Michael Reagan: Rather than allow Bush to get "credit for ending the war in Iraq," Dems prefer to leave Iraq "in play at least through the 2008 election cycle so that they can use it as a wedge issue"
Introducing an interview with conservative radio host Michael Reagan on the November 13 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto claimed that President Bush is "reaching out to congressional Democrats for ideas on how to handle Iraq," but that according to Reagan, "Democrats really don't want to see the problem solved because they do not want the president to get the credit." Indeed, Reagan asserted that Democrats "don't want this president to get the credit for ending the war in Iraq at all," adding that Democrats would prefer to "make Iraq stay in play at least through the 2008 election cycle so that they can use it as a wedge issue to, in fact, win the presidency in 2008."
As purported evidence that Democrats don't want Bush to receive "credit," Reagan pointed to Sen. Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) opposition to the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless wiretapping program and the USA Patriot Act. Reagan did not explain how the Democrats' position on these bills, which do not deal with Iraq, supported his argument.
From the November 13 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: Well, President Bush also reaching out to congressional Democrats for ideas on how to handle Iraq. But if my next guest is right, Democrats really don't want to see the problem solved because they do not want the president to get the credit, credit like President Ronald Reagan and Republicans received for ending the Cold War. With us now to explain is President Reagan's son, Michael Reagan. So, Michael, you think the Democrats just don't want this president to come out of Iraq OK?
REAGAN: They don't want this president to get the credit for ending the war in Iraq at all. I mean, look at what happened over the weekend. You got what? You got Leahy out there wanting to throw the NSA program under the bus. You have Leahy out there also wanting to throw the Patriot Act under the bus. You got [House Democratic Leader Nancy] Pelosi [D-CA] throwing [Rep.] Steny Hoyer [D-MD] under the bus, [Rep. Jane] Jane Harman [D-CA] under the bus. [Rep.] Alcee Hastings [D-FL] may be driving that bus. This does not look like a way to win the war in Iraq; it looks like a way, in fact, to make Iraq stay in play at least through the 2008 election cycle so that they can use it as a wedge issue to, in fact, win the presidency in 2008.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
His father would have never screwed up this war the way Bush has. And he knows it. Yet he defends Bush, who is as much the opposite of Reagan as possible.
I think Michael needs to get back on the bottle, he thinks much clearer that way.
...at this point, I almost can't believe how pathetic these guys are... the spin isn't even good! Does anyone believe this crap any more?
Tommy thinks Reagan was a leader against terrorists, eh???
This is the man who bought the Presidency by trading weapons to the Iranians for hostages, who stranded Marines in Beruit, and shame America for a generation in the eyes of the whole Muslim World.
I for one will never forgive the 241 Marines who died for no good reason, no mission, no idea why they were there other than the idea that US Marines would scare the conflict out of existance?
Ronnie had nothing on the chimp!!!!!!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Reagan was officially labeled a terrorist by the UN for the mining of Nicaragua's harbors. This is a fact.
The US and Iraqi friendship was also warming up at this time and Rumsfeld met with Saddam. The gassing of Halabja was in 1988 to which the whitehouse blocked a congressional resolution punishing Iraq for it.
And today they stand there and tell us how evil this man is for what he did, yet they were backing this guy. And people still believe a word they say?
yeah, bush said it will be up to the next administration to decide what happens in Iraq but Dems are going to use this as a wedge issue. Get real!
but what do the NSA program and the Patriot Act have to do with winning the war in Iraq?
Just wondering.
about the administration. And if you do it makes sure no one will know about you or where you disappeared to.
You need to get with the program. According to the Bush Administration, you must either tear up the Consitution and rely entirely on the despotic "Dear Leader Bush" ... or you are "with the terrorists".
How much more clear can it be stated?
IEDs are made from your civil rights. Duh.
and naturally the democrats are the ones running this war. bush is the total victim of a democratic plot. anyone read kitty kelly's book on nancy reagan? about how sweet nancy packed michael and maureen off to boarding school when she married ronnie?
I've come to expect crap like "...they do not want the president to get the credit..." from these twin towers of pull-it-outa-my-assedness.
However, I'm one who really, really does want to give Duhhbya credit for what he's wrought.
Lessee,
- lying to the American people to justify his New Crusade
- turning the Islamic world against the U.S.
- turning most of the thinking world against the U.S.
- turning the cradle of civilization into the cradle of death
- turning the U.S. into an even bigger debtor nation
- enriching Haliburton, drug makers, oil companies, ...
Is that it?
Oh yeah - those 30,000 U.S. casualties - gotta make sure Duhhbya gets credit for them, right?
-
...the 600k+ Iraqis who've perished either directly or indirectly from Bush's invasion of Iraq. That's a lot of bad Kharma if you ask me. Boy-o-boy.
Add to the 650,00K the 1 Million that died under the Clinton sanctions and bombings and the 145,000 civilian dead estimated for the First Gulf war.
15 years of US hostility towards Iraq, 1.8 million dead....US has been killing on average over 100,000 Iraqs a year.
