W. Churchill
Churchill author: I know Churchill. W, you’re no Churchill.
Lynne Olson, former Baltimore Sun scribbler, says people see Churchill and Chamberlain as they choose, and goes on to prove the point by comparing Bush to Chamberlain. Appears to have confused the window dressing for the view.
Topics: history
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:00 am on Sunday, July 1, 2007
6 Responses to “W. Churchill”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
July 1st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Ms. Olson ‘knows’ W Churchill? Rather presumptuous isn’t she? Did she work for him or was she married to him? I believe that more correctly stated, Ms. Olson knew ‘about’ W Churchill. And if history is any judge W Churchill would strongly approve of the fight being taken to the ‘Mohammedans’.
July 1st, 2007 at 7:53 pm
She needs to up her meds.
July 1st, 2007 at 10:57 pm
“Lynne Olson”
She’s either utterly ignorant or a stone cold liar. Anyone who buys her book is wasting their money.
July 1st, 2007 at 11:32 pm
“Likewise, Churchill almost certainly would look askance at the Bush administration’s years-long campaign to shut down public debate over the “war on terror” and the conflict in Iraq…”
The Bush administration hasn’t done a thing to shut down public debate in this country. You can say anything you want, up to and including preaching sedition and treason (which are illegal, but the government allows it away).
By way of contrast, Churchill’s government, within days of taking power started rounding up critics of the government, using the newly enacted Regulation 18B, an amendment to the Emergency Powers Act of 1939, and put them in prison where many remained for several years (without trial). Among those arrested were an American, Tyler Kent, who leaked correspondence between Churchill and Roosevelt to the British Right Club, the British pro-fascist anti-war leader Oswald Mosley, and Archibald Henry Maule Ramsay a British veteran, and at the time of his arrest, a MP, with enemy sympathies. In all about 1,000 people were detained without trial under Regulation 18B.
Like I said, Lynne Olson is either ignorant, or a liar.
Though it would be good if Bush were to round up our own home grown traitors and enemy sympathizers (including some congressmen I could name) and throw them in prison as Churchill’s government did.
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:51 am
‘Like Bush, Chamberlain also laid claim to unprecedented executive authority, evading the checks and balances that are supposed to constrain the office of prime minister. He scorned dissenting views, both inside and outside government. When Chamberlain arranged his face-to-face meetings with Hitler in 1938 that ended in the catastrophic Munich conference, he did so without consulting his cabinet, which, under the British system, is responsible for making policy. He also bypassed the House of Commons, leading Harold Macmillan, a future Tory prime minister who was then an anti-appeasement MP, to complain that Chamberlain was treating Parliament “like a Reichstag, to meet only to hear the orations and to register the decrees of the government of the day.”‘
Begging the issue on Neville Chamberlin’s management style, Churchill had far more executive power than President Bush has (and he used it with a will), for an example of which see my post above. He was also notorious for his interference and micromanagement in the affairs of government, often provoking the ire of members of the British Cabinet with his autocratic style (this is readily apparent to anyone who has read Sir Winston’s history of WWII). The idea that Bush has laid claim to unprecedented executive authority as compared to Winston Churchill (or American presidents like FDR) is pure fantasy.
As for the subject of bypassing legislative bodies, President Bush asked Congress to take a vote before initiating military operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq (even though in the case of Iraq we had been bombing Iraq on a regular basis for many years, and we were already at war with them by definition, therefore obviating the need for a vote of Congress). By way of contrast, President Clinton initiated military operations against the FRY in 1998, without so much as a by your leave from Congress. Clinton’s autocratic warmaking is hardly likely to be a subject for criticism from the likes of Ms. Olson, however. Ms. Olson’s implication that President Bush has behaved in an autocratic fashion in his dealings with Congress is 100% hogwash. Just the opposite is true.
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:37 am
“Just as Bush has done, Chamberlain authorized the wiretapping of citizens without court authorization; Churchill was among those whose phones were tapped by the prime minister’s subordinates.”
A policy continued by Sir Winston’s government when he assumed the office of prime minister. Even the P.M.’s telecommunications were monitored by the government and Sir Winston was subjected to the heavy hand of the censors on more than one occasion, as you would know, if you actually did a little research before you started shooting off your big mouth (backed by a tiny brain).
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/RuthIve.html