Posted on 02/25/2005 1:16:28 AM PST by Lonely Bull
Germany loves to criticize US President George W. Bush's Middle East policies -- just like Germany loved to criticize former President Ronald Reagan. But Reagan, when he demanded that Gorbachev remove the Berlin Wall, turned out to be right. Could history repeat itself?
Quick quiz. He was re-elected as president of the United States despite being largely disliked in the world -- particularly in Europe. The Europeans considered him to be a war-mongerer and liked to accuse him of allowing his deep religious beliefs to become the motor behind his foreign policy. Easy right?
Actually, the answer isn't as obvious as it might seem. President Ronald Reagan's visit to Berlin in 1987 was, in many respects, very similar to President George W. Bush's visit to Mainz on Wednesday. Like Bush's visit, Reagan's trip was likewise accompanied by unprecedented security precautions. A handpicked crowd cheered Reagan in front of the Brandenburg Gate while large parts of the Berlin subway system were shut down. And the Germany Reagan was traveling in, much like today's Germany, was very skeptical of the American president and his foreign policy. When Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate -- and the Berlin Wall -- and demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this Wall," he was lampooned the next day on the editorial pages. He is a dreamer, wrote commentators. Realpolitik looks different.
--SNIP--
Just a thought for Old Europe to chew on: Bush might be right, just like Reagan was then.
(Excerpt) Read more at service.spiegel.de ...
some people are just insane
Old Europe has a lot in common with modern day democrats.
Liberal Bush is no Reagan! Please! Bush is a big government liberal who started giving drugs to old people, has Ted Kennedy write the education bill, rebuilds the U.N. etc.
I think he will leave with a very Reagan-esque legacy. He will be the grandfather of SS reform, tax reform, democracy in the Middle East, and the world leader in the war on terrorism.
He will have left behind one hell of a legacy when he leaves office.
I have been voting for a very long time, and President Bush is the first president that I can say that I truly love.
I can never forgive President Reagan for not going after the scum that killed our Marines.
Bush's legacy will leave Reagan in the dust.
How quickly we forget what the consequences of having over 2,500 ICBMS aimed at our homes can have.
Without the support of any media in this country, faced with: a country tattered by Vietnam and Watergate, an economy the world was predicting would be a second rate power to Japan and Germany, a drug culture, a left wing Soviet loving elite, Afghanistan, Iran Hostage debacle, Soviet infiltration in Africa, Western Europe, South and Central America........etc.....etc... and he pulled us all up by the scruff of the neck and restored the American pride again. Amazingly enough he did this all, and made it seem easy and relatively painless. It was only through his vast skill and statesmanship he guided our nation back on its true course. It was not easy, and it was only painless because of his vision and sure handed leadership.
By 1985 4 years after Ronald Reagan was elected you barely new this was the same country as the one I arrived in,in 1979. As much as I admire and respect W, the legacy of Ronald Reagan will never be left in the dust by any other leader.
"We Europeans always want to have the world from yesterday, whereas the Americans strive for the world of tomorrow."
I really don't see why we need to have this competition between Reagan and Bush.
It is possible for two truly great men to co-exist on the same honored plane.
Further neither is without fault, and neither undeserving of high praise. Let's just be grateful we've had such men in modern times. Others are lucky to come across only one such figure in the span of a century. And when was the last time France had a truly remarkable leader? We're blessed.
Amen and Amen
Asking if Reagan is better than Dubya is like asking if Carter was worse than Clinton.
We are doubly blessed in that we might have had the King of Quechup as Prez.
Well said!
At that time the RATS controlled the House by a much bigger margin than the Republicans have ever had since 1995. The Vietnam sydrome was also a lot worse in 1983.
I gotta agree with mariabush on this one. George Schultz at State was pushing for a perfectly viable retaliation option, which would not have started WWII, but would have spilled some real blood. IIRC he wanted to hit a Hezbollah barracks in Lebanon or Syria. It was Cap Weinberger (much as I respect the man generally) who was the weenie and pressed for the ineffectual shelling.
Yes, dealing with terrorism was more difficult because of the Cold War, but Reagan made the wrong decision on that one, period. Strong as he was generally, there seemed to be something about terrorism and the terrorist murders/kidnappings of Americans and American troops that left him a bit shell shocked and befuddled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.