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.
Truman is not even in the top 10 presidents.
He never makes it on polls or surveys (99% of the time it is the same 10 over and over) but most historians, across the political spectrum, rate Truman very positively.
It is stunning to me how the exact same groups that squealed like little piggies about President Reagan "going soft and selling out" in his second term are squealing like little piggies about President Bush "going soft and selling out" in his second term.
Do we have disagreements with this President? Of course. All of us have disagreements with every President—some more than others. But those that refuse to pay attention and learn from the past will end up being just as irrelevant in the future.
Fortunately, both President Reagan and President Bush are not those kind of leaders.
And it will not matter...much in the same way it does not matter with President Reagan.
I'm witchoo.
attaboy!
Someone has been paying attention to history ping
Since the article uses the comparison that Bush is the next Reagan...
I would think that for those that hate his stance, would REALLY see the comparison, correct?
Gag me....
I bet if Free Republic had been around during Reagan's presidency there would have been as many, if not more posts like yours, about him...
Thanks for the ping..Mo1!
***Someone has been paying attention to history ping***
That's the problem with history, by the time we read it, it's too late. Too bad we can't get hold of a few history books from fifty years or so in the future. Maybe THAT would shut up the naysayers.
To all: PRAY for our brave President.
The mythogrification of Reagan has reached the stage of demi-god...which is preposterous. How old were you when Reagan was president? Have you any idea as to how low Reagan's poll numbers were in his second term or how many "purist" conservatives were howling for his head, even during in his first term and saying that Reagan was "NO CONSERVATIVE" ?
And FWIW........Harry Truman, who most historians now claim was a fantastic president ( go figure ), had even lower favorable poll numbers.
From your lips to God's ears.
We should heed the words of Ronald Reagan about his experience with a needless and mistaken military occupation of Lebanon. Sending troops into Lebanon seemed like a good idea in 1983, but in 1990 President Reagan said this in his memoirs:
"…we did not appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle…In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave…yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there."
Actually, Reagan sowed the seeds of Muslim terrorism by not taking down Hezbollah after the murder of 240 Marines in Lebanon in 1983.
Bush has stood up to terrorism; in this, he is greater, by far, than Reagan.
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.