A question to the Anti-Bush, Obama true believer types.

[ReverendHellh0und]

Since I havent seen EVERY post you make i will accept that you have. What I DO see is you AND your little dog Toto too pretty much parroting liberal ideology at every turn...but...maybe thats just me...

I can vouch that he has on at least 10 occasions. :thumbs:

 

[Jetboogieman]

Obama can do no wrong! He is the messiah!

 

[VanceMack]

I think they ahve already been addressed early on:

5. Afghanistan is a legitimate war, Iraq is not.

Just out of curiosity...what makes Afghan istan a legitimate war?

 

[Slartibartfast]

So anyway, the new talking point of the day seems to be because Obama is similar to Bush in some ways, here is just like Bush and we should all be hating him. Nevermind him restoring regulations, or putting a sunset date in iraq, or his different stance on homosexuality, or his more liberal nominations to the supreme court, or at least attempting to close gitmo, or his work to restore financial regulation, or any other number of things.

Personally, I will take what I can get and someone who does more stuff I like is going to get more support out of me than someone who does less stuff that I like. So, yeah there is some stuff that I don't like that he is doing, but overall, I think he is better than Bush was or at least is more aligned to what I think is right. Ultimately though, I realize that the nature of politics is such that I will never be fully satisfied with anyone in office as nobody is exactly like me. However, I am less likely to talk badly about someone who I have more in common with than someone I have less in common with, even if I don't like everything they do.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Talking points? Dude seriously, I simply thought of the similarities between the administrations and put forth a question to some of our more zeaoulus friends. :doh

 

[Boo Radley]

thank you for your answer. I hope some of your more zealous comrades will join you in responding. That said. I disagree, if you say "no no bid contracts" why would you hand them out. if you don't like blackwater why give them a contract?


It seems your making a little bit of excuses for your guy. If you are against these things, he shouldn't have used them as he stated period. no?

You give them because they are already there. Easier to deal with the devil than to start over all too often.

And once started, a complete reversal is difficult. Take closing Gitmo. He gave the order and presented a plan. Then congress started the Gitno fear tour. This derailed his efforts. Do I blame him? Somewhat. But do I ignore the fear tour as if it played no role? No.

Many like myself believe that Afghanistan is where we should focus our efforts. So, he's right in that degree. The problem is in that he still doesn't have the mission quite figured out. Better than Bush did (who was too focused on Iraq and ignore Afghanistan), but too much nation building and not enough focus on the real enemies and threats.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Just out of curiosity...what makes Afghan istan a legitimate war?

Well, given that he copied my 5 points, I will answer for him. In my opinion 9/11 makes Afghanistan a legit target as they protected al-quaeda.

Iraq is a different scenerio and was a case of preemptive war that turned out to be under bogus pretenses. Ultimately, there was no legit reason to attack the country.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Talking points? Dude seriously, I simply thought of the similarities between the administrations and put forth a question to some of our more zeaoulus friends. :doh

I see it as a talking point because it fairly obviously ignores a lot of relevent information.

 

[Boo Radley]

Just out of curiosity...what makes Afghan istan a legitimate war?

1. In the Begining, OBL was actually there.

2. Paksitan is a concern, and Al Qaeda being a presence there can become a threat rather quickly.

The effort was poorly thoughtout to begin with, and too soon ignore by the snipe hunt in Iraq, but it always made more sense, and present more of a concern.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I see it as a talking point because it fairly obviously ignores a lot of relevent information.

Like?

........

 

[RightinNYC]

To your list, I'd add:

1) The number of troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan is higher than it ever was under Bush.

Number of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan Overlooks Thousands of Support Troops - washingtonpost.com

2) The deadline for the long-promised "end of combat" in Iraq has already come and passed with no indication that it will be any time soon.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...-deadline-withdrawing-combat-troops-iraq.html

3) Obama's position on the legality of indefinite detention is identical to Bush's.

Obama Endorses Indefinite Detention Without Trial for Some Now at Guantanamo - washingtonpost.com

4) Setting aside Gitmo, Obama has fought to maintain Bagram as a location where we can dump individuals captured from all over the world and deny them habeas.

Obama and habeas corpus -- then and now - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

5) Obama criticized Bush's use of signing statements, but has since employed them freely.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...078-obama-limit-signing-statements-bills.html

These are issues where Obama has either fallen short of his promises or mirrored Bush Administration policies that he once decried. I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing these out, as it forces people to confront the facts and think through their stances on things. I remember some threads from not too long ago where someone provided various quotes from Republicans in the Clinton/Bush era where they said things about Iraq/the economy/health care/etc. that directly conflicted with their arguments now. Threads like that make you think about the positions you hold and whether they're logically consistent.

