Originally Posted by mmarsh

Actually thats not entirely true. Reagan was the more popular President To Leave Office. His actual popularity in Office was about 52% which isnt bad, but not great. As an outgoing President he is surpassed by both Clinton and FDR. 66% (each, a tie) to 63%.

FAIR did a good piece about this, all stats and figures are included.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1832

I'll say one last thing about Reagan. Reagans popularity is not aging well. Its beginning to wane due to the fact that his strongest base, (which in 1989 were the age 45+) is now beginning to pass away. Reagan's conservatism struck a cord with older Americans but he wasnt very popular with the youth (I was growing up that time, we all hated him). The best way I can explain it is to say that he was totally disconnected with the youth of the 1980's, his handling of the war on Drugs and of the AIDS crisis were proof of that. He would be in the camp of people condemning the ills MTV when thats all people my age were watching. Like I said, totally disconnected.

In additional, the disasterous result of alot of his policies came to light after he left office. His record breaking deficiets, his Tax Cuts to Millionaires, his relationship with South America Death Squads, friendship with people like Saddam Hussein, his greater-than-he-admitted to role in the Iran-Contra affair, etc...

I've heard commentary very much like yours before, virtually everyone that had that opinion were from the left coast. FWIW, the outlook that he had regarding the ills of MTV were pretty much right on. The morality of the younger generation is leaving them open to things that they will only be able to cure by dying. Being high and sleeping around isn't going to get you anywhere but jail or a cemetary.

Name a president that didn't have problems in office. Clinton had the morals of a dog and the leadership of an earthworm. If he had of acted in 1993 when the WTC was bombed the FIRST time 9/11 might not have happened. Planning for the 9/11 attack started shortly after the bombing in '93. Clintons numbers didn't reflect his ability as the president but his ability to be charismatic. What kind of legacy did Clinton leave us? I guarantee that it is not a good one.

Sorry Senior
The comment "His record breaking deficiets, his Tax Cuts to Millionaires, his relationship with South America Death Squads, friendship with people like Saddam Hussein, his greater-than-he-admitted to role in the Iran-Contra affair, etc..." have caused many Americans to undergo a change of heart where the "ham actor" president is concerned.

The Iran-Contra and the links to death squads seem to be the areas most often given for the changes in opinion ... historical reviews raise very real questions about his involvement. Remember that any involvement with the Contras (or) death squads during Reagan's presidency, were against law because of legislation passed by the House and Senate that was then signed into law by POTUS.

According to hindsight, a case could be made that Reagan was in violation of US law and the US Constitution.

It is a funny dog, history revisionism ... and it isn't ALWAYS wrong.


Please don't throw rocks for the 'ham' statement, he characterized himself that way during one of his few interviews after his election.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

Sorry Senior
The comment "His record breaking deficiets, his Tax Cuts to Millionaires, his relationship with South America Death Squads, friendship with people like Saddam Hussein, his greater-than-he-admitted to role in the Iran-Contra affair, etc..." have caused many Americans to undergo a change of heart where the "ham actor" president is concerned.

The Iran-Contra and the links to death squads seem to be the areas most often given for the changes in opinion ... historical reviews raise very real questions about his involvement. Remember that any involvement with the Contras (or) death squads during Reagan's presidency, were against law because of legislation passed by the House and Senate that was then signed into law by POTUS.

According to hindsight, a case could be made that Reagan was in violation of US law and the US Constitution.

It is a funny dog, history revisionism ... and it isn't ALWAYS wrong.


Please don't throw rocks for the 'ham' statement, he characterized himself that way during one of his few interviews after his election.

OK, no rocks. I got some bricks in the back yard.

I think RR did wonders for the Navy and the military in general. We went from having nothing to work with to building a 600 ship Navy. We didn't get there but we had our day in the sun due to his leadership.

The things that "revisionist history" puts out can be true, and probably not to the best interest of the country, but then the whole time Clinton was in office I kept my mouth shut because he was the CinC. I'm one of those people that served my country right or wrong and still feel much the same way. Ronnie might not have been the best, but he was by far not the worst.

Which size bricks can I use?

Senior Chief

And Reagan apologists are universerally from far right field. Thats not exactly an earth shattering relevation, its partisan politics. He was right about the MTV generation? I mean no offense, but how would either of you know that? You weren't part of my generation. Besides, there isnt a age group alive that doesnt think the younger generation isnt morally degenerate. Back in your day, people thought Elvis, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones were spawn of Satan attempting to poison the youth. Before that it was Frank Sinatra and radio who was the root of all evil. And by the way, with the exception of Crack in the late-80's, the Drug scene was pretty dead in the 80's. The Hippy deadbeat drug-era was much more your era (1960's+70's) than mine.

