Posted on 02/11/2006 12:49:16 PM PST by Reagan Man
I don't agree with your perception of reality. I explained to you several times the history of the Beirut bombing and what was being debated in the Reagan administration. Beirut Lebanon was an untenable position. The big mistake was going in in the first place. Under rules of engagement which were bogus, palcing our Marines in harms way. Weinberger told Reagan that going into Beirut was the wrong decision. Reagan found that out the hard way. Retaliation for the bombing would have been more severe, if we had known who committed the act.
President Reagan blew up Khadafy's family in 1986 on scant evidence. Result? A decrease in terror attacks. Why? Because islamofasicts respect strength.
Islamic Jihad, read Hizbullah, claimed the embassy in Beirut. More dead Americans earlier in 83. We were annoyance bombing the terrorist shia in the hills outside Beirut before the Marine Barracks were hit. In both cases they were terrorist groups. Yet neither of those groups was hit when President Reagans policy was to deal with terrorists harshly. President Reagan recognized his mistake in 1986 and acted on it by ordering the bombing of Moammar Khadafys palace. That's why President Reagan was a damn fine man, he saw his mistake and corrected it.
To this day, nobody has paid the price for those dead Americans.
We are not arguing the wisdom of inserting a small force of Marines in that hellhole, we are arguing the wisdom of no retaliatory strikes for the Marine Barracks bombing. Both were mistakes.
I have said before that I admire Reagan because of his taxcuts, but we are talking about immigration. Economics is not the issue.
You're not a student of history. I've tried to inform you about some history involving the Reagan years. But you dont seem to grasp the concept.
Let us stick to the argument. Once-ler is not the issue. Personal attacks are poor substitutes for intelligent refutation.
And I believe, Reagan would be employing bold leadership in securing our borders and not advancing "backdoor amnesty", under the guise of a guest worker program.
We will never know for sure because Reagan is no longer here to tell us. That is sad because so much of what he stood for has been misused by those who wish to promote an agenda using his good name and boundless optimistic vision for and of the American people.
My readings of Reagan's speeches paints a picture of a compassionate man of uncommon "common sense."
When I read his 1980 acceptance speech "Can we doubt that only a Divine Providence placed this land, this island of freedom, here as a refuge for all those people in the world who yearn to breathe free." - I see a man who might be angered by the hoops and red tape and years of waiting that prevent hard working immigrants from coming to America to share in Mankind's God given freedom.
This, along with the other points I have already offered, leads me to believe Reagan might support a program that would eliminate the need to hunt down and expel illegals who have a history of good work and no history of crime. Maybe not all of them...perhaps only 3 million. This in turn would allow the government to focus on unregistered immigrants who may be here for terrorism and crime.
Thank you for your reply.
Yup, that's me crazy as hell and dumb as an ox.
He still beats the hell out of either of the two a-h's that
he beat.
It is interesting to note, since we are comparing Presidents, that Dubya did not need concrete proof of culpability to take out Saddam for 911.
Ping!
I see...Reagan's reverence for America was just a rhetorical device. Good one.
Whether something is an issue or not doesn't determine if something is correct or not.
Simple idea for most. Not for a dope like you.
Reagan Man:What we don't know is what terrorist organization committed the act.
Islamic Jihad is a terrorist organization. Jihad correctly or incorrectly claims repsonsibility for killing Marines.
Only you Reagan "Man" wouldn't know what to do in a situation like that.
For RHINO3 69, attacking both Islamic Jihad and Hezzbollah would have been terwibly unfair.
Pay attention. I was making an analogy between Reagan's bold leadership under difficult economic conditions and in the Cold War, with todays problems and how Reagan would have excelled as POTUS today. Specifically, on immigration reform.
>>>>Let us stick to the argument. Once-ler is not the issue. Personal attacks are poor substitutes for intelligent refutation.
Noting your lack of historical knowledge is not engaging in personal attacks. So stop whining.
>>>>We will never know for sure because Reagan is no longer here to tell us. That is sad because so much of what he stood for has been misused by those who wish to promote an agenda using his good name and boundless optimistic vision for and of the American people.
We can take an educated guess. If Reagan exhibited bold leadership in the past, there is a high probability he would do so today. Frankly, I know of no one who is misusing the Reagan record, or the Reagan legacy, or the Reagan vision for any nefarious agenda.
I'm glad to see you've read a Reagan speech or two. He was a wonderful writer. The last Reagan book I bought was, Reagan In His Own Hand. Great stuff.
Reagan's signing of the 86IRCA granting blanket amnesty to every illegal in the US, was a very humane act. In hindsight, however, its quite obvious the amnesty provision of the 86IRCA was a big mistake. Without advancing the enforcement aspects, it led to a string of liberal immigration policy from Bush41, to Clinton, to Bush43.
Right now, its incumbent upon PresBush that he not repeat the same mistake Reagan made, by offering his own version of amnesty that would lead to citizenship down the road.
