Ron Reagan article on GWB

[ignu]

The Case Against George W. Bush http://www.esquire.com/cgi-bin/printtool/print.cgi?pages=5&filename=%2Ffeatures%2Farticles% 2F2004%2F040729_mfe_reagan.html&x=55&y=7
By Ron Reagan

It may have been the guy in the hood teetering on the stool, electrodes clamped to his genitals. Or smirking Lynndie England and her leash. Maybe it was the smarmy memos tapped out by soft-fingered lawyers itching to justify such barbarism. The grudging, lunatic retreat of the neocons from their long-standing assertion that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama didn't hurt. Even the Enron audiotapes and their celebration of craven sociopathy likely played a part. As a result of all these displays and countless smaller ones, you could feel, a couple of months back, as summer spread across the country, the ground shifting beneath your feet. Not unlike that scene in The Day After Tomorrow, then in theaters, in which the giant ice shelf splits asunder, this was more a paradigm shift than anything strictly tectonic. No cataclysmic ice age, admittedly, yet something was in the air, and people were inhaling deeply. I began to get calls from friends whose parents had always voted Republican, "but not this time." There was the staid Zbigniew Brzezinski on the staid NewsHour with Jim Lehrer sneering at the "Orwellian language" flowing out of the Pentagon. Word spread through the usual channels that old hands from the days of Bush the Elder were quietly (but not too quietly) appalled by his son's misadventure in Iraq. Suddenly, everywhere you went, a surprising number of folks seemed to have had just about enough of what the Bush administration was dishing out. A fresh age appeared on the horizon, accompanied by the sound of scales falling from people's eyes. It felt something like a demonstration of that highest of American prerogatives and the most deeply cherished American freedom: dissent.

Oddly, even my father's funeral contributed. Throughout that long, stately, overtelevised week in early June, items would appear in the newspaper discussing the Republicans' eagerness to capitalize (subtly, tastefully) on the outpouring of affection for my father and turn it to Bush's advantage for the fall election. The familiar "Heir to Reagan" puffballs were reinflated and loosed over the proceedings like (subtle, tasteful) Mylar balloons. Predictably, this backfired. People were treated to a side-by-side comparison—Ronald W. Reagan versus George W. Bush—and it's no surprise who suffered for it. Misty-eyed with nostalgia, people set aside old political gripes for a few days and remembered what friend and foe always conceded to Ronald Reagan: He was damned impressive in the role of leader of the free world. A sign in the crowd, spotted during the slow roll to the Capitol rotunda, seemed to sum up the mood—a portrait of my father and the words NOW THERE WAS A PRESIDENT.

The comparison underscored something important. And the guy on the stool, Lynndie, and her grinning cohorts, they brought the word: The Bush administration can't be trusted. The parade of Bush officials before various commissions and committees—Paul Wolfowitz, who couldn't quite remember how many young Americans had been sacrificed on the altar of his ideology; John Ashcroft, lip quivering as, for a delicious, fleeting moment, it looked as if Senator Joe Biden might just come over the table at him—these were a continuing reminder. The Enron creeps, too—a reminder of how certain environments and particular habits of mind can erode common decency. People noticed. A tipping point had been reached. The issue of credibility was back on the table. The L-word was in circulation. Not the tired old bromide liberal. That's so 1988. No, this time something much more potent: liar.

Politicians will stretch the truth. They'll exaggerate their accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. Spin has long been the lingua franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his administration have taken "normal" mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging of public perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on.

None of this, needless to say, guarantees Bush a one-term presidency. The far-right wing of the country—nearly one third of us by some estimates—continues to regard all who refuse to drink the Kool-Aid (liberals, rationalists, Europeans, et cetera) as agents of Satan. Bush could show up on video canoodling with Paris Hilton and still bank their vote. Right-wing talking heads continue painting anyone who fails to genuflect deeply enough as a "hater," and therefore a nut job, probably a crypto-Islamist car bomber. But these protestations have taken on a hysterical, almost comically desperate tone. It's one thing to get trashed by Michael Moore. But when Nobel laureates, a vast majority of the scientific community, and a host of current and former diplomats, intelligence operatives, and military officials line up against you, it becomes increasingly difficult to characterize the opposition as fringe wackos.

Does anyone really favor an administration that so shamelessly lies? One that so tenaciously clings to secrecy, not to protect the American people, but to protect itself? That so willfully misrepresents its true aims and so knowingly misleads the people from whom it derives its power? I simply cannot think so. And to come to the same conclusion does not make you guilty of swallowing some liberal critique of the Bush presidency, because that's not what this is. This is the critique of a person who thinks that lying at the top levels of his government is abhorrent. Call it the honest guy's critique of George W. Bush.


Edited by Hane. On the communist boards you normally post, perhaps they don't appreciate fair use but here at RonaldReagan.com, we do.

[ August 02, 2004, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Hane ]

[danger2112]

We can embrace a lie, or we can restore a measure of integrity to our government.

You have the embrace a lie right except that would be your great hero Kerry who is the liar.
our government has integrity right now and Bush will lead us into a great age of prosperity.

Someone else for President
That shows stupidity, they don't know the facts they only know that "they don't like Bush" so they are going to put a liar and flip flopper in the white house to prove what?

And anything Ron Reagan says is simply to promote his own agenda. I don't have the time or willpower to read this entire meaningless thing so please point out whatever you feel you can aruge and bring it on.

