Replies

This article is completely confused and illogical.

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.