From your keyboard to God's monitor!
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.
A dog catcher could beat Mondale. Mondale was a stupe.
The answer to that is that Free Republic USED to be a truly conservative site, and the owner of the site stated that long ago. Lately it has turned into a Bush worship site, a Republican-at-any-cost site, and anyone disagreeing with the current occupant of the White House is branded a troll or a racist, and is told to get lost.
A site without differing opinions is simply a bunch of sycophants patting each other on the back. Is this the new aim of Free Republic.com?
He gets his points across. That's all that matters.
More than likely, they're over there now.
glad to know someone else understands.
I mentioned the problem with the Canadian border a few days ago - I remember the night , way back when Qaddafi was trying to get agents across the border into Maine one night - we were headed up to see then Vice Pres G.H.W. Bush - and a bulletin came over the radio that Qaddafi had sent agents to assassinate him. (they didn't get thru.)
Then there the guy caught at the Canada/Washington border with a trunk full of exlposives meant for the LA airport...
And Mohamed Attar and his partner came in thru the Canadian/Maine border...stopped in Brunswick for dinner and booze and scope out the Naval Air Base before catching the plane in Portland on 9-11.
However, I was swiftly flamed by freepers
Except that Bush is not Reagan. And I say this as a "bushbot."
You've got an American paradigm. Think of it this way. Kindergarten class. Boys hate the girls and vice versa. They all vote themselves free ice cream and all day recess, but they still don't like each other. Democracy.
What Bush's vision screws up is the focus on democracy -instead- of rightly focusing on "individual liberty" and freedom. THOSE -are- indeed incompatible with Islam.
Democracy per se works fine with Islam-- One Man. One vote. One time.
From your keyboard to God's monitor!
No, he didn't. President Reagan took down the Soviet Union, but did not win the Cold War.
The two are entirely separate issues in all honesty.
All I can say is, you must have been wearing blinders in the past.
I wasn't a fan of his stance on Mexico and immigration in 2000, any more than I am now. He hasn't changed.
I'm still glad I voted for him and I'm glad he's the President.
I can't imagine anyone else getting us thru these past years since 9/11.
You gotta admire a guy who consolidates 11 programs and then brings in the faith-based crowd. At least I do. Did you know that they eliminated 90 duplicative or failing programs last year. There are another 125 on the block this year.
Why don't you just get up and get a refill. Your glass is half empty. Or, maybe there is a pliable functionary (not to be confused with amily members) who could bring it to you.
Now, that is a comment that interests me. "You debate like a dem....you hypothesize and when you are questioned about something you said, you parse the words to make them fit into your theory.." I have noticed that liberals do tend to argue hypotheticals and dismiss facts as inconsequential anecdotal evidence. As a historian who builds on anecdotal evidence, exclusively, this drives me nuts.
Bush carried 29 states.
"No, he didn't. President Reagan took down the Soviet Union, but did not win the Cold War.
The two are entirely separate issues in all honesty."
Please draw the distinction, as I give Reagan credit for both. By taking down the Soviet Union, the cold war was won.
Is it your proposition that the cold war was not won, or that it was won by the actions of someone else?
That's not true. Clearly, the lion's share of his political capital, for good or ill, has been spent on the war on terror, which Kennedy definitely does not like. The domestic stuff like the education bill didn't cost GWB much capital at all. Plus, he came in hobbled by the 2000 election fiasco, and facing a DEM party as enraged as ever.
"Bush isn't making a mistake over immigration. The biggest mistake would be is to do NOTHING."
No, the biggest mistake is to do nothing about controlling the borders, while pushing for amnesty. And that's Bush's "mistake."
I don't think it's fair quite frankly to lump Presidents together each have their own legacy and each should be honored for their own accomplishments, Bush is not Reagan, and Reagan was not Bush. The only one thing they have in common is amnesty.
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.