Ronald Reagan and a personal epiphany

Last week was full of Reagan this and Reagan that. One of the big claims is that he ended the COLD WAR. I know, it can be argued that it was the economy, good timing, bad polices, etc.; however, it boils down to the COLD WAR ENDED with Ronald Reagan in office.

But, what began when the cold war ended? We could say it was also bad timing, but we saw Iran Contra, Saddam Hussien, Osoma Bin Laden all in the 80s.

My point is that when the COLD WAR ended, the TERRORIST WAR began. And since that began in Reagan's term we can say to both crazy coincidence and put the laurels and the blame on Reagan because he happened to be there.

We could also point to the numerous examples of promoting terroism by the Reagan administration: negotiations with terrorists (the Iran Contra hearing was all about Reagan's Adminstration secretly negotiating the lives of American hostages for weapons), secret support of terrorists (who but our government taught Osoma Bin Laden to March before he learned to fly), and public support of "evil dictators" (Saddam Hussien was a trusted ally before an evil dictator comparable to Hitler).

We need to judge Reagan for the history of violence created by him and his administration that have hit the high (some may say low) points with the terrorist events of the last 4 years. He may have ended a COLD WAR, but he was in the thick of beginning a TERRORIST WAR that is affecting every one of us today.

This fact is why we have 25 years after a President's death to judge the man for not only his personal actions but his public office--to make sure the ripples from the pebbles thrown into the pond are as harmless as the appear in current times.

in the long run. 25 years my not be enough.

The Berlin Wall came down almost a year after he left office. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, in the middle of the bu$h Sr. administration.

And guess what? The US is STILL fighting a cold war against Cuba!

... if one is talking terrorism against the United States, that first occurred under Carter, not Reagan, with the taking of embassy hostages in 1979. (Of course, if one simply wants to argue international terrorism per se, the starting points for such are numerous and people can argue endlessly about them.

As well, the training and equipping of bin Laden's forces began in the Carter administration--the plan was devised by Carter's NSC advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and carried on by the Reagan administration. One can make the argument, however, that Afghanistan really took the steam out of the Soviet Union, and Carter's plan contributed more to the Soviet Union falling apart than did the outlandish defense spending made by Reagan's administration.

What I'd like people to focus on is not who takes credit or blame, but rather, how honest each administration has been with the American people, particularly after WWII.

Eisenhower repeatedly said in public that war had to be curtailed, along with excessive military spending, but he used the CIA as a de facto secret army, destabilizing Iran and installing the Shah in 1953, overthrowing the Arbenz government of Guatemala in 1954, bringing the CIA and "advisors" to Viet Nam in 1958, taunting the Soviet Union with CIA U-2 violations of their air space.

While Johnson escalated the war, people knew it was happening, and he finally tired of the damage and publicly said so, and chose not to run. Throwing up his hands wasn't the best course of action then, but it was honest.

Nixon ran the most secretive White House to that date, and lied and lied and lied about the war, including bombing a neutral country, Cambodia, until Daniel Ellsberg handed the Pentagon Papers to the papers. Watergate was just the icing on the cake.

Carter might have appeared a wimp, but he tried to address the underlying problems of his administration directly. When the summer rescue attempt failed and people died, Carter went before the nation and took responsibility.

Reagan lied about almost every underhanded scheme his administration adopted, until he couldn't wriggle free of the press.

Bush I lied about the reasons for an invasion of Panama, killing several thousand civilians, supplied Hussein right up to the moment that he suckered Hussein into invading Kuwait, giving Bush a chance to use the war as an assassination attempt.

Bush II has set new records for secrecy and public falsehoods, from his support of his education package, to the intentions of the "faith-based" charitable system, to the reasons for two wars and for the diminution of civil rights in this country.

I think, rather than trying to pin a particular tail on a particular donkey, it's better, and more understandable to the public, to concentrate on whether a particular administration could be trusted to provide adequate transparency and to tell the public the truth, even though that's a somewhat relative standard, as well.

When a friend boasts of an accomplishment for which they may not be quite responsible, that can be shrugged off. But relationships are damaged by lies, sometimes irreparably. The voters should be encouraged to see their relationship to presidents in that way.

Cheers.