I really don't see how you can compare Churchill to Bush:
Quote:
Originally posted by Worthington
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.
|
When did Bush warn us about 9/11? Oh yeah, he
reacted to it and all the terrorist jibba jabba from Bush came afterwards.
And is Bush the only one warning us about this threat of terror nowadays? Is he the only one that wants to fight it? Seems to me that most people would agree those radicals who want nothing more than the destruction of the Western World need to be stopped. I think most take issue with Bush's approach to fighting terrorism (ie: Iraq). I personally think Bush has made the world a more dangerous place. Sorta like if Churchill went off to battle El Salvador, claiming he was dealing a crushing blow to Nazi Germany.
Oh but wait, Bush did urge a worldly alliance to crush that enourmous, looming threat that was Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Much like Churchill urged a European alliance to combat Hitler and his armies. Looking back, I can see how easy it is to compare Saddam and Iraq to Hitler and Germany, and thus Churchill to Bush...