 

[Boo Radley]

Well, given that he copied my 5 points, I will answer for him. In my opinion 9/11 makes Afghanistan a legit target as they protected al-quaeda.

Iraq is a different scenerio and was a case of preemptive war that turned out to be under bogus pretenses. Ultimately, there was no legit reason to attack the country.

It was a good list.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Like?

........

I just mentioned a bunch of stuff

Nevermind him restoring regulations, or putting a sunset date in iraq, or his different stance on homosexuality, or his more liberal nominations to the supreme court, or at least attempting to close gitmo, or his work to restore financial regulation, or any other number of things.

The fact is that he is not just like Bush.

 

[Boo Radley]

To your list, I'd add:

1) The number of troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan is higher than it ever was under Bush.

Number of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan Overlooks Thousands of Support Troops - washingtonpost.com

2) The deadline for the long-promised "end of combat" in Iraq has already come and passed with no indication that it will be any time soon.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...-deadline-withdrawing-combat-troops-iraq.html

3) Obama's position on the legality of indefinite detention is identical to Bush's.

Obama Endorses Indefinite Detention Without Trial for Some Now at Guantanamo - washingtonpost.com

4) Setting aside Gitmo, Obama has fought to maintain Bagram as a location where we can dump individuals captured from all over the world and deny them habeas.

Obama and habeas corpus -- then and now - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

These are issues where Obama has either fallen short of his promises or mirrored Bush Administration policies that he once decried. I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing these out, as it forces people to confront the facts and think through their stances on things. I remember some threads from not too long ago where someone provided various quotes from Republicans in the Clinton/Bush era where they said things about Iraq/the economy/health care/etc. that directly conflicted with their arguments now. Threads like that make you think about the positions you hold and whether they're logically consistent.

I find Bagram the most disheartening. This really does call for not only criticism but protest. The Iraq point is a misrepresentation. Once the Iraqi government set a timetable, the rest became moot. We are following the Iraqi timeline, and I have no problem with that.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I just mentioned a bunch of stuff

Nevermind him restoring regulations, or putting a sunset date in iraq, or his different stance on homosexuality, or his more liberal nominations to the supreme court, or at least attempting to close gitmo, or his work to restore financial regulation, or any other number of things.

The fact is that he is not just like Bush.

sunset date in Iraq? IIRC didn't bush start winding down iraq?

Obama and Bush, both state marriage is between man and woman.

I'll give you the morons he's nominated.

Gitmo is still open, and won't be closed, it will be relocated. slight of hand....


Bush and Obama same thing with bailouts. :shrug:


That's actually more similar than different.

 

[VanceMack]

Well, given that he copied my 5 points, I will answer for him. In my opinion 9/11 makes Afghanistan a legit target as they protected al-quaeda.

Iraq is a different scenerio and was a case of preemptive war that turned out to be under bogus pretenses. Ultimately, there was no legit reason to attack the country.

In reverse order...

Iraq-The only thing BOGUS is the left disagreement with it. Bush cited THREE primary and 14 additional secondary reasons for going to war. 1-Genocide (proven-and certainly an acceptable reason to the left for Clinton to take us to war in and of itself) 2-Iraqs refusal to comply with UN resolutions regarding their WMD program (a fact proven by the 17 separate UN resolutions passed 'insisting' he comply or face military consequence) and 3-Iraqs ties to global terrorism (another FACT sustained by his paying of Palestinian suicide bombers, housing terrorists, ect).

Afghanistan-If the war was to oust the Taliban, didnt that end back in...what...2003?

Not that I DISAGREE with the presence in Afghanistan...just the mission directives. We arent FIGHTING the war...and that is why we have seen a Taliban insurgence and increased US casualties.

 

[Boo Radley]

In reverse order...

Iraq-The only thing BOGUS is the left disagreement with it. Bush cited THREE primary and 14 additional secondary reasons for going to war. 1-Genocide (proven-and certainly an acceptable reason to the left for Clinton to take us to war in and of itself) 2-Iraqs refusal to comply with UN resolutions regarding their WMD program (a fact proven by the 17 separate UN resolutions passed 'insisting' he comply or face military consequence) and 3-Iraqs ties to global terrorism (another FACT sustained by his paying of Palestinian suicide bombers, housing terrorists, ect).

Afghanistan-If the war was to oust the Taliban, didnt that end back in...what...2003?

Not that I DISAGREE with the presence in Afghanistan...just the mission directives. We arent FIGHTING the war...and that is why we have seen a Taliban insurgence and increased US casualties.

They were bogus reasons.

