Posted on 06/04/2006 2:24:14 PM PDT by nuconvert
Bush is the Next Reagan
Jun 4, 2006
Slater Bakhtavar - Persian Journal
The same people who heavily criticized former President Reagan for his tough stance against Communism and for his aggressive push for democracy in Eastern Europe are now attacking President Bush for his tough stance against fundamentalism and his aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East.
-They argued then that Communism would never fall - it did They argue now that Islamic Fundamentalism will never fall - it will
-They argued then that the Soviet Union is too strong - it wasn't
They argue now that the insurgency is too strong - it isn't
-They argued that Reagans vision of democracy in East Europe would never work - it did
They argue now that Bushs vision of democracy for the mid-east would never work - it will
They argued then that Reagans evil empire speech was a failure - it wasn't
They argue now that Bushs axis of evil speech is a failure - it won't be
-They argued then that former soviet bloc countries wouldn't embrace democracy - they did
They argue now that middle east countries would never embrace democracy - they will
-They argued then that Eastern Europeans nations would never be our allies - they are
They argue now that middle eastern countries will never be our allies - they will be
-They argued then that people without God could never embrace democracy - they did
They argue now that Muslims will never embrace democracy - they will
-They argued then that President Reagan was unrealistic - he wasn't
They argue now that President Bush is unrealistic - he'll prove he isn't
-They argued then democracy isn't universal to former Communists - it was
They argue now democracy isn't universal to Middle Easterners - it will be
-They argued then that funding of pro-democracy groups in Eastern European countries won't work - it did
They argue now that funding of pro-democracy groups won't work in the Middle East - it will
The same exact critcism was directed at Reagan. The future will be the judge of President Bush and my guess is that he will be judged as the Great Liberator of the Middle East.
When your plan is to rush to Baghdad, regardless of enemy threatening your supply lines, that's disregarding sound military advice. So when the 5th Corps Commander LTG Wallace wanted to halt the march on Baghdad to deal with the Fedayeen, he should have been allowed to do so. Instead, he was threatened with being relieved. So, the Fedayeen were allowed to live to fight another day. Colin Powell, and I don't know if you consider him competent to discuss military matters, said "The commander in the field is always right and the rear echelon is wrong, unless proved otherwise." More sound advice that has been ignored.
Lets not forget bypassing enemy ammo dumps that should have been guarded or destroyed in place. These have supplied an endless amount of ammo for these Fedayeen that should have been killed, but for Rumsfeld's "blitzkrieg.". Powell also said that you go to war with overwhelming force and a clear exit strategy. We did neither in Iraq. But again, I don't know if you would consider Powell competent in military matters.
Should I mention having insufficent force to secure the borders and prevent more enemy from entering the country?
Let me know if you see anything that is not true....
Just FYI, it doesn't bother me that you infer I'm a leftist for refusing to drink the kool-aid.
You're so much more pleasant to read since you started using spellcheck and learned how to capitalize letters.
Because people like you have turned your backs on him...there are those who don't agree with him on every issue that recognise that is not possible. We support his vision, we see what he is trying to occomplish and it is nothing short of world history changing.
Well....it isn't just me...it is people at some of the think tanks..
I will agree with you that this isn't new...that radical (all?) Islam has had their goal of controlling all of the world for centuries...
BUT, why now? and why Bin Ladin?
Maybe, because IN HIS OWN WORDS, he saw that America doesn't fight to win, ever since the Vietnam War....thank you John F'n Kerry.
President Reagan freed a half billion people from tyranny, President Bush has only freed 70 million. Still GW is more like Reagan than his dad. I like them both.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
This is a pretty good polemical paragraph. You are getting pretty good at this game. No, I don't agree with most of it, but I don't disagree with all of it. Among other things, setting performance standards for schools was an absolute necessity, and it becomes more so, as time goes by, and all those talented Chinese and Indians, become competitors. SCOTUS did not think Bush trashed the first amendment, and frankly, campaign finance is still a sewer. I have the Torie plan, but alas, that plan gets zero support on this site. So, we will just have to live with being a multi millionarie being a job prerequisite for the Senate, with lobbyists buying everything in sight. And so it goes.
