posted June 05, 2004 05:42 PM            

He died at his home in California, according to a family friend, who initially disclosed the death on condition of anonymity. The friend said the family has turned to making funeral arrangements. A formal statement from the family was expected later.

In Paris, White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said President Bush was notified of Reagan's death in Paris at about 4:10 p.m., EDT, by White House chief of staff Andy Card.

Card learned of the death from Fred Ryan, Reagan's former California chief of staff, Buchan said.

The White House was told his health had taken a turn for the worse in the last several days.

Five years after leaving office, the nation's 40th president told the world in November 1994 that he had been diagnosed with the early stages of Alzheimer's, an incurable illness that destroys brain cells. He said he had begun ''the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life.''

Reagan's body was expected to be taken to his presidential library and museum in Simi Valley, Calif., and then flown to Washington to lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda. His funeral was expected to be at the National Cathedral, an event likely to draw world leaders. The body was to be returned to California for a sunset burial at his library.

Reagan lived longer than any U.S. president, spending his last decade in the shrouded seclusion wrought by his disease, tended by his wife, Nancy, whom he called Mommy, and the select few closest to him. Now, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton are the surviving ex-presidents.

Although fiercely protective of Reagan's privacy, the former first lady let people know his mental condition had deteriorated terribly. Last month, she said: ''Ronnie's long journey has finally taken him to a distant place where I can no longer reach him.''

Reagan's oldest daughter, Maureen, from his first marriage, died in August 2001 at age 60 from cancer. Three other children survive: Michael, from his first marriage, and Patti Davis and Ron from his second.

Over two terms, from 1981 to 1989, Reagan reshaped the Republican Party in his conservative image, fixed his eye on the demise of the Soviet Union and Eastern European communism and tripled the national debt to $3 trillion in his singleminded competition with the other superpower.

Taking office at age 69, Reagan had already lived a career outside Washington, one that spanned work as a radio sports announcer, an actor, a television performer, a spokesman for the General Electric Co., and a two-term governor of California.

At the time of his retirement, his very name suggested a populist brand of conservative politics that still inspires the Republican Party.

He declared at the outset, ''Government is not the solution, it's the problem,'' although reducing that government proved harder to do in reality than in his rhetoric.

Even so, he challenged the status quo on welfare and other programs that had put government on a growth spurt ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal strengthened the federal presence in the lives of average Americans.

In foreign affairs, he built the arsenals of war while seeking and achieving arms control agreements with the Soviet Union.

In his second term, Reagan was dogged by revelations that he authorized secret arms sales to Iran while seeking Iranian aid to gain release of American hostages held in Lebanon. Some of the money was used to aid rebels fighting the leftist government of Nicaragua.

Despite the ensuing investigations, he left office in 1989 with the highest popularity rating of any retiring president in the history of modern-day public opinion polls.

That reflected, in part, his uncommon ability as a communicator and his way of connecting with ordinary Americans, even as his policies infuriated the left and as his simple verities made him the butt of jokes. ''Morning again in America'' became his re-election campaign mantra in 1984, but typified his appeal to patriotrism through both terms.

At 69, Reagan was the oldest man ever elected president when he was chosen on Nov. 4, 1980, by an unexpectedly large margin over incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter.

Near-tragedy struck on his 70th day as president. On March 30, 1981, Reagan was leaving a Washington hotel after addressing labor leaders when a young drifter, John Hinckley, fired six shots at him. A bullet lodged an inch from Reagan's heart, but he recovered.

Four years later he was re-elected by an even greater margin, carrying 49 of the 50 states in defeating Democrat Walter F. Mondale, Carter's vice president.

06/05/04 17:08 EDT

posted June 05, 2004 06:04 PM            

LOS ANGELES (June 5) - Ronald Reagan's fierce protector was there to the end.

Nancy Reagan was at the Gipper's side for a half-century in his journey from motion pictures and head of the Screen Actors Guild to California governor and president of the United States. He called her Mommy. She called him Ronnie.

