Today In The War Street Journal
by Vince Daliessio
...The editors finally make the link explicit between George W. Bush and Abraham Lincoln. They have finally severed any and all links to objectiveness and reality, and directly compare their man Bush with the man who successfully destroyed the republic while killing over a half million of his fellow countrymen;
During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln hired, then cashiered, Generals Scott, McClellan, Burnside, Hooker and Meade before settling on Grant. That took about two years, during which the catastrophes of Bull Run (Union casualties: 2,896), Fredricksburg (13,353) and Chancellorsville (18,400) intervened. How's that for poor Presidential personnel choices leading to unnecessary loss of life?
Comments
If I were the mayor and I asked you, the police chief, to go out and kill some citizens that I didn't like on my behalf, would you do it? If I had to fire you, and your next three replacements, until I finally found some monster that would do it, would that qualify as a successful decision?
I love hearing the Clinton / Kerry Axis complain about what a travesty John Ashcroft is, while blithely ignoring Janet Reno's self-righteous arrogance. The Bill Of Rights was repealed a long time ago - they are just coming to that realization now.
My point exactly. The WSJ is completely supportive of the war. I thought the last sentence of the quote was especially poignant. But I thought they were begging the question of whether the consequences of war mistakes were ever justified; i.e. the end justifies the means. "So what if Lincoln had to hire and fire 5 generals and lose 35,000 men for absolutely no reason at all except to collect an unjust tarriff? He eventually won, didn't he?"
The WSJ implies, though, that if only Lincoln had made the right choice, the War of Northern Agression would have been a smashing success. In reality, they should be taking a 10,000' view and asking themselves, "Was this war just?" In both cases, you will find the true similarity.
Most grand plans, ones where the public at large is made to pay both financially and in freedom, demand a ominscient, benevolent dictator. This has two problems: First, you'd be hard-pressed to find one. Second, if you ever did, the next guy would inherit those same powers and you wouldn't like it one little bit. For some strange reason, we accept a complete repeal of the Bill of Rights by W but we'd be up in arms if Hillary did it (if we still had arms).
Post a Repsonse
