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.
I’ve been a supporter of the Iraq mission from day one. However, I believe all of us supporters must have the courage to accept the consequences (good and bad) of the policy without coming up with elaborate theories (i.e. excuses) as to why someone else (e.g. “Bush”) is responsible for all of the bad consequences, while our “policy” is responsible for the good ones.
Sorry that a direct lie. I know you are madly in love with McCain but you are simply rewritting history here.McCain was father of the Baker Commission, not the Surge. He merely hooked onto the Surge because it was the last chance his dying presidential Campaign had in 2007. His support for the Surge was a hail mary political play. He is trying to claim credit for the plan Petrus wrote and Bush backed.
None of what you posted is even remotely true. You McCainiacs would be wise to drop this "Attack Bush" tactic. It does far far more harm to your guy then help.