It must really kill those on the far left to see the spontaneous outpouring of love bestowed on Ronald Reagan. People erroneously claim that the eighties were less ppartisan. I remember the hysterical cries from the left about a cowboy who wants to usher in the end of days. I remember the moronic far left talking about Reagans lack of intelligence an absurdity if you read the book of his letters. I remember the defenders of the Sandanistas and the moronic nuclear freeze nuts. Reagan triumphed becauise he had vision and did not compromise. The American people loved him for it.
Even John F (fibber ) Kerry tried to get in on the act. However there was no greater far left opponent proven wrong by hisdtory. The nuclear freeze movement that Kerry supported did not make the world safer. Kerry is one of the authors of the infamous Dear Comodante letter. It must have killed him to see the rfepresentative of a democratically elected Nicaragua thank Reagan for his persistence.
What shall we learn from Reagan and his foes. The critiques of Reagan sound exactly like those of Bush. History has and the American people have remembered his role in the ending of the cold war. Likewise Bush will be vindicated by history when a democratically elected Iraq government can stand on its own.
Take any critique of Bush and you can find a paralell critique of Reagan. The American people showed they loved Reagan and the far left as usual offered nothing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I do hope Iraq works out. I fear it can turn, especially since they've already turned on the anti-Israel rhetoric.
Beak,
Like you, I recall all 80's the criticism of Reagan. Of course, when RR died, the leftists put on a different face.
You are also correct in that leftists criticize GWB in much the same way as they criticized RR.
I think that what drives the critics the craziest is that neither RR nor GWB pay a bit of attention to it. I admit, however, that RR was more likeable in many ways. Also, the camera loved RR, and that image issue had its impact.
We're relatively early in our recognition of the threat from Islamism. RR came along later in the 'life' of Russian Communism. So, while there is a parallelism between RR and GWB, the timing is different.
Elijah and Always
Reagan changed the rules that onces a Country was Communist it stayed that way. The experts said the war could never be won . This sounds fairly familiar.
If the change in Iraq works out, GWB will receive accolades, but probably down the line. For the most part, RR's accolades didn't come until he was out of office. I recall very clearly that many people had no faith in RR's staunch belief that Communism could fall from within, but it DID.
The sad truth is that change takes time. And this time around, the msm and the lefties are working as hard as they can to ensure failure in Iraq.
The reason Reagan won in Nicuragua is because he had the foresight to see that Communism would fall over. When Communist Russia ran out of money they stopped funding the Sandinistas and the Contras & allies were able to win.
Reagan - perfectly weighted strategy to defeat Communism. Perfect.
Bush is using the same plan in Iraq. Only this time it is generally agreed that the money will only run out when the oil dries up - 50 or 70 years from now.
Bush - copying Reagans strategy, but applying it to the wrong war at the wrong time against the wrong enemy. Less than perfect.
"Bush - copying Reagans strategy, but applying it to the wrong war at the wrong time against the wrong enemy. Less than perfect.
Actually the strategy is completely different in response to a far different threat.
Strategy as I see it - fighting a limited war in a third country against an armed movement. Reagan killed Communists in Nicuragua, Bush is killing Wahhabists in Iraq. Reagan won because the fighting added to the strain on the weak Soviet economy and it collapsed.
Please explain the disimilarities to me.
Post a Comment