Lou Cannon, who reported on Reagan throughout his career, and then wrote several books about him, says no in an op-ed published yesterday in the Washington Post.
In the wake of U.S. anger and activism after 9/11, Bush led the nation into a preventive war against Iraq.
Notwithstanding the complicity of a malleable Congress (including
virtually all the Democrats with presidential aspirations, save Sen. Barack Obama),
this was Bush’s war. We doubt it would have been Reagan’s. Despite the
widespread support for the 2003 invasion among Reaganites in Congress,
our research has convinced us that Reagan — prone to lower-key
measures such as arming the Nicaraguan contras, burned from sending the
Marines to Lebanon
in 1983 and generally inclined to see the United States as a shining
exemplar rather than a mailed conqueror — would not have undertaken
Bush’s nation-building war.
I’m not so sure. I remember Reagan’s governance well, and believe he would have gone to war in Central American if he hadn’t been so strongly opposed by a Democratic Congress (not to mention millions of Americans who remembered Vietnam all too well). But it’s impossible to say.
Maybe a bigger question would be: Would Reagan have monkeyed with the facts to make a case for war?
The irony is that if Bush had been honest with the American people, and Congress, and had not managed to strong-arm the nation into waging a war well-described by Ron Paul as "a very bad idea," ultimately his legacy and his party would have been far better shape. Playing fair, by the rules of democracy, has benefits. And although I am not a fan of Ronald Reagan, I remember vividly the embarrassment and even shame he displayed after Iran-Contra blew up. Of course his administration did it’s best to sweep the whole mess under the carpet, but I think nearly everyone but Ollie North and the far-right recognized the disaster for what it was. That tells me that Reagan might have wanted war, but wouldn’t have tried to dupe the American people into fighting it.
Cannon diplomatically assesses the Bush administration for about 800 words, and then lowers the boom — brutally.
Bush’s approval rating is now in Carter territory, less than 30 percent
of Americans hold a positive view of the Republican Party, and
Democratic presidential candidates have overtaken the Republicans in
campaign money, votes and crowds. The Republicans’ chances of taking
Congress back from the Democrats are slim. So we can indeed reach a
short-term political judgment of George W. Bush: He is a disaster — if
not the worst president of all time, then at least the worst since
Carter, Hoover or any other recent failure.
Which is Lou Cannon saying, in so many words, to George Bush, Hr., the would-be second coming of the Great Communicator: I knew Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine, and you’re no Ronald Reagan.
Kit Stolz 