[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Commentary: The bookworm president WASHINGTON, May. 14 (UPI) -- Two of Washington's best-informed men confirmed it so it must be true. President Bush and his consigliere Karl Rove bet on who had read the most books in a year. Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, told friends Rove won with 117 books and Bush was a close second with 104 books. Unhappy over his loss to his close confidant, Bush asked for a recount -- in words. And the president won by 1.7 percent. The story is not apocryphal. In fact, none other than McConnell's predecessor as the nation's top spymaster, John Negroponte, now deputy secretary of state, confirmed it. The president, he explained, reads two to three books a week and does not watch television. Most of them are history and biographies of famous statesmen (and three stateswomen who took their countries to war, namely Britain's Margaret Thatcher, Israel's Golda Meir and India's Indira Gandhi). Bush identifies with George Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman and on the other side of the pond, Winston Churchill, all men of courage who did what was right when it was most difficult. From the order to obliterate Hiroshima and Nagasaki that killed instantly 150,000 Japanese to avoid the loss of an estimated 1 million American lives in an invasion of Japan; to the recognition of the state of Israel against the advice of World War II's most prestigious military leader, Secretary of State George C. Marshall; to the decision to repel North Korea's invasion of South Korea; to the firing of the immensely popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur for disobeying the president; to Ronald Reagan's defeat of the evil Soviet Empire, Mr. Bush sees his decision to invade Iraq in the same historical league. President Bush showed a recent visitor a portrait of Lincoln to talk about the tremendous odds that president encountered in his decision to go to civil war to free the slaves. Bush had done something roughly comparable in his decision to free 26 million Iraqi slaves from Saddam Hussein's tyranny. Bush's model for resisting and defeating Islamist extremism's global campaign to restore the caliphate and destroy Christendom is Churchill. Isolated in the 1930s on the back benches of parliament, his clarion calls for backbone against Hitler's Europewide ambitions went unheeded until World War II broke out Sept. 1, 1939 -- and then still didn't get the draft to lead until the Nazi blitzkrieg in May 1940. President Bush, sans Britain's Tony Blair, now sees a parallel with Churchill who soldiered on alone until Pearl Harbor Dec. 7, 1941, forced the United States to World War II. In Bush's perspective, the mullahs' Iran, the Iraq insurgency, al-Qaida, transnational terrorism, all add up to a mortal danger for Western civilization. U.S. News & World Report, a national magazine with a circulation of 2 million, asked on its cover a week ago whether Mr. Bush was "Resolute or Delusional?" The frequent comparisons to history's greats are anything but delusional, his aides and confidants say off line. He is, of course, stubborn and unyielding. And all are confident history will vindicate his bulldoggish tenacity. The self-described "Decider" is the antithesis of self-doubt. Like an old seadog, he relishes the idea of plowing into rough seas. When a recent visitor asked him what assurance he could give about his successor in 2009, President Bush replied, "we'll fix it so he'll be locked in." The visitor left perplexed and wondered whether that might mean the United States would be in a wider war in the region by then. In any event, it didn't sound like twilight time for Bush. A Texan friend of long standing called on him recently and confided to his Washington hosts that Bush had said three times, bringing a clenched fist to his chest, "I'm the president." To remind visiting political opponents, he said, would be normal. But the close friend said he was a little taken aback as he had never seen Bush in this mode before. Moderate Republicans, led by Sen. Chuck Hagel; former national security adviser (under Bush 41) Brent Scowcroft, who weekends in Kennebunkport, Maine, with President Bush's father; Susan Eisenhower (the president's granddaughter); former Deputy Secretary of State John Whitehead and other prominent names are deeply concerned about 2008. Those who identified with the Republican Party in 2002 numbered 30 percent (versus 31 percent with Democrats). This year, Republicans are down to 25 percent (33 percent Democrats), and still dropping. Discouraged Republicans have taken their concerns to the president. When they talked to their friends later that same week, they couldn't find anything encouraging to say. To those who accuse him of not keeping his ear close enough to the ground in grass-roots America, he identifies with Churchill's classic riposte: "I wonder what the British people would think of a leader caught in such an ungainly posture." In Bush's reading of history, for the United States of America, the world's most powerful nation, to lose the war in Iraq would be tantamount to Churchill and the Royal Air Force losing the Battle of Britain in 1940. Hitler would have invaded a defenseless Britain. A then defenseless United States would have been within his evil grasp. In the case of a U.S. defeat in Iraq, as Bush sees it, a nuclear-armed Iran and the forces of global obscurantism would become dominant in the Middle East. On the geopolitical chessboard, it wouldn't be checkmate. But the queen would be gone.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#6. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
In Bush's reading of history, for the United States of America, the world's most powerful nation, to lose the war in Iraq would be tantamount to Churchill and the Royal Air Force losing the Battle of Britain in 1940. Hitler would have invaded a defenseless Britain. A then defenseless United States would have been within his evil grasp. I guess the Soviet Union doesn't count, and Britain really was alone until we entered the war. I'm quoting from memory, but in the book "The German Army 1939-1945) by Matthew Cooper, he says that during the first six months of Operation Barbarossa, the Germans permanently removed 7.5 million men from the Soviet order of battle. I would say that the German troops being used for that might have been useful elsewhere. This was the same time that the only other place the Germans were expending much effort was for North Africa, where a few German divisions were fighting a few British ones. As for the second quoted part, I'm not sure where he's trying to go with that one. For Britain to lose the battle of Britain, and end up with Operation Sea Lion going off is somewhat different than leaving Iraq. Britain was fighting potentially for its existence (though whether the Germans would have had the ability to pull off "Sea Lion" will forever be conjecture) against a military force that conquered France in mere weeks, and then occupied a region of the Soviet Union similar to if the United States were occupied from the Eastern coast (Maine to Florida) all the way to the Mississippi River, who had millions of men in uniform, and were very capable and well trained. We're fighting a decentralized leaderless resistance, incapable of conquering anything (but capable of making an occupying power leave). So I'd say that the attempting to evoke martial images of Bush as Churchill are a bit strained. I thought I had a fairly good vocabulary, but I had to look up "obscurantism" trying to put it into a context that would allow "forces of global obscurantism" to make any sense at all, and I'm still a bit at a loss. Wikipedia differentiates between a capital "O" and lowercase one. The definition for lower case is: "In the 20th century obscurantism has also come to mean a literary style that is deliberately complex and misleading in order to hide the fact that the writer's ideas are vacuous, or empty. In this sense, what is meant to be obscured is not knowledge itself but rather the fact that the writer has no knowledge of his subject." I'm not sure how that jibes with what the author is trying to get across. Capital O makes a little more sense: "The older sense of the term Obscurantism refers to a class of philosophies that favor limits on the extension and dissemination of scientific knowledge, believing it to be the enemy of religious faith." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ob scurantism It would be just as easy to apply the second definition to many of the President's followers. I think this is attemping to be applied to the Muslims, and that there is some grand conspiracy for them to destroy modern civilization. The only way they can accomplish this would be for all of civilization to simply sit aside and allow it to happen. I think the chosen term by the author was simply a substitute for "Islamo-fascism" (whatever the hell that is) in an attempt to sound more profound. It's equally unintelligible and devoid of real meaning.
There are no replies to Comment # 6. End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||