Obama vs. Bush - Is There a Difference?

[runningman]

Now let's not lie to ourselves and lets be totally honest here. Is this the 10th year of the bush administration? I mean wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now 15 months on Obama's watch with no end in sight. In fact he has added more troops to the fights and increased wars inside Pakistan. So lets do the poll and see what MS thinks.

[superdave]

Re: Obama vs. Bush - Is There a Difference?

I think Obama kept his campaign promises. He's set a date for leaving Iraq and put more troops in Afghanistan as promised. He's focused on Pakistan as well as capturing and killing Al-Qaeda operatives there with the Pakistani government. He's actually ordered more drone attacks than Bush. He also promised Health care and Financial legislation.

At this point, Obama's actions shouldn't surprise anyone because he told us what he would in the 2008 campaign.

[toasty]

Re: Obama vs. Bush - Is There a Difference?

Is there an option 3 for those of us that live in the real world? False dichotomy, IMO.

[floridaorange]

Re: Obama vs. Bush - Is There a Difference?

I actually welcome threads like this, because it quite literally highlights your lack of understanding of American politics.

If however by some convoluted chance you're suggesting that social change happens slowly, you'd be correct.

[runningman]

Re: Obama vs. Bush - Is There a Difference?

I see the Obamanoids got their bottons pushed on this one. The reality is he is Bush 2.0 in every way. He hasn't done ANYTHING different. He hasn't stopped wars, he hasn't stopped torture, he hasn't brought back Habeas Corpus. He has even gone a step further and started killing American citizens..

Unless their is some false flag before the elections this year the Dems sure are gonna get thier teeth kicked in.




Also MS 64 views and 4 participants in the poll? Come on voice you opinion.

[88Mariner]

Re: Obama vs. Bush - Is There a Difference?

^ Nonsense. Well, kinda.

Here is, perhaps, one distinguishing point: how Bush and Obama approached the issue of a nuclear Iran.

The Obama administration has recently realized how shit is about to hit the fan in Iran and are finding that they never had any military plans on how to handle Iran. Why? Because in their smugness and inflated sense of self-satisfaction, 'diplomacy could never fail' - being anti-Bush necessarily made them also be anti-military planning. Instead, they were so incredibly sure that extending their hand in peace to the Iranians would usher in a new era of peace in that region. So far as we can tell, there is no indication the Obama administration ever thought that diplomacy would break down and that Iran would push forward in enriching uranium with a 20% purity level and introducing advanced centrifuges to their growing list of nuclear overhead. The fact of the matter is, the obama administration has all but given up on stopping Iran from obtaining a bomb.

So, realizing they have completely fucked up without the desire to admit it or to resolve the gaping holes in their middle east theater planning, what other immediate options do they have at their disposal? If you guess "distancing themselves with Israel" you would win a prize. What other interpretation of his picking a fight with Netanyahu can be made? Israel will take action against Iranian targets, as they must. Plausible deniability on Obama's part will only stretch so far, so distancing the US with Israel is pretty much the only viable option at this point.

For Fucks Sake, Iran has been working on their nuke program for at least seven years at this point.

Bush had a plan - stay in Iraq indefinitely and a willingness to take Iranian nuclear sites out. It would at least fit within the pro-israel neocon theme of his administration, if not adding all that we have learned about his administration. But there is no question that Obama has no interest or will to engage Iran militarily.

[floridaorange]

Re: Obama vs. Bush - Is There a Difference?

^articulate post mariner, good read.

responding to just the poll though....

...this is truly a terrible poll... comparing 1 year of Obama's presidency to 8 years of Bush (whose dad was also president) is just ludicrous at best....for the first time ever an American President presided over the UN security council and got unanimous support for a global zero declaration, 2 weeks ago he signed a treaty with Russia, the greatest reduction of strategic weapons in a generation, for the first time ever a decrease in the number of nuclear weapons for strategic defense, and just a couple days ago Obama got 47 heads of states (most ever heads of states since 1945 btw) for the purpose of containing on all the nuclear material around the world within 4 years.

