Bush is today's Churchill

NOSLEEP

Commander
Joined
Oct 30, 2002
Messages
2,442
A very good read.<br /><br /><br />By Peter Worthington -- For the Toronto Sun<br /><br /> <br />Comparing U.S. President George Bush with Winston Churchill may seem a stretch. Yet there's a parallel -- not with Churchill of the war years, when he was the "free" world's most admired leader, but with Churchill of the 1930s when he stood alone, warning about the rise of Nazism. <br /><br />Then, pacifism was rampant in Britain and Europe. Hitler's aggression was rationalized by wishful thinking. Peace at any price. <br /><br />Except for Churchill. He began warning that the Nazis must be stopped when they occupied the Rhineland in 1936. He urged an alliance of Britain, France and the Soviet Union to stop Hitler's expansion. He was called a warmonger, an enemy of peace, reviled in print and in speeches. Few stood with him. <br /> <br /><br />History has proven Churchill right. <br /><br />With the U.S. election entering the home stretch, Bush is under the same sort of attacks for his war on terrorism and Iraq that Churchill endured before WWII. <br /><br />Critics among both Republicans and Democrats worry that America acted alone, without approval of the UN Security Council, and without support of France and Germany. <br /><br />The "war" aspects of Afghanistan and Iraq were so successful that criticism was muted. It's the "peace" and trying to bring democracy to Iraq that has revived critics, who now give Bush the sort of treatment Churchill once received for warning about Hitler. <br /><br />Kerry's theme <br /><br />Sen. John Kerry's prime theme is that Bush has made America resented -- especially by France and Germany. <br /><br />What most overlook is that by his war on terrorism, Bush is doing now what Churchill was advocating in the mid-1930s. <br /><br />More than that, Bush is doing what the UN is supposed to do, but rarely has -- curb tyrannies that threaten security and stability, and which indulge in oppression and human rights abuses. <br /><br />Britain, under Prime Minister Tony Blair, supports America. So does Australia, and countries like Poland, and former communist countries of East Europe. Italy, too. And since the terrorist attack on the school in Beslan, Russia seems ready to join this new alliance against Islamic terror that threatens civilization. <br /><br />Canada, when Jean Chretien was PM, opted not to join the war against Saddam Hussein -- the first time in our history that we've chosen not to stand with traditional allies. (Agree or not, what's going on in Iraq is part of the war against terrorism). <br /><br />Bush's is not the only voice, but his is the loudest. Unlike Churchill, who had no power when he urged Britain and the West to wake up, Bush has power. And the "wakeup call" was 9/11. <br /><br />Today's election rhetoric shouldn't detract from the struggle that's going on. If Bush prevails, the world benefits -- that's the broad picture, not the narrow one of merely defeating an enemy. <br /><br />Success might also rescue the UN, which has become a forum for anti-western rhetoric and moral corruption. At the UN, human rights too often are something for speeches, not action. <br /><br />For a dozen years, before the U.S. and Britain acted after 9/11, Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at various UN resolutions. That has changed. Saddam is no more, and Libya's Moammar Khadaffy has backed off terrorism and weapons of mass instability. <br /><br />Syria now wants more cordial relations with the U.S. and says it will curb border insurgency. Pakistan has a useful ally. A democratic movement is active inside Iran. North Korea is curbing its nuclear threats. Russia is on side as never before. "New" Europe is more co-operative with America than "old" Europe. <br /><br />Clinton soft <br /><br />For those who think Bush is too stubborn, too aggressive since 9/11, it might be noted (as Churchill would note) that the previous administration of Bill Clinton was too soft, too weak, too hesitant about terrorism -- witness the feeble response to the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on the USS Cole, and treating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as a domestic crime rather than an Islamic terrorist act. <br /><br />Firmness then, like firmness with Hitler in 1936, might have prevented 9/11. <br /><br />While Kerry and others may deplore the problems, setbacks and slow progress in Iraq, Bush has stood tall for freedom, and by its example may even give courage to the usually craven UN. In short, America and Britain have assumed a leadership role that will benefit the world. More than that, they are right. <br /><br />If, indeed, Islamic terrorism is a world threat as Nazism once was, the time to fight it is now, not when it has gained even more strength. That has guided Bush and Blair, and it is to Canada's shame that our elected leaders have adopted a more passive role. <br /><br />Churchill would not be proud of us.
 

knobby

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Jan 11, 2003
Messages
430
Re: Bush is today's Churchill

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa. that was joke, right?
 

