I had a discussion of what LASTING benefits we have from Reagan. The issue that came up was the end to the Soviet Union. After talking about that we agreed that is not as much of a benefit as you first think. They were a known enemy and helped control much of the Islamic unrest. In addition, the seeds of the end to the Soviet Union were sown before Reagan. When we tried to come up with ANY other positive long term benefit from the Reagan Presidency we could not come up with much. What he did leave behind was a $3 Trillion dollar increase in the debt that we are still pay the interest on today. Reagan did not leave much of a long lasting benefit to the U.S. and the added debt is a BIG Negative!!!

i guess you forgot the clinton boom years. that was due to reagon not anything clinton did.

in fact clinton tried to destroy it.

Well, the Soviet Union's downfall was a lack of technology. When an associate of mine was there, who was a scientist, the infrastructure of the Soviet Union was pitiful. This was right before the fall. I think Reagan's timing was great, and he lucked out. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.

I will never forgive Reagan for his initial response to AIDS. Again, that's a whole 'nother discussion.

Congress, the institution, indeed had the same intelligence. That not each & every Senator & Congressman had all the intelligence is a different issue, one having to do with the way Congress conducts its own business. I don't believe the Executive Branch can dictate to Congress which individuals and which committees get which intelligence - I believe that is structured by Congress itself.

To say "Congress didn't have all the intelligence" is highly misleading and would be fair to say only if every Senator & Congressman was entitled to all the same intelligence information and some didn't receive it, or if those authorized to receive it didn't. I've not heard any Congressman say that those authorized to access all the intelligence had anything hidden from them.

Ummmm -- we're off topic here. Perhaps my next article will be why Bill was the best president ever. At least, according to Monica.

I will say this: I'm not sure trickle down works. I'm not sure it doesn't work. I know I think the economy does better when people are spending their own money.

My problem with Reagan centers on divisive issues, like AIDS and Iran Contra, not the typical democratic demonizations of him.

I also just can't stand Nancy. It's that big head thing, I'm sorry, I don't know what it is -- I just say no.

  

not technology





money which was one of the goals of the cold war. to bankrupt them.

No, Congress did not. I'm sorry, this is a matter of fact and record. Briefing reports for congress are blocked out with top secret matters, and at the time much of this info was top secret. The Senate Armed Services Committee complained bitterly they were not shown all the intelligence. If they weren't shown the intel, who was????

In fact, I'm not sure BUSH had all the intelligence. Tenet presented warnings to Rice that their findings of WMD were really off,(Read: SLAM DUNK TENET) prior to the invasion, and she waived him aside.

That's part of my reasoning as to why Bush is one of the worst presidents of all time: his team, at the very least, failed to inform him -- and he failed to seek the information.

I'm sorry, but if you state something as fact, you have to back it up. I was in McCain's office around this time -- and I can tell you --- he insisted information was remaining classified and out of their reach, even behind closed doors.

money and technology go hand in hand. And in driving the Soviet Union towards bankruptcy with programs like star wars, we drove up our own deficit in a dangerous game of cat and mouse.

I have. Repeatedly. And they have been Republicans. Let's see: McCain, (Senate ARmed Services Committee), Warner (same committee plus Senate Select Committee on Intelligence), Biden (Democrat)(Foreign Relations), Specter (Veteran Affairs). Even members of the president's party don't like being shut out.

Joe, don't take this the wrong way, but I have to take some of those Republicans' comments with a small grain of salt, given subsequent developments. We're probably splitting hairs over the meaning of "all" since raw intelligence is seldom simply turned over unvetted or without benefit of some analytic process, during which disagreements regarding significance, both positive & negative, inevitably occur and influence the final content. Hindsight being 20/20, there's never been an intelligence assessment that included "all" the subsequently-proven-to-be-pertinent-or-signficant intelligence. This conundrum has been a bur in the saddle of every administration, not just Bush43's.

