Reply
Mon 9 Feb, 2004 12:15 pm
Winston Churchill must be kicking and screaming and turning over in his grave!---BBB
I'm Churchill's heir - Bush
February 5, 2004
Casting himself and British Prime Minister Tony Blair as the spiritual heirs of Winston Churchill, US President George Bush has defended their decision to go to war against Iraq.
Bush called the Iraq war pivotal to his vision of a democratic transformation in the Middle East and compared it with the challenges Churchill faced in World War 2 and the early stages of the Cold War.
"In some ways, our current struggles or challenges are similar to those Churchill knew," Bush said in a speech at a Library of Congress exhibit honouring Britain's famous war-time prime minister.
"We are the heirs of the tradition of liberty, defenders of the freedom, the conscience and the dignity of every
person."
Bush and Blair both said this week they would launch inquiries into inaccurate prewar intelligence on Iraqi weapons programmes after the failure to find any stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction after the war.
Accusations that deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and programmes to develop nuclear weapons were at the heart of Bush and Blair's case for taking their countries to war in Iraq.
Today's challenge was the Middle East, where "the stakes could not be higher", Bush said. "When the leaders of reform ask for our help, America will give it."
Referring to Iraq, Bush said, "because we acted, nations of the Middle East no longer need to fear reckless aggression from a ruthless dictator who had the intent and capability to inflict great harm on his people and people around the world."
Bush frequently refers to Churchill as a hero and on Wednesday he called him "a rallying voice of the Second World War, and a prophet of the Cold War".
"I keep a stern-looking bust of Sir Winston in the Oval Office," Bush said. "He watches my every move."
Bush also cast Blair - who faces domestic criticisms over his staunch support for the US-led war on Iraq - in Churchill's image.
"I see the spirit of Churchill in Prime Minister Tony Blair," Bush said.
Bush and Blair have both been heavily criticised over the failure to find any unconventional weapons in Iraq.
David Kay, the former chief US weapons hunter in Iraq, said in congressional testimony last week that he had found no evidence of stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons and that prewar intelligence was almost all wrong.
US soldiers are dying at a rate of nearly one a day in Iraq, and Washington's plans for a transition of power to Iraqis have run into strong opposition from Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's most influential Shi'ite Muslim
cleric.
But Bush said the United States would not be swayed by the difficulties. "We will do what it takes. We will not leave until the job is done." - Reuters
Winston Churchill was one of the greatest men of the 20th century. The only others of his era that even came close were M.K. Ghandi and Dr. M.L. King. No one in the later part of the 20th and the dawn of the 21st centuries can even come close.
His writing was magnificent, his quotes memorable, his spirit was indomitable and his presence was overwhelming.
He was the perfect man to carry the U.K. through those terrible times. I believe that the U.K. would have been so much worse off had he not been their leader during such a trying time.
Just my 2 cents. (pre tax)
Bush as Churchill? That's hysterical. Churchill was one of the most articulate, eloquent speakers in the history of the language. Needless to say, Bush falls a bit short in that regard. And Blair, while a better speaker than his buddy, comes off most of the time as merely glib.
Fedral, I agree with your assessment completely.
An aside: I cannot think of three people less likely to get along if placed in the same room together. Greatness requires it's own space.
When Churchill died in 1965, just after his 90th birthday, the political cartoonist Bill Mauldin drew a British Imperial lion with a single tear trailing from one eye. Oddly enough, the electorate did not seem to have had such a high opinion of him. They wanted his leadership in a time of war, but dispensed with him pretty quickly when once again safe and secure. In his uncompleted biography of Churchill, William Manchester also uses a lion metaphor, describing him as the last British Imperial lion. His was a very strange life. His father Randolph was the second son of the eighth Duke of Marlborough, and he became quite a power in Parliamentary politics. His mother was an American socialite. Randolph contracted syphillis in his youth, and the literal physical decay of his brain made his last days a horror for his wife and son. Winston's mother had little time for him, and his youthful letters to her are plaintive and sad--he constantly asked her for a little of her time, and was as constantly denied. Born in 1875, when he had completed his secondary education, he was sent to Sandhurst as having too few brains for any more ambitious studies, and was chosen for the cavalry, as being the service which required the least brains of its officers. From the beginning of his public life, he showed those abilities which would characterize his life. He participated in the Malakand Field Force campaign against the Afghan tribesmen on the Punjabi frontier. He then immediately wrote his first book, The Malakand Field Force, and pushed his mother to use her connections to get it published. Not long after, he forced his way into Kitchener's expedition to the Sudan (Kitchener was less than enthused), and participated in the last cavalry charge in the history of the British Empire. Predictably, he then wrote a new book, The River War.
At loose ends at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, he took the first opportunity to go to South Africa when war broke out, as a newspaper correspondent. When the armored train on which he was riding was ambushed and derailed, he took command and helped to get the wounded on cars, and to get the train backed-up, and speeding away to escape. He was, however, captured by the Boers himself. He soon escaped, and in an adventure worthy of a Rider Haggard novel, made his way to the Indian Ocean coast. Yes, of course he wrote a book about the experience.
Home in time for the "Khaki Election" of 1900, he played the guilt card with his mother, and used her connections and influence to begin his political career. The rest of his life is perhaps better known to those who will read this. Winston Churchill was not good at spontaneous public address, so he applied his considerable energies to the effort, and became one of the most inspiring public speakers of the 20th century. He also became one of the deadliest opponents in the rhetorical skirmishes of Parliament. His writing does not attain to the level of great literature, but he was a competent historian and biographer, and his books World Crisis and The Second World War are indispensible resources for those studying the First and Second World Wars.
It is often said that such and such a man or woman was ahead of his or her time. In the case of our near cousin, Mr. Churchill, it might be appropriate to say that he was a man much behind his times, and a good thing for England that that were true. I won't even grace a comparison of the Shrub and Winston Chruchill with the considerable contempt it deserves.
Acquiunk wrote:
An aside: I cannot think of three people less likely to get along if placed in the same room together. Greatness requires it's own space.
I think Dr. King and Ghandi would have gotten along well. Dr. King's campaign of non-violent, passive resistance was a tribute to the path that Ghandi walked in his gaining of Indian independence. I think they would have had much to speak on about the success of non-violence in achieving their goals.
Mr. Churchill's hatred for Ghandi on the other hand was WELL documented. He hated that 'little brown man' with an absolute passion. I doubt he would have cared for Dr. King due to the laters admiration for Ghandi.
Just my 2 cents. (pre tax)
Quote:Bush frequently refers to Churchill as a hero and on Wednesday he called him "a rallying voice of the Second World War, and a prophet of the Cold War".
What he doesn't mention is that the evidence of Hitler's and Stalin's military intentions was rather more conclusive than the evidence for Saddam's. And that Churchill, unlike Bush, had the guts to do the right thing when it was deeply unpopular.
Comparison
Dubya the Dunce is a shallow, pathetic, opportunist and a coward.
I don't think even Republican Bush groupies could accept the comparison.
Bush is a legend in his own friggin' mind.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace