on terrorism. While the outcome is uncertain, the goal, to Bush, is clear.
Dennis Revell, the widower of Maureen Reagan, mused: "History is seldom an instantaneous pat on the back. That time will come for this president, as well."
Define "many", then cite examples where many "aren't too keen on us" being in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You'll find in your research that many are too nervous to "go it alone", and want us to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq as long as possible until they are sure enough that they have a handle on the situations with the proper amount of logistics and resources to "go it alone" in their respective countries.
You cannot spread peace and prosperity by cutting and running.
The jury is still out on that point.
Many leaders of friendly Muslim countries are secular in their rule but face dangerous factions of jihad militants.
The problem is that many of the jihadists are led by Muslim religious leaders.
It would be like waking up to Christianity, acknowledged virtually without question as a religion of peace, and finding that all its priests and ministers were advocating death to all non-Christians, and in many cases ordering terrorist acts against non-Christians.
One would be hard pressed in such circumstances to call Christianity a 'religion of peace'.
Bush has it half right when he says Islam has been hijacked. But hijacked by who?
Islam has been hijacked by their own religious leaders for the purpose of jihad. That sounds so conflicting as to be untenable. But yet it is believed to be true. So we can only conclude that Islam is not a religion of peace and has not been hijacked, rather it has been ignored, mischaracterized and underestimated.
Is there a solution? The Soviets had a solution to this. Although they had a poor economic model, they at least carried forward a policy dating back to the Tartars on how to handle the Muslim populations.
The Romans also had a solution.
And Americans in WWII demonstrated the ability to solve this type of problem but have been weak ever since.
Very well said.
Did you honor your President and Commander-in-Chief during Clinton's adventures in the Balkans?
President Bush has stated many times that this country and it's allies are not at war with a religion, but with a belief system.
Maybe. I have been trying to keep up on this. It sure seems that on FR there would be some news of this. Can you point me to some threads?
religion or belief system, aren't both led by religious leaders?
Aren't the religious leaders the ones fomenting the violence and the jihad?
They must be behind it. For otherwise they would order their followers to stop the jihad and arrest the jihadists.
If jihadists are independent of Muslim religious leaders then how is that consistent with 'Islam has been hijacked?' If jihadists have hijacked Islam, then they control its religious leaders. How can that be? It can only be they (Jihadists and leaders of Islam) are in cahoots.
Anyway I appreciate your attempt to defend Islam from being painted with a jihad brush. But the sad fact is that to win the war will require replacing every Muslim religious leader that has had ties to Jihad. That means basically a war against despots who wear religious clothing and occupy religious positions. So no matter what the truth is, replacing these despots will be viewed as a war against Islam.
A tremendously insightful essay on how it is really put together was given last year by Haim Harari:
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/jul04/harari.htm
Your posts have been fairly balanced, until you said this outrageous garbage.
I don't understand. Didn't you say don't lump all Muslims into the same mold? I interpreted that to mean don't associate all Muslims with Islamo-fascists, or equivalently don't paint all Islam as a big jihad.
So I am not understanding what you think is garbage here.
Obviously not hard enough.
It sure seems that on FR there would be some news of this. Can you point me to some threads?
No one should do your homework for you. The latest I've read is that the Bush White House will be beating the drum once they get past the judicial nominee hurdle, and this effort will become more pronounced after the first of the year once the Congress isn't preoccupied with being tied up with judicial appointments.
Right.
So did you misunderstand or did I? What garbage are you referring to?
True. In fact, Bush has made his solutions into problems. "W" is not fit to polish Reagan's Pariani Saddle, let alone sit on it. Since "W" signed the Campaign Finance Reform law and kept Norman Monetta as Sec'y of Transportation, the whiff of RINO has been strong from the Bush White House. The PR stunts, flying into Baghdad and a carrier landing, have all grown thin. Bush is in a wilderness that he created by being too "clubby". Just like his father.
This is a stupid sterotype made up by the uber-conservatives who think Reagan was one of them.
Tell me. Is raising taxes a conservative principle?
Spin is. And that's precisely what you're doing. You are blatantly trying to make Bush look better by making Reagan look worse, which is a diabolical thing to do.
They are different presidents. Reagan disabled communism. Bush is trying (along with Blair) to disable Wahhabism.
Reagan wanted the source of international communism to be shut down, so he hit the Soviet Union. Bush is still pussyfooting around with the Saudis.
No President is perfect, and Reagan was not, just as Bush is not. Bush has failed to control spending. He has also neglected border control, as did Reagan, who actually granted a wholesale amnesty.
Alleluia, you finally admitted Bush is not perfect. In the most obvious way, mind you. As for the borders, Reagan did not consider a guest worker programme as a solution.
Bush has appointed much better judges to the appellate and federal courts. The jury is still out on his SC picks, while Reagan batted .300 (one great judge, two clunkers) in his SC appointments.
Reagan was partially responsible for the deep bench of jurists which Bush ignored in his SC picks.
This forum has turned into a "bash Bush" fest over the last three weeks. He has three years left, yet some of you are already declaring him DOA, forgetting what Iran-Contra did to the Reagan presidency.
You decided to attack Reagan to bolster Bush. You made a mistake. I have come to expect attacks on Reagan from the left - but it is unbelievably disgusting to see someone who is ostensibly a conservative parroting much the same rhetoric in order to make Bush look good.
Let us remember the greatest thing Reagan bequeathed us besides defeating Communism - he changed the terms of the debate; after him, we had Democrats and Republicans alike saying, although not implementing the mantra, "the era of big government is over". This is still a popular idea.
The most damaging thing Bush has done is allow an appetite for big government to grow among Republicans. This is seen in the Department of Education spending, in allowing government pork to proceed and in Medicare's expansion. And this is not why I signed up for conservatism.
Ivan
You have the right to demand their co-operation in hunting down the miscreants among their numbers, not coddle them.
Ivan
What has happened to Saudi Arabia to make them stop funding Wahabbism? What has happened to CAIR? What has Bush done to get the Muslim community in the United States to ensure their co-operation in hunting down the Al Qaeda operatives among their numbers?
Ivan
I don't need to tell you anything, do I, "spur"? You are either a know-it-all or you are a fool. Much like those you blindly defend.
He would rather run down Ronald Reagan than admit that Bush is not as great a hero as he thinks he is.
Hideous and awful.
Regards, Ivan
Well put, Ivan. The "Scarlet Letter" upon Bush's tunic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.