These Are Historic Times ~ Is it to be Lincoln or Sisyphus?

National Review ^ | Sept. 19, 2003 | Victor Davis Hanson

[LS]

Obviously, I agree. Over the past 10 years I've moved from thinking that the Dem leadership is merely clueless to concluding that they are EVIL. They know full well what is at risk, and don't care. I have not studied the Republicans in 1941-45 a lot, but I don't recall, even in the 1944 presidential election, much (if any) debate over the war. The closest they got was to investigate "war profiteering." But these Dems are deliberately working to cause harm to our armed forces.

[MEG33]

Bump

[PhilDragoo]

By May 1864, Abraham Lincoln was in real trouble. The spectacular victories of the past year at Gettysburg and Vicksburg were mostly forgotten — in the manner that we no longer talk much about the amazing campaign in Afghanistan or the historic three-week drive on Baghdad.

Taking great achievements for granted, taking cheap shots on leaders waging life-and-death struggle: the parallels are clear, and the stakes just as dear.

[snippy_about_it]

Just as dear. Thanks Phil.

[windchime]

Bump!

[ohioWfan]

Great post, Ragtime!

Wish I'd thought of it.........hehe

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Uh-huh, tapping my toes here....(^;

[ohioWfan]

Well......I'm still trying to figure out why YOUR wonderful post, didn't show up in MY search.......

Something wrong with the system, you think?

I wouldn't have duplicated it had I known.......HONEST I wouldn't!

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

I never do that! (^;

No, it didn't show up because we put them in two different locations - yours in General, mine in News/Activism. Just look at the new Freepers you attracted to a war news thread. Thank you!

If I find good war news links will you post the threads and then ping me?

I'm series! Also late. Sweet dreams.

[GOPcapitalist]

These analogies of the doomsayers that Lincoln faced to those oozing out of the gutter against Dubya are fascinating - and quite accurate.

I have to disagree with you there. Hanson's article is a brilliant piece of political sophistry and it conveys a rhetorically appealing analogy. But as I was telling another in a discussion of this article, it lacks strength as a sound logical argument. It only works as long as one accepts Hanson's own severely oversimplified, selectively presented, and, in parts, imprecise and inaccurate account of civil war history. Subject it to a fuller accounting of historical events and Hanson's argument is exposed as a carefully constructed rhetorical device rather than an intellectually meritous analysis of events.

All of that in a word: Hanson presented a storybook version of Abe Lincoln that was intentionally crafted to parallel what he sees as Bush's current situation in the closest way possible thereby permitting him to take advantage of the recollective abilities of his readers.

[Happy2BMe]

If the comparison had been between 41 and Lincoln instead of 43 and Lincoln, would it have been more accurate?

Thanks for the dissertation.

[GOPcapitalist]

If the comparison had been between 41 and Lincoln instead of 43 and Lincoln, would it have been more accurate?

Probably not.