The naysayers WILL continue to be Bushbashers, until, all of a sudden, a few years hence, they WILL be claiming how very mush they loved him, how hard they worked to get him elected and how CONSERVATIVE he was. That's why they should just be ignored; now.
Real Annual Growth Rate of Non-defense and Non-Homeland Security Outlays by President:
Johnson +4.1%
Nixon +5.0%
Carter +1.6%
Reagan - 1.4%
Bush 41 +3.8%
Clinton +2.1%
Bush 43 +4.8%
No, history will grade Reagan much higher
In other words, he was reviling in others, the very thing that YOU did, even using the same comparison of speech.
For some say, "His letters are weighty and foreceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing."
In other words, your slamming President Bush for his speaking is precisely what Paul was saying was wrong with what others were doing. Our measure is who we are in Christ, not how eloquently we speak.
And if you are saying that President Bush is lacking what President Reagan had in spiritual strength, I would say first, that you are in no position to do that, and second, if one would judge only by the observable, the opposite might well be true.
Don't play the game of using Scripture (or misusing, as you did in this case) to back up your politics, EV. You're on dangerous ground.
Oh, dear, you used the phrase "spend money like a drunken sailor"...
THAT is the redlight phrase that pays!!!
Yeppers, that red light means that you are getting your talking points from the LEFT....the LIBS..the LOONEYS.
And you posts are to be disregarded.
If you put aside everything else, on fiscal policy, a Dem president with a Pubbie congress is the ticket. That is just how politics works.
Oh.....yeah.....feel good sycophancy like you have for Reagan?
The MSM treated Reagan the same way as they do this president Bush. Twas ever thus. Slick Willie could do no wrong, President Bush can't do anything right.
The deficit is going down, thanks to Bush's tax cuts. LBJ never cut taxes; that was Kennedy. There would be no inflation today if gasoline prices were factored out.
Leaving out defense spending is disingenous, and you know it. Reagan never cut spending and agreed to four tax increases.
They do have some like characteristics.. 180 degrees out from each other..
20 "plus" million brand new democrats(amnesty) helps the republican party HOW?..
No, I am a conservative who is an issue based voter. I don't drink the koolaid and defend for the sake of Republican.
I must not be alone. A large chunk of conservatives are running as well.
In November, Im afraid you will see how his policies have divided this party.
Reagan united the base. Bush's policies has divided the base.
SECURE THE BORDERS. BUILD A WALL>
Takes about ten years. Just wait...
I don't like what W is proposing for the borders, but I haven't forgotten how much political capital he has spent wisely and done well with:
1. Tax cuts that rejuvenated our business capacity as a country and has brought a huge boom through what wouldt have been a much harder time.
2. He brought back pride to our military and continues to increase spending there, and don't kid yourself, the younguns in Iraq and Afghanistan love the man.
3. His court appointments have been great, actually better than Reagan's.
4. He has managed the WOT very well, against a horrendous press and a horrible traitorous minority party.
5. Without his speeches and tough action after 911 we simply couldn't have continued as a great nation. We would have whimpered out with most so called leaders in his stead.
6. Without his determination to hunt down the AQ bastards we would likely have been hit many more times. Think of how much capital he has had to spend daily going against the false charges, the Dem cheap shots, the lies of the MSM, yet we have been hit zero, yep zero times since then with an enemy who wants to hit us every day, and we are beating the crap out of them. If you had said we wouldn't have another terrorist strike to me 5 years since 911 on October 1, 2001, I would have said you were crazy.
Okay.....that was a quick list, there is more, lots more, but you seem to have forgotten everything over the border......
Sad. Very sad.
Actually, I see some folks' seeming need to tear down Reagan to try and somehow make the current President look better as a sign of real desperation.
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.