The Farce Forum

[Tim Gratz]

More on the Beschloss book:

A touching scene after RR's near assassination. Tip O'Neill came to visit him and was shocked at how frail Reagan still looked. Tears in he eyes, O'Neill knelt and kissed Reagan's face and the two men recited the 23rd Psalm.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After the shooting Reagan told New York's Cardinal Cooke that he had survived only because God was "sitting on my shoulder." [And I believe he was right about that!] In his diary, he pledged: "Whatever happens now I owe my life to God and will serve Him in any way I can." He believed that God had spared him so he could "lessen the risk of nuclear war."

There are those who give Gorbachev credit for not fighting Reagan. But an incident in december of 1981 may help explain this. RR had been inspired by the maverick Polish shipyard leader Lech Walesa. When Poland's leaders declared martial law and jailed Walesa, RR, who was embarrassed by earlier Presidents' failures to help anti-Soviet rebels in hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, wrote in his diary: "We can't let this revolution against communism fail without our offering a hand. We may never have an opportunity like this again in our lifetime." Reagan called Soviet premier Brezhnev over the hot line and warned him that further attempts to suppress the Polish people would "unleash a process which neither you nor we could fully control."

The Soviets got the message.

[Ron Ecker]

After the shooting Reagan told New York's Cardinal Cooke that he had survived only because God was "sitting on my shoulder."

Ha ha ha ha ha. If there is a God in the strict biblical sense, then Reagan is burning in hell. Though it's not much comfort, he at least gets to reminisce there with some of his Nicaraguan "freedom fighters" (who complain that "the heat in Central America was never like this").

I think that Reagan survived the shooting not because of God but because he was too dumb to die.

[Mark Knight]

Since Mark totally ignored my request to name a SINGLE book--just one--he has read about RR and the end of the Cold War, one can only conclude that his study of history is limited to watching the History Channel!

And your conclusion would be seriously flawed.

Because I choose to not engage in a childish "Mine's bigger than yours!" argument about whose background or whose research--or whose personal library is bigger/better/more complete/more accurate, you are drawing conclusions that you cannot prove. Such tactics may have worked in the courtroom, but they don't work here.

You asserted that Reagan brought down Communism. I showed beyond a doubt that Communism is not only still alive, but is practiced by the MOST POPULOUS NATION on the face of the Earth.

Is the above paragraph NOT TRUE, Mr, Gratz? A yes-or-no answer will suffice.

I DON'T dispute that Ronald Reagan was--nominally--the POTUS when the Soviet Union collapsed, nor do I argue that his administration's policies had nothing to do with said collapse. So PLEASE don't continue trying to credit me with statements to the contrary, Mr. Gratz. I merely proved your statement about the "collapse of Communism" wrong; most of the rest you have "inferred" or "implied" with absolutely NO basis in fact.

And I've enjoyed Mr. Beschloss' works immensely...a difficult feat for someone "who can reach his conclusions without reading a single book," won't you agree? Again, Mr. Gratz, let's stick to the facts...about which, in the case of my voracious reading habits, you simply have no [correct] idea.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, a debate (which this Forum is designated) is a give and take. That means that like a courtroom I can ask you questions and can draw inferences from your refusal to answer same.

When you arge about the role of RR in the end of the Cold War you invite me to inquire the bases for your arguments including books you have read on the subject. That is a fair tactic in a debate and it is not like the puerile name calling so often used against me by those who cannot join the debate on the merits.

It is a fair inference for me and other readers to conclude that you have not read a single pro-RR book. You can counter that conclusion not in generalities but simply by listing the books you haave read.

As I said, you have not joined the debate. I have not read one word you have written contrary to the views of the well-respected scholars that I have cited.

