President Barack Obama delivered the best speech George W. Bush ever gave in his life.

[WilliamPitt]

On Tuesday night, President Barack Obama delivered the best speech George W. Bush ever gave in his life. Mr. Bush, if he was watching, would have recognized virtually every facet of Obama's speech, for it was the Bush administration that hammered out the template used by Mr. Obama to deliver the news that he is doubling down on the war in Afghanistan.

Obama's eloquence was far superior to anything Mr. Bush could have ever hoped to achieve - for the first time in the 21st century, the United States has a president who can pronounce "nuclear" correctly - but at the end of the day, it was the same script all over again.

Mr. Obama's speech contained all the well-worn Bushian touchstones, one above all: sharing a stage with soldiers in uniform - and how heartbreakingly young were the faces in that room; one could hear a pin drop throughout in that roomful of children whose lives will be directly affected by the decision that was announced - as a means of political defense and to augment his martial profile. Mr. Bush pulled this sickening stunt more times than can be counted, and it burned like acid to see another president defile their service by using them as props in a bit of political theater.

It took exactly 130 words for Mr. Obama to invoke the attacks of September 11, which is just about how long it usually took Mr. Bush whenever he unleashed one of his linguistic muggings upon the populace.

Mr. Obama blessed the calamity of Iraq as a success - "We have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people," said the president - which was a favorite habit of Mr. Bush, no matter how brazen facts to the contrary happened to be.

Mr. Obama likewise blessed the recent fraud-riddled election in Afghanistan as a positive thing, despite the cancerous effect that farce of a vote has had on the confidence of the Afghan people. In this, the president echoed Mr. Bush once again, as it was often Mr. Bush's practice to fete Iraqi elections that were controlled by Iran and riven with violence as successful steps towards democracy.

Mr. Obama re-introduced the American people to the menace of weapons of mass destruction, a favorite note of Mr. Bush. Obama did not go so far as to say that Afghanistan is in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 missiles to deliver the stuff, mobile biological weapons labs, and uranium from Niger for use in a robust nuclear weapons program, as Mr. Bush did during another memorable prime-time speech, but the call to dread was there all the same. The threat of "loose nukes" is indeed real enough, but it was a kick in the stomach to see the Bush Handbook on Fear put into play once again.

Mr. Obama acknowledged in his speech that America's war in Afghanistan has lasted eight long years, and even tipped a wink at America's share of responsibility for helping to shape the bleak and battered history of that nation. But then, as Bush so often did with Iraq, Mr. Obama threw the responsibility for putting the pieces of that shattered nation back together squarely on the shoulders of the Afghan people. In effect, the occupier demanded that the occupied shape up and fly right. The Hebrew word for this is "chutzpah," and it fits the situation like a glove.

Mr. Obama never used the words "Coalition of the Willing," but his high-flown rhetoric about NATO and an international alliance to deal with Afghanistan stood in stark contrast to reality. Hardly anyone in the international community appears to have much interest in sharing or increasing the burden of continued warfare - a few of those hesitant nations have personal experience with that region in their history, none of it positive - leaving Mr. Obama and the United States pretty much on their own going forward. This may change, but not by much.

Where Mr. Obama departed from the well-worn script of Mr. Bush was in the realm of the rhetorical. He weaved a tapestry of interconnected American interests - economic, social, diplomatic - to explain why the war in Afghanistan must not just go on, but grow. Take this gem, for example:

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended - because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.

Indeed, it was all wonderfully phrased and brilliantly delivered. But in the end, Mr. Obama simply told us what we have been hearing for too long already: we must beat our swords into ploughshares by using swords. Mr. Bush never said it so well, but he said it all the time nonetheless.

Mr. Bush was proud to call himself a war president - "I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind," he famously boasted to Tim Russert with that signature smirk on his face. On Tuesday, Mr. Obama was nowhere near as blunt, but nonetheless, the torch has been passed. Whether or not his strategy for Afghanistan will be successful remains to be seen, but he sold it to the American people in exactly the same fashion as his predecessor. There was a little more sugar to make the medicine go down, but the taste of it remained all too terribly familiar.

At the end of Mr. Obama's address, the cadet corps of West Point stood and applauded. They had to; here was the commander in chief, and they are required to stand whenever he enters and exits. One wonders, however, what they really thought about what they heard. After all, it wasn't anything new; they, and we, have heard it all before.

[Midlodemocrat]

1. +1.

I was very disappointed. Not in the plan so much, but the speech.

[Go2Peace]

71. What amazes me is that centrists on the board keep claiming progressives are a minority here LOL

Progressive posts get the most recs and lead the discussion. I believe that is because, activists tend to be progressives. Notice most of the left blogisphere and most of the left media are "progressive", even "Big Eddie", who used to be kind of a centrist, has gone progressive.

Why? Because once you become educated and more involved then simply listening to soundbites you realize that progressive ideas are the ones that will really work, and that centrist ideas are simply 20th century leftover american exceptionalism.

[Divine Discontent]

92. Amen. I got asked what kind of tombstone I like. Needless to say, looking at my journal, I'm a

decent contributor to the site from time to time, and a big ol' Gay Christian liberal who fights for abortion rights, medical marijuana, global climate change awareness, and the homeless. It's funny how the ones still very supportive or in love with the president, can't see there's a solid 40-60% of us very disappointed.

Sorry for me and my family and friends, but that will make us vote third party or not at all - I support a good amount of President Obama's policies, but on many of the biggies, he's not on my team. I don't care if he's "smart" and "kind", those are great things for anyone, but I want his policies to be much more liberal than they've been. He's done many things Dubya would have done.

