|Well, Janet Albrechtsen has done it again. In her weekly installment for The Australian, she conjured up the “Gipper” and has me wishing that The New York Times would consider filling the William Safire void with a savvy Australian who wields an enlightened, yet deadly, pen.
I first stumbled across one of her columns just over two months ago. It was a great piece that I wish had filtered out of my pointy little head, for it reflected my very thoughts on outdated and exploited international law.
This latest column by Dr. Albrechtsen points out that it is not the focus of the coalition leaders to study the “flea.” They are more correctly interested in the “well being of the dog.” The journalists are enthralled by the moment, while a successful leader judges success by the bigger, more enduring picture. Dr. Albreshtsen is not graced with the countenance of various Democrat whiners of the United States on a regular basis. However, Australia has her own naysayer contingencies. In my opinion, many of these adversaries to the big picture, grab onto the “minutiae” provided it supports an emotional or tactical opposition, not to a substantive issue, but to a dislike of the other side of the aisle.
You’d be remiss to not take in this whole article; and Ronald Reagan’s theory of the Cold War. They’re both gems.
Sunny Reaganite message greets a freed people
LAST year Peter Robinson, a former speechwriter to Ronald Reagan, recounted a conversation in 1977 between Reagan and Richard Allen, who would become Reagan's first national security adviser. Reagan asked if Allen would like to hear his theory of the Cold War.
"Some people think I'm simplistic," Reagan said, "but there's a difference between being simplistic and being simple. My theory of the Cold War is that we win and they lose. What do you think about that?"