I am also disappointed in him for this, while he is spilling pardons as I speak to deserved convicted criminal criminals who deserved their sentence.
Perhaps GW Bush was just not up to the job. His father was no Conservative, and GW Bush promised he was more Reagan - but we never saw that. In fairness, there was only one Reagan - but how hard was it to veto a fricken spending bill? The sad truth is, it was completely easy - and it would have been smart. But Bush was too weak a leader in this regard.
He couldn't even take his pen and veto pork (and terrible pork) that eventually cost us the mid-term election in 2006.
Bush's legacy should be also this.
As for his record in illegal immigration, he failed in this as well.
Was he a great wartime President? I don't know. I retired from the military in 2006, and I served under him. He was a ALOT better than Clinton, I can tell you that. My gosh, Clinton was the worst. But, should we have invaded Iraq? I was in Germany in 2001 and when I heard we were planning it I asked for "why?"
There was no definitive reason then.
How will he be remembered? Better in history than the Communist Atheist MSM views him I guess.
What would you say if someone decided Shakespeare’s plays, Charles Dicken’s novels, or the music of Beethoven could be rewritten & improved?
I’ll be right back. . .
Writing in the journal “The Alternative”, Richard Hanser, author of The Law & the Prophets and Jesus: What Manner of Man Is This?, has called attention to something that is more than a little mind boggling. It is my understanding that the Bible (both the Old & New Testaments) has been the best selling book in the entire history of printing.
Now another attempt has been made to improve it. I say another because there have been several fairly recent efforts to quote “make the Bible more readable & understandable” unquote. But as Mr. Hanser so eloquently says, “For more than 3 1/2 centuries, its language and its images, have penetrated more deeply into the general culture of the English speaking world, and been more dearly treasured, than anything else ever put on paper.” He then quotes the irreverent H. L. Mencken, who spoke of it as purely a literary work and said it was, “probably the most beautiful piece of writing in any language.”
They were, of course, speaking of The Authorized Version, the one that came into being when the England of King James was scoured for translators & scholars. It was a time when the English language had reached it’s peak of richness & beauty.
Now we are to have The Good News Bible which will be in, “the natural English of everyday adult conversation.” I’m sure the scholars and clergymen supervised by the American Bible Society were sincerely imbued with the thought that they were taking religion to the people with their Good News Bible, but I can’t help feeling we should instead be taking the people to religion and lifting them with the beauty of language that has outlived the centuries.
Mr. Hanser has quoted from both the St. James Version & the Good News Bible some well known passages for us to compare. A few thousand years ago Job said “How forcible are right words!” [Job 6:25] The new translators have him saying “Honest words are convincing.” That’s only for openers. There is the passage [Eccl. 1:18], “For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow”. Is it really an improvement to say instead, “The wiser you are, the more worries you have; the more you know the more it hurts.”
In the New Testament, in Mathew, we read “The voice of the one crying in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way.” [Matthew 3:3] The Good News version translates that, “Someone is shouting in the desert. Get the road ready.” It sounds like a straw boss announcing lunch hour is over.
The hauntingly beautiful 23rd Psalm is the same in both versions, for a few words, “The Lord is my shepherd” but instead of continuing “I shall not want” we are supposed to say “I have everything I need.”
The Christmas story has undergone some modernizing but one can hardly call it improved. The wondrous words “Fear not: for; behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy” has become, “Don’t be afraid! I am here with good news for you.”
The sponsors of the Good News version boast that their Bible is as readable as the daily paper – and so it is. But do readers of the daily news find themselves moved to wonder, “at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth”? Mr. Hanser suggests that sadly the “tinkering & general horsing around with the sacred texts will no doubt continue” as pious drudges try to get it right. “It will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right.”
This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.
— aired September 6, 1977
This is totally off-topic, but worth answering.
Yes we should have invaded Iraq! The "why" was explained at the time, and it wasn't that he had WMDs.
The reason people fail to understand the Iraq war is that they don't consider what would happen if we hadn't done it. But at the time it was decided that's exactly what the discussions were about. It's the basis for the decision.
It is not simply that Iraq supposedly had WMDs. Although everyone thought he did. It's that he had continually failed to abide by the sanctions and terms of the first Gulf War, that those sanctions were starting to break down because the rest of the world was losing their will to enforce them, and left in power he would certainly reconstruct his WMD programs, and support terrorists. That's the alternative that was prevented. People never think about what the alternative was.