Reagan was successful. Even while the socialist Democrats applied very real pressure to stop him.
Shortly after Reagan was elected, by force, communist forces took over Grenada and the Panama Canal. Reagan went in and quickly took both tiny nations back, drove the communist forces and army’s out.
Our Democratically controlled Congress was furious!
This was before Nicaragua, and the reason Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill threatened Reagan with impeachment, if Reagan were to attempt to stop Moscow in Nicaragua!
Later however, there was so much damage done by Clinton, with so many left wing radicals purposely integrated into our intel community under Clinton, Bush Jr. was unable to ever regain control of them (the various intel agencies).
One of the big reasons, recall, Al Gore’s team (immediately after Clinton’ presidency) really did try to steal the close election from Bush Jr, and as such the liberals in Congress would not allow Bush to put in place new heads of various intel agencies. It was really bad.
When we were attacked on September 11, 2001, President Bush was still having to largely rely on Clintons intel community, as Congress had really stuck it to Bush over his election to office. Bush’s hands were truly tied!
I witnessed this first hand while deployed to several locations, while serving with the Army.
To this day, our population remains truly blind, dumb, and largely brainwashed in the truest sense, to how this has all led to where we are today!
Well do I recall!
The systemic failures of so many intelligence assessments about Iraq prior to 9/11 painted such a different picture than the Democrats so neatly reremembered just a few years later.
It was Democrats, Hillary in particular comes to mind, who talked up weapons of mass destruction because they knew it was the only way to get their base to care enough to galvanize them to support action (Bush, by contrast, spoke in Churchillian terms, of a growing threat rather than a present threat).
And why wouldn’t they? Contrary to a recent respin of things said back then Saddam’s bunch was doing everything it could to act like they had WMDs. Moreover, it was well known Clinton era assessments of Iraqi assets that said they had WMDs ... the same ones that the Bush Administration had to go by.
And other nations seem to have had similar assessments too!
But what really happened? You know, I seem to recall some high profile Democrat making a last minute trip over there who never got charged with the wrongdoing they maybe should have. Maybe my memory is faulty?
But Saddam had time (warning?) to bury important assets for later use he thought (a plan that it turned out to have been very poorly thought out, at least with respect to his best fighters) and whole convoys of stuff just mysteriously disappeared in Syria’s direction too. The Democrats? Their treacherous hides soon were pinning WMD “lies” that THEY led the charge telling on Bush. The faulty Clinton era intel became faulty Bush era intel.
(No mention, BTW, of the deleterious effects of the disregarding post Munich Olympics / Nixon-era anti-terrorism discussions *which Frank Church HAD to have known about* as well as the later Church Commission he led on our intelligence community ... no, Democrats are always deemed pure as snow even when they are as culpable as sin!)
The day after 9/11 the press found some precious, Ivy League darlings who were so mind****** by progressivism and political correctness that they couldn’t say that the terrorist were evil ... these self same idiots may well have bred and their brats could already be even dumber AntiFa twits for all I know. This is progressivism.
If I had a pile of poop come from my backside like the crap these “statesmen” on left have crapped just in my time I could never in good conscience appear in public ever again ... but they just keep on going: like some cultural Marxist version of the Energizer Bunny.