It was Reagan was that decided to give military training to Osama's group in Afganistan. Yet another example of Reagans disasterous policies coming back to bite us in the butt. Secondly in 1993 aside from a few cold war spies, nobody in the public had heard of bin Laden. Al Qaeda wasnt been founded until 1995, and Bin Laden himself wasnt involved in the first WTC attack. That was done by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. By the time of the 1st WTC attack, Clinton was in office not even three months. And what happened to Rahman? He and his followers are now the popular tenents of 6x8 foot cell in a Virginia SUPERMAX facility where they'll stay for the rest of their lives.

I dont wont to get to far off topic, but compared to Bush's incompetance in getting OBL, Clinton was far more effective.

Getting back to Reagan, Reagan and France's Francois Mittereand share something in common. Their dirty laundery got aired only after they left office, and both of them it turns our hand some blood on their hands. I always felt sorry for Bush Sr, because he got blamed for much of Reagans failings, like on deficiets and the economy. Is Reagan the worst? No. Bush is far worse. Reagan made bad policy, but he executed these policies well. Bush makes bad policies, and then screws it up so much than a bad situation even worse. I'll also rank him better than James Buchanan (Reagan was more competant) and Warren G. Harding (Reagan less currupt) but below Hoover and Carter because they actually managed to redeemed themselves as statesmans after their presidency.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

First of all it was Reagan was that decided to give military training to Osama's group in Afganistan.

Sorry, to interrupt, but where did you get an idea that Reagan has supported Usama's group?


All sides (American, Usama's, Pakistanis) - all vehemently deny this claim!

American money and training probably got around in afghanistan and how could osama not notice what the other factions were doing with their supplies? But he probably just copied them with his own finances, it's the taliban that received american money for years, and i'm pretty sure that there are taliban members fighting against us now that fought against the soviets with our help. It's blowback, and no one likes blowback, no sir.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I dont wont to get to far off topic, but compared to Bush's incompetance in getting OBL, Clinton was far more effective.

How the f*** was Clinton more effective? He did nothing other than to attempt to draw the media attention away from the BJ he got from Monica.

Originally Posted by Senior Chief

OK, no rocks. I got some bricks in the back yard.

I think RR did wonders for the Navy and the military in general. We went from having nothing to work with to building a 600 ship Navy. We didn't get there but we had our day in the sun due to his leadership.

The things that "revisionist history" puts out can be true, and probably not to the best interest of the country, but then the whole time Clinton was in office I kept my mouth shut because he was the CinC. I'm one of those people that served my country right or wrong and still feel much the same way. Ronnie might not have been the best, but he was by far not the worst.

Which size bricks can I use?

I have to agree with some of your conclusions ........ and you don't need bricks, pebbles are more than adequate. I have done the very same thing while on active duty, but no longer hold my tongue now that I am a civilian and not on the active lists. You and I have earned the right to now speak our minds.

Reagan was the best thing that happened to the US in my lifetime.

Boris116

Its simple, Osama was in Afganistan fighting against the Soviet Invasion. Reagan supplied weapons and CIA advisors to the Afgan Mujihadeen. If you get CNN international they are running a series just last week (you can probably catch it on reruns) on Osama. The interview several of the now-retired CIA case officiers that knew Osama in Afganistan. Its pretty interesting stuff. Its not at surprising that the Pakistanis, US and al Qaeda all deny this. Do you honestly expect that they are going admit that they were allies back in the day?

Senior Chief

Again you mention Clinton's personal failures. I'll grant you that, I wouldnt want my my daughter near him. Reagan and Bush policies have harmed America, but the USA didnt suffer any real harm because Clinton was sleeping around. And alot of his policies were good for America. Thats the fundimental difference, I (and most people) would rather have a 'immoral' man running the country well than a 'moral' men whose policies have hurt America. I use the term moral loosely. Look at Tom Delay (a Chief Clinton accuser), do you really want to take morality lessons from him?

For example, Clinton fixed the Reagan Deficiets by balancing the budget. He moderated the peace in both Northern Ireland and Isreal (the latter didnt hold, but that wasnt his fault) he signed various anti-crime acts (crime nationwide radically dropped on his watch) including one that made terrorism a capital offense. So on and so forth...