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Re: Bush is today's Churchill

and by its example may even give courage to the usually craven UN.
Simply not possible, too corrupt, a den of theives, too many cowards, no leadership, can't point to one time they were effective without the US doing all the work. <br /><br />I agree with the rest.<br /><br />At the end of WWII we had 7, thats right, 7 allies on our side. We have 31 helping us in the war in Iraq. World support my arse.
 

cmyers_uk

Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined
May 4, 2004
Messages
760
Re: Bush is today's Churchill

Did I miss something but Iraq did not have a hand in 9/11 so how will overthrowing Sadam make America safe from islamic terrorists?<br /><br />My view for what its worth is that if we think the threat has reduced because we have got rid of Sadam we are mistaken and we should be spending more on homeland security and intelligence which pre 9/11 was clearly lacking and concentrate on ensuring that NKorea and Iran do not get nuclear capability at all costs.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
21
Re: Bush is today's Churchill

Very well said Chris!<br /><br />Look at the bio's of the attackers from 911....95% Saudi connection. Saddam is gone; now Saudi must not be a haven for terrorists any more? Iraq should have come later if at all. The focus on the problems before and the results after is lost in this false security that we are safer with Saddam gone. That may have some truth to it, but I think we have made too many allies rethink their philosophy in standing with us, and we have created more hatred toward America in this poorly planned invasion.
 

Ralph 123

Captain
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
3,983
Re: Bush is today's Churchill

Let me put it this way. As a Nation we had this debate for months. As a Nation, we decided he was a threat. As a Nation, or leaders voted to use force if necessary to remove the threat. We went to the UN and had what 15 or 17 resolutions. The final one said "disarm or else." When the "or else" came, the French, Germans and Russians balked. Who cares why. We had hoped that we could have all stood together and forced him out peacefully - into exile. He had the chance. If the "allies" had stood firm Saddam would have walked. Ultimately he didn't because he thought there would be no way we would invade. He was wrong.<br /><br />Now, let me just add this from Putin:<br /><br />Putin: Iraq planned attacks against U.S. <br /> <br />The Washington Post <br />June 19, 2004<br /><br />WASHINGTON — Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein’s regime was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country. <br /><br />Putin, who opposed Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq, did not go into detail about the information that was forwarded , and said Russia had no evidence that Saddam was involved in any attacks. <br /><br />“After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam’s regime were preparing a terrorist attack in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests,” Putin said, according to RIA Novosti, the Russian state run news agency. “American president George Bush had an opportunity to personally thank the head of one of the Russian special services for this information , which he regarded as very important,” the Russian president told an interviewer while in Astana, capital of Kazakhstan. <br /><br />A senior U.S. intelligence official said Friday that Russia has provided helpful information in the war on terrorism , but he was “not aware of any specific threat information we were told” about Iraqi activities in advance of the March 2003 invasion. <br /><br />Putin’s statement came as Bush, Vice President **** Cheney and other administration officials defend their statements — made before the war and as recently as this week — that Saddam’s regime had a relationship with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida organization. <br /><br />The question of Saddam’s role in terrorism beyond Iraq’s borders has become a sensitive issue for the Bush administration. The allegation that Saddam’s Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons , and the concern that it would give them to al-Qaida , were among the chief justifications cited by the administration for attacking Iraq. <br /><br />In January and February 2003, as the U.S. and coalition forces massed in Kuwait and the Gulf area, the Bush administration asked countries including Russia to keep close surveillance on Iraq intelligence officers in their countries to make certain they were not preparing terrorist attacks against U.S. facilities. <br /><br />In his interview Friday, Putin said, “It is one thing to have information that (Saddam ) Hussein’s regime was preparing acts of terrorism — we did have this information and we handed it over. ... But we did not have information that they were involved in any terrorist acts whatsoever and, after all, these are two different things.” <br /><br />Two years ago, in an interview with British documentary makers after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, Putin said he had personally warned Bush a day or two before the assault that some kind of terror operations seemed to be in the works at that time. <br /> <br />I'm done....
 

