Please explain how Bush has only been “blessed” with military victories, whereas the others somehow “earned” them. I am not saying that Bush is a Lincoln or Churchill, but I do think you are really reaching. By the way, Lincoln made some really great speeches, but his hard work, grit, gifted behind-the-scenes political skills, and “stubborness” were just as important, if not more, than his speeches.
Speaking of which, I would bet President Lincoln felt pretty “blessed” in finally finding a general who would fight to win instead of posturing near the battle field.
Had President Bush gone through as many generals as Lincoln went through, our congress today would have had a conniption fit over it. Lincoln also suspended Habeas Corpus and threw some newspaper men into jail. Our congress today would have loved that one too.
I remember another President named George, but in this case it was George Washington, who had similar problems. This other George also had a congress that would not and could not fund the war, and states that didn’t want to spend any money either. Only a third of the country supported him and he had to confiscate local farmers food to feed his men. He almost quit a few times because the US Congress was so inept and uncooperative.
It seems little has changed between then and now. It seems to me President Bush is in pretty good company, and our congress remains self-centered egotists full of themselves and more than a few being less than patriotic.
I do not recall ever stating that Lincoln or Churchill "earned" a military victory on the battlefield.
Unlike in the days of the medieval warrior kings or when Caesar led his own legions across the Rubicon, modern heads of state do not command troops in battle.
I did say that they both WON THEIR WARS.
I did say that George W. Bush has put America in a position where America could very well lose the war in the next election IN SPITE of spectacular battlefield military victories.
Modern era American Presidents are "blessed" or "cursed" by the Armed Forces they inherit.
Lincoln (in the historical Big Picture, a "modern" head of state) was "cursed" by the fact that the cream of the crop of the ante bellum U.S. Army officer corps ended up in the in the service of the Confederate States of America. It took quite some time and an extremely sorry procession of Union Generals ......
George McClellan (disaster at Seven Days)
John Pope (disaster at Second Bull Run)
Ambrose Burnsides (disaster at Fredericksburg)
Joseph Hooker (disaster at Chancellorsville)
...... before Lincoln finally got a General that could consistently be at the Confederate jugular.
George W. Bush, by contrast, inherited a U.S. military that, even after the Clinton years, could clean Iraq's clock without much difficulty.
By the way, Lincoln made some really great speeches, but his hard work, grit, gifted behind-the-scenes political skills, and “stubborness” were just as important, if not more, than his speeches.
By contrast, George W. Bush was opposing the Surge that is now winning the war and which McCain was championing as late as the Fall of 2006.
The "gifted behind-the-scenes" skills are sorely lacking in Bush.
Bush knew what strategic goals need to be accomplished but his execution of those goals has led us to the very real possibility of defeat, by America's own Home Front, in next November's election.