She was also there as caregiver when Alzheimer's disease sapped his memory in the sunset of his life at the couple's Bel-Air home. The nation's 40th chief executive knew it would be tough on the light of his life.

"I only wish there was some way I could spare Nancy from this painful experience," Reagan wrote in his poignant November 1994 letter to the American people disclosing he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's.

When asked about the president during those declining years, Mrs. Reagan seemed to force a smile before saying simply, "He's OK." There were no details, no elaboration.

"You know that it's a progressive disease and that there's no place to go but down, no light at the end of the tunnel," she wrote in the book "I Love You, Ronnie," a collection of letters he wrote to her, published in 2000. "You get tired and frustrated, because you have no control and you feel helpless."

Yet Reagan's protector was always on the job. When he fell and broke his hip in January 2001, she was with him at the hospital night and day.

"I think the only time that they were able to get me out was they wouldn't let me in the operating room. But otherwise, I was there," she said.

Throughout their years together, Mrs. Reagan was her husband's champion, helpmate and closest adviser. Admirers and detractors alike insisted Nancy was the real power in the White House.

She laughed it off.

"This morning I had planned to clear up the U.S.-Soviet differences on intermediate-range missiles but then I decided to clear out Ronnie's sock drawer instead," she once joked with an audience.

Ronnie was always paramount.

"I make no apologies for telling him what I thought," the former first lady wrote in her 1989 book, "My Turn: The Memoirs of Nancy Reagan."

"For eight years, I was sleeping with the president, and if that doesn't give you special access, I don't know what does! So yes, I gave Ronnie my best advice whenever he asked for it, and sometimes when he didn't."

While working as an actress at MGM, she met Reagan in 1950 through an old family friend, director Mervyn LeRoy. She had gone with him with a problem - her name had been placed in an advertisement in a list of people she considered left wing. LeRoy called Reagan, the president of the Screen Actors Guild, who discovered Nancy's name had been put in the ad by mistake.

They discussed it over dinner and were married two years later, on March 4, 1952. It was her first marriage, his second. Patti was born in October and Ron six years later. Reagan had two children from his previous marriage to actress Jane Wyman, Maureen and Mike.

She and Reagan made one movie together, a 1957 World War II story called "Hellcats of the Navy."

During Reagan's final years, Mrs. Reagan and a nurse cared for him with a contingent of Secret Service agents nearby. First quietly, later publicly, she lobbied for funding for stem cell research, which could some day help fight Alzheimer's, even though many abortion opponents are against it.

"Ronnie's long journey has finally taken him to a distant place where I can no longer reach him," she said at a fund-raiser in May. "Because of this, I'm determined to do whatever I can to save other families from this pain. I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this."

She ventured frequently to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, some 60 miles away, to autograph copies of her book or attend speeches and seminars.

She was glamorous and gracious on those occasions. And she always forced that smile when asked about Ronnie.

Once, pausing at a gallery of photos in a Century Plaza Hotel suite dedicated to Reagan, she smiled widely when she spotted a picture of them floating in their canoe Tru Luv in the pond the president built at their mountaintop ranch north of Santa Barbara.

"I'm old-fashioned, I know, but I thought it would be so romantic if he was playing a ukulele," Mrs. Reagan said, recalling the photo taken on their 25th wedding anniversary.

"I don't have a ukulele," Reagan told her that day.

"I said, 'That's OK, you can hum."'

"We've had an extraordinary life ... but the other side of the coin is that it makes it harder," she wrote in "I Love You, Ronnie." "There are so many memories that I can no longer share, which makes it very difficult. When it comes right down to it, you're in it alone. Each day is different, and you get up, put one foot in front of the other, and go - and love; just love."

