History doesn’t repeat, Mark Twain said, but it sometimes rhymes. Sometimes the rhymes are so compelling that they cry out for comment. President Biden’s speech on August 31, 2021, on the end of the war in Afghanistan was, for me, one of those times. It recalled to me a speech given on June 4, 1940, by another leader of a democracy in crisis, Winston Churchill.

To be sure there are differences in the historical circumstances. There always are. That is why it is a rhyme rather than a repetition. Comparisons can always be nitpicked. We should approach the drawing and application of historical lessons with a healthy degree of caution and humility. I always try to follow the commandment of Mary Soames, Churchill’s youngest daughter: “Thou shalt not say what Papa would do about any modern situation. After all, how do you know?” I have my ideas what actions Churchill would have taken regarding Afghanistan, especially the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Putting aside for the moment the questions of whether the withdrawal was desirable or wise, I deeply suspect Churchill would have done it very differently. One thing I can say with great confidence: he would have given a better speech.

In May of 1940, Churchill, prime minister for just a few weeks, looked out over a world falling into shadow. The German blitzkrieg had pierced deep into the vitals of the West, the massive French army had shown itself impotent before the onslaught, and the British forces that had gone to their aid were trapped and facing imminent destruction. Britain put forward a massive effort to save them. More than 900 ships took part in Operation Dynamo to rescue the British Expeditionary Force, and the Royal Air Force flew countless sorties to protect them. It was a nearly miraculous success, over 338,000 British and allied troops were pulled from the beaches of Dunkirk, but it did not come without a heavy cost in lives and materiel. Churchill rose to explain to the House of Commons and to the nation what had happened. It was an extremely difficult rhetorical moment for a leader. But Churchill met the challenge, delivering what is surely one of the greatest addresses in history.

In light of the grim events that had unfolded on the Continent and the growing fear of worse to come, the success at Dunkirk produced national euphoria. Churchill’s speech shows he fully understood the national mood. Beginning with a lengthy account of military events from the breaking of the French defenses, he follows the path of hope, fear, and uncertainty that every Briton must have travelled in those dark days, finally arriving at the moment of celebration: “A miracle of deliverance, achieved by valour, by perseverance, by perfect discipline, is manifest to us all.” But Churchill is not content to echo feelings of relief, nor is he concerned with justifying his decisions. He understood his duty at this moment—to give the British people the facts of the situation honestly without any purpose other than to prepare them for the continuing struggle:

We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations…. our thankfulness at the escape of our Army and so many men, whose loved ones have passed through an agonizing week, must not blind us to the fact that what has happened in France and Belgium is a colossal military disaster….we must expect another blow to be struck almost immediately at us or at France.

This is one of the great contrasts with Biden’s speech: Biden described the withdrawal as if it were a triumph. This conception drives the speech and makes it ring hollow. It becomes an exercise in defensive posturing, which leads to other contrasts with Churchill’s address.

The President talks a great deal about himself—and not in good ways. His “I” assertions are clearly meant to make him seem confident and in control. But they do not achieve that effect.

“I made the decision to end this war…”

“I take responsibility for the decision.”

These phrases taken by themselves, indicate that the president is taking full ownership of events. But they mesh very poorly with his repeated attempts to blame his predecessor for problems of execution.

Churchill had far greater cause to blame his predecessor for the mess Britain (and Europe) were in. Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler and failure to act when it was still possible to change the course of events leads like a trail of neon breadcrumbs to the beaches of Dunkirk. But you will not find in this speech or any other Churchill delivered after he came into office an attempt to shift responsibility onto Chamberlain.

Another oddity is that the speech assumes disagreement. With a series of rhetorically posed questions attributed to the audience, Biden only widens the distance between himself and his listeners. It starts to sound like a lecture: I know you don’t understand these things, but…” Such an approach is negative, it is defensive, and it does not project confidence. He is telling us we are not in this together.

Churchill always spoke as if the British people as though they were united in common effort and understanding. To be sure, he faced disagreements and challenges in his war administration. While he was the symbol and herald of national defiance, there were many who questioned his strategic judgment, especially between the end of the Battle of Britain in 1940 and long-awaited first victory El Alamein in November 1942. While he did defend himself, he always sounded positive notes so far as that was possible in the grim circumstances of the war. He was never so foolish as to unnecessarily emphasize divides and disagreements. He tried always to unite toward the common purpose, which is reflected in the tone of this speech. He employs “we” far more often than “I.”

Biden’s failure to project strength was exacerbated by his very odd delivery—loud, aggressive, heated, threatening—as if he were speaking to an adversary rather than his own people. Such a delivery does not project confidence. Narrowed eyes, fixed stare, rigid posture, and static expression are methods adopted by those attempting to subdue rather than persuade.

More could be said about the failures of this speech, such as the crass talk of money in a solemn moment, the inevitable reference to his own sorrows inappropriate to the larger stage he treads, the haggling over percentages of those rescued, and an apparent lack of awareness that ending a war in the wrong way simply sets the stage for the next one. But much of the problem can be summed up in this final thought: the power of the speech flows to a great degree from the character of the speaker.

Churchill was able to use the Dunkirk moment in a way Biden was unable to emulate. Churchill reinforced and reinvigorated the fighting spirit of the British people. He ends this Dunkirk speech with one of his most moving and memorable perorations, steeling the British people to face whatever trials might come upon them, even invasion of their home itself:

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender….

Not everyone can say things like that, maybe no one in the modern day. Churchill could say them because they rang true to who he was. In 1940, he was the indomitable man glowering his invincible determination. He was able to speak honestly to the British people of harsh realities, of the foreboding future, of suffering, and of sacrifice. But now they saw them through his eyes, as a chance for glory and for greatness illuminated by the hope of ultimate victory.

Biden attempts to hit some of the themes that would inspire such confidence and purpose, but he bungles them badly. His peroration false sadly short, not even the invocation of Lincoln at Gettysburg can save it. In short, Biden’s speech was poorly composed, poorly delivered, and it came across as a crass and shallow attempt at self-justification. His greatest rhetorical failure resides in himself. We simply don’t believe him when he attempts to pose as a strong leader charting our path through difficulty and danger—and he knows it.