For 15 years running!!! Thru both Democrat and Republican administrations and all kinds of House and Senate majorities. Anyone see a pattern of mass murder here besides me?
You know what the actual official Democrat plan is for Iraq right now? The Kerry plan. 40,000 more troops for occupation duty and special forces attacks on Syria and Iran and possibly Lebanon. Escalation and expansion.
And here America all thought the Democrats will end the war. Heh.
Do not forget the people that died under Saddam while the US supported that guy!
Also the iranians Saddam killed during the war with Iran.
These goons really played us for idiots. First they lie their way into iraq saying if we do not act now we will all die, we move in and kill anything that crosses ourpath and now they claim that if we leave, more people will get killed.
They have nicely placed themselves into a catch-22 situtation that is perfect for their intentions.
This is a BS war from the beginning and there is no winning a BS war.
... those hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT Iraqis were "liberated to death".
It's insteresting that an actual fruit of the Gipper's loins, Ron Reagen Jr., is a thoughtful and insightful fellow who is against the war and resists people who try and say that Bush is like his father. And this guy, who was adopted, is the implacable wingnut. Interesting indeed.
I'd hate to play into the whole stigma around adoption (which I know wasn't your point), but you make an excellent point. How come the anti-war Reagan doesn't get a forum?
Isn't he basically accusing the Democrats of wanting to "stay the course"? How funny is that?
Here's a deal...if Bush will admit that invading Iraq was STUPID, and take the blame for the mess he's made, then we'll consider letting him get credit for solving the problem...if he solves the problem.
Giving Ronald Reagan credit for ending the cold war is more Republican mythology. They give him credit for accelerating the arms race, but he doesn't get the blame for the resulting deficits...those were the Democrats' fault. (?) The war in Afghanistan also drained the Soviet economy, which was already shaky.
Besides, Rush Limbaugh repeatedly told us that Communism was an unworkable system and would implode on its own. And, we all know Rush would never lie to us.
Among countless neocon contradictory ideas that are gospel.
Ronald Reagan was a superman who achieved the unbelievable victory of toppling a completely non-viable doomed system that was so fundamentally flawed it could never succeed.
Who does not claim responsibility for ending the cold war?
The pope does.
Heck even David Hasselhoff thinks he was responsible.
One man ended it and that was Gorbachev.
For starting this fiasco. But I'd also be happy if he ends it during his administration. By his own admision, that is not going to happen.
Reagan's comments are beneath contempt. This is the adminsitrations war, not congress's. Congress may have been the enablers, but the Bush administration prosecuted this war and failed. Nothing the new congress does will change the fact that the administration may have toppled the Iraqi regime, but they did not win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Failing that, there is nothing more for them to do, but to exit and try not to get too many more Americans or Iraqis killed in the process.
on estate tax reform (raising the bottom end) but if jacking up the old "death tax" to 80 or 90% means trust fund zombies like Michael Reagan have to get a real job, let 'er rip.
He's not even entertaining like the hysterical Hannity or slobbering BilldO- he's just a dullard.
Hitting the nail on the head. He's as dull as most of his fathers movies were.
Yes, Congress gave the president the ability to wage war, but as a LAST RESORT ... you know, that "PEACE THRU STRENGTH" thing Reagan talked a lot about.
It's like leaving the car keys with your teenager, to use ONLY IN AN EMERGENCY. You return home to find the kid has taken the car and set out to VEGAS. WOO-HOO!!!!
It wasn't the emergency Bush claimed, and he DID NOT "exhaust" all diplomacy. He took the keys, and hit the gas, abandoning all hints of RESPONSIBILITY.
So, yes, Congress "enabled". But Bush gets ALL the "credit" for those 3000 dead brave American soldiers, sent into WAR without a plan, without the adequate numbers, without the proper armor, without any "expertise" in Middle Eastern affairs held by their civilian "leadership", without "VICTORY" defined -- into a meatgrinder that Bush and Cheney wish to keep operating ad infinitum (it's GREAT for business!).
The GOP Majority Congress messed up (granted with some DEM help), but now the DEM MAJORITY Congress must act as ADULTS, and take the keys back from their irresponsible and immature President, and set out to make things right again.
It was George W. himself who said this war ain't gonna end until another administration is in office. Typical W - makes messes, but can't clean 'em up.
"Throwing the PATRIOT act under the bus" is going to prolong the Iraq war? What the hell is he smoking? This is shameful!
I have to say that while I disagreed with about 90% of what Ronald Reagan did as president, I respected his sincerety. He really did believe his policies were good for the country, even when he approved selling weapons off the records to fund the Contras and then lied about it. He really did have a vision of something better than playing nuclear chess with the Soviets for the next 100 years, even though his ham-fisted Afghan opoeration, started by Carter, may have ultimately led to 9/11. I think he was smarter than a lot of people give him credit for.
This guy, on the other hand, has no integrety at all, to say something like that. Any criticism at all amounts to wanting the boogey man to win for shallow political ends.