06/05/04 16:57 EDT

posted June 05, 2004 06:25 PM            

Then I turned on the TV and saw the news. It was heart breaking. I have always admired Ronald Reagan - especially growing up in California. When I was a little girl I would stay up late to watch the old black and white movies with Reagan...LOL..I had a crush on him - I was so proud when he became president.

posted June 05, 2004 07:25 PM            

--------------------------------------------

Iran-Contra Affair
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In the Iran-Contra Affair, United States President Ronald Reagan's administration secretly sold arms to Iran, which was engaged in a bloody war with its neighbor Iraq from 1980 to 1988 (see Iran-Iraq War), and diverted the proceeds to the Contra rebels fighting to overthrow the leftist democratically-elected Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Those sales thus had a dual goal: appeasing Iran, which held American hostages and supported bombings in Western European countries, and funding an anti-Communist guerilla war.

Both actions were contrary to acts of Congress which prohibited the sale of weapons to Iran, as well as in violation of UN sanctions.

The Israeli government approached the United States in August 1985 with a proposal to act as an intermediary by shipping 508 American-made TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran in exchange for the release of the Reverend Benjamin Weir, an American hostage being held by Iranian sympathizers in Lebanon, with the understanding that the United States would then ship replacement missiles to Israel. Robert McFarlane, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, approached United States Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and arranged the details. The transfer took place over the next two months.

In November, there was another round of negotiations, where the Israelis proposed to ship Iran 500 HAWK anti-aircraft missiles in exchange for the release of all remaining American hostages being held in Lebanon. General Colin Powell attempted to procure the missiles, but realized that the deal would require Congressional notification as its overall value exceeded $14 million. McFarlane responded that the President had decided to conduct the sale anyway. Israel sent an initial shipment of 18 missiles to Iran in late November, but the Iranians didn't approve of the missiles, and further shipments were halted. Negotiations continued with the Israelis and Iranians over the next few months.

In January of 1986, Reagan allegedly approved a plan whereby an American intermediary, rather than Israel, would sell arms to Iran in exchange for the release of the hostages, with profits funnelled to the Contras. In February, 1,000 TOW missiles were shipped to Iran. From May to November, there were additional shipments of miscellaneous weapons and parts.

The proceeds from the arms sales were diverted, via Colonel Oliver North, aide to the U.S. National Security Advisor John Poindexter, to provide arms for the Contras (from Spanish contrarevolucionario, "counter-revolutionary"). The Sandinistas' eventual loss of power in the 1990 national election was seen by some as stemming from U.S. support for the contras as well as the effects of a U.S. trade embargo initiated in May 1985.

The U.S. accused the Sandinistas of being backed by the Soviet Union and Cuba, and of supporting in turn left-wing rebels against the U.S.-backed government in El Salvador, scene of a destructive civil war throughout the 1980s. In 1985, the Sandinista movement claimed a majority in elections validated by other independent observers from Western democracies as having been fair and free, but the Reagan administration rejected the election as fraudulent.

Many conservatives agreed with Reagan and ignored the findings of these international observers, comparing the election to one-candidate "elections" in communist countries, although six parties ran against the Sandinistas in that election, winning 35 of 96 seats in the national legislature.

The Reagan administration, contrary to acts of Congress (specifically the 1982-1983 Boland Amendment), ferried funds and weaponry to the Contras gained by the sale of arms to Iran. The Contras, led by former members of the National Guard of the overthrown Somoza regime (1936-1979) received weapons and training from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, especially in guerrilla tactics such as destroying infrastructural elements and assassination.

In November of 1986, the first public allegations of the weapons-for-hostages deal surfaced when on November 3 the Lebanese magazine Ash-Shiraa reported that the United States had been selling weapons to Iran in secret in order to secure the release of seven American hostages held by pro-Iranian groups in Lebanon. The clandestine operation was discovered only after an airlift of guns was downed over Nicaragua. National Security Council member Oliver North and his secretary on November 21 started to shred documents implicating them and others in the scandal. US Attorney General Edwin Meese on November 25 admitted that profits from covert weapons sales to Iran were illegally diverted to the anti-communist Contra rebels in Nicaragua.