********************************************************************************

***************

I went back and noticed that I started this whole thing with a prediction about the Iraqi war thast included a phrasde "just as Reagan won the Cold War". In some posts I did talk about the "collapse of Communism". Perhaps that is overly broad and I should have stuck to the language re winning the Cold War. So Mark if it will make you happy it is my point that the firm, well-thought out policies of RR ended the Cold War and were a substantial factor in the collapse of Soviet Communism and the liberation of the Eastern European states from their soviet puppet-masters.

Edited November 19, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

This thread's farcical.

[Mark Knight]

Mark, a debate (which this Forum is designated) is a give and take. That means that like a courtroom I can ask you questions and can draw inferences from your refusal to answer same.

When you arge about the role of RR in the end of the Cold War you invite me to inquire the bases for your arguments including books you have read on the subject. That is a fair tactic in a debate and it is not like the puerile name calling so often used against me by those who cannot join the debate on the merits.

It is a fair inference for me and other readers to conclude that you have not read a single pro-RR book. You can counter that conclusion not in generalities but simply by listing the books you haave read.

As I said, you have not joined the debate. I have not read one word you have written contrary to the views of the well-respected scholars that I have cited.

********************************************************************************

***************

I went back and noticed that I started this whole thing with a prediction about the Iraqi war thast included a phrasde "just as Reagan won the Cold War". In some posts I did talk about the "collapse of Communism". Perhaps that is overly broad and I should have stuck to the language re winning the Cold War. So Mark if it will make you happy it is my point that the firm, well-thought out policies of RR ended the Cold War and were a substantial factor in the collapse of Soviet Communism and the liberation of the Eastern European states from their soviet puppet-masters.

I simply pointed out that, in view of the VAST number of people living under Communism today, Communism has HARDLY collapsed.

Your other assumptions about what I have or haven't read notwithstanding, I stand by the STATEMENT OF FACT that Communism is still standing.

For Communism to survive, it must rule with an iron fist [think Tienemen (sp) Square]. BUT IT SURVIVES. That is ino an assumption, nor is it an inference; IT IS A FACT. Just because this FACT is inconvenient in your quest for the sainthood of Ronald Reagan does NOT make it any less a fact. Nor does it infer that I have--or haven't--read ANY particular books by any particular authors. It is simply a FACT, and one that conflicts with your assertion that Reagan singlehandedly caused the collapse of Communism.

How that gives you license to question my reading material, I don't understand. Just because the FACTS are in conflict with YOUR assertion, that shouldn't necessarily bring MY education, family tree, personality, or number of freckles into question...because NONE of that changes the FACTS. Communism is still with us, like it or not. Reagan did NOT oversee--or cause--its collapse.

[As far as "winning the Cold War" goes...NEVER FORGET that in the US Civil War, it took Vicksburg and Gettysburg and Atlanta in order to get to Appomattox Court House. And the Civil War wasn't "won" at Appomattox...although, by YOUR definition, perhaps it was.]

[Pat Speer]

Tim, you're embarrassing yourself on this thread. Please list all YOUR sources of information. I doubt there'd be one book that wasn't given a full thumbs-up by the National Review. The amount of Reagan hero worship in your posts and in this country is disturbing.

Consider:

1. You cite as a credible source a boot-licking fool who BLAMES Kennedy for the failed assassination attempts on Castro. This same boob implies that Reagan telling Gorbachev to tear down the wall caused the wall to fall, when Gorbachev did not tear down the wall and it was torn down two years later by the German people. That's not scholarship, Tim, that's hero worship, the kind of stuff they parade at the Reagan shrine/Library down the street from here. People who respect Kennedy stopped repeating that he SCARED Khruschev into pulling the weapons out of Cuba a long time ago. When are right-wing hacks gonna grow up and realize that the fall of the Soviets was a complicated affair? Even if one should take the approach that Reagan's policies were the number one cause, it wasn't Reagan himself that scared the Soviets, it was the HUGE build-up in the American arsenal, and star wars. These weapons were built at the expense of the American people, primarily the middle-class and the poor. Look in the mirror. You did more to end the cold war than Reagan. It's a lot harder to pay the bills with 10% of your income being wasted on scaring the Russkies than it was for Reagan to go on TV and spout crap about the "evil empire" and "tear down that wall", and authorize a hundred billion dollars to be given to his biggest supporters, that's for dang sure.

