The world needs a new Churchill, and Bush must be that man

The Free Lance-Star ^ | Sunday, June 9, 2002 | Jim Lakely

[seamus]

Date published: Sun, 06/09/2002

PRESIDENT BUSH'S finest rhetorical hour--his post-9/11 speech when he told the world that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"--were the boldest words uttered by an American president since FDR. They were described, not inaccurately, as Churchillian.

As Winston Churchill did with the Nazis, Bush framed our fight against terrorism in clear moral terms. We are on the side of freedom and peace. They are on the side of tyranny and evil. The fight, now that it has been brought to us by the slaughter of 3,000 innocent Americans, is nothing less than a struggle to preserve our way of life.

Though al-Qaida has been dealt a mighty blow by our actions in Afghanistan, the terrorists are regrouping at this very minute--in Pakistan, Iraq, the Philippines, and elsewhere around the world in "sleeper cells"--plotting more massacres. And they are being cheered on and most likely supported by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, whose fingerprints are all over 9/11 after it was revealed that at least one of the plot's masterminds consulted with Iraqi agents before the attacks.

We face the very real possibility of a nuclear attack that could kill millions and destroy a city whose rebuilding schedule would not be measured in years, but by the atomic half-life. In this regard, Saddam could prove most helpful.

Iraq has defied the United Nations-brokered peace after the Gulf War by keeping out inspectors who could
sniff out factories and labs producing weapons of mass destruction. And other than lobbing a missile into the country every few weeks or so, the West has done nothing to make him comply.

The U.N. has for years now largely ignored the threat of Saddam, much as the impotent League of Nations did nothing while Hitler broke treaties and built up his military in the 1930s. But in those dangerous times, one man warned the world of the grave danger
of Nazism: Winston Churchill.

Two new Churchill biographies--"Churchill: A Biography" by Roy Jenkins, and "Churchill: A Study of Greatness" by Geoffrey Best--remind us in these perilous times that the Allied victory in World War II was anything but inevitable. The near-clairvoyance
of Churchill, along with his gift for rhetoric and his bulldog-like tenacity, was indispensable in preventing Hitler from establishing a new German empire in much of Europe.

In 1934--when much of the world was either willfully ignorant of Hitler's ultimate aims, or still holding to naive dreams of peace through appeasement--Churchill publicly called the Nazis a regime that "cheers its onward course by a barbarous paganism, which vaunts the spirit of aggression and conquest which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen, with pitiless brutality, the threat of murderous force."

Sound familiar?

Larry Arnn, reviewing the two biographies in The Claremont Review of Books, points out that while no one would argue with that characterization of Hitler today, speaking those truths in 1934 took "a certain kind of genius" and "an amazing persistence and courage to advance it against the forces Churchill faced."

Yet since Bush's similar first moment of moral clarity and declaration of purpose, his rhetoric has become murky and his actions tentative.

Standing with French President Jacques Chirac on May 26, Bush said
he had "no immediate plans to attack Iraq." And just a few days earlier, the Washington Post broke a story in which top military brass "believe they have persuaded the Pentagon's civilian leadership to put off an invasion of Iraq until next year at the earliest and perhaps not to do it at all."

One can only hope that Bush's "no immediate plans" comment was intended as a ploy to keep Saddam guessing, and that the Washington Post's mole in the Pentagon is wrong.

We cannot afford to wait very long before toppling Saddam. Years of intelligence gathering suggest that he is very close to acquiring weapons of mass destruction--either by stealing them, or, with chilling irony, leaning on Iraqi scientists who have studied the biological and nuclear sciences in America and Britain to develop what he needs.

In his review, Arnn likens Saddam and bin Laden to Hitler after the Allied invasion of France: "Like Hitler, they see us coming, and they work furiously on their anthrax spreaders, dirty bombs, and atomic bombs, just as Hitler did. Hitler's bombs and rockets and jet aircraft were almost ready in time. But for Churchill, they might have been. Unless we find another like him, Osama and Saddam will meet their deadline."