Faced with mounting pressure, Reagan on November 26 announced that as of December 1 former Senator John Tower, former Secretary of State Edmund Muskie, and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft will be serving as members of a Special Review Board looking into the scandal (this Presidential Commission became known as the Tower Commission). Reagan claimed he had not been informed of the operation Despite a January 1, 1986 entry in Reagan's personal diary that stated "I agreed to sell TOWs to Iran," the Tower Commission, which implicated North, Poindexter, and Weinberger, amongst others, could not conclusively determine the degree of Reagan's involvement. Nevertheless on February 26, 1987 the Tower Commission rebuked President Reagan for not controlling his national security staff.

The United States Congress then on November 18, 1987 issued its final report on the affair, which stated that Reagan bore "ultimate responsibility" for wrongdoing by his aides and his administration exhibited "secrecy, deception, and disdain for the law." Oliver North and John Poindexter were indicted on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States on March 16, 1988. North was convicted of three charges which were eventually vacated upon appeal. Poindexter was convicted on several felony counts of lying to Congress, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and altering and destroying documents pertinent to the investigation. He avoided jail time due to a legal technicality.

Some claim there is also evidence that the CIA and perhaps other parts of the US government may have been involved with drug trafficking to raise money for the Contra campaign. The 1988 report from the Senate Subcommittee on Narcotics, Terrorism and International Operations concluded that various individuals in the Contra movement were involved in drug trafficking, that other drug traffickers provided assistance to the Contras, and that "there are some serious questions as to whether or not US officials involved in Central America failed to address the drug issue for fear of jeopardizing the war effort against Nicaragua." At a minimum, Oliver North's notebooks indicate that he was informed repeatedly of Contra involvement in drug trafficking, and there is no record of his passing this information along to the DEA.

In (June 27, 1986) the International Court of Justice (also known as the World Court) ruled in favour of Nicaragua in the case of "Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua". The U.S. refused to pay restitution and simply claimed that the ICJ was not competent for the case, and subsequently vetoed a United Nations Security Council Resolution calling on all states to obey international law. The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r031.htm) in order to pressure the U.S. to pay the fine. Only El Salvador, which also had disputes with Nicaragua (and was run by a US-backed right wing military dictatorship), and Israel (which receives US$4 billion a year in aid from the US) voted with the U.S. The money still has not been paid.

The Sandinistas lost power in fresh elections in February 1990, following a decade of U.S. economic and military pressure.

The Iran-Contra Affair is significant because it brought many questions into public view:

Does the president have unconditional authority to conduct foreign policy? (Can the president approve selling arms to a foreign nation without congressional approval?)
What information does the president have to provide to Congress and when should that information be supplied? (Does the president have to tell Congress about foreign policy initiatives?)
What authority, if any, does Congress have to oversee functions of the executive branch? (Does funding for foreign policy initiatives have to be approved by Congress? Who defines the entire spending budget and who regulates it?)
What role does the Supreme Court have in deciding conflicts between the legislative branch and executive branch?
How much support is America entitled to provide to armed opposition forces seeking to replace a government it does not support with one that it does?
Most, if not all, of the constitutional and ethical questions are still unresolved. On one view, it appears that if the legislative and executive branches do not wish to work together, there are no legal remedies. These are transient issues in that each of the executive and legislative branches change every few years.

There's more to add here, particularly on the political impact of the scandal on Reagan's presidency. It won't do simply to say "it was damaging"; it's obviously more complicated than that.

--------------------------------------------

With this, it is the "green light" into what we have today as terrorism and Twiggy's WMDs excuse!

posted June 05, 2004 07:53 PM            

The words I have for you would get me booted. Needless to say, he was 100,000,000,000 times the man you'll ever be.