 

The funny thing about the intel on this war is that there was no big screw up- leading up to it the CIA continually sent accurate reports to the higher-ups stating that Iraq posed no threat and had little to no WMD capabilities. These reports were read over by one Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz (may they both burn in hell for what they've done) and sent back to the CIA saying essentially "not what we wanted to hear, re-do it" Pretty quickly the message got across when certain analysts within the CIA started getting demoted, passed up for promotion or re-assigned to dead end jobs. We know that the administration had no qualms with punishing anyone in Intel who went against their made-up war, as they not only ruined the career but endangered the life of a covert CIA operative (Plame) as a means of punishing her and her husband for actually proving the whole yellowcake uranium from Nigeria story was false.

That's what I mean. My question was about YOU, not Prs. Bush. Are you incapable of making a comment that answers a direct question and isn't twisted into a Bush Bash?

I think Hillary is more capable of answering a direct question than you are... and if she has ever done it, it was purely by mistake.

Compared with the Bush/GOP thoughts my ideas are light-years ahead of their thoughts or yours!

He might want to go find them then, since they have apparently warped to another world and left him behind.

No, not taken the wrong way and no offense taken. BUT, it was written that "Congress had the same intel as Bush". We just agreed that not to be the case. Whether they had sufficient intel to make a proper decision is another matter, which you hint at.

Oh, I must admit I feel mildly victorious!

Now, as for taking certain republicans with a grain salt, well, we agree on that, too -- although for different reasons. Unfortunately, you can't pick and chose who you listen too. When a member of the Armed Services Committee says, No, I didn't see the right intel, at the very least you have a political hot issue. Why do you think the right villifies McCain? It ain't 'cause of his stance on abortion.

It's really easy on a blog to say something sweeping (Congress had the same info as Bush)(or on a talk radio program for that matter), but usually these things aren't black and white.

Whether Congress had sufficient information, that's another question and one that would be fun to look at -- and which could probably be debated by both sides until November.

Yup, that's my understanding as well. I mentioned it in another blurb, even Slam Dunk Tenet had second thoughts (of course he's pimping a book now, so we have to take that into account).

But, my problem with Bush (and why I think he's one of the worst Presidents ever) is just that. HE NEVER DUG BEYOND WHAT HE WANTED TO HEAR. Neither, really, did Powell, although Powell made a bit more of an attempt. And, certainly, Rice ignored pleas regarding WMD and the lack of intel. That info never reached Bush, from what I see. But remember: the buck stops here. Bush is responsible for his minions not behaving.

I'm drawing on my memory banks for this example, but when the number 2 at defense returned from Iraq, and gave a report to Bush on the situation right after the invasion, Bush said, roughly, "Good job. Givem' hell". No questions. No probing. Just, "Givem' hell".

ASK A DAMNED QUESTION. I got more probative questions when I applied for a house loan. They acted like proctologists. Buy a house, bend over for your exam. Invade a country, eeeeehhhh, good job. Pass the coffee.

SHE DID SHE DID. Remember, she LIKES being in the kitchen (with her manservant) She just forgot the part I've added for her.

  

Ok Joe, you got me there ;~D


btw, as long as Hussein was breaking the ceasefire with no reprisal, he posed a huge threat to the US. As long as his anti aircraft batteries were shooting at our jets while patrolling the No Fly Zone, he posed a threat. As long as he was torturing CNN employees working in Iraq, and CNN was willing to look the other way, just to be able to maintain a presence in Iraq... He posed a threat to the US.

There is more to "posed a threat" than the ability to throw missiles at targets within the US.

Yes, but THOSE weren't used as the justification to the American people for going to war, nor did we go in front of the UN and say we wanted to take out SH because CNN was being tortured (instead, of course, of torturing us) I seem to remember satellite photos of trucks supposedly pulling up to bunkers and unloading materials out the back door, as inspectors entered into the front. The only problem? Those photos were later discredited, and even before Powell went in front of the world, they were seen as flimsy evidence by the intelligence community.

