Than why didn’t Clinton respond more forcefully after USS Cole.
He stopped having birthdays on June 5, 2004, but June 5, 2010 will be his 6th deathday. He’s currently 5 years dead. This is a dead parrot. Sorry wrong sketch.
I should have responded to the Clinton shit before.
- Who gives a shit about withdrawing from Somalia?
- Clinton was obsessed with getting bin Laden during his last couple of years in office, but was hampered in being able to strike for fear of accusations that he was “wagging the dog” (which was exactly what happened when he bombed Iraq).
When Clinton turned over the Oval Office to Bush, he told Bush that his number one priorty as President should be getting bin Laden – that bin Laden would definitely attack, and Bush had to stop him before he did. He provided Bush with a folder entitled “Osama bin Laden’s Plans to attack within the United States.”
Bush ignored Clinton’s warnings, ignored the file and ignored bin Laden until September.
I don’t know where you get this shit, but you need to inform yourself better.
You mean like by attacking an uninvolved third party like Bush did?
Respond against who?
The attack on the Cole happened just 3 months before Clinton left office. It took that long just to investigate. The attack was in October, Bush took over in January, and he didn’t follow up or do jack shit.
What is this? I never took debate, so I don’t know the proper term for this, but dragging Clinton’s actions into this is irrelevant. We are discussing Reagan, in all his “glory”. What does Clinton (or W or Obama or Dr Seuss for that matter) have to do with anything?
Let’s just suppose that Clinton did every single thing wrong that he possibly could. That fact still wouldn’t change what Reagan did (or did not do) in office.
Your position seems to be a variant on that old noise, “Clinton got a blow job!” to any criticism of Reagan (or any Republican). (as if no President ever had sex of any kind in the confines of the Oval Office before–and that bit of naivete there is no cure for…)
Reagan was not a great president. He had great appeal for some reason (it continues to elude me to this day. For me, he has all the charm of a second rate used car salesman–I like FORD better than Reagan). Was he consummate EVIL? No, but he was no savior (except of that strangely obtuse and bubble-wrapped demographic, the “nostalgic” people who consider Leave It to Beaver a documentary). For him to be called the great communicator is (to me) a great irony, seeing as how he used words to obfuscate and placate, but not inform–he was a great snake oil salesman, but that’s another thread.
Remember that Curtis is only 13. He wasn’t even born when Reagan was President or having any personal, living memory of the guy. His entire perception appears to have been shape by conservative mythology, not by reality or history.
Seriously–Curtis is only 13? In years or mentation? That explains a lot, I suppose.
He’s seriously only 13 years old and in 8th grade. I didn’t know that either until a couple of days ago. My reaction was exactly the same as yours – “that explains a lot.”
I have to give him credit, then. I used to think he was a borderline “special” (what do we call retarded people now? I can’t keep up anymore) adult with Issues. Now I see him as a precocious tween. There is hope! You go, Curtis!
[Rebecca De Mornay] “Go to school, Joel. Learn something.” [/Rebecca De Mornay]
[moderating]
I know this thread started in Great Debates, and Marley23 tossed it to MPSIMS, but it has definitely turned into a political debate, so I’m putting it back.
And there have been far too many borderline insults here for MPSIMS, anyway.
[/moderating]
Curtis, one of my professors in college was from Russia. He actually spent time in a gulag. His opinion of Reagan being any bit responsible for the fall of the USSR? Bull and shit. (When I asked him, he laughed). In his view, those responsible for the fall of the Berlin wall and communism in Russia were the people of the USSR themselves. To give all the credit to Reagan does a great disservice to the Russian people.
And the nature of Communism. It self destructed because it was both unjust and didn’t work well; it collapsed largely peacefully because fortunately, the leadership weren’t the sort of fanatics who thought in terms of “if the One True Way is going to die, the rest of the world dies with it!”
Gorbachev deserves a lot more credit than Reagan, if we want to get into individuals.
I remember on “Sixty Minutes”, some NASA scientist saying that the Challenger was given the green light to blast off even though it was known that there were problems with the O-rings, just so Reagan could have a nice dramatic background for his scheduled speech that day.
I doubt that Reagan demanded the Challenger take-off go through regardless, but I do believe the spineless yes men who surrounded him rushed the take-off in order to impress the big boss.
Well, he got his big dramatic speech anyway. And how.
John Paul II deserves some credit too.
Correction – I said it was ten years ago the wall fell. It was actually TWENTY. Jesus. Was it really that long ago?
For once, you and I actually agree on something.
As an asside, realizing Curtis wasn’t even alive when the Berlin wall fell makes me feel really, really old. 
Diogenes, what evidence is there that Reagan was responsible for the hostages being held in Iran for an extra three months? I remember that Iran definitely waited until Reagan was sworn into office at noon before releasing them, but I was under the impression that it was Iran’s choice to do that just to spite Carter. I thought that negotiations for their release continued up until very close to Inauguration Day.
I hearby acknowledge most of GIGObuster’s list and prove you wrong.
Here’s the wiki on the whole thing. The most convincing evidence to me is the testimony of Barbara Honneger and the former President of Iran.
Admittedly, this allegation is the least proven of all the things on my list, and people are free to reject it. That he sold arms to Iran after Iran sponsored a massive attack on US troops is irrefutable, though, and is probably the single most damning thing about him.
Then funnelled money from said arms sales to terrorists in Nicaragua, don’t forget that part.
I’ve read Guests of the Ayatollah and the author says that hostage takers hated Carter, and kept the hostages until after the swearing in as a final gesture to deny any appearance of victory to Carter.
However, the book also says that Reagan stayed very silent on the whole thing during the campaign; that he prefered to let it be seen as a millstone around Carter’s neck without having to make any comment about it at all. When the Republicans had their presidential primary debate at the Reagan Library and several of the candidates praised Saint Ronald for getting the hostages released I could smell the bullshit all the way here. At worst, he delayed their release, at best, he had nothing to do with it.
And even if it were true, the hostages were released in exchange for meeting some of the demands of the hostage takers, including unfreezing Iranian assets in the U.S. Were Republican presidential candidates really bragging that Reagan’s very first act as president was to give in to the demands of terrorists?