| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Why this registered Democrat admires Ronald Reagan | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 13 2004, 09:08 AM (732 Views) | |
| Intrepid2002 | Apr 13 2004, 09:08 AM Post #1 |
|
UNGH!
|
Bear with me a moment. I was up last night watching a replay of Scarborough Country. There has been an endless list of 9/11 widows and semi-important politicians making the rounds on TV providing the tension that makes cable TV talk shows prime for viewing. This night Pat Buchanan (filling in for J. Scarborough) was instigating a debate between a 9/11 widow Mrs. Martini and a congressman from New York by the name of Peter King doling out equal shares of blame to whoever it was they were angry at. It cracked me up when Congressman King stated that Mrs. Martini did not have the monopoly on grief and that his wife too, flew the friendly skies that day, (she was not hurt) quantifying that his grief was equal to hers. Incredible! Unfortunately, this widow wasn’t quite as lucky as Congressman Peter King. It just got uglier as the evening went on and everytime I changed a channel, there it was. A family member and a defender of the administration. It was hard to swallow. What I came away with was these families were not out for blood but merely an explanation and hopefully a way to avert and amend the mistakes of the past no matter how far back. I guess that’s why they all seem to be so disappointed with Condaleeza Rice’s testimony last week. Now let’s do a 180. Does anyone remember Ronald Reagan’s Iran Contra Speech of March 4, 1987? www.presidentreagan.info Anyone worth their salt should refresh their memory and read that eloquent speech. He’s quoted as saying, "First, let me say, I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior. And as personally distasteful as I find secret bank accounts and diverted funds—well, as the Navy would say, this happened on my watch.” He also says, “But as president, I cannot escape responsibility”. Wouldn’t such a statement from the Bush Administration (Clinton Administration whoever) fit the bill? If they’re so concerned about their tough guy image I don’t see the word SORRY anywhere in there that would quantify it as an “apology” (that’s how I’d sell it to the Bush administration) but it would acknowledge the obvious, that mistakes were made. To me, what President Reagan said and did was such an awesome and honorable statement. I’m so sick and tired of these presidents being in denial and out of touch. Where is the public relations team? Who the heck is whispering sweet nothings into the ear of our president? Someone should be taking a history lesson from Ronald Reagan. Where does the buck stop? Harry Truman said here. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Apr 13 2004, 09:25 AM Post #2 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Where are the people who lost loved ones and friends on 9/11 that agree with the administration? I know a lot of them, why aren’t they asked to be on TV? We must take into account that Reagan was president during a different time. A time where people were not so egger to cash in on the guy doing the noble thing. To day most people would care less if Bush made such a statement, they would not understand its meaning and they would be quick to use it against him. I can see it now, in big bold type the day after at the top of the moorings paper. BUSH ADMITS 9/11 WAS ALL HIS FAULT |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Intrepid2002 | Apr 13 2004, 09:43 AM Post #3 |
|
UNGH!
|
^^^ I'd have to respectfully disagree with you there Dandandat. It seems to me that the success of the movie, The Passion of the Christ" would prove otherwise. IMHO, people are going back to a more nobler time. We're looking for the guy who will DO the honorable thing. THat's why a lot of Democrats were disgusted with Clinton's antics in the White House. These days it feels like we're always choosing the lesser of two evils. As for those family members you speak of, I'd like to see more of them on the air. We can't blame the liberal media for their reluctance to appear on the air, can we? There are many opportunities for them to appear on many of the right wing media vessels. Why haven't they?
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Apr 13 2004, 10:00 AM Post #4 |
|
Time to put something here
|
I would have to disagree with you. The POTC shows plainly how people want to sensationalize everything. If you believe in god and the noble thing you don’t need a movie to sway you. The fact that it took a big Hollywood movie to get people interested in their chosen faith is all the proof one needs to show that people just don’t care any more. What will happen next year when Lord of the rings IV comes out and every one forgets about the passion? Yes we can most certainly blame the liberal media for their absence. Since it will not further the liberal medias agenda to have them on, they just don’t book them. They book people who they know will tare one out of the Administration representative. Besides that for get liberal vs concretive media agenda. TV is all about sensationalism, you don’t get sensation when you have a Administration representative. and a family member that agrees with the Administration. How boring would it be for the guy to say “yes bush did this because bla bla bla” and then you have the family member say “yes I agree with him, next topic”. You cant sell coca cola with that kind of programming.