I don't think that SH ever had the ability, nor did the Bush administration say he did, to "throw missiles at targets within the US." We were actually more concerned with his gassing his own people, as he did before, when we took action. We were equally concerned he'd use WMD's on our allies (read: SAUDI's, OIL PRODUCING NATIONS), or, as a more remote possiblity, set off dirty bombs here in the US.

Everyone agreed the later was a slim chance, even Bush. Maybe not Veep, though. He's even nuttier than Bush.

I'm not sure WE SHOULDN'T have invaded Iraq. I was mixed at the time, and still am. The reason I think this administration will go down as one of the worst ever is the planning, execution, and explanation of that invasion. Whether or not we should have invaded is another debate. Whether the invasion was properly prepared, explained, justified, and with concern to the aftermath and nation building is where history will judge.

I should explain further, with her illegal immigrant manservant whose papers will come through any day now.

Well done. You have just marginalized the rhetoric of the supporters, and shown the left how to debate/discuss this issue - in a sane way. Indeed, I think you will find many conservatives on this site who agree with your assessment of Bush's handling of the war (and probably a lot of soldiers as well).

People do not remember (nor did they elect president) McClelland. But almost every American knows who Grant is. For that reason, I think the arguement of worst will disappear into history books, as before leaving, he did something right. And if the end bears it out, that is what will be recorded.

I take that as a supreme compliment! Thanks! I've thought a lot about his whole debate, and this is what I've come up with. I don't know enough of presidents past Nixon to be able to say who was THE WORST. I can only say the blinders that this administration has used when dealing with Iraq is really scary.

You are welcome. if you were leading the charge of incompetance against Bush, I dare say that most people would be calling for his head. For it is not with hate filled rhetoric (apparently the only thing that the loony left and now their 7 dwarves know how to do) that will sway the lethargic center, but with reason and logic that you can sway. When HillEdOba gets on their horse, their base loves it! But the middle just tunes them out.

I will not say at this point that I totally agree with you on your assessment, but for the first time (for the record, I have a lot of problems with Bush outside this issue), I am looking at it from your perspective and seeing some merit to your arguments.

That does not say that:
#1 - I will move center
#2 - I am going to fall into your camp.

But it does say that right now, I see your point, and can see where it has a lot of merit. If Bush was Reagan (I know you dont like him, but he is the defining president of my life), I would be hard at work trying to find evidence to refute you. But as Bush is no Reagan, I just dont think it is worth my time.

p.s. I am an economist by education. Of the Milton Friedman camp. Social issues aside, Reagan was the best thing for America in that respect. Just so you know where I am coming from.

Oh, boy, I have tons of problems with Bush outside of Iraq. I don't know enough about economics to properly address Reagan at this point, but I will say that Bush has brought a new standard to Tax and Spend...conservatives. Trillion dollar deficits are thrown around like they don't exist or matter.

In fact, I think Bush is terrible on many fronts. Let's take stem cells, the first legislation he ordained to veto. I cover a lot of research organizations; his position on stem cells is dictated to him from a non-scientific perspective. He has set us back in research decades. Or, let's take the tax cuts. To think about cutting taxes when we are at war seems to me counter intuitive, though I'm no economist. I won't go into the devisive issue of "gay marriage", it's a loser argument for me and deflects off real issues. That said, Bush's rhetorhic on this is devisive and bad. There's the handling of Katrina. Not stellar. Outside of Iraq, there's the F****d up Veteran's Administration and the problems with roaches at Walter Reed. AND, $3 a gallon gas (soon to be $4) that is driving up inflation with little comment from the Bush Administration. This administration always seems to be putting out polictical fires instead of heading them off. It is REACTIONARY instead of PROACTIVE. The one place Bush may have been proactive is Iraq. You know my position there; at least, perhaps a little more caution was due. A good manager is proactive; Bush is not a good manager.

Still, the majority of Americans say they would like to have a burger and beer with him. I wish he'd remained serving up the spuds on his ranch.