2. You then go on to imply that God intervened and saved Reagan's life so he could save the world from Communism. That is ridiculous, IMO, and an insult to everyone, including myself, who has lost someone dear to them. Since you profess to know the mind of God (isn't that a sin?) please tell me why my six year old nephew dropped dead on a playground in front of his friends. Get with God and get back to me on that, will ya?

If there is a God, as described in the Bible, saving Ronald Reagan would most probably not be a priority. You should remember that Reagan was probably the least religious President of modern times. He was an irregular church-goer, and is still the only President to get a divorce. He was also a hypocrite. It is an historical fact that his daughter Patty was conceived out of wedlock and that he and Nancy lied about this to the end. That some, in retrospect, have tried to paint Reagan as a Christian icon is indicative of re-writing history, and is the kind of stuff that inspired Orwell to write 1984. Uncle Ron as Big Brother. Blecch.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Pat Speer

[Mark Knight]

According to the Wiki folks, the estimates for world population [July '07] were at 6,602,224,175. The population of China was estimated at 1,321,851,888 at that time, while the population of Cuba was estimated at 11,394,043. DESPITE my alleged lack of "readin' ", it seems that 20% of the world's population--THAT'S ONE IN FIVE, TIM--are living in either China [COMMUNIST] or Cuba [COMMUNIST].

For a system whose "collapse" Reagan "caused," there sure are a lot of folks living under it.

Maybe Tim can also show us how George W. Bush has "caused" the "collapse" of the Muslim religion since 2001, too.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, I note you still refuse to identify how many books you have read about how the policies of RR caused the collapse of Soviet Communism and the end of the Cold War.

I could not care less re the amount of your freckles. But your pompous pontificating is punctuated by your paucity of reading.

In my opinion, no one can express a meaningful opinion on a subject without having first educated himself or herself, and that means reading books. Your silence about what books you have read says volumes.

I have granted you that China with a large population remains in some senses communistic and it is certainly not a free state. And I said I should have been more narrow in stating that it was the policies of RR that ended the Cold War and Communism in the Soviet Union and Europe, a significant accomplishment that eliminated the possibility of a nuclear exchange between the two super-powers. Who knows what might have happened had the Cold War continued? By ending the Cold War, RR may in fact have saved the world. Every peace-loving former sixties flower child ought to be placing flowers on the man's grave. And every parent of our age should be grateful that his or her children do not need to live under the fear of a "nuclear winter" that the children of the Cold War had to.

I could follow James' lead to show humility and say, "Of course that's only my opinion", but that would be a lie. That RR won the Cold War NOT just my opinion; is the shared opinion of the vast majority of historians and political scientists who have studied the issue. Like it or not, that is his legacy and your gripes cannot change it.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Also, Mark, for your information I believe WIKI has underestimated the world's population by at least ten and over-estimated China's opoulation by at least twenty-two.

Reminds me of the story of the fifth grade class who went to visit the science museum including the skeleton of one of the world's oldest dinosaurs. The teacher was surprised when the guide told the students the dinosaur was 9,000,009 years old. She latedr took the instructor aside and asked where he got his information about the age of the dinosaur. "Why simple math, ma'am," he replied. "When I started here the director told me the dinosaur was nine million years old and I been working here for nine years next Tuesday."

[Tim Gratz]

To Pat:

1. I am not sure of the "boob" to whom you refer. Can you be more precise?

2. I cannot believe anyone states that Gorachev tore down the BW and did so because RR had asked or demanded that he do so.

3. You wrote:

Even if one should take the approach that Reagan's policies were the number one cause, it wasn't Reagan himself that scared the Soviets, it was the HUGE build-up in the American arsenal, and star wars. These weapons were built at the expense of the American people, primarily the middle-class and the poor.

