My friend and contibutor over at Political Notio has reviewed an article written by another blogger, The New OK Democrat. The original article is a fairly unbiased look at the legacy of Ronald Reagan. With the release of his diary to be coming soon, it seemed quite fitting for someone to again bring him up. But not to be outdone, Political Notio decided to debate some of that legacy.
A very good article overall in bringing up talking points, but I want to look at what I felt was the main area of focus; the link between Reagan, Bin Laden, Hussein and Clinton. An excerpt of his article,
People blame Clinton- particularly Republicans- all the time for not stopping Osama bin Laden sooner, for giving bin Laden so many chances to escape, and for not dealing with Saddam Hussein forcefully. ClintonÂ’s blamed all the time for the current war on terrorism and why we must fight it now. Yet, no one, especially the Republicans and the neocons, want to blame Reagan who has much more a link to bin Laden and Saddam than anyone.
For nearly a decade, Reagan openly armed, supported, encouraged and funded both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It was the Reagan administration that sold the ingredients needed to manufacture chemical weapons to Saddam in which he used on his own people. During the entire Iraq/Iran war, the Reagan administration supported, armed and funded Hussein, including giving him military intelligence. Explosives used in two American Embassy bombings in Africa in the 90s were traced back to explosives that the Reagan administration gave to bin Laden. If there was ever an American president with links to the two people that have caused so much terrorism and death to Americans today, it is Ronald Reagan.
So why is it that Clinton gets the blame for not stopping either, when it was Reagan that created both? That bin Laden and Saddam would not be who they are today without Reagan is a fair assessment, which IÂ’m sure is open to plenty of debate.
I have exception with only one part; Reagan did give Bin Laden and Hussein weapons, but they were allies, or at the very least pawns, in our policy. When both turned on America, Bin Laden says we abandoned him and Hussein was power hungry, These events happened on Clinton's watch. Although he is in no way the only one to blame, leaders very often take the blame, it kind of comes with the territory. Bush has been blamed plenty for events that have gone wrong, although he does sometime deserve it.
The reason the Reagan's legacy appears to be greater than that of Clinton is because of mainly two issue; Clinton did very little of real substance, and Republicans have done a remarkable job in tainting his presidency with the "blowjob". Clinton was a masterful politician, but seemed to be satisfied with the status quo. Reagan readily took on difficult situations, much like George W. Bush, with determination and a strong will. Clinton will be remembered as a good president, yet well below Reagan, simply because he chose to not make to many hard decisions.
In being the leader of any county, much less the one superpower in the world, you must be ready and willing to make tough decisions as well as having a strong armor to resists not only partisan attacks, but attacks in general. Reagan was able to shrug off attacks and make himself look great. Truly great leaders can.
Craig I almost have to entirely disagree.
ReplyDeleteIf you contend that arming, supporting, funding and allying with bin Laden and Saddam is okay, then you must also contend that the reason that both are who they are today is because of Reagan. To totally dismiss Reagan's influence in creating two of the world's largest terrorists is unfactual.
Also, you comment that America abandoned both Saddam and bin Laden on Clinton's watch. That is entirely untrue. We stopped arming and supporting bin Laden when the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, that was Reagan's watch. The same is true for Saddam when the Iraq/Iran war stopped it was Reagan. When Saddam invaded Kuwait and America intervened it was the first George Bush. None of it happened under Clinton.
Clinton was left with the aftermath of both, and blamed for not dealing with it, which is the basis of my post.
And you know I must also disagree with the comment that Clinton did nothing of real substance. The economic data speaks for itself. At least he didn't aid and abed and create the two terrorists that we fight today. And I have to disagree that Clinton chose not to make any hard decisions. I would think that blowjob would have to be pretty hard :)
Also, I'm not sure Reagan was able to shrug off attacks. Maybe I'm just not convinced of that yet.
Well, thanks for the highlight of my post even though we both disagree with the other. But I wouldn't have it any other way.
Thanks man.
MJ,
ReplyDeleteI think I misrepresented myself. Clinton nor his administration ever turned their back to Bin Laden of Hussein as you said, but he also chose not to deal with it. It doesn't place all the blame there, but you have to admit he does have to claim some responsibility, which I am sure that he would.
Craig, I agree with your second comment totally.
ReplyDeleteI have no problems talking about what Clinton got wrong. I have no problems whatsoever. I'm not sure Clinton chose not to deal with it, but maybe he didn't deal with it effectively.
However, had Reagan not created both, none of it would have been there to deal with.
Also, as you know, Clinton had no real support to do anything with the military. Kosovo was a huge gamble for him, and maybe some wag the dog was involved.
So I do agree that Clinton gets blamed, but my whole point is to bring awareness to the fact that Reagan is entirely responsible, which not very many people understand or admit.
And the national debate today stops at Clinton, which is wrong.