These are the kinds of serious steps we waited on for 8 years with Bush.

[toasty]

Re: Obama vs. Bush - Is There a Difference?

...this is truly a terrible poll...

^This.

I would not agree that Obama has delivered the "Change I can believe in" -- nor was that the standard I was holding him to -- but I also would not characterize him as being Bush 2.0, either. That could be why there aren't more participants -- I would think that most people would have a hard time agreeing with one of those statements, because they're so simplistic and leave no room for the nuance that is inherent in this sort of thing.

[superdave]

Re: Obama vs. Bush - Is There a Difference?

^ Nonsense. Well, kinda.

Here is, perhaps, one distinguishing point: how Bush and Obama approached the issue of a nuclear Iran.

The Obama administration has recently realized how shit is about to hit the fan in Iran and are finding that they never had any military plans on how to handle Iran. Why? Because in their smugness and inflated sense of self-satisfaction, 'diplomacy could never fail' - being anti-Bush necessarily made them also be anti-military planning. Instead, they were so incredibly sure that extending their hand in peace to the Iranians would usher in a new era of peace in that region. So far as we can tell, there is no indication the Obama administration ever thought that diplomacy would break down and that Iran would push forward in enriching uranium with a 20% purity level and introducing advanced centrifuges to their growing list of nuclear overhead. The fact of the matter is, the obama administration has all but given up on stopping Iran from obtaining a bomb.

So, realizing they have completely fucked up without the desire to admit it or to resolve the gaping holes in their middle east theater planning, what other immediate options do they have at their disposal? If you guess "distancing themselves with Israel" you would win a prize. What other interpretation of his picking a fight with Netanyahu can be made? Israel will take action against Iranian targets, as they must. Plausible deniability on Obama's part will only stretch so far, so distancing the US with Israel is pretty much the only viable option at this point.

For Fucks Sake, Iran has been working on their nuke program for at least seven years at this point.

Bush had a plan - stay in Iraq indefinitely and a willingness to take Iranian nuclear sites out. It would at least fit within the pro-israel neocon theme of his administration, if not adding all that we have learned about his administration. But there is no question that Obama has no interest or will to engage Iran militarily.

This is a valid criticism of the Obama administration not planning properly for Iran. There is a good article in today's NY Times(see link below) that reports on a "wake up call" memo from Defense Secretary Gates to the White House that we lack a policy to deal with a nuclear Iran. The White House, of course, disputes that and says they've been working on plans all along, but I'm not sure that I believe them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html?hp

[88Mariner]

Re: Obama vs. Bush - Is There a Difference?

^ lol. Yup.

The most pertinent quote:

Mr. Gates’s memo appears to reflect concerns in the upper echelons of the Pentagon and the military that the White House did not have a well-prepared series of alternatives in place in case all the diplomatic steps finally failed.

How about that!

That Gates actually had to write that memo is deplorable, if not frustrating. Basically no plan B for Iran.

This memo was made back in January. The timing of its leaking is magnificent. Why? Were' basically at a point of no return right now. In all seriousness, we are at the precipice of another war, whether it be nuclear or conventional I do not know.

Gates likely leaked this because he knew if he didn't, we could be several months down the road and still without any serious contemplation on how to militarily engage Iran. Outright disastrous.

The fact that Obama has poo-poohed Iran as we did with North Korea likely gave them the impression that Obama is weak (which we all pretty much knew anyways). (On a side note, how in the hell have we agreed to reduce our nuclear capabilities w/ Russia while in the meantime Russia is supplying lots of help to Iran - am I the only one who still sees Russia as a brooding threat that is attempting to pull the US into, perhaps, another costly war against Iran? They surely took notes on how OBL did it with just three jetliners).

Personally, I don't think the US ever intends to strike against Iran. I think they're going to leave it in the hands of the Israelis, in fact, no other country will deal with this (and the last decade+ has told us this). The Obama administration will benefit from whatever great harm Israel exposes themselves to for acting like the only adult on the block and doing what needs to get done.

