For three consecutive days since Reagan’s funeral, the New York Times has used the favorable remembrance of Reagan√?¬Ę√Ę‚??¬¨√Ę‚??¬Ęs presidency to point out the perceived failings of President Bush.
On Sunday, John Tierney√?¬Ę√Ę‚??¬¨√Ę‚??¬Ęs “Political Points” considered what Reagan would have done in Iraq. Cambridge University Professor Stefan Halper answered that Reagan would not have gone to war, would have doubted the intelligence and would have seen the war as “a very uncertain enterprise.”
The next day, Elisabeth Bumiller cited anonymous Reagan officials who referred to Bush as polarizing and ideological, in contrast to Reagan, the pragmatic unifier.
Today came a story about the many criticisms Reagan family members have launched against Bush’s policies, especially on the Iraq war and stem-cell research. Various sources also interpreted Ron Reagan√?¬Ę√Ę‚??¬¨√Ę‚??¬Ęs eulogy remark about politicians who exploit religion as an attack on Bush.
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter