General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWere the Repubs successful in re-writing the history of Ronald Reagan?
In my opinion, they were. Most people born after 1980 have a very positive image of Ronald Reagan and consider him one of our greatest presidents. Factually and historically, he was one of our worst.
Is it any wonder that they are attempting to re-write the history of the Iraq War also? Will they be as successful with it as they were with the re-write of the Reagan history?
That is why I am very pleased that Rachel Maddow is doing her show tonight. There was no glory in the invasion of Iraq and there was no victory.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)uponit7771
(90,339 posts)...be lionized unfettered
quinnox
(20,600 posts)and I think history has been kind to his legacy.
I don't think they will be successful in rewriting history about Iraq, in fact, I think the opposite will happen.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)LeftInTX
(25,337 posts)Harder for the media & public to connect the dots.
Whereas the Iraq War was kinda "in your face".
ETA: The financial meltdown occurred under Bush's watch, at the end of the 2nd term, leaving a nasty stain. Although there were problems under Reagan, he was for some reason reelected and then his VP was elected.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Rotten crap starts to stink the longer it lies there.
Thhe passage of time will give a better perspective on just how bad a president Reagan truly was.
blm
(113,061 posts)Published on Thursday, May 11, 2006 by Consortium News
Hey Democrats, Truth Matters!
by Robert Parry
My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didnt pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Husseins government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.
Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clintons domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.
. . .
Clintons relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bushs administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.
. . .
Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLCs dont-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clintons decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies never materialized.
. . .
Clintons generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didnt turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.
Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.
Clintons failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bushs inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his fathers presidency fondly.
If the full story of George H.W. Bushs role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Familys reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bushs candidacy would not have been conceivable.
Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Rights political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.
In retrospect, Clintons tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nations fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.
Clintons approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.
. . .
(Parry allows DU unlimited use of his articles.)
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html
David Zephyr
(22,785 posts)Re-writing American history to gloss over facts and fix blame on other now requires a 24/7 "news" channel. It's a full-time business.
But there's so much to re-write, isn't there?
irisblue
(32,975 posts)His administration was/is an bad mark in our history