Raghauler

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Messages
161
Re: Bush is today's Churchill

Ralph:<br /><br />Well said... Thank you, but I think your argument falls on too many deaf ears. Too many Americans have already forgotten September 11, 2001.<br /><br />There is only one issue this election for me. And it is 9/11.<br /><br />If I recall, a fews days following the satanic assault on NY, DC and PA, Bush, with an 80% approval rating, stated very clearly that ANY nation that supports terrorism shall be considered an enemy of the United States and is subject to attack from here on in. Everyone cheered, because the smoke was still billowing from lower Manhattan. So, first, we go after Al Queda, and after having killed more than 800 of their members and destroying their organization, some Americans have the brass b@LLS to suggest that just because we haven't killed OBL, that the Afganistan war is a failure! That's as insulting as OBL himself. AL Queda are unable to operate... if they could, we would have seen more of the same on U.S. soil. We haven't. Then, as Ralph points out, everyone gave Saddam more chances than there are grains of sand in Iraq to surrender peacefully. It is clear that Iraq supported terrorism. Even John Kerry, right up to August 09, 2004 admitted he believed Iraq was an imminent threat and supported the Iraqi war. He changed his mind. Fickle. The last thing this country needs is someone who changes his mind based on his party's polls.<br /><br />I lost a loved one that day, I will NEVER forget how I felt that afternoon. Now, fickle Americans suggest Saddam was bad, but since he didn't have a direct hand in 9/11, we should have rolled over and waited for him to strike us first. That's scary. The man financed terrorism against the U.S. If anyone believes for a minute that he wouldn't take the first chance to inflict damage to the U.S. the first chance he got is blowing wind up their own sorry arse. Unfortunately, they are trying to blow it up mine, as well. But I haven't forgotten.<br /><br />Fickle America. We have already forgotten. We are doomed.
 

NOSLEEP

Commander
Joined
Oct 30, 2002
Messages
2,442
Re: Bush is today's Churchill

Originally posted by Chris Myers:<br />[QB] Did I miss something but Iraq did not have a hand in 9/11 so how will overthrowing Sadam make America safe from islamic terrorists?<br /><br />Chris the war on terrorism didn't start with the<br />events of 9/11. The terrorists had started their<br />assault long before that day. I would even go out<br />on a limb and say the Iran hostage taking in the<br />late 70's was the beginning of Hostilities.
 

Ralph 123

Captain
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
3,983
Re: Bush is today's Churchill

