Both were unpopular presidents. Both were engaged in a war to save America from tyrants. Both had deep convictions. Both were Christian. Both were Republican. It was until Sherman took Atlanta, Lincoln's re-election was certain and if that did not happen the Democrats then were going to cut a deal with the Confederates. Lincoln was not recongnized until he died. I hope it does not take that long for Bush.
2007-02-02 11:44:37 · 22 answers · asked by Damn Good Dawg 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, Bush is a lot more like Reagan.
No one believed Reagan when he said he wasn't going to just accept some tenuously peaceful co-existence with the USSR. He said he was going to defeat them outright. He ultimately prevailed through his strategy of bankrupting (and demoralizing them).
People questioned Reagan's intelligence, his tactics, and his chances for victory, just like they do with Bush. Both of these Presidents had a very strong vision of what they wanted to accomplish, completely the opposite of a muddled thinker like Jimmy Carter.
Lincoln wasn't as noble as people make him out to be. He didn't really believe that Blacks could be integrated into society; he just didn't want slavery to spread to the new territories. So, Lincoln's war wasn't fought with such a noble purpose as Bush's, who is trying to free a land plagued for hundreds and hundreds of years by backward thinking, intolerance, religious tyranny, and bloodthirsty secular fighting.
Don't count Bush out yet. The Soviet Union didn't fall until shortly after Reagan's Presidency ended. Bush still has another year to go! Iraq could turn around soon.
2007-02-02 11:59:52 · answer #1 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Some similarities, but some are stretches.
"Both were engaged in a war to save America from tyrants" - Lincoln basically had a war forced upon him when the South seceded. Either he fights the Confederacy, or he loses half of the United States. Bush, rightfully or wrongfully, depending on your opinion, chose to go to war with Iraq.
"Both were Christian" - yes, but Lincoln's Christianity was probably more of the norm in that era. In this modern era, fortunately or unfortunately, Christianity may not be viewed in the same way.
"I hope it does not take that long for Bush." - We may never know, at least not in our lifetimes. Given the cost in dollars and lives, I hope and pray something positive comes from it.
2007-02-02 19:55:36 · answer #2 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the major flaw with your argument is... Saddam didn't attack us... and apparently had no plans to do so and no means to do so... so there was no saving from any tyrant in Iraq...
in fact he's basically ignored Osama, the guy that did attack us?
if Lincoln would have... say invaded Canada after the confederacy seceded, and then just ignored the confederacy for the most part... then you could have a point...
but I doubt he would be remembered quite as well if Lincoln did that...
(pretty much every president has been Christian, and many have been Republican, so those could easily be just random occurrences, since the odds for both are at or over 50 percent)
2007-02-02 20:01:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Lincoln won a war against a well funded and equipped enemy. Bush can't win a war against a bunch of sickos wasting billions of dollars in the process. A chopper and a push bike both have a pair of wheels but there are some subtle differences :-)
2007-02-02 21:23:28 · answer #4 · answered by Alex G 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You forgot a very important detail,
Bush lead America to failing
Lincoln lead America to success
2007-02-02 21:37:03 · answer #5 · answered by A nobody 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is like Lincolin in the sense that history shows them both trying to preside over a civil war.
2007-02-03 01:25:32 · answer #6 · answered by roostershine 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
um no this little problem we have, couldnt be settled dimplomatically. Trying to "talk" with terrorists, wouldnt work out so well. And if your so opposed to the war, move to another country. War happens everywhere. Not all problems can be solved by just talking. Sometimes you have to take action. The war in Iraq is one of those times. Sorry but the world isnt a hippie, peace loving place. Get used to it.
2007-02-02 19:51:04 · answer #7 · answered by smiley chick 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Well, I'd have to say that they were both male members of the Republican party who were elected to the presidency twice. I'd stop there.
2007-02-02 22:22:05 · answer #8 · answered by Ace Librarian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah,right
2007-02-02 20:11:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hi,
Yeah, he is worth about as much as the piece of copper you speak of and I do not recall President Lincoln using sentence structures filled with Duh's, and Uh's. and claiming to be the decider.
President Lincoln was not infringing on the constitutional rights of American citizens like bushy, nor doing domestic spying on the citizens, nor was he guilty of turning his back on a disaster like Hurricane Katrina, nor was he guilty of violating geneiva convention articles of war, nor did he authorize the use of torture and imprisonment in foreign countrys and keeping detainees from help by the American Red Cross.
Please do not insult the good American President Abraham Lincoln by comparing with bush.
Darryl S.
2007-02-02 19:58:44 · answer #10 · answered by Stingray 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