Pat, there is a real non sequitur here. It was not RR that ruined the Soviet economy; it was the arms build up. But it was RR who ordered the arms build up, knowing what it would do to the Soviet economy.

And then you state or imply that it is the American taxpayers not RR who deserve credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union for it was the taxpayers who paid for the arms build up. That totally negates the importance of leadership. Let's look at D-Day. Most I think would give Gen Eisenhower a great deal of credit for the invasion. But using your analysis one could argue that Eisenhower should not be given credit for the victory because it was the soldiers serving under him who accomplished it. Welll of course they did and of course the soldiers are due our credit and gratitude but their bravery resulted because of Ike's planning. It was not the taxpayers who by plebiscite voted for the arms build up. I guess you could say the American people deserve credit because they were wise enough to elect RR in the first place.

Have you read the excerpts from essays etc I posted? It was not just the arms build up that drove the Soviets to their knees, There was a lot more that RR did to sabotage the Soviet economy. And it was all planned to accomplish the result that it did.

4. Re RR's personal morality, divorce etc.

I hate to personalize these things. I myself went through a very sad (for me) divorce a few years ago. I have chosen to remain single because I want to still honor the vows I made before God to remain faithful to my wife until her death. But most Christian commentators would argue that the innocent spouse is free to remarry while the spouse who initiated the divorce is probably commiting adultery. RR's first wife (who herself was a divorcee when he married her) reportedly had an affair with Lew Ayers before their divorce and I believe she initiated the divorce. Under these circumstances I do not believe any moral opprobrium is due RR for his marriage to Nancy Davis.

You may very well be right that RR and Nancy conceived Patti before their marriage and of course that cannot be condoned but unfortunately there are few among us who have not committed a sexual sin and if RR asked God for forgiveness I am sure he obtained it. Certainly the apparent fact that RR was intimate with Nancy before they married does not decrease his credit for ending the Cold War.

Was RR religious? Read the statements his own pastor gave as recorded in the Beschloss book. He either sincerely believed God had spared his life so he could accomplish his mission to end the Cold War and the horrors of nuclear weapons or he was quite a xxxx.

My gosh, Pat, when I said I believed that God had protected RR and indeed blessed his efforts re godless communism in the Soviet Union that does not mean that I profess to know why God acts or declines to act in all circumstances. I do not know why God clearly saved my life when I had fallen asleep at the wheel and yet there are accidents with church vans that kill dozens of innocent young church-goers. Of course I have no ability to explain why your young nephew died apparently of natural causes at a young age. Now I think there is an explanation why God does not routinely intervene in human affairs (what a strange world that would be!) but why He sometimes does and other times does not I cannot explain. Now should I sometime do some heroic act that saves dozens or if I become a leader in a cause that serves many of God's people, then I think I could say now I understand why God saved my life that day (wish I had recorded the date). Sometimes one hears from God by silent assurance. I believe RR had heard from God re why he was saved from the assassin's bullet and I think the fact that his policies brought political and religious freedom to millions of previously enslaved people confirms for me that he had indeed heard from God re his mission.

God answers prayers. Of course RR did not single-handedly defeat the Soviet Union. I give a lot of credit to the Pope as well. And I am sure the Pope was praying hard and daily for the delivery of the Polish people from Communism.

I also by the way believe that God miraculously saved the life of George Washington during the Revolutionary War. I commend to your attention the book "Angel in the Whirlwind" re the Revolutionary War. Of course we recognize the validity of the famous Abraham Lincoln quote that it matters not if God is on our side but what really matters is that we are on God's side.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

That RR won the Cold War NOT just my opinion; is the shared opinion of the vast majority of historians and political scientists who have studied the issue. Like it or not, that is his legacy and your gripes cannot change it.