 

[VanceMack]

I find Bagram the most disheartening. This really does call for not only criticism but protest. The Iraq point is a misrepresentation. Once the Iraqi government set a timetable, the rest became moot. We are following the Iraqi timeline, and I have no problem with that.

And the lack of protests at campuses across the country disparaging this evil war monger and his anti-civil rights admninsitration sort of backs up the OP...

 

[roughdraft274]

What's changed?



1. Obama awards Blackwater Contract.

CIA Awards Blackwater Another Contract in Afghanistan

2. Obama awards Haliburton no bid contract.

KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks (Update1) - BusinessWeek

3. Bush's Patreus now in charge of Afghanistan


Petraeus Gives Troubled Afghan Mission a Trusted Name - BusinessWeek


4. Continued the off shore drilling as a means for energy.

Byron York: Who told Obama offshore drilling is ‘absolutely safe'? | TheUnion.com

5. Used a "surge" in Afghanistan like Bush did in Iraq.

Obama launches Afghanistan surge | The Australian



Now, I think Obama made the right choices in these decisions, What I am asking however is some of our more ardent supporters of Obama whom no doubt spent the entire bush admin here at DP bashing bush over policies such as these what the difference is now regarding the policies once so despised not so long ago.

1. Bad desicion. I would have liked if he would start a phase out of paid merceneries and the like or if he would start one now like other Dem's want to do (Schakowsky, Sanders Seek to Phase Out Private Security Contractors) but when everything is said and done this isn't some huge gripe for me. It's something that I can live with.

2. From your article:

The Army didn’t put this work out for bids because U.S. commanders in Iraq advised against it, saying that enlisting a new company would be too disruptive as the U.S withdraws, Army program director Lee Thompson said in an interview before the Justice Department action was announced.
Odierno’s View
The view of General Ray Odierno, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, was crucial to the decision, Army Chief of Staff General George Casey told reporters today.
“Odierno said, ‘I’ve got three million pieces of equipment I’ve got to get out of Iraq, I’ve got 100 or so bases to close, I’ve got to move 80,000-plus people out of here and you want me to change horses in the middle of the stream?’” Casey recounted.

Looks like Obama took the advice of his generals (as he said he would do during the campaign continuously, and was stuck between a rock and a hard place. He most likely made the right call. I can understand how switching between companies towards the end of the war would disrupt progress, that doesn't excuse the governments role in starting up this no bid contract crap which in the future should be used only in absolutely necessary situations.

3. Who else should he have picked? Who would have better experience for this type of roll?

4. And he's also rescoped the way that the entire nation has focused on energy and put more emphasis on renewable energy and clean energy.He didn't just focus only on drilling, that was more or less thrown in to try to get some kin of bi-partisan support. You gotta do what you gotta do. Decades from now if our investments and this pivot that they have and are putting in place work out it could change the way we look at energy and reduce and possbly end our dependence on foreign oil one day. If what he's doing now puts us on that road he could easily go down as one of the best presidents ever.

5. I don't like his new strategy in Afghanistan, but I do like that we are refocusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is the exact thing he ran on during the election. It's ignorance to look at the two different situations and go "wow, he put in more troops over in A just like George Bush put in more troops over at B, it's like the same thing!" Nope. Nope, it's not. Different war with actual reasons for being there.

Also, I'd like to put my theory out there.

Why does the right vilify the left for actually liking there President? because Bush sucked. They actually think they could turn Obama being popular into something bad. The same reason they cry themselves to sleep at night when someone dare mention Bush and his screwups and what he left Obama with, atleast that is until they remember that Reagan blow-up doll under their bed. Who did I hear talking about Obama being the messiah during the election and after? Conservatives.

 

[RightinNYC]

The Iraq point is a misrepresentation. Once the Iraqi government set a timetable, the rest became moot. We are following the Iraqi timeline, and I have no problem with that.

It doesn't look like we are.

The agreed-upon timeline had all combat troops withdrawing by August 31, 2010, leaving just 35-50k support troops behind. Two months prior to the deadline, there are 90,000 troops still in Iraq. Removing 40-55k troops in two months is logistically difficult to say the least.

 

[VanceMack]

They were bogus reasons.

Not to Clinton...Gore...every democrat in Congress...virtually all the world intel agencies...

Genocide is a bogus reason? Damn Clinton for taking us to war against Serbia. No WONDER the left protested him and villified him.

Iraqs refusal to Comply with UN resolutions regarding his WMD program was bogus? Again...Clinton should be placed before a war crimes tribunal for attacking a country 8 times for bogus reasons.

Iraqs ties to global terrorism a bogus reason? Then...ummm...why did we attack Afghanistan again??? And why are we still there???

