an interesting comparison

[FLAprogressive]

found this comparison between a Bush speech on Afghanistan and the infamous Obama speech.

Obama: "We Did Not Ask for This Fight"
Bush: "We Did Not Seek This Conflict"
Obama: "New Attacks are Being Plotted as I Speak"
Bush: "At This Moment ... Terrorists are Planning New Attacks"
Obama: "Our Cause is Just, Our Resolve Unwavering"
Bush: "Our Cause is Just, Our Coalition Determined"
Obama: "This Is No Idle Danger"
Bush: "The Enemies of Freedom Are Not Idle"
Obama: "We Have No Interest in Occupying Your Country"
Bush: "I Wouldn't Be Happy if I Were Occupied Either"

the only difference between Bush speeches and the Obama speech is that Obama is articulate......

[cali]

1. Sadly, I was struck by that as I listened to Obama speak on Tuesday night. n/t

[tekisui]

2. Fear is the only way to sell a war.

That is what it boils down to.

[rurallib]

3. Did Obama keep the Bushco speech writers also?

[Octafish]

6. He's also kept Bush's people at ''Justice''

You know, Karl Rove's people.

[FLAprogressive]

7. meet your new boss, same as the old one.

[blm]

4. Bush was LYING - he used the real mission in Afghanistan only as cover to invade Iraq.

I don't think Obama wants perpetual war in the region the way BushInc did, and I think that an HONEST fulfillment of the mission in that country with the stronger commitment from Pakistan will finally bring that mission as close as it can get to being fulfilled and turned over to UN and Afghan forces.

There is a HUGE difference between what was motivating Bush in his speeches and what motivated Obama.

If you believe Obama is LYING about Afghanistan to invade Iraq or another country the way Bush did, then say so.

[tekisui]

5. I don't believe Obama is lying, I believe he is using war for political

gain.

[blm]

11. I don't. And I actually side with bringing home troops within a logistically doable timeframe (1yr)

but, I do see that this plan CAN work to set up the withdrawal timeframe that Obama decided to support.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. What is the political gain of announcing a withdrawal date that

precedes the next election - knowing that if that goal is not met he will NOT be re-elected?

[tekisui]

23. The entire strategy is based on fulfilling a campaign promise and

not looking like a weak-on-terror Democrat.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. So in your mind the political calculation of keeping a campaign promise

to re-focus on Afghanistan outweighs not meeting the statement of the withdrawal time frame?

The first is something that half the people seem to believe he never said, or if he said it it was only a throwaway campaign statement that they never believed he would follow up on - the second would cost him re-election.

What is the gain again?

[tekisui]

27. And not looking weak.

He wants to be the one who succeeded where bush failed. But, I think it is largely for political appearance. He will be eager to call it a success and make some movement to bring troops home. It may just be a handful of troops by the election, but it is political.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. What good is it to not look weak if he LOSES THE FUCKING ELECTION?

It won't be just a handful of troops - the election is 15 months after the date set to begin the withdrawal. If at least 50% of the troops are not home by then, at the minimum, he will LOSE. He will be seen as having LIED about the withdrawal and will LOSE.

The ONLY way this is a win for him is if it works - if our presence there is minimal to non-existant - say, the levels of Vietnam in '75 - 1200 troops. It doesn't matter about 'looking weak' because the ball is in the Afgani court - our troops are leaving whether they are ready or not, whether we can claim a win or not. A 'win' will only be defined by the Afghani ability to fend for themselves.

[tekisui]

31. If your assessment is correct,and it probably is,

he miscalculated politically. There is no way 50% of the troops will be home by the end of his first term.

[FLAprogressive]

8. he very well could be lying.

[blm]

12. You think he's lying to set up perpetual war and invade another country like Bush did?

.

[FLAprogressive]

13. sure is looking that way. His cabinet is full of neocons.

[blm]

14. What country do you think he's using Afghanistan mission as cover to invade the way Bush did?

.

[StarfarerBill]

9. There is really only one paradigm to sell an escalation like this: They're still out to get us.

This despite the fact that the vast majority of anti-Western extremists are recruiting and training in other countries. Some will take their fight to Afghanistan, but most will watch, wait, and prepare for opportunities elsewhere.

[FLAprogressive]

10. the big boogeyman

[Hepburn]

15. SSDD....

...:puke:

KNR and thank you for the OP.

[jaxx]

16. That wasn't interesting.

It was more of the same shit that we see daily.

Who will he be compared to next? Rove? Cheney? Who's on your list?

[Hepburn]

17. I fail to see your problem.

Bush and Obama said nearly the same things...and someone points out the facts about the statements and you slam them?

What's with that? :shrug:

If it is not what it appears ~~ then defend Obama's statements instead of attacking the OP.

[jaxx]

18. I don't need to defend them, and you don't need to act like I do.

This is the same shit, the same people on thread after thread knocking the prez because he dared to do what they don't like. I'm not going to yes the junk because there are bullies on here who are being asses about what is going on. If the opposition bothers you put me on ignore.

