The President "lied" us into war. Much of the pre-war intelligence was wrong. The civilian defense chief was detested as "brusque, domineering and unbearably unpleasant to work with." Civil liberties were abridged. And many embittered Democrats, claiming the war had been an utter failure, demanded that the administration bring the troops home.
George Bush? Well, yes - but also a President who looms far larger in American history, Abraham Lincoln. One is struck by the parallels in reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's masterful new book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.
I sent this link to a maillist of which I am a member and received the following reply, which I have received permission to repost here:
Quelle surprise.
I said that years ago. Start reading "Abraham Lincoln: The War Years", and you can see the parallels. Everything from Lincoln's overly belligerent rush to war (even though the war started before he was inaugurated) to his stupidity (he was really controlled by Seward or Chase or someone else) to his lack of sophistication (his backwoods manners were a source of ridicule, and he was considered an embarrassment to those who had to deal with the o-so-sophisticated Europeans) to simian comparisons (he was frequently portrayed as a baboon or a gorilla). It's really hard not to see the Bush parallels. As I said before, I think it says a lot more about their critics than it says about Bush or Lincoln.
And the Anti-War crowd hasn't updated their material since 1861.
7 comments:
You said everything in the title.
Bush Isn't Lincoln.
History will decide, not you.
History will decide that Bush is not Lincoln. There is no comparison. One will only need to examine the fact that Lincoln held the union together, while Bush has only served to divide us.
Some might argue that Lincoln's election divided the US, and Lincoln forced it back together with a very costly war.
Not that I fault Lincoln for doing what he did, but them's the facts.
"Bush has only served to divide us."
Bush hasn't divided us; your hate for the United States has.
Lincold made a huge mistake. He should have let the South secede. Then the United States wouldn't have to deal with it now. In fact, may I suggest that the South go its grim way now?
What percent of US refinery capacity is in the South? How much more are you willing to pay for gas when they jack up the price even more to screw with you liberal "Yankees" and your US government puts even more of an import tax on it?
But anonymous, your hatred is palpable. Perhaps you don't appreciate diversity as much as you think you do. Perhaps you need to go to some sensitivity training.
Post a Comment