President Reagan had an effect on us all.  Not all of us hold him in the god-like esteem that he seems to have obtained over the years, but of course if you cannot say anything nice, and being respectful, now is certainly not the time to dredge up old grievances or rehash ancient debates.  Reagan, above all, loved his country, and never hesitated to act for what he believed was the betterment of us all, here and throughout the world.

I am positive that George W. Bush (43) sees himself as a continuation of the Reagan legacy.  As much as I disagreed with so many of Reagan's policy decisions, I had a grudging respect for old Ronnie, the way he could turn a phrase, his presence and the dedication of his followers. I was equally uncomfortable with George H. W. Bush's (41) policies at times, but I had even more respect for him in his mastery of foreign affairs, life-long service to this country, and just plain competence.

Our current President is not qualified to shine Reagan's cowboy boots in his ability to lead or to speak, let alone come up with an original idea and following through in a way that was designed to benefit us all as opposed to merely looking good for reelection.  As for a comparison to his father, it stops at the name. 

D-Day and Reagan's passing remind us of the greatest struggles of the twentieth century.  In one 24 hour period we can celebrate our victories against the Nazis and Commies, while commemorating those who sacrificed so much to bring us a world that is safer with those threats eliminated.

Or is it?

POTUS has been invoking memories of WWII and comparing them to our conflict against terror.  The analogy is forced and seems as contrived as claims of Nigerian yellow-cake uranium hidden in Saddam's spider hole.  As Tom Regan said so well in the Christian Science Monitor, the War on Terror isn't a replay of the struggle against the Nazi's any more than than it is another Vietnam, although the lessons of each can in some ways be applied to Iraq.   

His analysis of the failure of current events to equal the WWII is not exhaustive, nor is it meant to be, any more than William Greider's comparison last April of Vietnam and the "little Tet" of the Iraqi insurrection of which he complains.  However, Greider's latest article, paints with a broader brush and judging by Tom Regan's meek glance at the subject of not just Iraq, but the whole War on Terror being akin to the Cold War, tells me that  Greider just might be on to something. 

Tom Regan mentions it, but fails to connect the dots like Greider.  POTUS wants to be just like Dad and Uncle Ronnie, but he didn't have an enemy.  What is as tragic as his failure to even be a quarter of the president his two republican predecessors were, who tried to put an end to conflict.  POTUS, in his quest for a strong image and heroic legacy, went out of his way to create an ideological conflict on a grand scale where only a minor irritant grew before. 

Where we were reluctant warriors in WWII, only engaging after a prolonged debate and then having been attacked, and like WWII and George H.W.Bush's (41) Iraq war, the cold war was won in consort with a plethora of allies, we have behaved exactly in the opposite manner that Reagan or Bush Sr. or even Roosevelt and Churchill would have advised: alone and impetuously.