Reagan's Last Letter

[Perknose]

Lord knows, I've never been a fan of Ronald Reagan, either as an actor, a governor, or as President.

I believe many of both his domestic and his foreign policies did serious and long-lasting damage to our country. With his "arms for hostages" gambit, he certainly subverted our Constitution in a manner that arguably bordered on treason, and escaped the consequences that we, as a nation under the rule of law, should have delivered unto him.

However, this is about one act of Ronald Reagan, the man.

Last night, I finally got around to marathon watching both parts of the PBS American Experience ~ 5 hour Reagan documentary and the ~ 2 hour HBO one, both (re-)aired on the anniversary of his birthday.

And . . . I was genuinely moved by the class and personal courage and unadorned and forthright frankness, by the simple yet soaring poetic imagery, of his public letter to the American people announcing that he had Alzheimer's.

Whatever one thinks of Reagan's opinions and methods and efficacy and even, in many other instances, his honesty, this letter SHINES. It is truly a profile in courage. It has allowed me to personally make my peace with Ronald Wilson Reagan, the man. No one can seriously doubt that he loved our country and all the best that she has ever stood for.

Here is the text. It is truly moving:

My fellow Americans,

I have recently been told that I am one of the millions of Americans who will be afflicted with Alzheimer's disease.

Upon learning this news, Nancy and I had to decide whether as private citizens we would keep this a private matter or whether we would make this news known in a public way.

In the past, Nancy suffered from breast cancer and I had cancer surgeries. We found through our open disclosures we were able to raise public awareness. We were happy that as a result many more people underwent testing. They were treated in early stages and able to return to normal, healthy lives.

So now we feel it is important to share it with you. In opening our hearts, we hope this might promote greater awareness of this condition. Perhaps it will encourage a clear understanding of the individuals and families who are affected by it.

At the moment, I feel just fine. I intend to live the remainder of the years God gives me on this earth doing the things I have always done. I will continue to share life's journey with my beloved Nancy and my family. I plan to enjoy the great outdoors and stay in touch with my friends and supporters.

Unfortunately, as Alzheimer's disease progresses, the family often bears a heavy burden. I only wish there was some way I could spare Nancy from this painful experience. When the time comes, I am confident that with your help she will face it with faith and courage.

In closing, let me thank you, the American people, for giving me the great honor of allowing me to serve as your president. When the Lord calls me home, whenever that may be, I will leave the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future.

I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead.
Thank you, my friends.

Sincerely,

Ronald Reagan

And here is photographic proof that he wrote it, in it's entirety, in his own hand:

 

[Brovane]

I believe many of both his domestic and his foreign policies did serious and long-lasting damage to our country. With his "arms for hostages" gambit, he certainly subverted our Constitution in a manner that arguably bordered on treason, and escaped the consequences that we, as a nation under the rule of law, should have delivered unto him.

What treason? The president is responsible for foreign policy. What part of constitution did he subvert? He was trying to do back door negotiations to get American hostages released and also work with moderates in Iran.

 

[Perknose]

What treason? The president is responsible for foreign policy. What part of constitution did he subvert? He was trying to do back door negotiations to get American hostages released and also work with moderates in Iran.

Wow, you really don't know your recent American history or the Constitution of the United States of America very much at all, do you?

Your truculent ignorance of both points is both pathetic and alarming.

 

[Atreus21]

Kudos.

 

[Thump553]

What treason? The president is responsible for foreign policy. What part of constitution did he subvert? He was trying to do back door negotiations to get American hostages released and also work with moderates in Iran.

I agree with the OP about the original letter. It especially touched me because Alzheimers killed my mother and runs in the family-odds are pretty great that will be my fate if I live that long.

Apparently Brovane you neither lived through the 1980s and know very little of what happened. Here's a thumbnail sketch: Nicarauga was embroiled in a civil war with Reagan sympathetic with the Contras as they were anti-communist. But they also were murderous thugs, among other things gunning down a group of nuns and strongly suspected in the assassination of the Catholic bishop for Nicaragua. The US population did not want another proxy war like Vietnam (USA backs one side, USSR the other) and Congress passed a law (over Reagan's strong opposition) specifically barring US involvment, directly or indirectly, in the Nicaraguan civil war.

Meanwhile the US had a standing arms embargo against Iran.

What the Reagan Administration did was secretly sell arms to Iran (in violation of the embargo) and used the funds to support the contras. Because of Reagan's "forgetfulness" and standup performances by underlings that took the fall (like Oliver North), along with a general distaste for impeachment of another President (this was about a decade after Nixon, which shock this country to its core) Reagan got off scot free.

Some may say so what, I agree with what Reagan wanted to do. But the fact is we are a nation of laws, and if the President is going to blatantly disregard and ignore the law we might as well be just another tinpot dictatorship and abandon any concept of a constitutional democracy/republic.