It may be too soon to call Obama the 'chamberlain' of our generation, but there it is.


edit: here is something MORE troubling.

That NYT article came out on April 17th.

Look what JUST popped up in Reuters today, a day after publication of Gates's leak: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18147501.htm
The following day, we've got the One's Joint Chief of Staff saying, basically, "we're working on it, and striking is our very last option." What a great, but completely indifferent, damage control statement.


ffs. Maybe we can have a beer summit with Netinyahu and Ahmedinejad! That'll do, I think.

Seriously though. What won't a few dozen LGB's not do to prevent severe civilian casualities on both sides? Why is it so hard to put them back years?

Additionally, why must Iran take up the use of atomic energy? Where are the environmentalists on this one? If this is all about 'providing Iran with cheap energy' (yeah right), then why not solar panels, solar collectors, etc.... Fuck sake.....(sorry I'm just really ticked off about all of this information right now. Obama said Washington needs an adult. We have an immature know-it-all teenager who thinks he's an adult).

And if you think i'm overstating the seriousness of this, consider for a moment that we went to war against Iraq on supposed developments in chemical and biological warfare (at least initially). Iran is a completely distinguishable situation involving the most hazardous material on the planet that has the likelihood of extinguishing hundreds of thousands of lives and who has recieved nothing but slaps on the hand at this point in time (you know, stupid sanctions and harshly-worded letters from the UN).

[srbbnd]

Re: Obama vs. Bush - Is There a Difference?

non-sense

[runningman]

Re: Obama vs. Bush - Is There a Difference?

Wow what a POLL!!! We are split right down the middle.. How can anybody say this isn't a great poll?

You see I can make a poll like this because you can not only vote on it but you can also comment underneath to make a point. So vote and then make your point in the comment section.. We are in a deadlock right now.

Now one quick point Mariner. The Pentagon is always ready for war don't you worry. They already know the top targets to hit to knock out Iran's infrastructure. The White House is the White House and the Pentagram is the Pentagon. Fighting 72 Million people though doesn't exactly get me excited for my future.

[CircleGuy]

Re: Obama vs. Bush - Is There a Difference?

US politics in general is a waste of time. i mean a two party system? c'mon. it's impossible to represent everyone with only two parties. this style of government may have been effective in the 1700s but definitely not in today's world

i feel Obama is a puppet for special interests, specifically the ones who helped finance his way into office. i've read a fair bit on how the "stimulus plan" and the "bank bailout" legislation was so convoluted that it was practically impossible to read. since it was impossible to read, they had the freedom to add any clause they wanted to pay back corporation x, company y and individual z without raising much suspicion. i, as a taxpayer, like to know where my tax money is going and how it is spent. Obama has truly not lived up to his promise of a "more transparent" style of government

[Shpira]

Re: Obama vs. Bush - Is There a Difference?

...this is truly a terrible poll...

This is a shit pole mate...a poll is supposed to be objective - talk about structured answers.
It must be nice to see the world as black and white the way you do...make things a whole lot easier.

the only constant in all politics is continuity...thats something you can bet on no matter who wins the elections. I said it in all threads as the elections were taking place and I say it now again - it doesn't matter who wins.
Things will never change - you can say he will do this and he will do that...but in the end all thats done is some bland and diluted version of election promises. There is far too much vested interests in Washington for things to change with one administration. you forget he is one man "against" the system that has been in place for a hundred years.

[DIDI]

Re: Obama vs. Bush - Is There a Difference?

^^^I believe the term is push polling

Wow what a POLL!!! We are split right down the middle.. How can anybody say this isn't a great poll?

You see I can make a poll like this because you can not only vote on it but you can also comment underneath to make a point. So vote and then make your point in the comment section.. We are in a deadlock right now.

Now one quick point Mariner. The Pentagon is always ready for war don't you worry. They already know the top targets to hit to knock out Iran's infrastructure. The White House is the White House and the Pentagram is the Pentagon. Fighting 72 Million people though doesn't exactly get me excited for my future.

Nah it's a totally crap poll !!