Liberals bashed Reagan for his approach with the Soviet Union. He refused to ever give in to the Soviets, because every concession made them stronger. Here is what he said:
"Accommodation is based on wishing not thinking, and if the wish doesn't come true the enemy is far stronger than he was before you started down that road...... or we can bet our lives and freedom on the ******** theory that, if we make him strong enough, he'll learn to love us."
Reagan's approach resulted in the dismantling of the Soviet empire.
Now, Bush is standing up to the Islama-fascists the same way.
Bush also took a very hard line with North Korea. Now that his victory appears solid, how will the Liberals spin this one? Will the Liberals have the good grace to praise him for once?
(By the way, Liberals, Clinton fell into the "accomodation" trap. He just trusted the North Koreans, and the result was they lied and lied until they were on the brink of nuclear success).
2007-02-13 02:43:12 · 7 answers · asked by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
no spin needed because they will not report it!!!! the media's agenda is to brainwash everyone into voting stupid.
2007-02-13 02:47:54 · answer #1 · answered by voiceofreason 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The Clinton Administration was doing the appeasement thing and he was a moderate Democrat. With the current crop of ultra radicals, I'd have to say no. Certainly not a fake like Kerry or the full of himself Gore. However, President Bush's approach was to isolate northern Korea and that didn't work either. Progress happened only when Condoleezza Rice took over the Dept of State. President Bush did not trust Sec't Powell and Rice had his ear so the end result was she was able to enact the policies that General Powell would have liked to. Like most Presidents, President Bush had to learn as he went and his desire to be loyal to his underlings impeded needed changes early on but as his initial advisors attritted away, he picked much more capable people and things have been steadily improving.
2016-05-24 05:15:49 · answer #2 · answered by Victoria 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lets see, giving them tons of oil and other things is standing up to them, seems to me that is really all they wanted in the first place. Reagan was an idiot and the Soviets fell from the inside, Reagan had absolutely nothing to do with it, he would have made a good car salesmen but as a president he was way over matched.
Edit: by the way, I think disarming N. Korea is a good thing so giving into them wasn't a bad idea. It is a good thing that Bush had help negotiating with them, at least the leaders of the other country's showed some sense.
2007-02-13 02:49:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Unless Bush has taken over China in the last two hours, he didn't have much to do with the agreement. He did help however by staying out of the negotiations. Good job George.
2007-02-13 02:53:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
They're already bashing it. It will be interesting to hear what the talking heads of Hillary, Obama and especially anti-American pioneer John Kerry come out and say.
2007-02-13 02:48:43 · answer #5 · answered by kathy059 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
They will probably say that Bush "gave up" too much in return and that we will now be still at risk due to our concessions. Go figure.
2007-02-13 02:48:10 · answer #6 · answered by Kerry 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Libs would celebrate if Clinton had done this
2007-02-13 02:48:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