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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.