But don't ever think you can use being a democrat as a weapon against others who are also democrats.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. The difference is, Bush gave speeches about Afghanistan but did

nothing to back them up, instead diverting necessary resources and manpower to a fight that he DID choose.

And in Bush's first major policy speech on Afghanistan he did not give a timeframe for ending the conflict.

Take your car to a mechanic. He says "you need a new starter". Then he proceeds to rebuild your engine, replace the alternator, and swap your new tires for re-treads. Does nothing with the starter.

Go to another mechanic. He says "you need a new starter". Then he replaces your starter.

No difference between them, right?

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. How about this pair of quotes:

Obama: "After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home."
Bush: " "

[zipplewrath]

21. How's this?

Bush "We'll stand down as they stand up"

Obama made no commitment beyond "start" and since the speech, various folks including the national security adviser and Sec. of State have stated that 2011 is when they'll evaluate how many folks can begin to be rotated back.

We've seen this before. Bush's surge was suppose to last what 9 months? Ultimately it wasn't down to presurge levels for almost 2 years.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Bush never set a date. "as they stand up" does not = 'in 18 months".

Obama flat out said to the Afghanis - You need to stand up, because we are going home. That is not at all the same thing.

[zipplewrath]

28. Actually no.

He didn't say we're going home. He said, "we'll start to leave". No committment at all on how fast, how soon, or how much. And since that speech his administration has begun explaining that there is no commitment beyond assessing what kind of draw down we can do in 2011.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. The commitment stands in the fact that obama made the public announcement

of a withdrawal - and it it isn't happening as stated he will NOT be re-elected. If it was just a MIC con job, he'd have timed the withdrawal for AFTER the next election, not before.

And some asshole general is NOT 'his administration'. The generals have ALWAYS been against setting a timetable and so now are looking for some wiggle-room. But there isn't any.

[zipplewrath]

32. Sos and NSA

The Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor however ARE "his administration".

What you are suggesting is roughly what they are saying, they'll judge the winds, political and military, in 2011. That's a committment to nothing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. Hillary has always been a warmonger - there's no suprise there.

But these people take their orders from Obama.

"What you are suggesting is roughly what they are saying, they'll judge the winds, political and military, in 2011."

No - that's what YOU are saying. I'm saying he has made a commitment and staked his presidency on it. 90% of the troops will be withdrawn between July 2011 and September 2012. If they aren't, he's not going to get re-elected. Simple as that.

And, besides, if troops go INTO anywhere else, from Somalia to Iran to Colombia, he will also lose re-election.

He has figured this out. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

[zipplewrath]

35. Unless the political winds change

For example, if he takes heavy hits in 2010 elections, it could force him further to the right. He has left himself an incredible amount of wiggle room here, and his administration is already putting voice to that, I'm not sure why you can't hear that. He's done it before on health care. He'll adjust his committments based upon the political winds. It's not different here.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Wiggle shmiggle - if the withdrawal doesn't happen, he is NOT

getting re-elected. It's a very simple calculation. No excuses, no wiggling will change the facts. He will lose the independents, lose the left, and he never had the right - there is NO WAY for him to win re-election if the withdrawal does not go as he announced.

You really think he wants to commit political suicide?

[zipplewrath]

37. I think the winds swirl

I think he can constantly "tack" into the winds. Your political calculation today might not apply next year, and he may already be calculating that possibility. It is a vague committment to withdrawl. No real speeds or rates. Truth is, we're not even really sure when he plans on being back down to the current levels, which are already higher than what Bush left behind.

He believes this is the good war.

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. Maybe it IS the good war.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/04/paksitan.attack/index.html

The link above is the result of the Pakistanis not taking the Taliban seriously for years. Now, they are in a fight for their lives. That is why he constantly referred to Pakistan in the speech. If this was just about Afghanistan, that's one thing. But if the radicals provoke a war between Pakistan and India, which would go nuclear, that's something else entirely. That's why we can't just pull out and abandon the region.

Read the speech - it was a FIRM commitment to withdrawal, and the speed will be determined by the upcoming election. If it is not obviously happening, he won't get re-elected.

I swear to god, the myopia here is as bad as on the right - the Taliban is NOT an all powerful force that is destined to rule Afghanistan; 95% of Muslims disagree, many of them violently, with the radicals. Bush may have wanted us in there for a pipeline, but Bush is not in power and that is NOT why we are there now.

[zipplewrath]

39. Oxymoron

There are no good wars. Wars are what you have to do after you've screwed up all your other options. We have other options here. The very problem with this action is that it is an Afghan focused policy. The real problem is in Pakistan and we aren't going there. He didn't mention getting OBL. 30,000 troops should be sitting on the border preventing anyone from leaving Pakistan and entering Afghanistan. Propping up Karzai is a losing strategy that is bound to end up pissing off everyone and wasting boat loads of money. It isn't even clear that a "unified" Afghanistan is in anyones interest (which presumes to some extent there is a unified Afghanistan to "keep").

[kctim]

26. Co-worker

has been going on all morning about how Savage told him the same thing last night.

No trying to imply anything, just find it interesting to see that people from all views are seeing this.

[fascisthunter]

34. frighteningly similar