 

[Slartibartfast]

In reverse order...

Iraq-The only thing BOGUS is the left disagreement with it. Bush cited THREE primary and 14 additional secondary reasons for going to war. 1-Genocide (proven-and certainly an acceptable reason to the left for Clinton to take us to war in and of itself) 2-Iraqs refusal to comply with UN resolutions regarding their WMD program (a fact proven by the 17 separate UN resolutions passed 'insisting' he comply or face military consequence) and 3-Iraqs ties to global terrorism (another FACT sustained by his paying of Palestinian suicide bombers, housing terrorists, ect).

Afghanistan-If the war was to oust the Taliban, didnt that end back in...what...2003?

Not that I DISAGREE with the presence in Afghanistan...just the mission directives. We arent FIGHTING the war...and that is why we have seen a Taliban insurgence and increased US casualties.

1. Preventing Genocide is not legitimate in my view as we were not attacked. I didn't like it when Clinton did it either.
2. I don't care about that. Again, we were not attacked.
3. Did those terrorists attack us?
I don't care about legalities or institutions and what not while making a call on whether I support something. This is because I am, at heart, a noninterventionalist.

Personally, I think we should probably leave afghanistan as I don't see us ever doing anything positive there as their culture is not one that we will ever change. It would be more practical to leave now and accomplish nothing than to leave in the future and accomplish nothing since it would cost less in lives and money. However, we were attacked, so it is legit in my view.

 

[roughdraft274]

Here's a good question. How many righties on fox and talk radio and in general reamed Bush for all his screw ups anything like The Daily Show and MSNBC has to Obama lately?

If you can't count Jon Stewart , Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow as those frothing at the mouth die-hard Obama supporters that you're talking about, then who the hell can you call that? Show me where Rush or Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck (during Bush's presidency mind you) bashed Bush like the people I just mentioned bashed Obama? You can find a few that did, and if I remember right, the righties circled around their guys and ousted anyone who dared to challenge them.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Here's a good question. How many righties on fox and talk radio and in general reemed Bush for all his screw ups anything like The Daily Show and MSNBC has to Obama lately?

If you can't count Jon Stewart , Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow as those frothing at the mouth die-hard Obama supporters that you're talking about, then who the hell can you call that? Show me where Rush or Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck (during Bush's presidency mind you) bashed Bush like the people I just mentioned bashed Obama? You can find a few that did, and if I remember right, the righties circled around their guys and ousted anyone who dared to challenge them.

Hannity, rush, and the gamut reamed bush on the bailouts. :shrug:

 

[Redress]

To your list, I'd add:

1) The number of troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan is higher than it ever was under Bush.

Number of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan Overlooks Thousands of Support Troops - washingtonpost.com

The concern for me and I think most liberals was the troops in Iraq. I feel that Afghanistan was the key war, and that Iraq was a mistake. Troop numbers are up in Afghanistan, but I believe down in Iraq. That is the situation I hoped for.

2) The deadline for the long-promised "end of combat" in Iraq has already come and passed with no indication that it will be any time soon.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...-deadline-withdrawing-combat-troops-iraq.html

I am disappointing with this. It was my understanding that Bush made an agreement with the Iraq government for a timetable for withdrawal, and Obama is kinda locked into it. However, I am not certain of this.

3) Obama's position on the legality of indefinite detention is identical to Bush's.

Obama Endorses Indefinite Detention Without Trial for Some Now at Guantanamo - washingtonpost.com

I disagree with Obama on this.

4) Setting aside Gitmo, Obama has fought to maintain Bagram as a location where we can dump individuals captured from all over the world and deny them habeas.

Obama and habeas corpus -- then and now - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

I disagree with Obama on this. By the way, can you imagine the outcry if a liberal had used Salon as a source?

5) Obama criticized Bush's use of signing statements, but has since employed them freely.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...078-obama-limit-signing-statements-bills.html

Bush in one year issued more signing statements than Obama has his whole presidency: Presidential Signing Statements. I do not think they should be used except rarely(1 or 2 a year maybe), and think Obama overused them last year. He is doing much better this year(he has 1).

These are issues where Obama has either fallen short of his promises or mirrored Bush Administration policies that he once decried. I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing these out, as it forces people to confront the facts and think through their stances on things. I remember some threads from not too long ago where someone provided various quotes from Republicans in the Clinton/Bush era where they said things about Iraq/the economy/health care/etc. that directly conflicted with their arguments now. Threads like that make you think about the positions you hold and whether they're logically consistent.

I don't have a problem with the concept here, I just think this started on the wrong foot with the whole "true believer" crap. If you want to have an honest discussion, set aside the name calling.