Ming Jie (chasingred) wrote in anti_nader,
Ming Jie


Ron Reagan, the son of the late President Ronald Reagan, wrote a piece in Esquire entitled "The Case Against George W. Bush." It is an abridged version of his longer book, entitled "The Case Against George W. Bush and My Memory Lapse about Dad's Presidency," later to be released this year. Let's walk through Ron's alphanumerics shall we?
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.
Ron starts off by backtracking to where his departure first lifted off. But the same misgivings he moans about Bush could also be said about his father. In the mid-eighties, his father funded a terrorist rebel group called the Nicaraguan Revolutionary Democratic Alliance, which later changed its name to the Nicaraguan Democratic Forces (presumably because "Alliance" would bring suspect about their relationship with the US and "Revolutionary" just sounds a little too Marxian for an anti-Marxist group). This group is more commonly known as the Contras; they were famed for going into villages and torturing government supporters. CIA agents later said that the Contras forced village children to watch rebels rape their mothers and stuff unpinned grenades in their fathers' mouths. When government groups were coming, US air intelligence would alert the Contras so that they could easily escape. Gross human rights were attributed to the group that President Reagan deemed to be "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers." These actvities, along with other Latin American policies under Reagan, makes gential electrodes and women's panties look like a new Magic Mountain adventure ride. Continuing . . .
The grudging, lunatic retreat of the neocons from their long-standing assertion that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama didn't hurt.
Or, likewise, the lunatic insistence than any left-leaning new democratic government was a Soviet satellite, and therefore, deserves to be attacked through violent force doesn't hurt in getting support for your policies either. I have no strong convictions on the wisdom of Reagan's foreign policy, as the defense of liberalism at times demands violence, but let's not act as if Bush is alone in his weak correlation of world enemies. He definitely wasn't the first to use simplified terms such as "evil" to muster support for his foreign policy. On the issue of Saddam, this whole matter might not even be an issue today if his father didn't support both the Bagdad butcher in Iraq or mujahideen in Afghanistan. Nice for you to have left such details out of your Esquire article.
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.
I ran contra to this when I read it. I wonder what makes me feel someone else also lied?
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.
Well that certainly is a new development for the right! As I've read it, during the Cold War, anyone against US foreign policy was given a handjob (with a “right” hand of course) by hot young blond masseuses lightly perfumed in the finest Arabian scents. Communist witchhunt within Screen Actors Guild anyone? Senator McCarthy's young pixies are bored.
International cooperation and consensus building would be the cornerstone of a Bush administration's approach to the larger world. Given candidate Bush's remarks, it was hard to imagine him, as president, flipping a stiff middle finger at the world and charging off adventuring in the Middle East.
Bush may have given a stiff middle finger, but Reagan swung a sweaty nutsack to the face of the World Court. More importantly, multilaterialism ideology got its ass kicked by Jeane Kirkpatrick, but Reagan wasn't having no static with her being foreign policy advisor. Her appointment by Reagan in '84 to UN Ambassador was automatic, what tactics! Ron must have also forgot what his father is most known for, ending our detente with the Soviet Union, dangerously bringing the world to nuclear war a few times over. Reagan was no Woodrow Wilson, so let's not whitewash history by putting Bush as a departure to US foreign policy.
As anyone who'd watched the proceedings of the 9/11 Commission could have predicted, what followed was the usual administration strategy of stonewalling, obstruction, and obfuscation. The appointment of investigators was stalled; documents were withheld, including the full report by Major General Antonio Taguba, who headed the Army's primary investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib.
Stonewalling? Did someone say stonewalling? I don't remember.
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.
Which, Ron added, is WWAAYY worse than losing your job for striking.
That base also encompasses a healthy share of anti-choice zealots, homophobic bigots, and assorted purveyors of junk science. Bush has tossed bones to all of them - "partial birth" abortion legislation, the promise of a constitutional amendment banning marriage between homosexuals, federal roadblocks to embryonic-stem-cell research, even comments suggesting presidential doubts about Darwinian evolution.
Reagan is the departure point that Bush is continuing with. Reagan left Nixon and moved the Republican party right with all the religious fanatics that would follow. Let's not believe that Bush is doing something new here, after all, his administration is just a bunch of Reaganites who are back with the third sequel.

I completely agree with Ron's assessment of Bush, but he seems to draw a more unique Bush than exists because he doesn't want soil on his family name. While I agree with his vision of the future, Ron needs to recover from his Alzheimer of the past.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic