Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That article begins:
I ungrudgingly grant Ronald Reagan his modest (yes, modest) role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Sometimes, geopolitics is as simple as a schoolyard game of chicken, and Reagan played a keen game of chicken as he built up the U.S. military....
It then veers into retelling the Hungary story.
Only this week, in this festive atmosphere of Reaganohagioography, could one conceivable complain that an article that starts by praising Reagan and then goes on to tell someone else's story can be faulted for failing to praise Reagan in other ways as well. Fortunately, this week will be over soon, and we can all start living in the real world again. It's going to be a tough transition for the Republican pundits who've spent the world in the political equivalent of a circle jerk, but then a funereal mood should be appropriate, right?
|
I've been waiting for this all week. The true feelings finally come out. You've been biting your tounge all week, so as to appear respectful, but it's just getting the best of you isn't?
For what it's worth, I am a bit bothered by the coverage as well. That is to say that I've had my fill of the lionization. The presidency speaks for itself. There is no reason to push it down the nation's throat.
As to the article, I read it as suggesting that the cold war was really won because some east germans slipped throught fence and Reagan was just on the sidelines. Folks like Walesa, who were on the wrong side of the fence, obviously disagree with that characterization.