God bless Ronnie.

posted June 05, 2004 08:32 PM            

Reagan took some heat for it, for no reason, but to destroy a dictatorship, just to have new one's grow from it,was at point "brewing from the mists" of things.

posted June 06, 2004 01:12 AM            

A great man who was also a great President of the Unites States has passed and that's enough sadness for the day.

posted June 06, 2004 07:48 AM            

They took some real blows for using an Astrologer and never backed down. They showed a protestant America one can still be a ethical/moral person who believes in God and utilize the ancient science of Astrology.

I admired them individually and as a moral couple that lead by example.

posted June 06, 2004 07:52 AM            

It's funny how you manage not to appreciate some of that "breaking of bread" towards what opposition would have to state. I could of hit it on a more sour note if I wanted to, even if it would have not been what I felt!

posted June 06, 2004 09:36 AM            

Like I said, I paid my respects towards the man,which is alot better then what others are saying about him(out there in the internet),so get off my back about it!

posted June 07, 2004 08:53 PM            

This is the 34th time I'll speak to you from the Oval Office and the last. We've been together eight years now, and soon it'll be time for me to go. But before I do, I wanted to share some thoughts, some of which I've been saving for a long time.

It's been the honor of my life to be your President. So many of you have written the past few weeks to say thanks, but I could say as much to you. Nancy and I are grateful for the opportunity you gave us to serve.

One of the things about the Presidency is that you're always somewhat apart. You spent a lot of time going by too fast in a car someone else is driving, and seeing the people through tinted glass — the parents holding up a child, and the wave you saw too late and couldn't return. And so many times I wanted to stop and reach out from behind the glass, and connect. Well, maybe I can do a little of that tonight.

People ask how I feel about leaving. And the fact is, `parting is such sweet sorrow.' The sweet part is California and the ranch and freedom. The sorrow — the goodbyes, of course, and leaving this beautiful place.

You know, down the hall and up the stairs from this office is the part of the White House where the President and his family live. There are a few favorite windows I have up there that I like to stand and look out of early in the morning. The view is over the grounds here to the Washington Monument, and then the Mall and the Jefferson Memorial. But on mornings when the humidity is low, you can see past the Jefferson to the river, the Potomac, and the Virginia shore. Someone said that's the view Lincoln had when he saw the smoke rising from the Battle of Bull Run. I see more prosaic things: the grass on the banks, the morning traffic as people make their way to work, now and then a sailboat on the river.

I've been thinking a bit at that window. I've been reflecting on what the past eight years have meant and mean. And the image that comes to mind like a refrain is a nautical one — a small story about a big ship, and a refugee, and a sailor. It was back in the early eighties, at the height of the boat people.

And the sailor was hard at work on the carrier Midway, which was patrolling the South China Sea. The sailor, like most American servicemen, was young, smart, and fiercely observant. The crew spied on the horizon a leaky little boat. And crammed inside were refugees from Indochina hoping to get to America. The Midway sent a small launch to bring them to the ship and safety. As the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one spied the sailor on deck, and stood up, and called out to him. He yelled, `Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom man.'

A small moment with a big meaning, a moment the sailor, who wrote it in a letter, couldn't get out of his mind. And, when I saw it, neither could I. Because that's what it was to be an American in the 1980's. We stood, again, for freedom. I know we always have, but in the past few years the world again — and in a way, we ourselves — rediscovered it.

It's been quite a journey this decade, and we held together through some stormy seas. And at the end, together, we are reaching our destination.

The fact is, from Grenada to the Washington and Moscow summits, from the recession of '81 to '82, to the expansion that began in late '82 and continues to this day, we've made a difference. The way I see it, there were two great triumphs, two things that I'm proudest of. One is the economic recovery, in which the people of America created — and filled — 19 million new jobs. The other is the recovery of our morale. America is respected again in the world and looked to for leadership.

