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.
Great comments, well said.
Do you think that if Reagan HAD done something, rather than leave Lebanon...that possibly al-queda might have not become what they are??
After all, it has been said that Bin Ladin HAS seen the times that America has "left" rather than stay and fight, as a weakness...and gave him more reason to believe he would take down the mighty USA...
I think that the President does a better job than he is given credit for. He actually does communicate the important information and people instinctively understand it. In addition, President Reagan had exceptional training in this area.
That said, his ability to talk around the press has been his biggest handicap. But I judge people on what they do, not what they say. And in that, they are both giants.
You are correct...
When I hear the Hannity's and Levin's and see posters with Reagan's name as part of their screen name, screaming about how awful Bush is, compared to Reagan...
it makes me want to pull my hair out...and that is why, whenever there is a thread, I will point out that back during Reagan's time..there WAS no Free Republic...
But, I betcha those same kind of POTUS bashing threads
would be in abundance...especially during the amnesty debate.
I think Bush is suffering from a dem majority also...
Because we're winning .. the Many in the MSM don't like when America is winning
They prefer that she is brought to her down to her knees
And for any in the MSM who may be lurking that think I am wrong ??
All we have to do is read your articles ..
IMO ... it's because he's always on guard with them .. he knows they will twist and take his words out of context
Also .. Remember, Reagan use to pretend not to hear the press on many occasions when they would yell questions to him
Reagan wasn't a fan of theirs either
Thank you all for the ping(s).
This is a dandy, yes?
I think history will paint George W. Bush very favorably, but he's no Ronald Reagan and probably never will be. There's no topping the greatness in vision Reagan had.
Bush disregards sound military advice, unless you consider Rumsfeld one of the great ground commanders in history. He also lacks the will to prosecute a war. Fallujah should have been leveled by artillery. Bush will go down in history just like LBJ. A free-spending Texan, who fought an unpopular war according to his own concept, while setting the stage for runaway inflation ten years down the road.
Reagan oversaw the great buildup of American forces intimidated the Soviets and led to the 100-hour ground war in 1991. Bush believes in doing more with less.
"They argue now that funding of pro-democracy groups won't work in the Middle East - it will"
I seriously doubt any country that embraces a totalitarian religion will embrace democracy. I don't care whether they get 99% of a vote for it...the clerics will win. They've lived under the thumb since the seventh century..they have no concept of freedom and wouldn't know how to handle it.
I never thought I'd say this, but we need to leave Iraq to whatever outcome happens. Iraq can be handled by the Iraqi's.
The only difference is that Reagan's vision has already been fulfilled, and Bush's has not yet come to fruition, so there is no way that one can say he will not 'top' Reagan.
I firmly believe that both visions were of God, and of equal import.
Thanks.
You have drawn some pretty sweeping conclusions and made some very serious accusations without any proof.
Any time a post could have just as well been written by a leftist, it seems wise to ask for the facts to back up the condemnation of the President.
What are yours?
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.