Kerry must be stopped; and Bush must win
Kerry must be stopped; and Bush must win
Paul Johnson, who is a topnotch historian, explains (in
NRO) why it is an absolute must that Bush, not Kerry, leads the West in the unfolding war of civilisations.
"There is something grimly admirable about his stoicism in the face of reverses, which reminds me of other moments in history: the dark winter Washington faced in 1777-78, a time to "try men's souls," as Thomas Paine put it, and the long succession of military failures Lincoln had to bear and explain before he found a commander who could take the cause to victory. There is nothing glamorous about the Bush presidency and nothing exhilarating. It is all hard pounding, as Wellington said of Waterloo, adding: "Let us see who can pound the hardest." Mastering terrorism fired by a religious fanaticism straight from the Dark Ages requires hard pounding of the dullest, most repetitious kind, in which spectacular victories are not to be looked for, and all we can expect are "blood, toil, tears, and sweat." However, something persuades me that Bush — with his grimness and doggedness, his lack of sparkle but his enviable concentration on the central issue — is the president America needs at this difficult time. He has, it seems to me, the moral right to ask American voters to give him the mandate to finish the job he has started."
(To read the rest requires now a subscription. But do go to the page for the introduction that says almost everything that matters).
Posted by bunuel cela at October 12, 2004 02:07 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/6465
1
.
BobW
said:
Concur that Paul Johnson is a "topnotch historian". He does not qualify as an emissary from Heaven, though.
In A HISTORY OF THE JEWS, 1987, he wrote "The answer lies in yet another Jewish contribution to the shape of the modern world: the scientific use of terror to break the will of liberal rulers. ...Its most accomplished practitioner was Menachem Begin,..." pg 520.
It is fair and highly accurate to say that His and Her Majesty's government, long before the emancipation of European Jewry, developed and used the scientific use of terror.
Lincoln continued to experience "pure" military failures against Confederate forces. Only after the Lincoln administration changed policy and engaged economic targets, ie the civilian population, did the Union start to win.
Kol tuv,
BobW
Posted by: BobW on October 13, 2004 02:41 AM
Kerry must be stopped; and Bush must win
Paul Johnson, who is a topnotch historian, explains (in NRO) why it is an absolute must that Bush, not Kerry, leads the West in the unfolding war of civilisations. "There is something grimly admirable about his stoicism in the face of reverses, which reminds me of other moments in history: the dark winter Washington faced in 1777-78, a time to "try men's souls," as Thomas Paine put it, and the long succession of military failures Lincoln had to bear and explain before he found a commander who could take the cause to victory. There is nothing glamorous about the Bush presidency and nothing exhilarating. It is all hard pounding, as Wellington said of Waterloo, adding: "Let us see who can pound the hardest." Mastering terrorism fired by a religious fanaticism straight from the Dark Ages requires hard pounding of the dullest, most repetitious kind, in which spectacular victories are not to be looked for, and all we can expect are "blood, toil, tears, and sweat." However, something persuades me that Bush — with his grimness and doggedness, his lack of sparkle but his enviable concentration on the central issue — is the president America needs at this difficult time. He has, it seems to me, the moral right to ask American voters to give him the mandate to finish the job he has started." (To read the rest requires now a subscription. But do go to the page for the introduction that says almost everything that matters).Posted by bunuel cela at October 12, 2004 02:07 PM