The Globe And Mail Sucks

I'm really getting sick of reading the guest commentary at The Globe And Mail.

Today we are honoured to be able to peruse Desmond Morton's latest offering Misunderestimating A Leader. He starts off with:

Republicans in New York this week are doing all they can to accentuate the positive on George W. Bush, their inevitable presidential candidate. Bravely nursing their badly twisted arms, the only two Republicans with bipartisan prestige, Senator John McCain and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, delivered their carefully designed prose as if they meant it.

Morton seems to be able to read minds when he says they 'delivered their carefully designed prose as if they meant it'. He of course is implying they neither of them truely meant the words they spoke. I guess the neo-con conspiracy must have threatened to kill off their families or something. Maybe those nasty Jews were involved somehow? For Morton to make such a claim without offering any proof is poor writing if there ever was any. I wonder if he lets his students write their history exams in such a manner?

He then proceeds to go on about how Guiliani compared G.W. Bush to Winston Churchill:

Mr. Bush, Americans were told, was "rock-solid" for the war; his Democratic rival, Senator John Kerry, was actually guilty of changing his mind. In rock-simple analogy, George Bush was a war leader comparable to that robust British hero of an earlier generation, Winston S. Churchill.

Now I've read many editorialists complain about Giuliani making this comparison between the two men. But when exactly was it stated that Bush equaled Churchill in any manner. Both speakers claimed that a leader 'like' Churchill was necessary today. At no point did they say Bush exceeded or equaled Churchill in any manner. The point was that between Bush and Kerry, Bush is more 'Churchillian' than Kerry is. But of course that has been lost on Morton since he was too busy hearing what he wanted to hear.

Giuliani made two references to Churchill in his speech:

They ridiculed Winston Churchill. They belittled Ronald Reagan.

But like President Bush, they were optimists; leaders must be optimists. Their vision was beyond the present and set on a future of real peace and true freedom.

Some call it stubbornness. I call it principled leadership. President Bush has the courage of his convictions.

...

There are many qualities that make a great leader but having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader.

Winston Churchill saw the dangers of Hitler while his opponents characterized him as a warmongering gadfly.

Ronald Reagan saw and described the Soviet Union as "the evil empire" while world opinion accepted it as inevitable and belittled Ronald Reagan's intelligence.

Where here does Morton hear Guiliani comparing Bush to Churchill? He says Churchill was 'an optimist' and that he had 'strong beliefs'. Is Morton claiming that Bush is neither of these things? It doesn't seem that he is but then there would be no point to his statement here then would it.

Morton they gives us this original gem:

However, in September, 2004, it is hard to find evidence that George Bush has been a great success as a war leader.

The United States is bogged down in Iraq, with a deep deficit and a job-losing economy. The diversion of troops from Afghanistan means that a plausible war on terrorism is stalled and even in retreat.

Anger at the U.S. feeds the fanaticism that breeds terrorists. Having declared war on terrorism as a means to rally patriotic fervour and to secure greater presidential powers, President Bush now confesses that his war cannot be won — hardly a Churchillian strategy.

This of course is the usual blather that comes from anti-Bush writers but as usual no proof of any of this exists. Why exactly did they go to Iraq? Did he not listen to McCain's speech? McCain said:

After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein, President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq.

Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone.

The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal.

Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war.

It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents.

Why does Morton not address this? Or was his hearing impaired by the usual complaints of the Left?

In short, Morton heard what he wanted to hear. And this guy teaches history? Sad.