nconvenient Facts <br /><br />John Kerry has now decided that he must deny any links between Saddam's Iraq and terrorism. There are some facts which he should be confronted with at tomorrow's debate. <br /><br />by Stephen F. Hayes <br />09/29/2004 7:39:00 AM <br /> <br />THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION argues that the Iraq war was the central front in the war on terror. Not long ago, John Kerry agreed. He called Saddam Hussein a terrorist. He worried about Iraq passing weapons to terrorists. His running mate prominently cited Iraq's terrorist connections as a chief reason for the war. As recently as early September, Kerry praised soldiers in Iraq as freedom fighters in the war on terror. <br /><br />All of this has changed. The Iraq war, Kerry says now with borrowed conviction, was a distraction. <br /><br />"The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy: al Qaeda," Kerry claimed, adding, "Iraq is now what it was not before the war--a haven for terrorists."<br /><br />In an interview with Time magazine, Kerry claimed that the 9/11 Commission found not only that Iraq was not behind the September 11 attacks, but that Iraq had "nothing to do with al Qaeda." <br /><br />In the past two weeks, his surrogates have gone even further. To wit: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war," said Stephanie Cutter, chief spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign, on September 9. "Iraq and terrorism had nothing to do with one another. Zero," said Teresa Heinz Kerry in a September 22 speech in Arizona. "Saddam Hussein and Iraq never were a threat to our national security or to the United States," claimed Ted Kennedy in an appearance on Hardball on Monday. <br /><br />Why is Team Kerry so eager to separate the Iraq war from the broader war on terror? If voters believe that Iraq is an important part of the war on terror, they are more likely to be patient with difficulties there. On the flip side, if Kerry were able to convince voters that the Iraq war was a distraction from the war on terror, he would erode confidence not only in Bush's handling of Iraq but also of the broader war on terror. According to numbers released in yesterday's USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll Kerry needs to do just that. Self-identified likely voters were asked about whether they approve of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq and the war on terror. Forty-eight of those surveyed approved of Bush's handling of the "situation in Iraq" and 49 percent disapproved. But the numbers spike when likely voters were asked about Bush's handling of the war on terror; 62 percent approve and only 36 percent disapprove.<br /><br />So it's not difficult to understand why Kerry's campaign wants to separate Iraq and the war on terror. But to claim that Saddam had "nothing to do with al Qaeda?" That there was no terrorism in Iraq before the war? That Iraq has never been a threat to the United States? These are preposterous statements. They're not debatable, or a matter of interpretation. They are demonstrably false. <br /><br />Here are some relevant facts about Iraqi support for terrorism:<br /><br />* On March 28, 1992, the Iraqi Intelligence Service compiled a 20-page list of terrorists the regime considered intelligence assets. Atop each page was the designation "Top Secret." On page 14 of that list is Osama bin Laden. The Iraqi Intelligence document reports that bin Laden "is in good relationship with our section in Syria." The document has been vetted and authenticated by the Defense Intelligence Agency. The existence of the document was first reported on CBS's 60 Minutes. It has been widely ignored.<br /><br />* Saddam Hussein hosted regular conferences for terrorists in Baghdad throughout the 1990s. Mark Fineman, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, reported on one such gathering in an article published January 26, 1993. "There are delegates from the most committed Islamic organizations on Earth," he wrote. "Afghan mujahideen (holy warriors), Palestinian militants, Sudanese fundamentalists, the Islamic Brotherhood and Pakistan's Party of Islam." One speaker praised "the mujahid Saddam Hussein, who is leading this nation against the nonbelievers. Everyone has a task to do, which is to go against the American state."<br /><br />* Abdul Rahman Yasin is an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the bomb used in the first World Trade Center attack on February 26, 1993. We know this because he has confessed--twice to the FBI and once on national television in the United States. He fled to Iraq on March 5,1993, with the help of an Iraqi Intelligence operative working under cover in the Iraqi Embassy in Amman, Jordan. A reporter for Newsweek interviewed Yasin's neighbors in Baghdad who reported that he was living freely and "working for the government." U.S. soldiers uncovered Iraqi government documents in postwar Iraq that confirm this. The documents show Yasin was given both safe haven and financing by the Iraqi regime until the eve of the war in Iraq.