[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Then quite honestly, you were reading a totally different article. This backhandedly, and it was quite a feat, both discredited him for winning the cold war over Gorby, and at the same time blamed him for the ending of the cold war causing "unintended consequences" which sophist's way of saying, we'd like to blame him for this but we can't find anything to say he supports terror.

You can't have it both ways, and I don't know how anyone can take this seriously. Either he was the principle figure in ending the cold war, and we can say ending it was bad, or he wasn't and then the rest of the nostalgia was unrelated to him. You can't have both.

Don't try to be cute, if it sounds like that President is being honored too much for your liking it is ONLY on FR, and here merely because there is an unending effort to smear him from the papers to the network news to NPR. To this DAY no less, which I have to laugh at or get very angry.

So which is it;
Did he end the Cold War- and we can debate whether free opera was good, or
He did not end it, and Gorby can be "inadvertantly" blamed for 9/11.

[Paul Ross]

So which is it; Did he end the Cold War- and we can debate whether free opera was good, or He did not end it, and Gorby can be "inadvertantly" blamed for 9/11.

Yup. You have him hoist squarely by his Revisionist little petard. What a maroon.

[mrustow]

Then quite honestly, you were reading a totally different article. This backhandedly, and it was quite a feat, both discredited him for winning the cold war over Gorby, and at the same time blamed him for the ending of the cold war causing "unintended consequences" which sophist's way of saying, we'd like to blame him for this but we can't find anything to say he supports terror.

You can't have it both ways, and I don't know how anyone can take this seriously. Either he was the principle figure in ending the cold war, and we can say ending it was bad, or he wasn't and then the rest of the nostalgia was unrelated to him. You can't have both.

You're the sophist, Peep. You have deliberately misrepresented the article, which said that IF Reagan was responsible for winning the Cold War (as per the conventional wisdom which you believe in), then he is also responsible for the disorder that followed. However, the writer concluded that Reagan was responsible for neither, because the conventional wisdom was wrong.

As for trying to have it both ways, Peep, you're projecting. You want Reagan to get all the credit for ending the Cold War, but without getting any of the responsibility for the disorder that followed. You've turned a man into a God.

The article doesn't seek to discredit the man at all, except in the eyes of his idolators. Rather, it is a sober-minded look at recent history which would probably be just as despised by lefties, as it apparently is by Reagan-worshipers.

"If the conventional wisdom in the U.S. is correct, and Ronald Reagan's arms buildup caused the collapse of the Soviet Union, then Reagan must get both the credit and the blame for today's world order, or lack thereof. With all due respect, however, I don't think he deserves either. Reagan cared deeply about the millions oppressed by Soviet totalitarianism, but he did not cause The Wall to come down."