CHURCHILL AND DUNKIRK AND BUSH

Jonah cites Dunkirk as evidence that even Churchill was fallible as a war leader. But, of course, Dunkirk was Chamberlain’s legacy and occurred just after the Brits checked out their war-leader (Chamberlain), realized he was incompetent, and picked another one. A better example would be Gallipoli – a spectacular military catastrophe that Churchill engineered – and took decades to recover from. Of course, the comparison between Bush and Churchill is ludicrous in any case, as most Bush supporters would agree. My own angle: Churchill never failed to remind the Brits that they were up against it, and he was always candid about failure – because he knew that falsely-optimistic spin only weakened morale in the long term. He also made sure to include opposition leaders in his cabinet, made amends with his union foes, and did everything to keep the country united as it faced a war for survival. Bush has managed to divide this country in wartime (with help, of course, from the Michael-Moore-Terry-McAuliffe left).