Posted on 06/10/2002 2:54:11 PM PDT by seamus
I think Bush is at that same point. That is, I think he said what needed to be said, and has, since then, quietly been trying to build up our lamentably shabby defenses before the inevitable attack. Bush is not someone who calls a press conference at the drop of a hat or, for that matter, who is followed by an adulatory press corps that reports his every idle word (ring any bells?). I think sometimes that his low profile gives the impression that he's not doing anything, but as we saw in the Homeland Security proposal last week, that's hardly the case. And I think when the strike comes (our preemptive strike, that is), we'll realize again that a lot has been going on behind the scenes.
Yes, the world needs another Churchill. But we don't have anything close. GWB was picked out of the air by a consortium of industrial magnates.
Just as the opposition said, he was annointed. Compare this to the man Churchill. There is no comparison.
The American people are going to have to pull our own chestnuts out of this fire for we have elected just an average guy with an Ivy League LIBERAL education and a globalist viewpoint. He's his father's son in spades. This apple didn't even fall from the tree. It's still clinging to the branches.
If he did not take the Prime Ministership after Halifax wisely declined after Chamberlain's resignation, millions more people would have died and suffered under a new racist German empire. He led a fractous home government and a shaky international alliance to victory over Hitler. That far overshadows the mistakes he made at Galliopoli -- ones he made not out of blithe disregard for the lives of troops, but out of a monumental miscalculation of his enemy -- a miscalculation that he did not make of Hitler.
You have just disqualified yourself from intelligent conversation.
Your source for that statement, please?
Bush is a fine man, but he couldn't hold Churchill's brandy-glass.
In WWI terms for the Allies, about a week's worth on the Western Front, about five days on the Eastern Front.
On full-battle periods (Somme, Verdun etc) about two days' worth. Not exactly the Butcher of Gallipoli, really, was he?
He is so obviously unqualified for the job. It is so plainly and undeniably clear after these first two years that one has to be willfully blind not to see it.
The bushies have to make up things out of whole cloth to continue their dellusions. "He's doing what he has to do in order to gain a majority in the house." etc. By the time the man has had six more years in the White House it won't matter the proportion of dims to pubbies because GWB will have accomplished everything the dims ever wanted to do.
And this doesn't even touch upon his dismal failure in his phony "War on Terror". He has capitulated to the Wahabi oil princes and repeatedly gone against the very morality of Western Civilization in his treatment of Israel .... not to mention our geopolitical interests.
His lack of any real immigration control in a so called time of war is criminal. His and his administration's constant flip flops and policy goofups is laughable.
He's the pampered son of an eletist East Coast family that is much to much involved in politics. He's a pol and a globalist. I've never trusted politicians. Although they are necessary they must always be distrusted. GWB is no diferent. In fact by all lights he is in fact a pol amoung pols. Unfortunately in these dire times we don't need his sort as President. But we are stuck with him. If more of us would make evident our outrage at his behaviour .... change might be effected.
Just as the opposition said, he was annointed. Compare this to the man Churchill. There is no comparison.
Good column. Whatever people think about Churchill's personal habits or even Gallipoli, he was indeed farsighted and one of the few who simply had the nerve to go ahead and say what most people could probably see but preferred to ignore.
So we need more people like Churchill, huh? May I remind you that the reason Churchill declared war on Germany was to save Poland. Instead, Poland was sacrificed to the Communist to be slaughtered. I would surely hope that Bush has more success against the axis of evil.
Churchill's main desire was to save his Empire, so he teamed with Roosevelt, whose main desire was to destroy the English Empire and set up a world government, the U.N., with himself as its leader.
Our alliance with the devil incarnate, dictator Stalin, would quickly dissolve into the Cold War, which is in a large part responsible for the arming of so many terrorists around the world.
Then the world is doomed. George Bush is to Winston Churchill what a budgie is to an F-16.
Check your numbers because your completely wrong. In terms of life lost, try comparing Gallipoli to the Western Front. That’s not intended to diminish the sacrifice made by the ANZAC’s, but you need to get the facts in perspective.
”I guess he figured they were not British”
The truth is that the majority of the ANZAC’s were first generation immigrants to Australia and New Zealand. They still held some degree of loyalty to their place of birth and the crown and that’s why they went to war.
If I remember right; several of his fellow governors, some
senators, representatives, encouraged him to run for office.
I don't buy this crap about him being, how did you put it,
picked out of the air by a consortium of industrial magnates.
Well, you're full of it, because he wasn't, and he wasn't
'annointed', either. He was chosen by, and supported by at
least half the American people. So go bark up another tree!
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.