Churchill was a lighting rod for the media’s pre-war carping. His staunch allies in Parliament today would be labeled “neocons.” They too were vilified, nearly demonized as war-loving meanies out to stir up trouble. Nazi threat? You're kidding!
Geoffrey Dawson, chief editor of The Times (of London), thought so, too, about Churchill in the mid-1930s. Churchill's arch critic, there is no single equivalent to Dawson in today's largely Bush-loathing, surely liberal American news media, led by the sometimes stridently anti-Bush New York Times and Washington Post, to say nothing of the 7/24 major TV networks such as CBS.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3517.html
2007-01-08 01:46:00 · 13 answers · asked by Feelsgood 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Very good point! Lincoln was as popular during the civil war, he is now considered our greatest leader the press in New York was very harsh with him, I sincerely believe our president will be thought of in high regard by historians....eventually.HEY PAUL H. CNN is owned by ted turner the former husband of Hanoi Jane Fonda.the guy is definitely not a conservative,get your facts straight before you open your ignorant mouth.
2007-01-08 01:54:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
I see a lot of the people who answered before me don't get the comparison. They just think "Oh because this is much lees then that, then you are all wet." But that's not true. You are completely spot on with this comparison. Since they called and even still to this day call Churchill a warmonger. Sadly no matter how you paint it the Liberals on here aren't going to get.
Just like the one who believes that it's a myth that our main media outlets have a Liberal bias. When in fact it does and it's getting worse every year.
2007-01-08 02:15:37 · answer #2 · answered by Mikira 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Most of the people answering your question don't have a clue they are trying to answer your question without historical perspective many great leaders were despised by the media at the time of their power ex Lincoln Trueman, Churchill, Reagan.
It takes the passage of time so one can look back without all the emotional rhetoric to get a more accurate picture on how the leaders of that time really perform.
2007-01-08 02:07:58 · answer #3 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Churchills son agrees with you.... that alone tells me there is validity....except he says Bush isnt doing enough to get his message out. He doesn't have the rhetoric and statesmanship like Churchill did as well as so much more opposition by the progression of the information age and the worldwide propaganda that can permeate from any source.
2007-01-08 02:13:06 · answer #4 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
good question. It hits the objective yet no longer the mark. Media liberals are linguistically knowledgeable socialists, their political counter-aspects are college below-knowledgeable/ or hippie drop-out socialists. answer,both! Striving to teach and make artwork a device that has failed mankind on account that recorded historic previous...yet They! The psychological elite, smarter than the overall public that carry some readability, comprehend more effective useful and believe of their own options that they are improved. They area with all that reject individualism and, in an attempt to extort their will over the thousands...might want to embody even the Anti-Christ...finished kiss, tongue protected upon lifting its tail, to achieve their perversion.
2016-12-28 09:34:41 · answer #5 · answered by gurdeep 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ok but following your logic, who is Hitler, the man who invaded and won througout Europe and Africa and Asia? All we were fighting is a tinpot dictator who lost in both the wars he started, in Iran and Kuwait. And even at that Saddam was caught and now hanged, less than three years after the start of this mess. A dictator who was already under UN sanction and had his country subject to fly-overs. If we had stayed in Afganistan to get Bin Ladin at least it would have been understandable, but Bush is no Churchill, not in any of many facets both men have and had.
Also please remember that at the start of world war 2, europe hadn't gotten over the effects of world war 1 and they were not anxious for a replay over the same territory. Not easy for us to understand since we weren't bombed and gassed as they were.
2007-01-08 01:56:17 · answer #6 · answered by justa 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
You get the STTRreeeeettch Armstrong award for most loaded comparison. Bush is NO Winston Churchill. Don't offend the British! We're running out of allies due to Dubya's ineptness!
Churchill didn't lie....didn't compromise people's civil liberties....didn't build up war on faulty intelligence....didn't send troops out with faulty equipment and poor leadership then bellow, "BRING IT ON!" from the safety of his comfy chair....and didn't refuse to meet with military families and civilians devastated by war.
Your comparison only shows the desperation you neocons are having over Bush's place in history. Thanks!
2007-01-08 01:58:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Comparing Winston Churchill to George Bush is like comparing Albert Einstein to Forrest Gump. And it is a myth that the media has a liberal bias - it is owned by the extremely wealthy who are usually very conservative. I don't see anything wrong with being conservative - I do have a problem with person's making absurd comparisons that don't make sense. Winston Churchill was granted honorary American citizenship after the war - do you think George Bush will be extended an equivalent honor? My guess is not a chance.
2007-01-08 01:52:17 · answer #8 · answered by Paul H 6 · 4⤊ 6⤋
are you really trying to equate GW Bush with Winston Churchill?
good gracious!
2007-01-08 04:43:58 · answer #9 · answered by coquinegra 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
How can you compare Churchill to Bush? Bush isn't even close. You are so far off base that you can't even see where the base is.
2007-01-08 01:57:43 · answer #10 · answered by vertical732 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