We seem to be having American History week. We determined that Bush is no FDR, and then we argued that Bush is no Lincoln. He may eventually win the title of “Worst President in History,” however.

Arthur Schlesinger Jr. weighs in today with “Bush’s Thousand Days” in the Washington Post. Schlesinger agrees that Bush is no Lincoln; nor is he Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, or John F. Kennedy. I think most of us lefties had noticed this.

Schlesinger also noticed, as I wrote here, that Bush doesn’t explain his policies and decisions.

The issue of preventive war as a presidential prerogative is hardly new. In February 1848 Rep. Abraham Lincoln explained his opposition to the Mexican War: “Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure [emphasis added]. . . . If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us’; but he will say to you, ‘Be silent; I see it, if you don’t.’ ”

This is precisely how George W. Bush sees his presidential prerogative: Be silent; I see it, if you don’t .

In other words, this is no way to start a war. The president must explain to the nation why we’re going to war — and it has to be real reasons, not made up ones — before we can give an informed consent to going to war. If the president starts a war against the will of We, the People, then we’re no longer a constitutional democracy, are we?

Schlesinger is concerned that Bush will launch another “preventive” war with Iran, and he argues that history shows us that dangerous enemies can often better be dealt with in other ways than going to war. War sometimes makes a bad situation worse, in fact.

There aren’t many rightie responses to this column so far, but one of the few deserves special mention. He starts with a standard straw man:

It never fails to amaze me how liberals seem to think there are no bad guys in the world.

The blogger goes from there to the claim that “Schlesinger blames Bush” for nukes in Iran, when Schlesinger said no such thing. Schlesinger didn’t address the “nukes in Iran” question directly at all, never mind say whose “fault” anything is. But he did discuss the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba, my dears, had nukes.

This is Schlesinger:

It was lucky that JFK was determined to get the missiles out peacefully, because only decades later did we discover that the Soviet forces in Cuba had tactical nuclear weapons and orders to use them to repel a U.S. invasion. This would have meant a nuclear exchange. Instead, JFK used his own thousand days to give the American University speech, a powerful plea to Americans as well as to Russians to reexamine “our own attitude — as individuals and as a nation — for our attitude is as essential as theirs.” This was followed by the limited test ban treaty. …

…The Cuban missile crisis was not only the most dangerous moment of the Cold War. It was the most dangerous moment in all human history. Never before had two contending powers possessed between them the technical capacity to destroy the planet. Had there been exponents of preventive war in the White House, there probably would have been nuclear war.

The difference between a real leader and statesman (JFK) and, um, Bush, is that JFK not only confronted the Soviets and the Cubans and got them to stand down without firing a shot; he used the incident to push for a limited test ban treaty. Bush and his rightie supporters, however, see war as their first and only option, not the last option. They know only how to destroy, not to build.

This paragraph reveals why the blogger is a tad unqualified to argue about history with Arthur Schlesinger Jr.:

The notion that Truman ruled out preemptive war with Russia [I assume he's referring to the USSR] after World War II is a bit of a stretch. There, Russia only threatened Eastern Europe, not the United States. They had overwhelming conventional power on the continent, we had only a few divisions. Iran, on the other hand, threatens the entire world economy. Iran, through its minions, threatens terrorist attacks inside the United States. No, this is a terribly different situation. Russia never posed the same threat as Iran does.

Wow, I wish someone would have explained that to us back in the 1950s and 1960s. People wouldn’t have wasted all that time and money building backyard bomb shelters. The rightie might want to check out who the players were in the Cuban Missile Crisis, however, and who it was that was installing all those nukes in Cuba. Oh, and don’t forget the Soviets had nuclear-armed submarines that maneuvered into range from time to time …

Finally:

But his column carries another signature, the signature of the looney left true believer. He says this:

Observers describe Bush as “messianic” in his conviction that he is fulfilling the divine purpose.

Note that no one is named; only “observers”. This is a convenient way to make a charge without substance.

Uh-HUH, son. First, you don’t get to start a post with a straw man and then whine about other peoples’ straw men. This is called “intellectual dishonesty.”

Second, if this is the first time you’ve run into the “Bush is messianic” observation, you need to get out more. Google for “Bush messianic.” You will get lots of hits. Some good ones near the top include this, this, and this. Happy reading.