<br /><br />* Later that same month--March 1993--Wali al Ghazali was approached by an Iraqi Intelligence officer named Abdel Hussein. Ghazali, a male nurse from Najaf, met another IIS agent named Abu Mrouwah who gave him an urgent mission: assassinate former President George H.W. Bush on his upcoming trip to Kuwait. On April 14, Kuwaiti police found Ghazali and other Iraqi Intelligence assets with two hundred pounds of explosives in a Toyota Landcruiser. Ghazali, the would-be assassin, told a Kuwait court that he had "been pushed by people who had no mercy." He said: "I fear the Iraqi regime, the Iraqi regime pushed me."<br /><br />* According to numerous press reports, the deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, Faruq Hijazi, met face-to-face with Osama bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden asked for anti-ship mines and al Qaeda training camps in Iraq. There is no indication that Iraq made good on his requests.<br /><br />* That same year, according to internal Iraqi Intelligence documents authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community and reported in the June 25, 2004, New York Times, a Sudanese government official met with Uday Hussein and the director of Iraqi Intelligence to facilitate the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.<br /><br />* According to the New York Times, the same Iraqi Intelligence document said that bin Laden earlier "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative" and that "presidential approval" had been granted to the Iraqi Intelligence service to meet with him. Bin Laden "also requested join operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. At bin Laden's request, Saddam Hussein also agreed to broadcast on Iraqi television sermons of an anti-Saudi cleric.<br /><br />* The Clinton administration cited an "understanding" between Iraq and al Qaeda in its 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden. "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."<br /><br />* The 9/11 Commission reports that Iraq and al Qaeda had a series of "friendly contacts" that did not appear to have developed into a "collaborative operations relationship." The final report provides details of meetings between senior Iraqi Intelligence officials and al Qaeda terrorists throughout the spring and summer of 1998 and indicates that "Iraqi official offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq."<br /><br />* The offer of asylum was also included in the Senate Intelligence Committee's unanimous, bipartisan review of prewar intelligence. From p. 335 of the Senate report: "A [CIA Counterterrorism Center] operational summary from April 13, 1999, notes four other intelligence reports mentioning Saddam Hussein's "standing offer of safe haven to Osama bin Laden."<br /><br />* This, from p. 316 of the Senate Intelligence Committee report: "From 1996 to 2003, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interests, particularly against the U.S. and Israel. The CIA summarized nearly 50 intelligence reports as examples, using language directly from the intelligence reports. Ten intelligence reports, from multiple sources, indicated IIS 'casing' operations against Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty in Prague began in 1998 and continued into early 2003. The CIA assessed, based on the Prague casings and a variety of other reporting, that throughout 2002 the IIS was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning attacks against U.S. interests."<br /><br />* Page 331 of the Senate report: "Twelve reports received [redacted] from sources that the CIA described as having varying reliability, cited Iraq or Iraqi national involvement in al Qaeda's CBW [chemical and biological weapons] efforts."<br /><br />* Abu Musab al Zarqawi traveled to Iraq in May 2002. He lived in Baghdad with the knowledge--and perhaps sponsorship--of the Iraqi regime. A passage from p. 337 of the Senate Intelligence Committee report cites a CIA report called Iraqi Support for Terrorism: "A variety of reporting indicates that senior al Qaeda terrorist planner al Zarqawi was in Baghdad [redacted]. A foreign government service asserted that the IIS knew where al Zarqawi was located despite Baghdad's claims it could not find him." More, from p. 338: "Al Zarqawi and his network were operating both in Baghdad and in the Kurdish-controlled region of Iraq. The HUMINT reporting indicated that the Iraqi regime certainly knew that al Zarqawi was in Baghdad because a foreign government service gave that information to Iraq."<br /><br />* More recently, Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden's longtime mentor Abdullah Azzam, told Agence France Presse that the Iraqi regime worked closely with al Qaeda in Iraq before the war. "Saddam Hussein's regime welcomed them with open arms and young al Qaeda members entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation," he said in an interview published August 29, 2004. Azzam added that al Qaeda fighters "infiltrated into Iraq with the help of Kurdish mujahideen from Afghanistan, across mountains in Iran" and that once they arrived, Saddam "strictly and directly" controlled their activities.<br /><br />Does John Kerry truly believe that "Iraq and terrorism had nothing to do with one another?" Good question. <br /><br />Does Jim Lehrer read THE DAILY STANDARD?<br /><br />Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard and author of The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America.
 

