A Few Questions

Opinion Journal WSJ.com ^ | July 27, 2006 | Peggy Noonan

[LdSentinal]

You offered little to counter the arguments that Reagan let Hezbollag go after 1983.

It's a fact and no revisionism on your part will change that.

[Reagan Man]

Back to reality for you.

We all know you're not satisfied with Reagan ordering airstrikes from the carriers Independence and Kennedy, or with the shelling from the USS New Jersey in retaliation for the Beirut bombing in 1983. You even compared Reagan to the scumbag Clinton in some sicko attempt to equate the two presidents. Then you said Reagan should have gone after the masterminds of the Beirut bombing in 1983. I asked you to post the names of those masterminds. You've posted nothing. So, mister liberal. Employing your great talent for 20/20 hindsight, I ask you. What should Reagan have done that would meet with your satisfaction, 23 years after the fact?

Btw, historic revisionism is your bag, not mine.

[LdSentinal]

You know the masterminds, Hezbollah. They claimed responsiblity. And what Reagan did was the equivalent to what Clinton did back in 1998. Shooting cruise missles at camels.

That's the facts, jack.

[MEGoody]

Why does the president call the secretary of state "Condi"?

Because he's a warm-hearted guy, and he likes her as a person, as well as respecting her as SOS.

I got a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach when I learned that

You got a bad feeling in the pit of your stomach over a joke? Good grief.

[MEGoody]

Does Bush refer to Cheney as "DICKY?"

No, but he does call him 'Dick' rather than Richard.

[MEGoody]

Most conservatives have been uncomfortable with GWBush over the last 6-months to a year.

I guess I'm not part of the 'most'. I think Bush has done a terrific job overall, especially considering all he's had to face.

I don't agree with everything he's done. But anyone who thinks they are going to agree with any President on every issue is living in a dream world.

[pollyannaish]

Hoo-boy. Well.

I guess my only comment would be that if I had a nickel for every time someone confused clear, concise, straightforward thinking with lightweight thinking...

[pollyannaish]

Mr. Beckett:

With all do respect, shortly out of college I talked like you, thought like you—in misty mysteries all designed to make me feel smugly superior. Then I got a clue. You may not be young, but somewhere along the way you seem to have gotten mired there.

Smart men and women do not sit around and yammer on about their thirst for "learning." If you have read ANYTHING about the president, you will find he is a voracious learner. He reads a LOT of material on a regular basis. He learns from philosophy, and he learns from the records and strategies of real people.

What he HATES are the uppity, elitist attitudes that you seem to be displaying. He made a choice at one time in his life. It was a choice between being a talker and devotee of nuance, like our friend John Kerry, or a doer who seeks core values, makes decisions and moves the ball forward.

He is a wise man. He chose the later. It has nothing to do with his intellect, his desire to learn or his thirst for knowledge. It has to do with his fundamental decency and understanding that nothing is a greater hindrance to learning than uppitiness.

And, fwiw, he's in stellar company. Jesus got in trouble in his day for not being part of the elitist establishment Himself and making the entire concept of salvation far too simple. In fact, he made a point to say that even a child could understand it.

[pollyannaish]

I know someone who used to sign their checks with PhD after their name.


Clerks treated them with a lot more respect as a result.

Bwahahaha.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>That's the facts, jack.

Yes. The facts according to YOU! LOL Well they aren't the historic facts. Lets review, one more time.

After the Beirut bombing in 1983, responsibile parties, or parties taking credit for the bombings ranged from Hezbollah, to the Lebanese Druze, an unnamed Shia terrorist group, Islamic Jihad and several militant Shiite groups, like the Free Islamic Revolutionary Movement. In the 1980`s there were many players in the terrorist world, but there was no definitive answer for who committed the bombings of the military barracks. Period.

Since that time, the closet anyone has come to directly blaming Hezbollah was a District Court Judge named, Royce C. Lamberth. Following a suit filed by some 600 family members against those considered responsible for the barracks bombings, Judge Lamberth concluded in May 2003, the Islamic Republic of Iran was the responsible party in the 1983 Marine Barracks attack. He based this on the grounds that Iran founded Hezbollah and financed the group for years. That was 2003. Not 1983 to 1988, on Reagan's watch as POTUS.

