 |
AMERICA AT WAR
At Salem the Soldier's Homepage ~
Posted on 09/29/2004 2:56:48 PM PDT by kingattax
Comparing U.S. President George Bush with Winston Churchill may seem a stretch. Yet there's a parallel -- not with Churchill of the war years, when he was the "free" world's most admired leader, but with Churchill of the 1930s when he stood alone, warning about the rise of Nazism.
Then, pacifism was rampant in Britain and Europe. Hitler's aggression was rationalized by wishful thinking. Peace at any price.
Except for Churchill. He began warning that the Nazis must be stopped when they occupied the Rhineland in 1936. He urged an alliance of Britain, France and the Soviet Union to stop Hitler's expansion. He was called a warmonger, an enemy of peace, reviled in print and in speeches. Few stood with him.
History has proven Churchill right.
With the U.S. election entering the home stretch, Bush is under the same sort of attacks for his war on terrorism and Iraq that Churchill endured before WWII.
Critics among both Republicans and Democrats worry that America acted alone, without approval of the UN Security Council, and without support of France and Germany.
The "war" aspects of Afghanistan and Iraq were so successful that criticism was muted. It's the "peace" and trying to bring democracy to Iraq that has revived critics, who now give Bush the sort of treatment Churchill once received for warning about Hitler.
Kerry's theme
Sen. John Kerry's prime theme is that Bush has made America resented -- especially by France and Germany.
What most overlook is that by his war on terrorism, Bush is doing now what Churchill was advocating in the mid-1930s.
More than that, Bush is doing what the UN is supposed to do, but rarely has -- curb tyrannies that threaten security and stability, and which indulge in oppression and human rights abuses.
Britain, under Prime Minister Tony Blair, supports America. So does Australia, and countries like Poland, and former communist countries of East Europe. Italy, too. And since the terrorist attack on the school in Beslan, Russia seems ready to join this new alliance against Islamic terror that threatens civilization.
Canada, when Jean Chretien was PM, opted not to join the war against Saddam Hussein -- the first time in our history that we've chosen not to stand with traditional allies. (Agree or not, what's going on in Iraq is part of the war against terrorism).
Bush's is not the only voice, but his is the loudest. Unlike Churchill, who had no power when he urged Britain and the West to wake up, Bush has power. And the "wakeup call" was 9/11.
Today's election rhetoric shouldn't detract from the struggle that's going on. If Bush prevails, the world benefits -- that's the broad picture, not the narrow one of merely defeating an enemy.
Success might also rescue the UN, which has become a forum for anti-western rhetoric and moral corruption. At the UN, human rights too often are something for speeches, not action.
For a dozen years, before the U.S. and Britain acted after 9/11, Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at various UN resolutions. That has changed. Saddam is no more, and Libya's Moammar Khadaffy has backed off terrorism and weapons of mass instability.
Syria now wants more cordial relations with the U.S. and says it will curb border insurgency. Pakistan has a useful ally. A democratic movement is active inside Iran. North Korea is curbing its nuclear threats. Russia is on side as never before. "New" Europe is more co-operative with America than "old" Europe.
Clinton soft
For those who think Bush is too stubborn, too aggressive since 9/11, it might be noted (as Churchill would note) that the previous administration of Bill Clinton was too soft, too weak, too hesitant about terrorism -- witness the feeble response to the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on the USS Cole, and treating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as a domestic crime rather than an Islamic terrorist act.
Firmness then, like firmness with Hitler in 1936, might have prevented 9/11.
While Kerry and others may deplore the problems, setbacks and slow progress in Iraq, Bush has stood tall for freedom, and by its example may even give courage to the usually craven UN. In short, America and Britain have assumed a leadership role that will benefit the world. More than that, they are right.
If, indeed, Islamic terrorism is a world threat as Nazism once was, the time to fight it is now, not when it has gained even more strength. That has guided Bush and Blair, and it is to Canada's shame that our elected leaders have adopted a more passive role.
Churchill would not be proud of us.
This is how I feel about President Bush. I believe he will go down in history as one of the greatest presidents ever. The Toronto Sun has some great conservative writers. It's the "little paper that grew" to stretch across Canada. It helps to keep us sane, in an insane world of Liberal socialism here in Canada
BTTT!
Ping
This item has already been posted.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1229021/posts
That's a keeper.
Thanks for the ping Salem.
I saw it earlier, cheered loudly and then ran off numerous copies to distribute to my America-hating, Bush-bashing acquaintances who used to be friends.
One of these days they will see how right I was all along!
(It gets lonely up here at the top, doesn't it?) :^P
T.G.F.F.
(Thank goodness for Freepers!)
No kiddin'? This is a totally assinine analogy.
George al Saud Bush is nowhere near to being in the same league as Churchill.
Saudi's attacked & killed thousands of U.S. ... and then Bush let 100's of slip back to Saudi Arabia without being questioned ... and the Saudi schools continue with their ... oh never mind, if you don't see it yet you never will.
Bushite Koolaid Drinkers!
Bush may be like Churchill in this instance, and I think that was what the author was implying. However, the career of Bush (as the career of any modern politicion) pales in comparison with the career of Churchill. These are different times and the times dictate different opportunities. Churchill was simply one in a million.
The Communists about 10,000 members were not. Their propaganda sheet, The Daily Worker and it's boy Stalin, were virtually onside against the war. The new minister Morrison shut them down. They had declared the war an excuse to boost capitalist profits. It was the last straw.
Churchill was cheered again and again- "good old Winnie". Virtually the whole country was behind Churchills war. Those few, and I respect them, who hated war, were kept quiet by harsh laws- The War Measures Act. Draconian? Yes.
Your President is beset by vicious liars. America haters and those who would confine American to self immolation. He faces a sometimes hostile, whining, devious television media. BBC and it's crisp voiced nay sayers- the likes of Caroline Hawley, the other woman Ammanpour, and you know the rest.
Your President, while not facing an invasion of the sacred soil of America, faces something Churchill never faced in HIS war. This is the failure in considerable numbers of The Home Front.
His moral resolution stamps him as one of the greatest leaders of the last 100 years.
Thank you for the Ping!
Atos
Yes ma'am, it does....
Why does Kerry keep building Bush up like this? Does he want to lose?
Anytime france and germany are against us it means we are doing something right
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