 

[Fear No Evil]

No one can seriously doubt that he loved our country and all the best that she has ever stood for.

Ummm... You just did like a paragraph up.

With his "arms for hostages" gambit, he certainly subverted our Constitution in a manner that arguably bordered on treason, and escaped the consequences that we, as a nation under the rule of law, should have delivered unto him.

You off your meds again? There isn't a single post you can make without throwing your obvious bias in is there? There was no reason for your first two paragraphs other than political hackery..

 

[Brovane]

Wow, you really don't know your recent American history or the Constitution of the United States of America very much at all, do you?

Your truculent ignorance of both points is both pathetic and alarming.

Thank you for validating my argument. If your best counter argument is to resort to personal attacks against me then you have no valid counter argument.

 

[fskimospy]

What treason? The president is responsible for foreign policy. What part of constitution did he subvert? He was trying to do back door negotiations to get American hostages released and also work with moderates in Iran.

Treason, no. You could definitely say that he was subverting the separation of powers however. In Iran Contra his administration (almost certainly with his knowledge) secretly appropriated funding to a purpose specifically prohibited by Congress. Since they, not the President have the sole power to appropriate funding, it certainly seems like a reasonable basis to claim the 'subversion' of the Constitution.

That being said, Reagan wasn't a bad guy. His presidency gave birth to a bunch of ridiculous economic ideas that have been awfully damaging to our country, but he was an exceptional leader. He appeared to grow out of a lot of his kookier ideas as his presidency went on, and all in all I can respect him both as a president and as a man.

 

[jman19]

Ummm... You just did like a paragraph up.



You off your meds again? There isn't a single post you can make without throwing your obvious bias in is there? There was no reason for your first two paragraphs other than political hackery..

That's rich, coming from you. I can practically hear the foam bubbling on your lips with each P&N post you make. You are basically at Craig's level.

 

[Brovane]

I agree with the OP about the original letter. It especially touched me because Alzheimers killed my mother and runs in the family-odds are pretty great that will be my fate if I live that long.

Apparently Brovane you neither lived through the 1980s and know very little of what happened. Here's a thumbnail sketch: Nicarauga was embroiled in a civil war with Reagan sympathetic with the Contras as they were anti-communist. But they also were murderous thugs, among other things gunning down a group of nuns and strongly suspected in the assassination of the Catholic bishop for Nicaragua. The US population did not want another proxy war like Vietnam (USA backs one side, USSR the other) and Congress passed a law (over Reagan's strong opposition) specifically barring US involvment, directly or indirectly, in the Nicaraguan civil war.

Meanwhile the US had a standing arms embargo against Iran.

What the Reagan Administration did was secretly sell arms to Iran (in violation of the embargo) and used the funds to support the contras. Because of Reagan's "forgetfulness" and standup performances by underlings that took the fall (like Oliver North), along with a general distaste for impeachment of another President (this was about a decade after Nixon, which shock this country to its core) Reagan got off scot free.

Some may say so what, I agree with what Reagan wanted to do. But the fact is we are a nation of laws, and if the President is going to blatantly disregard and ignore the law we might as well be just another tinpot dictatorship and abandon any concept of a constitutional democracy/republic.

I lived through the 80's. There is different opinions of what happened. The "tower commision" never found conclusive evidence that Reagan authorized the diversion of money to support the Contras. The intention was to build ties with Iranian moderates and try and get US hostages released. Also the US wasn't selling arms, Israeli was. The US arms where being sold by Israeli to a arms dealer who then sold the arms to Iran. The stocks of Israeli arms where then replinished by the US. Reagan didn't want to pass up the chance to get US hostages released.

 

[fskimospy]

I lived through the 80's. There is different opinions of what happened. The "tower commision" never found conclusive evidence that Reagan authorized the diversion of money to support the Contras. The intention was to build ties with Iranian moderates and try and get US hostages released. Also the US wasn't selling arms, Israeli was. The US arms where being sold by Israeli to a arms dealer who then sold the arms to Iran. The stocks of Israeli arms where then replinished by the US. Reagan didn't want to pass up the chance to get US hostages released.

That's true that they never found conclusive evidence, but it is pretty unlikely that such a significant operation with such a high profile foreign power was going on without the president's knowledge. He also admitted later on to authorizing the shipments to Israel. That's also why intelligence laws have been changed so that no covert operation can ever occur now without the explicit authorization of the president. No more "gee, I didn't know"s.

 

[Brovane]

That's true that they never found conclusive evidence, but it is pretty unlikely that such a significant operation with such a high profile foreign power was going on without the president's knowledge. He also admitted later on to authorizing the shipments to Israel. That's also why intelligence laws have been changed so that no covert operation can ever occur now without the explicit authorization of the president. No more "gee, I didn't know"s.

