Maybe it is you that is cherry picking. I'm refuting what you (wrongly) wrote for the most part. Not that I disagree with the truth - see my response to Shookem about WoD. Maybe you'd take the word of the russians themselves as to why they broke up the USSR? Or maybe not http://www.randomhouse.com/features/americ...totheright.html In four Reagan-Gorbachev summits, in Geneva, Reykjav'k, Washington and Moscow, Shultz found a way to give form and articulation to Reagan's inchoate longings to be a great peacemaker. The breakthroughs were breathtaking. At Reykjav'k on October 11-12, 1986, where Reagan and Gorbachev had 9 hours and 48 minutes of face-to-face meetings, Gorbachev was forthcoming in nearly every area of arms control. He and Reagan astonishingly agreed on a first step to cut strategic nuclear forces in half. Then they got excited about the prospect of eliminating nuclear weapons altogether, including missiles and strategic bombers. "I have a picture," said Reagan, "that after ten years you and I come to Iceland and bring the last two missiles in the world and have the biggest damn celebration of it!" One word-"one lousy word," said Reagan later-spoiled that picture. Gorbachev insisted on confining SDI to "laboratory" testing. And Reagan would not forsake his pet project. Remarkably, he offered to share it. Gorbachev feared SDI would expose the Soviets to an unanswerable strike. At midnight, haggard from the long day, the two men walked in silence from a supposedly haunted Hofdi House. "Mr. President," said Gorbachev when they reached Reagan's car, "you have missed a unique chance of going down in history as a great president who paved the way for nuclear disarmament." A gloomy Reagan answered: "That applies to both of us." His hawks were appalled that he had offered to give up all nuclear weapons. They tried to cover it up. "They resembled," wrote Garry Wills, "a crew of absent-minded Frankensteins who had fiddled at separate parts of a monster for benevolent but widely varying purposes, only to see him break the clasps and rear himself up off the table in a weird compulsion to do some monstrous Good Thing that none of them had ever believed possible." Reagan, beset at the same time by the Iran-contra fiasco, did not lose his nerve. He reaped a rich reward. In February 1987, Gorbachev said he would no longer let SDI stand in the way of a treaty to remove missiles from Europe and Asia. The Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty the leaders signed on December 8, 1987, led to the first-ever agreement to destroy nuclear missiles: 859 of America's and 1,836 Soviet missiles with a range of 300 to 3,400 miles. That was only 4 percent of the nuclear arsenal but it was unprecedented and unpredicted, and it was an exhilarating prelude to the end of the Cold War. See here: Russians in their own words
You seem to think Reagan sat around on his hands while the Soviet Union crumbled. Not so. It's as simple as that. In 1979, the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Reagan armed the resistance (which included Bin Laden) and it turned into one hell of a bloody nose for the Soviets. Like this post, I've consistently looked at your gripes about Reagan on an individual basis and addressed each one. Where are you wrong? It started with this: "Ronald Reagan does not deserve to be deified." and went downhill from there
Getting back to the topic at hand, what Obama actually said has been spun way out of hand. He made two statements: 1) Reagan had a revolutionary effect on govt. They called it the Reagan Revolution for a reason. (IMHO, it really sucks the republicans didn't continue down the same road). 2) The republicans were the party of ideas from about 1994 on. I find it hard to dispute this, as it is fact. Exactly what big ideas did the Democrats offer during this period? Or since they regained power in the house and senate, for that matter? I don't see it as Obama praising Reagan or the republicans. What he's saying is that he can have a revolutionary effect on government in a similar manner to Reagan; he's not saying he's another Reagan or likes Reagan's policies. In the second statement, he's saying it's time for the Democrats to reclaim the title of being the party of big ideas. If you think I'm a hard core right winger, think again. I truly liked Bill Bradley in 2000 and thought he was a very smart fellow with truly big ideas. The last political contribution I made was to Paul Tsongas' election campaign (may he R.I.P.).
