About George W Bush. This is well written, but...

This article just appeared in the September edition of the Esquire. The author is the “son of a colonizer”, Ron Reagan.

To those of you who have seen Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911, it is like singing to the quire. And to those of you who refuse to go and see the movie, it is probably a bunch of “Liberal” BS.

Although the article is well written, IMHO he whitewashes his father’s horrors which in actuality were no less vulgar than those he describes of Bush the Lesser.

What do you think?

I prefer to sing to the ream, myself.

Please, I never nitpick on spelling or grammar but it’s

choir.

Thanks.

And it should actually be preaching to the choir.

But you never nitpick, of course.

Wake up call, I’ll disagree that the sins of Reagan’s administration were just as vulgar. Reagan’s administration committed a number of crimes and helped a lot of innocent people get killed, but I believe Reagan (as well as most heads of state, to be honest) was legitimately doing what he honestly thought was best in the long run, even if sometimes his judgment was stupid.

Conversely, I am not convinced Bush is particularly interested in doing what’s right for the United States, or really cares about Americans; I am increasingly becoming convinced that he (and/or a number of his handlers) are in this for personal profit. That is somehow more vulgar.

U.S. President George W. Bush has told a roomful of top Pentagon brass his administration would never stop looking for ways to harm the United States.

The latest installment of misspeak from a president long known for his malapropisms came during a signing ceremony for a new $417 billion (228.4 billion pounds) defence appropriations bill that includes $25 billion in emergency funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we,” Bush said on Thursday.

Ron Reagan was an embarrassment to his family while his father was alive- why would anyone expect him to stop now?

You stated that backwards. His family embarrassed RR Jr.

astorian, if I had a son and he wrote a well-constructed, and well thought out article like that, even though it completely denied my own viewpoint, I might be concerned, but I’d certainly not be embarassed! Why would this be an embarassment to the Reagans?

Oh, yes, I forgot; you folks are all about freedom, as long as freedom is defined as the freedom to do what you think is right. :rolleyes:

Great, except for that reference to The Day After Tomorrow in the first paragraph. I almost choked on that one, and it took a while to recover. Editor, find that man a less inane simile.

Boy, you liberals love playing the martyr role, don’t you?

How did I deny Ron Reagan Jr. his “freedom”? Did I have him thrown in jail for what he wrote? Did I shut down the publication? No- I merely said he was an embarrassment to his family. Which he is.

Cite?

Maureen was pretty liberal. Patti too. I’ve never heard the President or Mrs. Reagan say anything unkind about their younger son. I was under the impression that Nancy was particularly fond of him. Michael seemed to get left out some. Has he expressed disapproval of Ron?

I liked Reagan’s article very much. But then, it probably was preaching to the CHOIR in my case…

This part was, to me, one of the more potent passages: