The president said a lot of things today in his news conference. A lot was baloney. A lot was reconfigured wording and phrases, to make him look noble and his opponents traitorous and craven.
I was watching itching to call him out on a number of things.
But instead I find it interesting to look at one of his obfuscations, that I missed. From the AMERICAblog.
Who's surge is it?
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.So...the Joint Chief weren't in support? They didn't come up with it? Or even like it? And it is still Congress trying to plan military strategy over the heads of the generals? Not the White House?
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.
So...What does this tell us?