Bush vs Winston Churchill ..(one is a coward)...

[msongs]

currently reading the biography of Winston Churchill (if you don't know who he is......)by William Manchester, and I am struck by the similarities and differences between Bush Jr And Churchill.

They both came from aristocratic upper class families with long histories of government service.

They both did relatively poorly in school and did not care much for the academic life.

They both served in the military and later achieved the top office available to them in their respective governments.

And that is where their paths diverge.

Churchill when young joined the military and actively onspired to be put into combat situations while Bush dodged them. Churchill when young supported himself through his own efforts, selling his articles and stories, while still receiving some family subsidy, while Bush was supported and bailed out exclusively by his family after being nothing but a personal and fiancial failure.

Churchill was a true man of action who engaged in many truly heroic behaviors while Bush has been and always will be a coward.

Churchill warned his nation of the impending threat (Nazi Germany) and was derided, then called upon to save the nation, while Bush had no clue and dismissed Clinton papers warning of the impending threat of terrorist attack, failed to prevent the threat from becoming reality, then lied about it all to start an illegal war.

And finally, during the months of his greatest triumph, the surrender of Germany and Japan at the end of WW two, The british people turned Churchill and his political party out of office. Now let us hope at last there is something historic that Winston and George will share.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/liberaltshirts.htm

[smirkymonkey]

1. ...And they were both raging alcoholics

One functional, the other delusional.

[GarySeven]

2. Churchill wasn't afraid of meeting his critics

Mark Twain, as some of you may know, was one of the leading opponents of American imperialism of the day; he was violently opposed to the Spanish American War and of Western expansionism over the rights of native peoples generally. Churchill was just the opposite: a true believer in the supremacy of the West. Twain and Churchill met on at least two occasions that I know of. In the first, Churchill did most of the talking while Twain contentedly puffed on his cigar; in the second, the two men actually debated each other on the topic of imperialism. In that event, it was Twain who introduced Churchill to his first American audience. Say whatever you will, Churchill wasn't afraid to face his detractors head on. Bush has people arrested for wearing the "wrong" T-shirts and hides behind troops; men and women who would be court martialed if they register any negative opinions and who he literally pays to applaud every word he mispronounces.

[lapfog_1]

3. Let's not give Churchill a complete pass

In a much more legitimate war (WWI) than Iraq...

----
As First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill attempted to break the deadlock of the First World War with a daring plan to force the Dardanelles Straits. The plan quickly faltered and subsequent attempts to land troops at Galipolli resulted in massive Allied casualties. The failure also brought about Churchill’s removal from office.

----
I only wish we had an easy mechanism to remove * from office for
complete failure (and Churchill had a good idea, just failed to
account for a lot of logistical and environmental stuff... his
failure in WWI led directly to the much better plan at Normandy
in WWII)

[GarySeven]

5. Churchill was no tactitian, that is true ...

But he was a conservative Britain who nevertheless allied himself with a liberal American president. Bush's philosophy is not to ally himself with anyone who doesn't agree with him 100 percent. And he'd probably nickname FDR "Wheels."

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. The blame for Gallipoli can't be laid ENTIRELY at Churchill's feet...

Lord Fisher was rather obstinate about not giving the operation proper naval support, despite repeated entreaties...he owns as much of the blame for the failure of the operation as Churchill (not to mention that there was severe disorganisation and incompetence on the part of the ground commanders, in not acheiving certain strategic objectives when it was possible and thus giving the Turks time to reinforce their positions).

[zulchzulu]

4. The only major differences between Churchill and Chimpy to know

Churchill went to war BECAUSE HE HAD TO. Churchill also served his country and knew about war.

Bush did neither.

[GarySeven]

6. Not only that ...

Churchill read secret memos and reports detailing the buildup of Hitler's military and tried to do something about them. Bush left similar memos on his desk while he went out to clear brush in Texas.