George W. Bush never thought he had to be another Churchill when he took office. But if he does not rise to the challenge--and quickly--the world could be as different and as dangerous as if Hitler had not been stopped.

JAMES G. LAKELY is assistant editorial page editor of The Free Lance-Star.

[Miss Marple]

You know, you are so full of it that I wonder you don't simply explode. I don't believe for a minute that you wrote the Bush campaign, or that you considered supporting him.

[Miss Marple]

So, Darth, who would do a better job? Care to elaborate?

[mercy]

He was supported by about half of the American people WHEN HE WAS RUNNING AGAINST ALGORE. He had no real challenger in the primaries because he had been previously annointed. 90% of the money had already been put behind GWB. Not that there was any better choice out there. The GOP has dwindled to an empty shell of a once great Ronald Wilson Reagan juggernaut. There's about twenty or so GOP men with any balls left in the House and maybe six in the Senate. The bushy's complacency and willingness to settle for NEXT TO NOTHING is testament to the utter degeneracy of this country.

[habs4ever]

Bush has already rallied the world, just as Churchill did.He has created alliances, such as with Russia, that none of his foes would have thought possible, and he has done it in his even tempered, non bellicose manner.He is statesmen like and reassuring for these hard times, and the best man for the job right now.

[mercy]

Your childish personal attack is appropo for your head in sand uninformed opinion.

[mercy]

Bush has rallied SQUAT! The very idea that we need to rally the world is disgustingly offensive. The greatest most devastating attack this nation has ever suffered ... and we run around rallying the world. Sickening.

[habs4ever]

You are cracking up before our very eyes.I guess some people can't handle much stress, and you are one of them.Your fear, your anger, the pessimism, and childish hysterics, consign you to the crank korner.Your nation needs you now, don't go wobbly, so if you'd rather rail against things that you cannot change and blame your fellow countrymen for all that angers you, go ahead, but never expect some to consider you for no more than a fringe nutbar.Ta-ta...

[habs4ever]

Well, pal, that's the way the world is, not how you wish it were so.Your hysteria is a bore.If you are disgusted, tough titty.

[Darth Sidious]

So, Darth, who would do a better job? Care to elaborate?

Why should you care? In your mind they're not "electable" so they don't matter diddly-squat.

But yeah, I can elaborate: I can name a good many Freepers here who are tremendously wises, and are graced with far greater humility, than the man who was installed in the White House in 2001. But you're not interested in anything like merit or character: you want someone who can "win", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. You don't want a real servant: you just want someone who can grasp power and go "rah-rah-rah" behind. People like you can't get enough of saying that you did win but you never ask yourselves if you should win.

There are people who can/would/will do better than Bush ever has or ever will. But I severely doubt that you would ever really desire that.

[mercy]

I've got witnesses. Pictures on this site published. I've published most of my letters to Bush on this site. Bush is failing us ... miserably. You go ahead and pat him on the head while he muddles along. I will try and wake him and others up in an effort to save our land. You know you ought to listen to Neal Boortz. You need some fresh info. There's another world out there.

[Miss Marple]

Your last comment reveals how myopic you are. We could do this alone, but at a huge price in American lives. The use of a coalition not only helps our success (through intelligence sharing and manpower support) but it saves American lives, because we will have help

I guess you would prefer that we go it alone and get more Americans killed.

Pfui.

[Miss Marple]

I am certain that there are hundreds, maybe thousands of people who are smarter and more qualified than President Bush.

But if they don't run, orcannot be elected, what good are they?

The point is to find someone who is closest to your beliefs AND able to run and win. Otherwise you don't have a thing.

So, of those who were RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, who would have done a better job?

You see, if they weren't running, it really doesn't matter how superior they were.

[Wphile]

You don't want a real servant: you just want someone who can grasp power and go "rah-rah-rah" behind. People like you can't get enough of saying that you did win but you never ask yourselves if you should win.

This is perhaps one of the most inane comments I have ever read on FR. Like GW "grasped power" eh? I guess two years of campaigning and talking to real Americans constitutes "grasping power." And get off the "la-la cloud" and get real, buddy. Sure, there may be many wise people on FR and many people who adhere to a strict ideological path, but that doesn't mean they could or, to use your word, "should" be president. Whether you like it or not, there is a broad voice of opinion out there and not all agree with YOU!! Face the music, man: it doesn't do any good without the power.

[mercy]

And another couple things Marple. I've been fighting ( in my own little way ) for sensible politics for a very long time. I argued with the Buchananites that they were throwing away their votes. I excoriated the Perotistas. I raged at the McCainiacs. I despised George Bush Sr. but I voted for the whimp. And I challenged GWB in every way I could think of. I voted for Keyes in my State of Tx because I knew W would win anyway but I wanted him to ask himself " Why did Keyes get so many votes IN MY HOME STATE!"

But I'm not gonna go down with GWB's captaincy. He has FAILED. He's no conservative. Not even close. I doubt the validity of his Christian confession. I am fast coming to believe that he is a full blown globalist and his loyalties are not first and foremost with our beloved nation.

Why do you need to support him just because he was once your love? He has jilted all of us and is whoring around with the filth of the demoRAT subversives. Wake the eff up!

[Darth Sidious]

Do you really believe that the best possible people have an honest chance at winning a major election?

Here in North Carolina we have a half-dozen candidates with real principles who are running for the Senate seat that Jesse Helms will retire from. All of them are long-time residents of this state. None of them have the dough/political muscle behind them as Liddy Dole has: we're getting this RINO shoved down our throats by the GOP leadership (including Bush who shoulda steered out of our state's affairs). No other Republican candidate is getting the media play as Dole is: she's literally being set up to win the GOP primary. And then she'll more likely than not go down in flames against Erskine Bowles once the media machine goes full-tilt against her. Helms weathered that storm... no one believes Dole can.

If that had been, say, Jim Parker that the GOP bigwigs felt better represented this state, they would have given him a fair shake... and had a REAL candidate to pit against Bowles. As it is, for sake of "keeping it in the family", we're being set up to lose bigtime.

So don't be so naive as to believe that in America any schoolkid can grow up to be president... 'cuz unless that kid toes the party line and the party thinks it can really exploit him, even if he's got the purest heart around he won't have a snowball's chance in hell of running and winning. Why don't we see more suitable people running? Simple: 'cuz they know it's a fixed system, and they can't pollute their character by stooping that low just to "win" an election.

[mercy]

Spoken like a dyed in the wool moderate. This explains why you are unconcerned with GWB's vacilation, lack of decisevness, and general feminine behaviour.

The world hates us. They all want to live here but they hate our guts. All out of shear envy. When the US gets back (probably never happen if you are the new golden mean) to being the US ... stands up on it's feet and CRUSHES our WHOLLY deserving enemies .... the rest of the world will get in line to kiss our butts.

As it is, right now, they are grinding us down into the same sort of irrelevancy they have always lived in due to their crap political systems.

You and your kind HATE people with strong opinions and a rock solid opinionated personality. That's the problem. This is why we have no leaders in this nation. We destroy them. We are getting what we deserve as a nation. We have become a land of whimps.

[mercy]

Spoken like the man amoung men that you are.

[Miss Marple]

Oh, yes, George Bush is SOOOO feminine. HAR!

LOL! Get a grip! President Bush is SMARTER than you, and rather than bluster and bloviate he DOES THINGS.

I am sure the Taliban think he is a wimp. So does Iraq and Iran...which is why they are scrambling and mouthing off.

Your opinions are beyond reasonable discourse.

And as for anyone who would think me a moderate, all I can say is that I am pro-life, anti-tax, and for states rights.

Now retreat to your cubicle and think up some new propaganda. Pfui!