Comparing Clinton to Reagan is a liberal tactic and not worthy of any FReeper. Comparing Reagan to Clinton is comparing apples and oranges. Clinton never responded with anything more then lobbing a few cruise missiles at some questionable terrorist targets. In February 1984, the USS New Jersey fired almost 300 shells at Druze and Syrian positions in the Bekka Valley east of Beirut. Some 30 of these massive projectiles rained down on a Syrian command post, killing the general commanding Syrian forces in Lebanon and several other senior officers. This was the heaviest shore bombardment since the Korean War. Add to this action the other shellings from the USS NJ, and the airstrikes that Reagan ordered against terrorist military camps and its clear that Reagan definitely reacted with more military firepower then Clinton ever did.

I understand some Americans weren't satisfied with Reagan's response. Maybe if George Schultz was the defense secretary and not Cap Weinberger the US military response would have been more severe. However, I find NO fault with Reagan's military response to the barracks bombing. I criticize the US military brass and US intelligence entities for the Beirut bombing having taken place at all. Better rules of engagement and better security at the airport building would have assured the attack would have failed.

[pollyannaish]

Psssst, all you do is embarrass his name. You'd defend him better by shutting up about him.

I'd like to concur with 68.

I am sometimes embarrassed by your twisted excuse laden defenses of him and inability to see that we can learn from some of his mistakes. We do neither his legacy, or our credibility any favors by being blind.

My suspicion is that Reagan would have a more realistic view of his own successes and failures than you do. He was a real life, imperfect human being after all.

And this from such a fan that we named one of our children after him, fwiw.

[Reagan Man]

Its too bad you feel that way. Look. Concur with whatever bozo you like. I couldn't care less what you and others may think about my defense of Ronald Reagan. My passion for Reagan is real. If you don't like my posts, don't read them.

The Beirut bombing of 1983 was a tragic event. An event that Reagan took full responsibility for. I can appreciate people who had a problem with Reagan's response in 1983. However, I have a problem with people today, 23 years later, who employ 20/20 hindsight and would rather condemn Reagan instead of looking at the entire set of historic facts.

The Beirut bombing gave birth to several government commissions, including the famous Inman Commission. Things began to change after the Beirut bombing of 1983 and rightfully so. Strategies and tactics were altered to better handle the onslaught of terrorism. We are still fighting the terror that is, Islamofascism, and the US continues to make slow progress. This is the nature of the war on terror. We've been at it for 25 years, and will probably have another 25-50 years before the issue is finally settled. Maybe it never wil be.

[pollyannaish]

You know, I agree with much of what you say. Like I said, I'm enough of a fan we named a child after him.

I guess, I would find you much more credible if you didn't frequently try to use Reagan to bash the current President. Often your posts end up being "Well, if only President Reagan was president" all dressed up in "historical context." You accuse others of tearing Reagan down, and yet it is the exact inverse tactic you use to tear down the current administration.

That is not fair either to Reagan or Bush. They are different men, in different times, both with great strengths and great weaknesses.

In addition, I remember those days very well, and many times you level EXACTLY the same complaints at the current President, that were leveled at the object of your passion at the time.

I find it ironic, disingenuous and at times just plain intellectually dishonest. I think you will find very few of us don't LOVE the man. We just aren't quite as defensive. That's all.

[LdSentinal]

And the murderers of 241 Marines went unpunished.

No amount of wanton revisionism will change that.

[Reagan Man]

Thanks for the civil reply. I think.

99% of my replies on this specific thread were defending Reagan against what I believed were unfair attacks on his legacy. If you read all my replies, I think you'll agree. Bush43 was only briefly mentioned and that was early on in the thread.

This shouldn't come as a shock to you. My perspective of Bush43 versus Reagan is much different then yours. People are entitled to criticise both men and fair criticism is just fine. With Reagan we can look at the historic record. With Bush we can look at recent and current events. Let's not forget. The history of the 1980`s was once the current events of that day.

I voted for both Reagan and Bush43 twice and up until the last year or so, still defended Bush. Albeit more recently on his foreign policy, then his domestic policy. Rarely have I compared the two men on a personal basis. I let the historic record speak for itself. And that's what bothers some folks on FR. Some FReepers get extremely upset, frustrated and very angry when presented with the facts of the last 5 1/2 years.

That is exactly why you came after me. Maybe not for my remarks on this thread, but for other remarks I made, on other threads. They still stick in your craw. Sorry if the truth hurts.