[Liberty]

Well Ignu. I have to hand it to you. I've never met someone so insistant on being so foolish and gullable.

Congratulations!

[dirtdart]

During his campaign for the presidency, Mr. Bush pledged a more "humble" foreign policy.

During his campaign, President Bush had no idea that lunatics were going to destroy the World Trade Center and kill over 3000 Americans.

"I would take the use of force very seriously," he said. "I would be guarded in my approach."

He took the use of force very seriously. He didn't go into Afghanistan until it was proven that Al Queda was responsible for the attacks. He didn't go into Iraq until Saddam ignored the UN for 12 years.

As Bush's former Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, and his onetime "terror czar," Richard A. Clarke, have made clear, the president, with the enthusiastic encouragement of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, was contemplating action against Iraq from day one.

I think this one has been rebuffed so many times that I don't see how anyone could ever use it again.

The real—but elusive—prime mover behind the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, was quickly relegated to a back burner

That's why we still have troops over there looking for him, right?

And then there was Abu Ghraib.

If you weren't there, you don't know what happned. If you weren't in the military, you don't know how it operates and will never understand. If you have never interrogated a terrorist, you don't know how to do it. Basically, some wrong things were done, they are being dealt with and if you aren't one of the people dealing with it then STFU! Oh, but I forgot. Better that 3000 more Americans die than one terrorist gets a little embarrased.

The Bush administration no doubt had its real reasons for invading and occupying Iraq. They've simply chosen not to share them with the American public.

This is no more than conjecture with no fact whatsoever to back it up.

And chances are your America and George W. Bush's America are not the same place. If you are dead center on the earning scale in real-world twenty-first-century America, you make a bit less than $32,000 a year, and $32,000 is not a sum that Mr. Bush has ever associated with getting by in his world. Bush, who has always managed to fail upwards in his various careers, has never had a job the way you have a job—where not showing up one morning gets you fired, costing you your health benefits.

Exactly which of Kerry's jobs qualifies by the above statement? Would that be Senator (that he missed most of), or would it be... Oh, wait, he never had any other job.

Mr. Bush's tendency to meander beyond the bounds of truth was evident during the 2000 campaign but was largely ignored by the mainstream media.

Yeah, the mainstream media has always been afraid to attack President Bush. Riiiiight.

So a story was concocted: There had been a threat to Air Force One that necessitated the evasive maneuver. Bush's chief political advisor, Karl Rove, cited "specific" and "credible" evidence to that effect. The story quickly unraveled. In truth, there was no such threat.

Again, where are the sources?

Good grief, who wrote this article, Michal Moore? I see no credible evidence of any lie in the entire thing. Lots of conjecture and speculation, most of it having already been dismissed by experts.

But I suppose Esquire, being the staunch bastion of investigative journalism that it is, should be unquestionably believed. What a crock.

[danger2112]

Ignu let me let you in on a little secret. When we catch osamas lower men THEY GIVE UP INFORMATION whether it is willingly or accidently. How do you think we found out about the terror threats to NY, NJ and DC?
Or are you going to use the "that is all made up" line??

These terrorists are not stand up men and fold very easily when they are out of their group.

Any other comments you would like to argue there ignu whether of your own or through Ron jr.?

[Snake007x]

Why is Ron Reagan so relevent? He's a Liberal, and it's as simple as that.

I wish IGNU would stop posting this stuff to try to hit home some point that we're against Ronald Reagan (the President) if we support George Bush.

[lmikeska]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And chances are your America and George W. Bush's America are not the same place. If you are dead center on the earning scale in real-world twenty-first-century America, you make a bit less than $32,000 a year, and $32,000 is not a sum that Mr. Bush has ever associated with getting by in his world. Bush, who has always managed to fail upwards in his various careers, has never had a job the way you have a job—where not showing up one morning gets you fired, costing you your health benefits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly which of Kerry's jobs qualifies by the above statement? Would that be Senator (that he missed most of), or would it be... Oh, wait, he never had any other job.

His other job has been marrying rich women ( I use the term loosly )

[danger2112]

How can anyone supporting Kerry use the line about not showing up to work. HE IS A THEIF to take those paychecks for doing absolutely nothing. When you don't vote on 2/3's of the issues I would consider that not showing up on MANY mornings and STILL not gettting fired.

Ignu why don't you sit down for a WHOLE DAY and try and come up with an IDEA of your own and try debating it. We can all sit here and tear apart Ron Jr. all day long, why not putting some of your views up here so we can tear those apart [img]graemlins/popcorn.gif[/img]

[hemikid]

Originally posted by danger2112:
Ignu why don't you sit down for a WHOLE DAY and try and come up with an IDEA of your own and try debating it. [/QB]

Like that'll happen.

[danger2112]

Originally posted by hemikid:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by danger2112:
Ignu why don't you sit down for a WHOLE DAY and try and come up with an IDEA of your own and try debating it.

Like that'll happen. [/QB]</font>[/quote]Yeah I know, but Ron Jr's comments are getting boring to debate. Everyone knows they have no factual evidence behind it and besides everything we say isnt being said TO Ron.
Thats why id like this guy to come up with stuff OF HIS OWN. Who knows maybe he can, hey ignu you know what I heard? this debate hasn't been mentioned yet by the left. why not trying to debate that the War is for OIL .

So when you get some opinons of your own, come on here and debate. Until then STOP TROLLING!