[Steelfish]

“George W Bush left a bust of Churchill near his desk in the White House, in an attempt to associate himself with the war leader’s heroic stand against fascism. Barack Obama had it returned to Britain. It’s not hard to guess why: his Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned without trial for two years and was tortured on Churchill’s watch, for resisting Churchill’s empire.”

SOURCE
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

[Impy]

"He referred to Palestinians as "barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung."

Sounds like he was a little soft on them.

[2ndDivisionVet]

[a fool in paradise]

Churchill's racism was wrapped up in his Tory zeal for empire, one which irked his wartime ally, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

FDR seemed A-OK with Stalin's zeal for empire, his OTHER wartime ally.

[jcon40]

I can only wish WC was still around to comment on the points his detractors try to make about him.

[Rockpile]

The WaPo birdcage liner decrying Churchill? Therefore my opinion of him went up another couple of notches.

[mrsmith]

“no matter how vacuous the context “

Well, you can’t get a more vacuous context than the WashPost...

[Zhang Fei]

More gems from this child:

This Picture Shows What’s Wrong With Switzerland’s Anti-Immigrant Hysteria
Without multiculturalism, the Swiss would not be at the World Cup

http://time.com/6441/switzerland-referendum-immigration-eu-soccer/

[Rockingham]

Is it really so surprising or condemnable that a British statesman should defend the British empire and disparage its opponents? Churchill, who before holding office soldiered on the Northwest frontier of India, fought an insurgent Muslim army at Omdurman in the Sudan, and reported on the Boer War was hardly the stuff of an anti-imperialist.

Also, can it really be said that Churchill and the British are to blame for the brutality of the Indian partition and continuing animosities between Hindus and Muslims? After nearly seventy years of independence, they remain much at odds, with India's small Christian communities often persecuted by both.

Is Churchill truly to blame for India's sectarian violence today? Or might it be taken as supporting his pessimism about Indian self-government?

[Eric Pode of Croydon]

At first I thought this might be about the real black mark on Churchill's ledger, his acquiescence to the forced repatriation of Russian WW2 POWs back to Uncle Joe's tender mercies.

But then I realized that this was the WaPo, after all.....

[camle]

“...Churchill is a freedom fighter, the man who grimly withstood Nazism and helped save Western liberal democracy. “

note to all liberal democrats - here’s your payback. your own people will turn against you after you have given your all on their behalf

[daniel1212]

So if he was Catholic would you still attack him?

[Cincinatus]

When Churchill did apply his attention to the subcontinent, it had other dire effects. As the Indian writer Pankaj Mishra explains in the New Yorker, Churchill was one of a coterie of imperial rulers who worked to create sectarian fissures within India's independence movement between Indian Hindus and Muslims, which led to the brutal partition of India when the former colony finally did win its freedom in 1947. Millions died or were displaced in an orgy of bloodshed that still echoes in the region's tense politics to this day.

I love this -- now Churchill is the one responsible for the sectarian strife that is now and always has been within the Indian populace. Churchill opposed independence precisely because he thought the departure of the Raj would lead to widespread death and destruction.

Liberals writing history -- hilarious!

[Elsie]

The allure of his name is so strong ...

Says Ishaan Tharoor