“Perhaps I’m something of an anomaly, but I’m a progressive liberal–no lover of Bush–who wholeheartedly supports our efforts in Iraq. Indeed, one of the reasons I’m so opposed to a second Bush term is that I believe his administration can’t be trusted to continue to manage the Iraq mission.
I have been awfully upset by the Abu Ghraib revelations, the White House’s response to them, and now the memo scandal. (I heard Ashcroft on NPR yesterday–it was shameful.) And I didn’t even know about Sean Baker until I read your blog this morning.” Richard Cohen also makes some good points this morning.
FRED ON REAGAN: I’ve long admired Fred Barnes for his honesty as a reporter (and his general menschness as a human being). He loved Reagan, as I did, but he wasn’t above criticizing him (which for some reason now seems to be regarded as the equivalent of disrespecting him). Here’s a useful passage from a piece Fred wrote at the end of Reagan’s presidency:
[H]is presidency would have been a lot more successful had Reagan not been so lazy–he said he’d been assured hard work wasn’t fatal, but why take a chance?–and risk-averse. What if Reagan had concerned himself with personnel? I don’t mean he should have fussed over every political job in the administration, all 6,000 or so. But what about treasury secretary and White House chief of staff? Reagan swallowed without a moment’s reflection the job swap that sent James Baker to Treasury and Regan to the White House. Regan lacked the political skills to be an effective chief of staff, which might have occurred to Reagan if he’d taken the time to think about it. Regan also let the president take the one big risk of his second term, the arms sale to Iran, and it was a dumb one. Baker wouldn’t have allowed it. Reagan didn’t pay much attention to his national security advisers either. Had he, he’d have noticed that Bud McFarlane was cracking under the pressure and that John Poindexter, a fellow who blithely lied to the press about the Grenada invasion, was singularly unsuited for the post. Reagan couldn’t be bothered.
All true. Jon Rauch also made the point that Reagan got the big things right – the economy and the Soviet Union – but was uninterested in much else. Hence the S&L debacle, the Iran-Contra fiasco, and so on. I think that gets it right. He was a great man, a generous spirit, and a brave leader. But he was also human and made mistakes. It isn’t disloyal to remember that.
NOT JUST 1982: Some of you have made the fair point that in October 1982, not many people knew what AIDS was, and so some of Larry Speakes’ cruel jokes at the expense of the sick might be understandable. It’s also true that his interlocutor was Lester Kinsolving, a crack-pot of the far right. But here we are in another transcript two years later on December 11, 1984, with the same questioner:
Q: An estimated 300,000 people have been exposed to AIDS, which can be transmitted through saliva. Will the President, as Commander-in-Chief, take steps to protect Armed Forces food and medical services from AIDS patients or those who run the risk of spreading AIDS in the same manner that they forbid typhoid fever people from being involved in the health or food services?
MR. SPEAKES: I don’t know.
Q: Could you — Is the President concerned about this subject, Larry —
MR. SPEAKES: I haven’t heard him express–
Q: –that seems to have evoked so much jocular–
MR. SPEAKES: –concern.
Q: –reaction here? I — you know —
Q: It isn’t only the jocks, Lester.
Q: Has he sworn off water faucets–
Q: No, but, I mean, is he going to do anything, Larry?
MR. SPEAKES: Lester, I have not heard him express anything on it. Sorry.
Q: You mean he has no — expressed no opinion about this epidemic?
MR. SPEAKES: No, but I must confess I haven’t asked him about it. (Laughter.)
Q: Would you ask him Larry?
MR. SPEAKES: Have you been checked? (Laughter.)
Someone should ask Speakes about this. He’s been on some TV shows.
The Dish 