Considering that Reagan is dead, and even if he wasn't would have nothing to do with any current events in Libya or Syria, I have a tough time seeing how that's even remotely relevant. Not that the "two wrongs make a right" logic would work otherwise of course.
a mere illustration that support for US-sponsored violence requires a healthy dose of moral relativism; and that those who would back a figure such as RWR shouldn't dismiss blood and guts out of hand when them come at them from the other angle, if their line of argument is to make it past an opening paragraph.
I don't think this violates two wrongs make a right. I'm not much claiming anything is right.