When you agree – you don’t feel the need to speck out. and again even the right wing media has to sell coca cola |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Apr 13 2004, 10:26 AM Post #5 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Let's not forget too, that the media outlet's would look real bad if they put up a supportive family opposite a politician that blamed the Administration. Not that they would have an easy time finding a politician to fill such a spot as such a politician would see it as career suicide to be so insenstive (wait for it...)--- of the famliy member's feelings. Intrepid, you're right about one thing that both Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration. They could learn a lot about personal integrity from President Reagan. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Intrepid2002 | Apr 13 2004, 10:53 AM Post #6 |
|
UNGH!
|
If we truly want to get things right. Why should we be concerned about selling Coca Cola? I wont touch the "God" thing because you are right. You don't need a movie to sway you but it most certainly reminds you. We don't even have to wait till next year for this to fade into our distant past. That is the nature of the beast. My reference to the movie was prompted by your statement that Reagan was a president during a different time and I get the impression, a better time. It seems to me that people are trying to go back to those times. No harm in seeing the other side on some of these right wing shows and networks. Why not? I'm sure it will sell a LOT of coca cola. Certainly O'Reilly could find one family member. The liberal media cant tell FOX what to do, can they? There must be an element of media suicide somewhere in the picture. Who's the honorable one and the first one to do it? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Apr 13 2004, 11:09 AM Post #7 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
I would not say the times were better during the Reagan years. However, I would say the inflation rate (having been in double digits) and unemployment rate (also having been in double digits!) were both on their way down. Vietnam's and Watergate's social wounds were beginning to heal as well. The US was starting to feel good about itself again (Remember "It's morning in America" ?). There were plenty of things that were not perfect. There were terrorist attacks (i.e. the Marine compound in Lebanon in 1983). Concerns about the future of the family farm (Remember Mellencamp's "Scarecrow" and FarmAid?). The instability of the Middle East and the spectre of nuclear war (most imagined scenarios had it starting in the Middle East). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Apr 13 2004, 08:23 PM Post #8 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
I have to wonder if any statement could really console those that lost loved ones on 9/11. I didn’t lose a loved one so I couldn’t say for sure. Regardless, it doesn't look like it is going to happen anyway. In tonight’s Presidential press conference, Bush was asked point blank if he would be willing to apologize on behalf of the gov’t (in the way Clarke did to the 9/11 commission). Bush evaded the question by placing sole blame for 9/11 on OBL and the terrorists who committed the atrocities. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Apr 13 2004, 09:42 PM Post #9 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
And why should he apologize? Unless President Bush is found to be directly responsible for allowing 9/11 to happen, any apology is only self serving and is meaningless (taking notes Mr. Clarke?). Why should Bush stoop down to Clarke's level of giving an empty "I'm sorry" to the American people? Did FDR apologize for Pearl Harbor? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| anon_persona | Apr 13 2004, 10:08 PM Post #10 |
|
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
No fair! I was going to mention Clarke's apology! ; ) He apologized and look how fast he was quashed by public opinion. Additionally, Bush apologizing might make people think he was somehow responsible, which is clearly not true. If the 9/11 investigation has shown anything it's that the Bush Administration could have done little else. Indeed, they put a top priority on intelligence following nearly a decade of little or no FBI work on the subject (paraphrasing FBI director's recent comments to the 9/11 commission). This is a strong indicator that little intelligence work in general had been done during the Clinton years. Notice how no one "blames" Clinton for this, despite the fact that Usama bin Laden was offered to us twice as a prisoner during his administration, both times he declined accepting him. Usama had claimed responsibility for both World Trade Center bombings and a number of others and was known as the head of Al Qaeda. I do not wish to lay blame on the Clinton Administration, merely demonstrate the hypocracy of the opposition. Why apologize for something you did not do? Particularly when you did more than anyone else in an attempt to prevent it? "Bush evaded the question by placing sole blame for 9/11 on OBL and the terrorists who committed the atrocities." How can anyone possible even IMPLY that Bush is responsible but not Usama bin Laden and his cronies?!!?! That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Do you somehow thing Bush was piloting those planes that hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon?!!?! Bush didn't evade the question, he took it head on and answered it curtly and succinctly. