must-read column by Arianna Huffington

[Bertha Venation]

SHAKESPEARE TURNS A SPOTLIGHT ON BUSH AND IRAQ

By Arianna Huffington

As our anger, anguish and anxiety about Iraq continue to mount, I find myself looking for clarity and understanding not in the media's daily play-by-play, which confuses more than it illuminates (Did we win in Fallujah or get our butts kicked?), but rather in Shakespeare's "Henry V." I've found it contains far more truth about our present situation than anything coming out of the White House or the Pentagon.

The impetus for this rearward search for insight was an invitation to take part in a debate sponsored by The Shakespeare Theatre in Washington, D.C., about the wisdom of King Henry V's decision to lead an English army into France in 1415.


The parallels between Shakespeare's wartime king and our current president, George II, are many and delicious — from the pair's hard-partying younger days (Prince Hal was a 15th-century feckless frat boy-prankster) to the challenge of following in a powerful father's footsteps right up to the critical matter of whether their wartime adventures made them courageous commanders or failed leaders.

The central question, then as now, was whether the invasion of another country was a war of choice or a war of necessity. If the answer is a war of choice — and it is for both Henry and W — then the inevitable conclusion is that they were both immoral wars. For there can be no moral war of choice. <emphasis added>

~snip~

As I say: A must read. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18847

[Misunderestimator]

1. You're right, a must read.... GREAT article. n/t

[skjpm]

2. Except Henry V was smart

He actually pondered the philosophical ramifications of what he did. I wonder what Bush would do with a gift of tennis balls. He'd probably look at them and say, "Oh. . .look at that. . .tennis balls." And then give a confused smile to Condi.

[Misunderestimator]

3. LOL.... tennis balls. n/t

[JohnyCanuck]

4. One big difference between Shrubenfuhrer and Henry

Following the practices of the day, Henry personally led his troops on the battlefield, risking death, injury or capture at the hand of the enemy. If this little shit had to actually lead the charge into Iraq riding in an Abrams tank or an APC, there's no way in hell the neocons would have had their war.

[papau]

5. Amazing how Henry 5 and Bush 2 will have the same history - and sad.

Remind me to never vote for a "reformed" Prince Hal who rather than the leadership Clinton had shown, was someone who had only shown the ability to lie about his prior statecraft (The Texas Education success - remember - and a tax cut that caused no harm - but see where the Texas budget is now - and pollution in Texas is caused by the wind conditions - not the friendships with polluter's - thanks media for selling us Prince Hal).

[Raster]

6. We died at such a place

"As Shakespeare has a commoner tell a disguised Henry on the night before the decisive battle at Agincourt: "If the cause be not good, the King himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs, and arms, and heads, chopped off in a battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all, 'We died at such a place.'"

"King Henry, unlike W who doesn't seem to lose any sleep over a heavenly reckoning, was so desperately worried about it that he worked hard to get the clergy to endorse his war. With the blessing of the Almighty's representatives on Earth secured, he could then invade France with a "conscience washed as pure as sin with baptism."

"W didn't need such confirmation since he has a direct line to the Almighty. Instead he did all he could to secure the backing of the closest thing we have to clergy in our secular political world, Colin Powell.

[rfkrocks]

7. Outstanding but chilling

Remember the historical analogy here-Henry Vths reign ended due to his sudden death and his idiot son Henry VI led England into the Hundred Years war-Is Henry Vth really George Bush 41 and W is Henry VI?

[klyon]

8. history repeats its self once again

KL