The meeting with Putin the other day reminded me of- “Peace in our time!”.
I’d say the author doesn’t know her subject matter very well, or does and objects to who won WWII.
Total distortion of history w.r.t. Bush's efforts, and personally I would think that Churchill would not have gone it alone if he needed to, rather than roll over at Hitler's aggression.
Bush could have been a Great President.
A poor article. It's basically a twist on the "WOT is not really serious, it's just a bumper sticker" argument, and basically trying to marshal Churchill on the same side of the debate with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and John Edwards. Not buying.
Only one similar paralell vis-a-vis Bush and Winnie:
Churchill understood, like a great many of his contemporaries did not, that there was no accomodation with Nazism to be made (none that was desireable, in any case), and so, he determined the only course of action available to him; resistance. Bush has reached (almost) the same conclusion vis-a-vis radical Islam.
The major difference, of course, is that Bush has made the mistake of not understanding that the way to peace with the Islamic world is a systematic destruction of the Islamic system and world view, making it apparent that it is bankrupt morally, socially, economically, politically, but to attempt to “save” it with enlightened reason, “democracy” and charity.
Churchill did not fall into that trap: he realized that Nazism could only be completely discredited and overcome by abject defeat, which entailed the total destruction of Germany. The Nazis would have held on forever if the German people had not been reduced to an existance of incredible suffering, and the same is true of Islamic fundamentalism.
Until people are drinking puddle water and picking undigested oats from horse dung for susentance, they will not begin to question the fundamental viability of their current system. Without that impetus, they will never make the great mental leap (and then muster the physical courage required) to change their circumstances, and perhaps, put their energies and devotion into something far more peaceful and productive.
Just my $0.02
Michael Moore, who says, " There is no terrorist threat."
Or Ward Churchill, who says the victimes of 9/11 were "little Hitlers."
/s
Stupid claim 1: That Bush is like Chamberlain because he was inexperienced with foreign policy and Churchill was experienced.
Reality: Churchill's only "foreign policy" experience was dealing with colonial administrators of his own government. He was not a foreign policy expert.
Stupid claim 2: That Bush and Chamberlain were surrounded by like-minded advisers and do not heed outside advice.
Reality: Churchill kept his own counsel and did not take advice from outside sources - he did not brook contradiction.
Stupid claim 3: That Bush and Chamberlain believed in "going it alone" while Churchill was a coalition-builder.
Reality: Both Bush and Churchill appealed to the UN/League Of Nations and attempted to build a consensus for their initiatives.
Stupid claim 4: That Bush and Chamberlain "evaded the checks and balances of government", while Churchill "revered Parliament."
Reality: Bush has been criticized by many for almost never vetoing a Congressional bill, and Churchill was widely criticized by parliament for his far-reaching wartime measures.
Stupid claim 5: That Bush and Chamberlain eroded civil liberties while Churchill defended them.
Reality: the PATRIOT Act is mealymouthed compared to Roosevelt's war measures and Churchill - as the article even admits - interned 20,000 UK residents indefinitely without trial.
Here we have the writing of a pseudohistorian afflicted with BDS who is trying desperately to disassociate Churchill from Bush because she likes Churchill.
The Post had another hit piece on Bush on page 1 today. By contrast, it ran its story on the arrests in the attempted bombings in Britain on page 15. The Post’s priorities and leanings are pretty clear.
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property-either as a child, a wife, or a concubine-must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proseltyzing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science-the science against which it had vainly struggled-the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
i think history will be kinder to GWB than people suspect -- Harriet Miers, Katrina and the Immigration bill were major stumbles, but GWB IMHO correctly identified the threat from Islamic Jihad and did something about it where Clinton did not
one can in hindsight question the tactics and even the strategy, but the basic theme was right on in 2001 and remains so.
sadly GWB is playing high stakes poker with some pretty poor deals...
Pat Buchannan, and more recently, Ron Paul, are the closest to being like Winston Churchill in our time.
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
- Winston Churchill
Have to comment:
Conservatives would do well to note that in his first major public speech after running up his trial balloon, and in a couple of other public utterances just after that, Fred Thompson reiterated his long-held desire for “bipartisanship,” and even offered up a bizarre apologetic for Neville Chamberlain.
Don’t say you weren’t warned.
Bush only has himself to blame for his troubles. He has the means to take on the ‘Rats but he won’t. Ala the Libby commutation he needs to come out swinging.
Holy crap.
But the POST itself would be Chamberlain’s daily reading.