Washington politicians second guessing the military men on the streets in Iraq..

[southernleftylady]

Bush keeps saying that the Dem's shouldn't be second guessing the military...
yet isn't that exactly what he did when he didn't give the military the number of men that they wanted from the get go??
and why doesn't anyone bring this up when someone says that old talking point?

[habitual]

1. they also supposedly strongly disagreed with his 'surge'

idea, and only came out to support it after their arms were twisted once again....

Bush doesn't give a shit about the generals on the ground past what they can achieve for him politically.

[Ezlivin]

2. Bush is too stupid to wonder why we have a CIVILIAN commander in chief

It's because we want civilian (read: non-military) oversight of the military.

What more does this idiot not understand?

[MrModerate]

3. Another point . . . when you have a situation where civilian authority . . .

Doesn't "tell the men in uniform how to do their jobs," what you have is a military dictatorship. It is the explicit *responsibility* of civilian government to direct the military, as any sufficiently evolved military officer will tell you.

Now, I don't think Bush is proposing we slip into a military dictatorship (although it's hard to tell since his utterances are so garbled he might as well be speaking under water), but it's probably another case of him spouting off some claptrap force-fed him by Karl Rove without considering the logical consequences of a statement.

"Logic" and "Consequences" are not exactly Schimpanski's long suits.