Something that happened to me a few years ago reflects some of this. It was back in 1981, and I was attending my first big economic summit, which was held that year in Canada. The meeting place rotates among the member countries. The opening meeting was a formal dinner of the heads of goverment of the seven industrialized nations. Now, I sat there like the new kid in school and listened, and it was all Francois this and Helmut that.

They dropped titles and spoke to one another on a first-name basis. Well, at one point I sort of leaned in and said, 'My name's Ron.' Well, in that same year, we began the actions we felt would ignite an economic comeback — cut taxes and regulation, started to cut spending. And soon the recovery began.

Two years later, another economic summit with pretty much the same cast. At the big opening meeting we all got together, and all of a sudden, just for a moment, I saw that everyone was just sitting there looking at me. And then one of them broke the silence. 'Tell us about the American miracle,' he said.

Well, back in 1980, when I was running for President, it was all so different. Some pundits said our programs would result in catastrophe. Our views on foreign affairs would cause war. Our plans for the economy would cause inflation to soar and bring about economic collapse. I even remember one highly respected economist saying, back in 1982, that `The engines of economic growth have shut down here, and they're likely to stay that way for years to come.' Well, he and the other opinion leaders were wrong. The fact is what they call `radical' was really `right.' What they called `dangerous' was just `desperately needed.'

And in all of that time I won a nickname, `The Great Communicator.' But I never though it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: it was the content. I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation--from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I'll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.

Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will produce less of it. So, we cut the people's tax rates, and the people produced more than ever before. The economy bloomed like a plant that had been cut back and could now grow quicker and stronger.

Our economic program brought about the longest peacetime expansion in our history: real family income up, the poverty rate down, entrepreneurship booming, and an explosion in research and new technology. We're exporting more than ever because American industry because more competitive and at the same time, we summoned the national will to knock down protectionist walls abroad instead of erecting them at home.

Common sense also told us that to preserve the peace, we'd have to become strong again after years of weakness and confusion. So, we rebuilt our defenses, and this New Year we toasted the new peacefulness around the globe. Not only have the superpowers actually begun to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons — and hope for even more progress is bright — but the regional conflicts that rack the globe are also beginning to cease. The Persian Gulf is no longer a war zone. The Soviets are leaving Afghanistan. The Vietnamese are preparing to pull out of Cambodia, and an American-mediated accord will soon send 50,000 Cuban troops home from Angola.

The lesson of all this was, of course, that because we're a great nation, our challenges seem complex. It will always be this way. But as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours. And something else we learned: Once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it will end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world.

Countries across the globe are turning to free markets and free speech and turning away from the ideologies of the past. For them, the great rediscovery of the 1980's has been that, lo and behold, the moral way of government is the practical way of government: Democracy, the profoundly good, is also the profoundly productive.

When you've got to the point when you can celebrate the anniversaries of your 39th birthday you can sit back sometimes, review your life, and see it flowing before you. For me there was a fork in the river, and it was right in the middle of my life. I never meant to go into politics. It wasn't my intention when I was young. But I was raised to believe you had to pay your way for the blessings bestowed on you. I was happy with my career in the entertainment world, but I ultimately went into politics because I wanted to protect something precious.

Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: `We the People.' `We the People' tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us. `We the People' are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are.

Our Constitution is a document in which `We the People' tell the government what it is allowed to do. `We the People' are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past eight years.

But back in the 1960's, when I began, it seemed to me that we'd begun reversing the order of things--that through more and more rules and regulations and confiscatory taxes, the government was taking more of our money, more of our options, and more of our freedom. I went into politics in part to put up my hand and say, `Stop.' I was a citizen politician, and it seemed the right thing for a citizen to do.

I think we have stopped a lot of what needed stopping. And I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.

Nothing is less free than pure communism — and yet we have, the past few years, forged a satisfying new closeness with the Soviet Union. I've been asked if this isn't a gamble, and my answer is no because we're basing our actions not on words but deeds. The detente of the 1970's was based not on actions but promises. They'd promise to treat their own people and the people of the world better. But the gulag was still the < i>gulag, and the state was still expansionist, and they still waged proxy wars in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Well, this time, so far, it's different. President Gorbachev has brought about some internal democratic reforms and begun the withdrawal from Afghanistan. He has also freed prisoners whose names I've given him every time we've met.

