[wagglebee]

BTTT!

Great comparisons!

[IrishMike]

A lot are hopeful,
count me one !!!!

[Mike Darancette]

Someone gets it.

[nuconvert]

pong

[Cinnamon]

History will be kind to our President Bush.. and the Chamberlains of the world will be just that.. a heap of cowardice that bit the dust in history's writings

[StJacques]

They said Reagan was wrong to fight communism worldwide. He wasn't.

They say Bush is wrong to make the War on Terror a worldwide struggle. He's not!

[Larry Lucido]

While I'm not in agreement with everything done by this president, keep in mind that, during his administration, many on the right criticized Reagan for not being tough enough on communism. Quite a different persepective in hindsight.

[jdm]

"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."

BS. (very) few moderate/conservative Republicans would argue that the President is doing an EXCELLENT job on the WOT, judiciary, etc. The areas of improvement are spending and immigration.

[Kay]

FYI

[COEXERJ145]

Ping to you.

[miliantnutcase]

"They argue now that Muslims will never embrace democracy - they will"

I am not convinced that Shi'ite and Sunni Islam is compatible with democracy.

[ChadGore]

Liberator

[pollyannaish]

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.

[karnage]

I'm witchoo.

[Mo1]

The same exact critcism was directed at Reagan

Someone has been paying attention to history ping

[George W. Bush]

Though the threat was of a different type, the menace to the West from international Communism was far greater than the current challenge in the WOT. We were up against nuclear-armed regimes who had diplomatic missions and well-funded intel agencies. And they were internally police-states which were very difficult for our intel to penetrate with live operatives.

And he did it with Dim majorities in Congress throwing spears at him all the way and, except for Paul Harvey and a few small papers, he did it without any backing in the popular media. For those who lived through the era, he also essentially slayed the dragon of runaway inflation domestically. And he tried to save Social Security and would have succeeded were it not for the damned Dims spending all the money and writing IOU's to the Treasury.

Reagan faced the far greater challenge, IMO. This is not to say Bush is a failure. But the sheer magnitude of accompishment isn't even comparable.

Reagan should fairly be compared to presidents like FDR and Lincoln.

[PISANO]

From your lips to God's ears.

[ChessExpert]

Early on (2000?), I kept hearing "Bush is stupid." I imagine you've heard this too. Is there anyone on the planet who hasn't? As I kept hearing that Bush was stupid, it made me think of Ronald Reagan. Only Reagan and Bush have gotten that level of "stupid" comments. Since Reagan was great, I thought, gee, if they hate GW Bush so, maybe there's hope.

[TAdams8591]

No, way are these two president's in the same league. I like President Bush, he is good but not great.

[tkathy]

History will look back at the whiney wussies of the liberal do-nothings and judge accordingly.