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Apr 13 2004, 10:10 PM Post #11 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Doc: I am not sure if Bush should apologize or not. Unless the 9/11 commission discovers some gross government misconduct (on any government level), then I am not inclined to say that he should have to apologize. IMO, what the 9/11 commission reveals at the end of the investigation, will play a key role in whether or not Bush should or shouldn't apologize. So, in a sense, Bush was probably right to evade the question tonight (it is too early to tell if Bush should even have to offer up an apology). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Apr 13 2004, 10:12 PM Post #12 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Don't put words in my mouth. I was simply relaying information. By the way he did evade the question. At no time did Bush answer the specific question asked, which was.. Q Thank you, Mr. President. Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one? THE PRESIDENT: Look, I can understand why people in my administration anguished over the fact that people lost their life. I feel the same way. I mean, I'm sick when I think about the death that took place on that day. And as I mentioned, I've met with a lot of family members and I do the best I do to console them about the loss of their loved one. As I mentioned, I oftentimes think about what I could have done differently. I can assure the American people that had we had any inkling that this was going to happen, we would have done everything in our power to stop the attack. Here's what I feel about that. The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans. And that's why we will stay on the offense until we bring people to justice. News Conference Link |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Apr 13 2004, 10:15 PM Post #13 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
I recall somebody saying that when somebody apologises for something that they had nothing to do with, whether that person knows it or not, 99% of the time it is so that they get attention. Was it Glenn Beck? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Apr 13 2004, 10:22 PM Post #14 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
^^^ I am not sure. However, as the President, Bush represents more than his own actions. If there was a gross misconduct on any level of government that contributed to 9/11, then as the President he should apologize. Edit: Btw, your avatar seems to be acting up again. All I see is a missing gif and the red X. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| anon_persona | Apr 13 2004, 10:51 PM Post #15 |
|
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
“Don't put words in my mouth.” I will apologize if I did, but I’m afraid I didn’t catch where I did so. Please tell me where so I can apologize if I was responsible. ”I was simply relaying information. By the way he did evade the question. At no time did Bush answer the specific question asked, which was, "will you apologize...." (paraphrasing...the transcript of the speech is not up on the net yet).” Evade - to avoid facing up to (Encyclopedia Britannica website) Bush clearly showed he will not apologize - by going beyond the call of duty and not only answering, but explaining his answer. The media has a love of sound bytes and misrepresentation through them, so for Bush to say no and then explain he’d be chastised for the no. He answered the question clearly and concisely – with reason, he did not evade it. If you have an exam question that says “Is Hong Kong part of China?” is “Hong Kong joined China in 1999. It had been part of the UK until a treaty between China and the UK expired in 1999” an acceptable answer, or is the ONLY possible answer “Yes.” No. “I am not sure. However, as the President, Bush represents more than his own actions. If there was a gross misconduct on any level of government that contributed to 9/11, then as the President he should apologize.” What if it was the Clinton Administration’s fault? I’m not saying it is, but would Bush have to apologize for it if that was so? Let’s say Bush did a commendable job to prevent 9/11, but something out of his control was the “gross misconduct” you speak of. Shouldn’t the person responsible apologize, not someone only associated through title, but not in actuality with the misconduct in question? Why didn’t Clinton apologize for the Hubbles? Why doesn’t Kerry apologize for the people that put the hit out on Rumsfeld? If you’re not responsible you shouldn’t apologize. You can say you’re sorry, you sympathize, maybe even you empathize, but now you’re just asking people to be foolish. I am seeing those avatar problems too. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:13 PM Jul 11