But life has a way of reminding you of big things through small incidents. Once, during the heady days of the Moscow summit, Nancy and I decided to break off from the entourage one afternoon to visit the shops on Arbat Street — that's a little street just off Moscow's main shopping area. Even though our visit was a surprise, every Russian there immediately recognized us and called out our names and reached for our hands.

We were just about swept away by the warmth. You could almost feel the possibilities in all that joy. But within seconds, a KGB detail pushed their way toward us and began pushing and shoving the people in the crowd. It was an interesting moment. It reminded me that while the man on the street in the Soviet Union yearns for peace, the government is Communist. And those who run it are Communists, and that means we and they view such issues as freedom and human rights very differently.

We must keep up our guard, but we must also continue to work together to lessen and eliminate tension and mistrust. My view is that President Gorbachev is different from previous Soviet leaders. I think he knows some of the things wrong with his society and is trying to fix them. We wish him well. And we'll continue to work to make sure that the Soviet Union that eventually emerges from this process is a less threatening one. What it all boils down to is this: I want the new closeness to continue.

And it will, as long as we make it clear that we will continue to act in a certain way as long as they continue to act in a helpful manner. If and when they don't, at first pull your punches. If they persist, pull the plug. It's still trust by verify. It's still play, but cut the cards. It's still watch closely. And don't be afraid to see what you see.

I've been asked if I have any regrets. Well, I do.The deficit is one. I've been talking a great deal about that lately, but tonight isn't for arguments, and I'm going to hold my tongue. But an observation: I've had my share of victories in the Congress, but what few people noticed is that I never won anything you didn't win for me. They never saw my troops, they never saw Reagan's regiments, the American people. You won every battle with every call you made and letter you wrote demanding action. Well, action is still needed. If we're to finish the job. Reagan's regiments will have to become the Bush brigades. Soon he'll be the chief, and he'll need you every bit as much as I did.

Finally, there is a great tradition of warnings in Presidential farewells, and I've got one that's been on my mind for some time. But oddly enough it starts with one of the things I'm proudest of in the past eight years: the resurgence of national pride that I called the new patriotism. This national feeling is good, but it won't count for much, and it won't last unless it's grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge.

An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions.

If you didn't get these things from your family you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed you could get a sense of patriotism from the popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-sixties.

But now, we're about to enter the nineties, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinstitutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs production [protection].

So, we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important--why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, 4 years ago on the 40th anniversary of D-day, I read a letter from a young woman writing to her late father, who'd fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, `we will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did.' Well, let's help her keep her word.

If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual.

And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.

And that's about all I have to say tonight, except for one thing. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the `shining city upon a hill.' The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.

And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

We've done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for eight years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger, we made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.

And so, goodbye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

06-05-04 20:33 EDT

posted June 08, 2004 12:07 AM            

It's hard to compare Presidents. It seems each faces different challenges as the world evolves but if they are judged for success on the job, RR will be judged by historians as one of the most effective Presidents we've ever had.

Ronald Reagan believed in the American people, not government. He believed what he said, lived it and changed the world as we knew it and for the better.

So, let it no more be heard that one person cannot make a difference.

posted June 08, 2004 12:36 AM              

A law was made a distant moon ago here
July and August can not be too hot
And there's a legal limit to the snow here
in Camelot

The snow may never fall until December
And exits March the 2nd on the dot
By order summer lingers through September
in Camelot

posted June 08, 2004 02:31 AM            

May God set all your sights, to bright and shiney honor, Mr. President!

*tears running down cheaks*

posted June 08, 2004 03:10 AM            

I and the rest of us(I will remember for you)!

"All in all, not bad, not bad at all!"