Why Bush is no Reagan

1. Because even when his speechwriters give him material this good, Bush's delivery undermines the speech's power.

2. Because he is terrified of telling the American people the truth about what it's going to take to defeat Islamofascism, and what the cost will be if we fail.

3. Because Reagan wasn't just talk.

I can't help but wonder how different the last few years might have been if America had had a President, on 9/11 and afterwards, with the moral clarity and leadership abilities that Dubya so sorely lacks.

In the meantime, Reagan's speech is still pretty bloody relevant today, IMHO (I realize that Democrats will not think so).



"A nation that can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." You guys already know I like Alexander Hamilton's stuff; so did Reagan, it seems.

By the way, to my Democratic friends who want to say that they don't mind fighting terrorists, they just don't want to fight them in Iraq...I'm not really interested in that line of conversation. I don't buy it, frankly, and I'm pretty sure I've heard all of the arguments for it, and they fail to impress. If America doesn't win in Iraq, it will be because we chose not to; it will be because we chose disgrace over honor, defeat over victory. Simple as that. If you disagree, then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.