1979 Revisited

Islamic radicals storming an American embassy. A feckless, out-of-touch liberal in the White House. A crumbling economy.

At least in 1979 the music was better. Oh, if you live in a country bordering on Russia you might want to pack your bags.

No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)


  1. Jack:

    Saw this posted on Facebook by a staunchly Libertarian friend. It’s an article from Reason and they are certainly not supporters of Obama but they have a completely different take on these current events than you do. Check it out and tell me what you think:


  2. Scott Kirwin:

    “Only Nixon could go to China.”
    The article failed to mention the Lebanon Barracks Attack that killed 242 US marines. My wife was working at US Navy Headquarters that day when the cable came through. We ended up lobbing a few shells into the Bakaa Valley and getting our asses out of Lebanon. It was far from Reagan’s finest hour.

    But only Nixon could go to China. Conservatives trusted Reagan on Foreign Policy, so he had latitude to appear dovish on certain issues. Obama does not. It’s similar to Romney’s social positions with Democrats. His positions on health care are very liberal, and received praise from the Democrats while he was in office. But do the Democrats trust him on this issue? No. In the case of social issues, only a Clinton can introduce workfare…

    Obama’s foreign policy failures have more to do with execution than policy. He has continued Bush’s foreign policy in many respects, but undercut his own position in Afghanistan by announcing a firm withdrawal date. Similarly his failure to engage the Iraqis to allow a continued US presence in the country placated his base but at the cost of increased instability and enhanced Iranian hegemony. Both positions also gave the appearance of weakness, which has been a key component of jihadi anti-US rhetoric for decades, e.g. Bin Laden’s characterization of the USA as “a weak horse.”

    UPDATE: I might add that I’ve given some thought to a leftist waging war against America’s enemies. There are some practical benefits, namely the silence and media ignorance of the anti-war Left. Code Pink and crew haven’t gone away, but they’ve received much less attention under a liberal president than they would under a conservative one.

  3. Jack:


    You must read too fast, my friend! đŸ˜€ The article does mention the Lebanon barracks attack. Last sentence in the 14th paragraph: “A barracks in Beirut was blown up, killing 241 American military personnel.” (The article says 241, you state 242, but I’m sure it’s referencing the same event.)

    Anyway, the point of the article is pretty clear. After mentioning some violent attacks on American Embassies while Bush was president, it states: “Those are not proof that Bush was weak or even wrong in his foreign policy. They are proof that the president of the United States is not the Lord of the Universe. Even if he does everything right, nasty developments will ensue.”

    I think it was pretty balanced and makes a fair case that almost anything can happen on any president’s watch.


  4. Scott Kirwin:

    It’s the ADD. I read the article but completely missed that, probably because I was distracted because 1/2 my mind was on work. And you’re right: it is 241, but 242 is easier to remember.
    And you’re right. The article is balanced, but I’m a big fan of Reason magazine being that I’m at heart a libertarian (just not a Libertarian – those guys are weird… :P)

Leave a comment