There is no doubt that the shipment of arms where authorized. That was the entire intent of the dialogue with the Iranian moderates. However I do not think that he knew about money going to the Contras. As soon as he found out what was going with the Contras, he immediattely ordered a full disclosure. Also Oliver North keeps saying that he had private meetings with the President when there was never any evidence of those meetings.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Wow, you really don't know your recent American history or the Constitution of the United States of America very much at all, do you?

Your truculent ignorance of both points is both pathetic and alarming.

Your understanding of the Constitution isn't very indepth so you should watch who you attack.

As far as Reagan, his Reagonomics can't be denied in turning our economy around from the disaster of Carter.

 

[fskimospy]

Your understanding of the Constitution isn't very indepth so you should watch who you attack.

As far as Reagan, his Reagonomics can't be denied in turning our economy around from the disaster of Carter.

They really can be.

 

[Jadow]

as opposed to Clinton, his letter was also eloquent, and it had a cum stain to boot.

 

[hal2kilo]

Your understanding of the Constitution isn't very indepth so you should watch who you attack.

As far as Reagan, his Reagonomics can't be denied in turning our economy around from the disaster of Carter.

Things look great when you run the country with a credit card (first massive deficits since WWII).

 

[skyking]

I read through this thread and was appalled by the collective knee jerk reaction by those of you who may be a bit more conservative. I'm not going to point fingers, your vitriolic responses take care of that.
The OP does not care much for Ronnie and that is not a surprise. You got hung up there and went on your attack and obfuscate mission, and skipped right over the real topic, that letter. That was the subject of the OP and what do you have to say about THAT?

 

[CitizenKain]

They did a good job wiping the drool stains off the letter.

 

[trenchfoot]

They did a good job wiping the drool stains off the letter.

Oh man, you made my day with that bomb. lol

On topic, yeah, really nice letter. Props to the man for that.

 

[zinfamous]

that's all well and good, but if he had been open and frank about what was very well understood by the CDC--as he was frankly advised--regarding HIV in the very early, and very terrifying early days of it's outbreak, then things would have been much different.

He ignored, he sat on the advice, he refused to release money, and very much HIV used as the "cure for homosexuality," as he so wanted it to be.


That is a very nice letter. Too bad it took fear and confusion for his own life to possibly put himself in the shoes of others that also did not wish to be judged through illness and did not deserve so. Too bad raising awareness in the public only mattered if it affected him, and he believed the cause to be moral.

 

[zinfamous]

What treason? The president is responsible for foreign policy. What part of constitution did he subvert? He was trying to do back door negotiations to get American hostages released and also work with moderates in Iran.

you mean how he was subverting the power of Carter, trying to work a deal with Iran to affect the outcome of the US presidential election?

Those kind of backdoor deals?

The hostages was Carter's ordeal, not Reagan's. If Reagan is to be credited for their release, as he so often is, it can only be through treason.

 

[zinfamous]

Your understanding of the Constitution isn't very indepth so you should watch who you attack.

As far as Reagan, his Reagonomics can't be denied in turning our economy around from the disaster of Carter.

they sure did turn the economy around!

you're looking at it, right now.

:thumbsup:

 

[Mursilis]

Since they [Congress], not the President have the sole power to appropriate funding, it certainly seems like a reasonable basis to claim the 'subversion' of the Constitution.

You are of course correct. Yet that basic truth so rarely seems to come up in budget threads!

 

[Brovane]

you mean how he was subverting the power of Carter, trying to work a deal with Iran to affect the outcome of the US presidential election?

Those kind of backdoor deals?

The hostages was Carter's ordeal, not Reagan's. If Reagan is to be credited for their release, as he so often is, it can only be through treason.

I am talking about the hostages that were taken in Lebanon after Reagan was president. I wasn't reffering to the hostages that were taken from the storming of the US embassy in Tehran when Carter was president. So somehow it is Treason for Reagan to work towards the release of the 7 American hostages taken in Lebanon?

 

[ProfJohn]

that's all well and good, but if he had been open and frank about what was very well understood by the CDC--as he was frankly advised--regarding HIV in the very early, and very terrifying early days of it's outbreak, then things would have been much different.

He ignored, he sat on the advice, he refused to release money, and very much HIV used as the "cure for homosexuality," as he so wanted it to be.


That is a very nice letter. Too bad it took fear and confusion for his own life to possibly put himself in the shoes of others that also did not wish to be judged through illness and did not deserve so. Too bad raising awareness in the public only mattered if it affected him, and he believed the cause to be moral.

I believe that is all a bunch of BS that doesn't match the facts.

The 'Reagan ignored aids' claim has been going around for a long time and it was refuted a long time ago too, but people still seem to believe the lies because that is what they want to believe.