That is completely untrue. Give me a quote from just one respected historian that says "Reagan won the Cold War". You won't be able to do it because no historian would ever make such a daft statement. As Pat and Mark have told you over and over again, the Cold War was not won (China remains a communist state). Even if you want to redefine the Cold War to mean communism in Eastern Europe, it is still not true that "Reagan won the Cold War".

[Tim Gratz]

How about a quote from that noted historian Rudolph Giuliani?

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani described Reagan as "the most dominating president of the 20th Century. He changed the map of the world. He defeated communism. He destroyed the Soviet Union. He tore down the Berlin Wall and he fought for the rights of the individual."

By the way, Guilian does not mean that RR personally carried away the bricks from the Berlin Wall.

John, you still have not answered my question re which pro-RR books you have read cover-to-cover. Just a gentle reminder. If you admit none the world will still keep spinning.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Forum Rules rightly prohibit members from calling other members stupid so I cannot say KISS I can only say KIS.

It is as simple as this:

When I read "Why Not Victory" by Barry Goldwater in 1963 I was sure that BG had a plan that would defeat Communism--all right, let's say Soviet Communism. That was the primary reason I was so strongly for BG.

RR essentially adopted the policies of BG and those policies in fact defeated Soviet Communism, vindicating my assessment of Goldwater's book.

The end of the Cold War made the world a much safer place to live. Granted we now face terrorists but while we have the spectre of a possible nuclear terror strike on one or several cities, at least for now the possibility of a disastrous nuclear exchange between superpowers, an exchange that could end life on earth as we know it, no longer exists. That is not a modest accomplishment. And RR deserves at least the lion's share of the credit.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

Tim, people voted for Reagan primarily because Carter appeared weak. Reagan promised he'd balance the budget. A few total frauds convinced him he could balance the budget and have a large military build-up at the same time. When it became clear he couldn't do both, he said the hell with the budget, and built up the military against the wishes of the people, running the country into the largest debts in recent history, prior to Bush II. By doing this, he was basically abandoning the conservatism of Goldwater and Taft, etc. Subsequent studies of the intelligence available to Reagan, Carter, and Ford indicate that the Soviet Union was collapsing under its own weight before Reagan was anywhere near Washington, and that Reagan's policies effectively shifted hundreds of billions of dollars from the public, which could have been spent on schools and health care, and gave it to investors in the MIC, who were already quite fat and rich. And this from a man whose party professes to believe that the government shouldn't get involved in social engineering and the transfer of wealth. It's clearly a one-way street.

At one point you said, re D-Day, that American soldiers' "bravery resulted because of Ike's planning." If you check your history books, you'll see that the planning of D-Day had some real problems, and that many men died because of the screw-ups of higher-ups. If the Germans didn't make a few mistakes themselves, it might have been a disaster. This statement, however, reveals a lot about yourself--you have a need for heroes, and look for them from the top on down. This is dangerous, IMO, and is one of the things that is destroying this country. The guy on the bus taking care of his sick mother and supporting his wife and kids on a minimum wage is a bigger hero than Reagan ever was, outside the roles he played in the movies.

Kennedy, with help from Sorensen, wrote a book on politicians who demonstrated courage. I can't think of one instance where Reagan demonstrated real courage. The man was so personally weak that he couldn't tell Nancy NO when she insisted he plan his schedule around his astrology chart.

And thinking God has a plan for you and is looking out for you is not the sign of a religious person, it is the sign of a deluded person. A religious person does things because it is right, even when there is no personal glory involved. Not being from California, you probably never had to deal with the mentally ill people thrown out on the street by Governor Reagan, but I did, and my mother, a registered nurse, always made sure I knew it was Reagan that put them there. If you can show us where Reagan performed acts of charity or volunteered at the Midnight Mission I might begin to believe he was religious. Otherwise, what I see is a self-involved actor propped up by sycophants reciting scripted dialog in order to make the country feel good about itself, while his cronies rape the Savings and Loans, and rape the Treasury via an unnecessary military build-up. Hardly the stuff of heroes... even if he was a nice guy.