SCO

Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 19, 2001
Messages
1,463
Re: Bush is today's Churchill

In this broad war, allowing Iraq to spit in our face would not have made us safer. We may have to take on Iran and Syria, and we have a better chance of their voluntary compliance with W in charge. Yes the "insurgency" is distressing, and a problem made worse by our lack of public resolve. The pre war Iraq and Middle East was going south on us fast. The insurgency is difficult and stressfull. Sometimes I think it was a flip of a coin as to which way we'd have to fight them, but we have to fight them. These things are like fires. Chaimberlin, Lindbergh(anti war in WWII) could not stop WWII by avoiding it. Muslims are spreading around the world and especially to Europe, and they are not friendly. It's time for the world to take notice before that intolerant and cancerous mindset spreads too far. They have the help of many usefull idiots, in particular the European liberals.
 

12Footer

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Mar 25, 2001
Messages
8,217
Re: Bush is today's Churchill

I got nuthin<br />Y'all beat me to it. :)
 

BLU LUNCH

Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
1,316
Re: Bush is today's Churchill

BUSH IS TODAY'S CHURCHILL now that I stopped laughin' where do I find the Peyote......you got to be kidding!
 

ebbtide176

Commander
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
2,289
Re: Bush is today's Churchill

its nice to see some good articles, and funny to see some real american non-believers, its just a warm&fuzzy feeling i get... <br /><br />kinda reminds me of a person touching a 'wet paint' sign just because they don't believe what their eyes are relaying to their brain...
 

Ralph 123

Captain
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
3,983
Re: Bush is today's Churchill

kinda reminds me of a person touching a 'wet paint' sign just because they don't believe what their eyes are relaying to their brain...
That is a fantastic analogy ebb
 

SCO

Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 19, 2001
Messages
1,463
Re: Bush is today's Churchill

Blu, the analogy is clear. Churchill knew Hitler was a big problem when he invaded the Rhineland in the midst of strong post WWI passivism. W knows Alqeda is a big problem in the midst of strong post Vietnam passivism. The liberals now are ready to give up Israel... aren't they? Aren't they thinking they can throw the muslims that bone and then the problem will be solved?? Don't forget, we are infidels too. History repeats itself, and this time I have chosen Churchill's side. Many of you are choosing Chamberlin's. Again. Link to Chamberlin:<br /> http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_chamber.html
 

Boomyal

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Aug 16, 2003
Messages
12,072
Re: Bush is today's Churchill

Originally posted by SCO:<br /> History repeats itself, and this time I have chosen Churchill's side. Many of you are choosing Chamberlin's. Again.
I wouldn't insult Chamberlin by comparing him to modern American Liberals. Chamberlin took his position out of strong (but wrongheaded) conviction and love for his country. In the end, he saw the errors of his way and worked tirelessly with Churchill in the great cause.<br /><br />Today's Liberal elites are using pacifism as a means to bring down the United States. They do not want America to be strong and stand out in 'the new World Order. Unlike Chamberlin, today's Liberals will never 'see the light'. They may recede in power and influence but they will never give up.<br /><br />How else could you possibly explain the Liberal Agenda of tearing down the family structure, the demonizing of Christianity that was responsible for this country's morals, ethics and strength, the killing of our unborn, the balkanizaton of our ethnic groups, the incouragement of an unatural life style that is literally killing it's members and polluting our culture and the dumbing down of our children through an educational system that is so purposefully ineffective and sucks up an ever increasing share of our total national output.
 

NOSLEEP

Commander
Joined
Oct 30, 2002
Messages
2,442
Re: Bush is today's Churchill

History does repeat itself. <br />Thank God for good men. As time passes we get a<br />clear view of what the people around us are made<br />of.
 
Top