Bush didn't take out Saddam because he had anything to do with 9-11. Bush took out Saddam for violations of UN security council resolutions, including Saddam's ability to produce WMD.
That is your spin, not mine. It was Reagan's retirement party. The man was entitled to make his remarks, as he saw fit.
Well for Pete's sake go ahead and make that specific point about Reagan's immigration leadership. I still don't know why you bring up difficult economic times as an issue. Dubya had a recession, mounting entitlement spending, and a dilapidated military in times of international tension just like Reagan. Just like Reagan, Dubya signed budgets that increased spending, restored the military, and produced good economic effects.
Of course Dubya also had 2 wars and the destruction of the nation's financial center to contend with during that recession. Dubya has also had to contend with some wicked natural disasters.
I'm sorry I have read it twice and I still don't see the analogy between Reagan's bold tax cut and Dubya's not bold tax cuts. What was the bold economic leadership Reagan implemented that Dubya didn't during his bad economy?
I believe you did your best to explain it and it's understandable if you feel too exasperated to try again.
But anyways I'm still waiting for some vast improvements that Reagan implemented after IRCA was signed to enforce the law. I'm still waiting for some indication Reagan lamented giving Freedom to 3 million illegals. Something.
Noting your lack of historical knowledge is not engaging in personal attacks. So stop whining.
Of course its a personal attack. Stop being coy. You know nothing about me. I don't need a refresher course on Reagan. I was there. I've been a student a lot longer than the time I left school. You got some degree you want to scan and post for me to prove your credentials?
In hindsight, however, its quite obvious the amnesty provision of the 86IRCA was a big mistake.
How so? Do you know of some study that shows that the 3 million illegals Reagan gave amnesty have had a detrimental effect on their neighborhoods or America in general, or are you just positing a cause and effect argument that the amnesty acted as a vacuum and created even more illegals then before?
On what basis do you assume Reagan would agree that 86IRCA was a mistake? Is it because your posting name is Reagan Man and you believe 816IRCA was a mistake?
Give me something besides personal venom please. I'm perfectly willing to entertain your response without a obligatory recital of how little you think of me. Your continued replies disclose a respect and a desire to challenge, as mine do the same.
Thank you for your reply.
Bozell has it exactly right.
We haven't forgot but too many RINOs have abused that privilege for us to ignore them any longer.
Everything that was done then needs to be viewed through the prism of the Cold War. In the mid-80s, stupid rock stars were singing about the threat of nuclear war, a "freeze" movement was in full swing, and 400,000 US troops were on the line in Central Europe. Although only a few years later the Soviet Union dissolved, no one knew at the time that it would happen, and the rivalry affected our relationships with every other country.
One example of the effect of the Cold War was on Reagan's tepid response to some terrorist acts. I believe that Reagan knew that Iran was ultimately responsible for the 400 Marine deaths in Lebanon, but to scream about that would require a US response, which would push the Iranians towards the Soviets and could lead to conflict with the Soviets in the middle east. It was the wrong conflict in the wrong place at the wrong time. The right place to engage the Soviets was in space (Star Wars, upgraded nuclear missiles), in the air (stealth fighters and bombers), at sea (more Aircraft carriers), in Europe (intermediate missiles and upgraded Army forces in Germany), in the pocketbook and in the press. The goal was not to fight them, but to defeat them without a fight. He achieved that. Going to war with Islamic terrorists would have increased the danger of a hot war against a still powerful foe just as we were about to win the cold war.
When Reagan could act against terrorism without involving a possible escalation in superpower tensions, he did so decisively--witness Libya.
I also agree that Reagan would not have had Bush's immigration policies. He was dragged kicking and screaming to sign the Immigration Reform Act by an idiot senator named Alan Simpson who for some reason thought it was an important priority for the nation. Reagan resisted it for a long time, as Simpson was pushing for about 4 years before it got passed, but he finally had to go along, I don't recall offhand why. He hated the idea of an amnesty, it went against everything he stood for, but it was supposed to be a one-time thing, and if employer sanctions had been enforced, it would have been. The law wasn't flawed, the execution (or lack of it) was.
Having seen what happened with the first "reform", he would never have gone along with the second.
FYI, the reason I remember this period so well is I was working for a GOP senator during this time, working on military and foreign affairs issues. Reagan was my hero, then and now.
All this having been said, I think Bush has done a creditable job. I think his Supreme Court picks have been great, and he has done OK on most aspects of the war on terror, although I would have fought it a lot differently. He has had to face the most hostile press in history. He will go down in history as a solid second tier President. Don't be too disappointed in him. A Reagan or Lincoln only comes around every century or so. I don't see another one out there right now either. Let's hope one comes along to lead us to the next wave of conservative government, but until then, I'll take all the second tier Presidents we can find, so long as they keep us moving in the right direction.
I see you made the point about the impact of the Cold War in a later post. You are spot on.
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.