Neither. It hasn't been won because it has never ended. It's still in progress, yet we do have the upper-hand.
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.
To compare Bush in any way, shape or form to President Reagan is a demeaning act toward President Reagan. Bush at his best could never rise to Reagan at his worst.
This is an outright lie. Don't do it. People on this forum know better, and can provide ample facts to refute your false accusation.
In other words, lying is bad..........especially when everyone reading your lie knows the truth. Understand??
You have to be in absolute denial of every historical fact in the books about both men to make such a stupid comment.
I won't deny you the privilege of elevating your emotionally based opinion above others but I will provide you with only one of many historical examples that should moderate your idol worship.
President Reagan in a speech on the East & West German border said (I'm paraphrasing) "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall". History shows that the wall came down as did the "Evil Empire" (Soviet Union)
President Bush in an exuberant speech said to the terrorists (I'm paraphrasing) "Bring it on"! They did and are still doing it. The worst part is that just recently President Bush apologized for having said that.
How can you with a lucid mind compare a wannabe with a statesman???
I don't believe my comment isn't stupid. It may not be to your liking but it isn't stupid. Just because you think President Bush is great doesn't make it so, but then you are entitled to your opinion, which is just that; your opinion.
Anyone who makes a statement as vapid as yours is ignorant of history.
What you need to do is scroll through this thread and learn a few things you don't know about Reagan posted by people more educated than you are.
Perhaps it will help your simplistic thinking to deepen.........or perhaps not. Perhaps you think simplistically because you want to because you want to think less of President Bush than what is factual, and all the education in the world won't change your 'opinion.'
Give it a try. Learn your history so that you can make a semi-educated comparison.
btw, your 'illustration' of the difference between the two is laughable. Did you mean it as a joke, or were you actually serious?
Maybe he should buy his own TV outlet like GoreBore... LOL
Reagan and Buffooon could have air time whenever they requested it - the MSM often refuses this President - they are, after all, the 'real' government of the people -
Federal receipts during the Clinton years were inflated a due to the stock market bubble.
Looking at total federal outlays during the Newt/Clinton years, Newt/Clinton FY year budgets ('96 to '99) can best be characterized as budgets that cut DOD spending (and this was after Clinton already cut DOD spending drastically his previous two years in FY '94 and '95).
It was only in FY '96, a budget that was of course signed before the end of '95 (which supports my original contention) that Newt's Congress reduced non DOD type and non Homeland security type spending.
Neither. It hasn't been won because it has never ended. It's still in progress, yet we do have the upper-hand.
"This is an outright lie."
You're talking about Bush's window dressing when it comes to sending 6,000 Guardsmen temporarily to the southern border?
Or perhaps you're talking about Bush's using another name for amnesty (i.e. "guest worker")?
If those are your examples of "doing something," then you're right.
When considering the war against lunatic Muslims, so am I.
When considering selections to the SCOTUS, so am I.
And when it comes to taxes, and how much I can bequeath my kids and grandkids, so am I.
But I fear, no I am certain, that if GWB's amnesty/guest worker plan passes in its current form, the culture, language and societal makeup of America will be dragged down toward third world status, to the detriment of my anscestors and yours.
There is no way we can inject 60-100 million of ANY nationality in only 20 years and still retain the cultural status quo which has served us so mightily the past 150 years.
Hispanics, both illegal and legal, are already marching in the streets demanding we change our laws to suit their selfish needs. Can you imagine when they make up 50 percent of the population, compared to the current 15 percent.
And lest anyone consider me xenophobic, I oppose allowing that many from any country to suddenly be transplanted into America.
The beauty of our society today is that we are truly a melting pot, and no one immigrant group from a single country is dominant over any other.
In some areas of the the Southwest, an overwhelming Hispanic population is already electing only fellow Hispanics in some towns.
The mayor of Los Angeles delivers many of his speeches in Spanish, to the exclusion of English. (I cant recall ANY other peoples demand that we allow THEIR fellow countrymen to flood across our borders.
Another thing: Mexico is NOT a poor country whereby people are starving and/or destitute.
According to the WTO and the CIA website, per capita income of Mexico is nearing $11,000 annual income. That is better than five European countries, such as Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, etc.
Mexico has a vast reservoir of natural resources.
It makes no sense to drag down America when we should demand that Mexico and Central America reform its economics to be more like the US and Canada.
Additionally, President Bush (whom I still admire and respect) is clearly out in left field about not being able to do anything about the influx and finding and deporting existing illegals and punishing the people who hire them. I don't think Zell Miller would say it couldn't be done.
This whole issue revolves around not pissing off Hispanics in this country (whether legal or illegal) and the potential for new Democrat voters. And President Bush and the Senate are doing it against majority consensus of the population be damned. Well, I'll tell you, that majority consensus is speaking to ITS voice, the House, and my prediction is that it will be a cold day in hell when that Senate bill passes out of conference......
I will use both since they describe you perfectly. You are a brain dead Bush worshiper; nothing will change that and I refuse to engage in a dialog with mentally challenged. Case closed.
Thanks for the illustration of why there needs to be a civics/history test to let people vote. You'd never pass. :)
Saying, "President Bush isn't doing enough for border security" is an opinion.
Saying "President Bush is doing nothing for border security" is a lie.
(I made no reference to the guest worker program, which I oppose, or the fact that I agree that he hasn't done enough. I just care about truthful statemsnts, and yours was most decidedly not).
"He has increased border security with surveillance and personnel."
If I were you, I'd be careful about accusing other people of lying -- our southern border is not more secure and Bush's window dressing is just that: window dressing.
Either you already knew that or your head's been in the sand.
"Someone has been paying attention to history ping"
While it is true Reagan received the same kind of criticism for his tough stance against communism and the actions he took against it, as President Bush is receiving for the war in Iraq, that hardly means their presidencies are equal in stature and will historically be judged as being equal, sorry.
Agreed. A president like Ronald Reagan, comes once in a life time, if that.
Your calling it 'window dressing' doesn't change the fact that it is not 'nothing.' Just be accurate next time, OK? Words mean things.
A rare gift, indeed.
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.