Frankly, on domestic policy Bush has set back the conservative agenda 10-20 years. Reagan advanced the conservative agenda most of his entire Presidency. That is my main problem with Bush. And I don't want conservatives to join in making that same mistake again in 2008. I think Bush has done a good job in prosecuting the WOT, and he will continue to get my support. I don't agree with him on his liberal spending habits, his expansion of the bureaucracy or his support for liberal immigration reform. Those policies aren't consistent with the conservative agenda.

[Reagan Man]

Another weak, pathetic effort. Since you can't refute the historic facts or the truth of my posts, we'll have to leave it at that. Bottomline. You lost the debate and I won. Thanks for trying to debate me, but one sentence replies and juvenile responses just don't cut the mustard around FreeRepublic. Even for you liberals.

[LdSentinal]

Cut and run like the best of them.

[pollyannaish]

I hope it was civil, because it certainly was meant to be.

Your past remarks do exasperate me, but most often for tone rather than content. I accept the reality that all of us see world events in different and unique ways. But to claim it is the "TRUTH" that bothers people is unfair. Many simply disagree with your perspective on the facts. I am not entirely clear, but I believe you are part of the crowd that regularly labels those who agree with the President on certain issues, or try to understand what circumstances might lead to certain decisions or even those who admire him personally as "Bushbots."

I think many here would be surprised at how often I disagree with the President and yet I am a supporter because he is the current leader of MY TEAM. I would be less hesitant to discuss those disagreements if this place had not degenerated into a 24/7 Bush-bashing intellectually vapid brawl.

More time is currently spent here saying that "Bush is an intellectual lightweight, idiot, anti-us sovereignty (insert other paranoid perspective here ) than honestly analyzing how decisions he makes and diplomatic games he plays. What bothers me, is that incessant drumbeat of negativity which becomes self-fulfilling prophecy and strengthens those who wish to push us deeper into our own territory. This forum has become as dangerously and viciously anti-Bush as almost any leftist site.

That only empowers our enemies, foreign and domestic. It does nothing to strengthen our hand, nothing to convince our opponents of the rightness of our cause, nothing to suggest we are are more emotionally mature than a bunch of petty three-year olds, content to pine for the glory days of our now deceased and sainted grandfatherly Ronald Reagan instead of doing the hard work, making the hard choices necessary today.

The greatest irony of it all, is that based on statements and writings from President Reagan, he would be appalled. Reagan understood what it meant to be a team player, the importance of moving forward, what it means to be patient and why you don't shoot the members of your own team in an effort to change the direction of the momentum. He understood that perfect is the enemy of good.

Early in the thread, someone mentioned that we can all sit around and come up with lots of great ideas. President Bush, SOS Rice, Secretary Rumsfield, VP Cheney and the entire team have a much bigger responsibility and task: They have to figure out how to get from here to there. They actually have to DO something. Having us sit around and shoot them in the head, whine and cry is akin to having the kids in the back seat of the car arguing and asking "why aren't we there yet. Go faster daddy, consequences be damned." Frankly, they don't need the distraction.

I want to also mention, that I am in no way free of guilt on this issue. I get so irritated with it, that I can fall right down the rabbit hole and bitch, moan and ad hominem just like everyone else. All I'm saying is that President Bush didn't set the conservative agenda back 10-20 years all by himself. WE ARE ALL GUILTY of it in a 1001 ways.

We have stood around on the field bitching and moaning, and instead of blocking, allowed our own QB to be sacked. All the while feeling righteous because "it was his own fault." We watch him scramble and occasionally miss passes, but instead of giving the guy a hand, we laugh at what an idiot he is and talk about how "our last quarterback wouldn't have done something that stupid." It's childish.

I am tired of it. I am irritated by it. And frankly, it is excruciatingly embarrassing.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>Cut and run ....

Spoken like a true liberal.

When you have something relevent to say, look me up. Unless your too busy over at DU.

[nopardons]

The president is NOT an idiot and those who see him as one, are, in fact, the idiots.

Self deprecating humor has its use; pity that you can't see that.

Peggy has been in a snit since President Bush was elected the first time. After his reelection, she's gotten worse. The woman is a sickeningly sweet, far too old to be coy, VERY COY, back stabber and hack.