Is it Dunkirk yet?

Michael Barone puts George Bush's position today in historical perspective and finds him in pretty good company:

Bush, like Truman and Churchill, seems determined not to concede defeat. And remember that for Truman on Korea and for Churchill after Dunkirk, no promising military courses were immediately apparent. Truman, after firing Gen. Douglas MacArthur, had forsaken the threat–a nuclear attack–that his successor Dwight Eisenhower deployed to get the Communists to agree to a truce. But Truman's perseverance despite his 22 percent job approval–much lower than Bush's–was essential in preserving the independence of South Korea, which now has the world's 14th-largest economy. Churchill, facing Hitler alone, could promise only "blood, toil, tears, and sweat" until his enemies' mistakes–Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor–gave him the allies that made victory possible. Churchill's stubbornness prevented a Nazi victory in midsummer 1940.

In fifty years, who will remember the critics, unless Bush and we allow them to talk us out of achieving our goal. It is astonishing, in light of those bleak situations, that so many have apparently concluded that we need to give up. Somehow this nation must throw off the Kerryesque mood of defeat and weariness that our media are whispering in our ears, and repudiate their supercilious and negative propaganda.