Liberals said Reagan was dangerous and his rhetoric scary. They ridiculed him as an idiot for believing the Soviet Union could be toppled. They opposed him on every front -- strengthening the military, aiding and arming anti-Communist rebels around the world, invading Grenada, preparing to win a nuclear war, building a nuclear shield, and waging a spiritual crusade against Soviet totalitarianism. Reagan said the Soviet Union was an evil empire and we would prevail. He called the ball, the shot, and the pocket, and he won the game. But now we're supposed to believe he was lucky. Liberals lie about Reagan's victory because when Reagan won the Cold War, he proved them wrong on everything they had done and said throughout the Cold War!
Now I see that the Surge is working............the same surge opposed by Liberals.
2007-10-01 08:39:36 · 29 answers · asked by DANCER 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists. Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all!
Will they be on the wrong side of history yet again?
2007-10-01 08:42:30 · update #1
"Two words: Iran Contra."
Even if corners were cut, (Iran-Contra) was a brilliant scheme. There is no possibility that anyone in any Democratic administration would have gone to such lengths to fund anti-Communist forces. When Democrats scheme from the White House, it's to cover up the President's affair with an intern. When Republicans scheme, it's to support embattled anti-Communist freedom fighters sold out by the Democrats!
2007-10-01 08:56:15 · update #2
More statements without any substantiating evidence.
From my prospective the Reagan years were the worst this country has endured since I was born. It was definitely the end of civil discourse & the country has been tragically divided ever since.
edit: "Criminal activity/lying to the American public/intense cover-up IS "BRILLIANT????"
I'm speechless."
Amen to that!
I guess that means "Dancer" supports criminal activity!?
I hope "she" earns enough to take some history classes!
2007-10-01 08:52:21 · answer #1 · answered by Bad M 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Less we forget the Iran/Contra affair when we actually gave arms to Saddam Hussein in order to fight against Iran...so we built up Saddam Hussein much in the same order that we built up Osama Bin Laden and the mujhadeen when Afghanistan was at war with the Soviet Union over Chechneya. And who are we supplying arms to now that will come back and bite us in the *** 15 years from now? Saudi Arabia?
And what was the total cost to the taxpayers for the ending of the cold war? What part did the Democrat-controlled congress have in passage of Reagan's initiatives? Legislation does not start with the President nor does the President make laws. He can ask for things, but eventually it is the House and Senate that passes the legislation that provides for the budget. In this respect, do you give the Democrat- controlled House and Senate any credit for the prosperity and changes during the Reagan Administration?
And what of the Republican controlled House and Senate during the Clinton years? Do they deserve all the credit while Clinton deserves none? It works both ways. Think about it.
2007-10-01 08:52:04 · answer #2 · answered by Becca 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
"Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all!"
What two wars have been won?
I know American troops are still fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I don't think we can claim victory there yet.
You must be referring to two other wars that Bush has "won", but I can't figure out what they would be.
"Immobilized" Osama Bin Laden? What the hell does THAT mean?
He has been free for over 6 years, and still releasing videos.
And once Iraq actually has a functional democracy, I will agree with you.
But they aren't EVEN close, so this point isn't even arguable.
2007-10-01 08:54:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Myth #1: Iraq harbored Islamic terrorists. Saddam ran a pretty tight ship, and was pretty secular. Fundamentalists did not like him, and in response he would kill them like any other dissenters.
Myth #2: Reagan brought down the USSR. What Reagan did was a cute parlor trick. It was known for sometime that the USSR could not keep spending money like it was. The arms race wasn't so much a defense tactic, as an economic strategy designed to bankrupt the country. You can't give Reagan credit for that. He certainly wasn't the first president to prepare for nuclear war, and would acknowledge as anyone else would, that there is no winning one. He armed anti-communist guerillas, but he also armed Islamic fundamentalism.
Who put weapons in the hands of Iran, Iraq, and Osama bin Laden? Reagan did!!!!
Myth #3: The Surge is working. - Its a numbers game, and it may be working now, 4 years too late, but its not sustainable since he already overworked the army and their units, and they can't afford in money or manpower to keep the surge moving. So yes, it worked, but in a couple months, when it scales back.. guess whats gonna happen?
2007-10-01 08:55:38 · answer #4 · answered by BROOOOOKLYN 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Right and Iran/Contra was a good deal as was backing the Taliban. Of course Reagan was right (sarcasm)
He was an opportunist. Intellegce sources informed him of the impending collapse of the Soviet block and so he used the Berlin Wall as a backdrop to do a little grandstanding for sound bites and a photo op. "Mr. Gorbachev take down this wall". Believe me if Gorby and the USSR wanted the wall up it would still be there today. Remember too that Presidents, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford all worked to help topple the Soviet Union too. It wasn't really until the Administration of George HW Bush that it actually crumbled and, as you will recall, he came after Reagan.
The trickle down theory of economics which his successor called "voodoo economics" was proven to be just that as Bush Sr. had to call for the highest tax increase in history to make up for it. ("Read my lips...No new taxes",,,Yeh right).
While historians will say Reagan was a good president he is far from being great. If we divide the list of Presidents from best to worst and divide them into thirds he ends up in the top of the middle section.
2007-10-01 08:53:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
LOL! That's the silliest bit of revisionist history I've read yet.
Once Reagan's cheerleaders have all gone to the grave, history will dig out the truth about the man....a total mediocrity.
Oh yeah, he "toppled" the Soviet Union! What NONSENSE!
The USSR has been crumbling for 75 years. If Zeezo the Clown was in office, would that make him the greatest man in the world?
Reagan's economic policies hurt us and the precedents he set hurt us still.
And he's got the blood of thousands on his hands.
Only on his death bed did he come to any kind of human decency.
As for Bush, well really, you'd have to be borderline insane to think that history will judge him well.
2007-10-01 08:55:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Repubs attempting to re-write history in favor of Reagan?
- Reagan ran up a huge national debt
- Reagan huge military spending 'helped' in bankrupting the Russians but it was not the single most important event.
- Reagan economic policies were disastrous, his famous 'trickle down theory' was absurd
- Reagan 'nuclear' shield' idea was simply a military spending boondoggle, a sneaky way to give his cronies billions of tax dollars.
- Reagan Iran Contra scandal was nation building at it's under handed, dirty low point
- Reagan was a good public speaker but that as far as his talents went, he was more puppet than president.
2007-10-01 09:12:35 · answer #7 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Reagan did many things including:
1) Increase this distance between the "haves" and the "have nots" in this country more than any president; GWB, however, has since been worse.
2) Increase the number of people in the world who hate us more than any other president; GWB, however, has been worse.
3) I won't even describe his statements about Aids. He was gross!
4) Do you remember Iran/Contra? He should have been impeached! GWB, however, has been worse.
The Surge is working? Please....
2007-10-01 08:58:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You cannot be serious. How could anyone who opposes Bush be wrong? Sure we have made predictions about Reagan and then he turned out "okay" but he wasn't great but Bush has actually done malicious and wrong things and there is no denying it. He lied to get into the war and he has handled it all wrong. The surge is not working, Afghanistan is certainly not working and neither is Iraq. The Cold War and the Iraq War are 2 totally different things and they are hard to compare.
2007-10-01 08:47:56 · answer #9 · answered by Lindsey G 5 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Nobody died under Reagan's plan. The Soviet Union had nuclear warheads aimed at us. What makes you think that Iraq was any threat to the US? Please don't bring up 9-11, as they were not involved. Your last little part is hilarious...Iraq is going to crumble the day we leave. There are daily attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq...is that what you would consider winning a war?
2007-10-01 08:43:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