Posted on 02/11/2006 12:49:16 PM PST by Reagan Man
It certainly has. The Taliban still owns Afghanistan, Hussein and his sons are still murdering and raping innocent women and children. The US and our interests around the world are subject to daily terror attacks. Iraq and Afghanistan are still staging grounds for deadenders where they can move and plot freely and with impunity. At least ten embassies have been blown up in the past 5 years. Maybe 20 or so US Navy ships. And on and on.
Of course this all happened on a planet with two purple moons and three red ones in a parallel universe.
And if we all followed Howlin and the gang, we'd have Justice Harriet Myers on the Supreme Court now, instead of Alito. Champions of Conservatism they are!
Now lets see "Which side should I listen to: a President doing what is required within the real world beleagured on all sides for doing what is necessary to fight the deadly foes of Western Civilization (though WC is surrendering at every hand) or a bunch of dreamy idealists perhaps incapable of running a gas station?"
Gee isn't that a hard choice?
The US Marines were part of a multinational peackeeping force, that was thrown into the middle of a civil war in Beruit Lebanon. After the Marine barracks was car bombed, US intelligence was unable to determine for certain, who committed the action. Some experts in the US govt believed the responsibile party was Hezbollah, with help from either Syria or Iran. Islamic Jihad actually took credit for the bombing, but no one took that claim seriosuly. No final determination was ever reached by our government on this matter.
The Reagan administration did hatch a plan to knock off a military barracks of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Defense Secretary Cap Weinberger opposed such action. Weinberger told Reagan, any attack without positive proof of who committed the Beirut action would lead to an expanded civil war, dragging the US further into the conflict and undermining Reagan's efforts to win the Cold War.
Until this day, Weinberger insists the responsible party is unknown. Reagan did order air bombing and shelling from the USS New Jersey. Soon afterwards, the Marines were pulled out for good. All in all, a smart move. Reagan knew that Beirut and all of Lebanon was an untenable situation. Besides, Reagan had bigger fish to fry.
It's easy to look back with 20/20 hindsight and say Reagan was negligent for his lack of action. Fact is, if Reagan was given proof posiitve who committed the killing of the Marines, he would have taken stronger military action then he did.
And he never attempted to move Social Security toward privatization.
From 1964 to 1980, Reagan spoke about privatizing Social Security. When Reagan took office in 1981 he quickly found out that SS was the third rail of American politics. Instead of pressing the issue of SS privatiziation with Speaker Tip O'Neill and the Democrat controlled House, Reagan took a different route. Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan as chairman of a Social Security reform commission. Its job was to come up with a plan to reform Social Security and make it fiscally solvent once again. That is exactly what happened. Reagan did have succcess in reforming SS, just not with private/personal accounts.
that individual has twisted the meaning of that 11th commandment.
it dealt with ELECTED republicans talking about fellow ELECTED republicans.
I'd still make exceptions in the case of RINOs who constantly vote against the grain.
You know the rules. When speaking of another poster, make sure you ping that poster.
so would i.
Fact is we showed weakness. And weakness before that in Iran. And weakness after that at Khobar, in Africa, after the Cole and in Mogadishu. And we paid the price.
LMFAO, how true!!!!!
Really? Was the plan for temporary solvency? Because it sure the hell didn't solve the long term solvency problem. But I don't hold that against President Reagan.
Reagan did have succcess in reforming SS, just not with private/personal accounts.
Fact is President Reagan never used any political capital at all advocating for moving Social Securtiy toward private accounts. President Bush ran on it and spent considerable capital trying to advance it. These facts are not disputable. And again I don't hold that against President Reagan. But I do give President Bush kudos for going where no President has dared go before, on to the third rail.
Are we back to the Presidential Infallability threads again?!
your signature is zot-worthy. :)
What weakness? The Beirut situation was handled properly. I posted the historic facts as they exist. What did you expect Reagan to do? Get us further involved in the Lebanon conflict. That would have been stupid. Did you expect Reagan to start a war over the Marine barracks bombing? Without knowing who committed the act, striking out for vengence sake would have been a very dangerous decision. Perhaps drawing the Soviets into it. This was a situation that went wrong. Reagan thought he did the right thing. Ike had sent in 10K Marines into Beirut in 1957. On the surface, this seemed to be a similiar situation. Actually, it turned out to be a different deal altogether. The Feds had no idea who committed the bombing. And what weakness in Iran are you talking about?
How much loyalty has the White House, RNC and the other (R) operational entities shown to the conservatve base (30+%)?
None.
We owe them nothing.
That is simple not true. My memory must be better then yours. Reagan came into office in 1981 with private SS accounts on his agenda. Reagan had campaigned on private SS accounts in 1976 and 1980. He talked about them from 1964 onward. The Dems said, NO WAY to Reagan's privatization plan in 1981. Bush43 did a campaign style effort in early 2005 and even with a full GOP Congress on his side, the issue went nowhere.
Reagan signed off on the recommendations from the Greenspan Commission and that gave solvency to SS until about 2030. It was a 50 year plan. In fact, during this years SOTUS, Bush mentioned setting up a Greenspan style commission for SS reform. We'll see how far Bush gets.
Sure. Got yourself convinced of that.
What's stated above is true. You seem not to want to admit to it.
Okay. It doesn't matter because nothing is going to be done about the immigration issue in the next three years. Nothing serious anyway. At least Reagan made a serious effort to control illegal immigration long term. The IRCA of 1986 did offer temporary to permanent resident status for illegals.
Millions of illegals were given citizenship amnesty by Reagan. They didn't have to wait on the quota line to get their green cards. What part of that don't you understand?
But its not Reagan's fault there are 10-15 million illegals in America today. That fault lies with Bush41, Clinton and Bush43. Today, PresBush supports open borders and the cheap labor it brings to his bigwig GOP donor pals. Yeah boy. LOL Pandering to the Hispanic voters is another reason Bush isn't serious about solving the immigration issue.
There were no troops on the border during Reagan's 8 years. There are no troops on the border now. Almost anybody could cross the border then -- almost anybody can cross now. You seem to be denial.
Perhaps if you didn't have your screen name you could be more objective.
243 dead marines. A nominally moderate democratic state left to be lorded over by Syria. And no dead islamofascists who celebrate the anniversary of that bombing to this day. That weakness.
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.