Why doesn't Obama make an issue of the fact that all of the Joint Chiefs

[babylonsister]

opposed the surge initially, as did all the commanders in the field? I'll just bet McGaffe might change his tune about the genesis of it... AEI's Frederick Kagan came up with the brilliant idea, per americablog...


http://www.americablog.com/2007/04/bush-just-lied-in-his-press-conference.html

Bush just spoke to the nation, trying to convince the public to support his Iraq quagmire, and he claimed again that the surge, the escalation, was the idea of his commanders in the field, and he's just following their advice.

In fact, all of the Joint Chiefs, the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, ALL opposed the surge.

The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

And our commanders in the field opposed the surge, so Bush fired them and replaced them with someone who would rubber stamp his surge plan.

In devising his new strategy, Bush again turned to the neoconservatives. The so-called surge strategy is the brainchild of Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute who has never been to Iraq. And once again, President Bush dismissed the views of his military advisers. General George Casey and General John Abizaid, the commanders in the field, doubted that additional troops would make any difference in Iraq. They were replaced by surge advocates, including Lieutenant General David Petraeus, now the top commander in Iraq.

And remember, it was just a few months ago, that the commanders on the ground were SO opposed to the surge that Bush came out and said, for the first time, that he WOULDN'T listen to commanders on the ground anymore.

This all matters because once again Bush is lying to the American people in order to justify yet another failed extreme policy. He has lied about this war from the beginning, and he and his administration have lied about so many issue that it's impossible to trust anything they say. Bush lies. He doesn't trust the American people to know the truth. He doesn't have the courage or maturity to take responsibility for his own actions, so he blames the generals - you see, it's THEIR idea, not his, it's THEIR fault, not his. "Who me?" Bush can't ever be blamed for this infernal mess because he's just a bystander, you understand. Only problem? It's all one big lie.

The man is a ten year old child. It's time to take away the car keys.

[Phx_Dem]

1. Maybe he will when he returns.

I don't think he'll criticize McBush or anyone else while he's traveling. I agree with you that this is a great push-back point for Obama now that the Republicans are trying to make a big deal of it, which, imo, is totally lame considering that Obama was opposed to the war to begin with and if we'd followed that line, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with and there would be no need for a surge. There would also be no need for a surge if the Bush idiots (including John McBush) had offered up an effective combat strategy at the beginning of the war.

The "surge is working" line is going to be a loser for the Republicans. Most people just think that means that it's time for us to leave since everyhing is going so well, while Bush and his McTwin want to stay.