[defendandprotect]

128. Liberals/Progressives are a large voting bloc . . . especially when we all come out --

and we heavily financed Obama -- !!!

We have to stick together -- argue it out as to what Plan B should be ---

and recognize our strengths, especially as a voting BLOC which can move on.

We can hope our hearts out that Obama will still come around and do the right thing --

but I'm not counting on it!!

:hi:

[Frosty cupcake]

157. Yes, Progressives gave big to Obama

But not nearly as much as Wall Street. I'm not holding my breath he'll do anything great. Better than McCain, certainly, but that isn't saying much.

[closeupready]

211. "Third party or not at all" - yup. me, too.

n/t

[Lorien]

251. +1. Doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results

is the very definition of insanity.

[Midlodemocrat]

103. They are.

[JHB]

111. It all depends on what you mean by "centrism"...

...particularly since what establishment Washington and the MSM call "centrist" isn't, it's simply a label they use to justify calling everyone else "radical".

[scentopine]

131. centrists are extremely dangerous - they treat all things as equal

torture vs. not torture - lets meet in the middle, call it enhanced interogation and move forward
wall street raping and pillaging - let's meet in the middle and call it a retention plan
mandating people buy health insurance from a monopoliy - let's call it free market reform

Centrists are simply spineless cowards, able to dump everything in a bucket of abstract notions of intellectual purity, neither left nor right but "centered". For centrists all ideas are treated equally - torture, war, immigration. They have no problems separating the million dead and tortured bodies and a million more ruined lives in tiny Iraq as they defend the death and destruction as a cooly calculated political convenience.

Unfortunately, many centrists saw no real consequences of the death and destruction they have wrought - appeasement over war, appeasement over torture, appeasement over financial fraud, it just goes on and on. That's because centrists are centrists until something affects them personally. Then, they reach down into a tiny well in their hollow souls, trying to stammp out that tiny ember of passion that leads to emotion, outrage and reform. Having failed at that, centrists seek medical assistance and a welcome crutch returns them to their centered lives.

Fuck you centrists. You soulless, cowardly and unprincipled realists who sit in a comfy chair smug in your pragmatism as it incites devastation worldwide.

And by the way, when the full impact of the massively shitty health plan begin to be realized, you'll simply say "there's some good and bad to preserving insurance company profits and monopolies. Its a realistic plan that preserves the free market and doesn't upset our corporate benefactors. Realistically, its all we could do". And like every other fucking reform the democratic centrists put forward at the behest of their corporate benefactors, we will be so royally fucked.

Enough to make you sick.

[Romulox]

164. +1. While it would be flamebait, your post would still make a great OP. nt

[GreenTea]

167. Good post! - In other words (my words) fuck off moderate assholes!

"Centrist" is just a cozy word for a fucking moderate....

[sad sally]

231. it's not a health plan, it's a "No Insurance Company Left Behind" plan.

[RufusTFirefly]

261. + 1000!

My sentiments, but brilliantly expressed.

[defendandprotect]

280. Nice summation . . .

:)

[Richardo]

289. What a remarkably simplistic and uninformed rant!

:applause:

Keep up the vitriol; it feels good, doesn't it? and it's my contention that any country run by 'non-centrists' of either wing would be a cheerless, unsustainable hellscape of righteousness. There have been plenty of examples throughout history. No thanks.

[The Wielding Truth]

302. It does sicken me to see change so watered down, but when you

are dealing with established corruption either you slowly bend them or you explode everything wide open. It would at that point be open destructive warfare. The choice is there. Would you do it and just let the debris fly? Could we hold together our country?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

133. We outnumber them by leaps and bounds

Check the greatest page for the evidence of that.

[rhett o rick]

185. There are two types of "centrists" in DU IMHO.

One type call themselves centrists, IMO, only to distance themselves from being called a radical. Central is so neutral so non-aggressive and non-confrontational. But they seem to agree with the left on most if not all issues.

The other type, IMO, are to the right of center and claim to be centrists so they can justify criticism of the left and disrupt. These posters never state their stands on issues. They usually comment very early in a thread and sometimes, to get at the top, will respond to an early responder but address the OP in lieu of the immediate post they are responding to. Lot of the time they will toss a little bomb, like, "What if Dean is wrong", or "Maybe Obama doesnt listen to the left". Then they move on. I call this technique a drive by fruiting. Rarely responding to questions addressed to them and never giving their stand on an issue, only asking questions. The question trick is a dead give-away, straight from Faux News. "Does Obama really support the PO?". When this type of poster makes the mistake of getting into a dialog they usually expose themselves and get the big T.

I am over simplifying I know, but you are either for health care reform or not. How would a so-called centrist see this issue? Instead of allowing 40,000 people to die w/o health insurance they would accept maybe 20,000 dying?

How does a centrist feel about Iraq and Afghanistan? We need to get out but not for 10 years?

Do centrists believe in lobbying reform?

[AtheistCrusader]

213. I don't think that's entirely fair.

Though, I agree, I've seen the phenomena you just described.

But there's clearly a range of opinions on this issue, even among progressives, as even 'progressives' can vary from small-p progressives on most or all social issues, to Progressives(TM) that fit every last tenet perfectly. And are they a member of the revived Progressive Party, or just share progressive ideals? Lots of room in the middle here.

I fit in with the Progressives(TM) on every issue I'm aware of, except perhaps this one, where I'm taking a 'wait and see' approach to what Obama is doing. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, so to speak. I don't think that makes me right of center, or even a 'centrist'.

[rhett o rick]

234. I think we agree. I just did a terrible job making my case.

Of course there are multiple opinions on issues especially among progressives. But as I see it progressive do not believe we should be fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The con's think we should stay and spend until it is clear that the United States wins. My question is where do the so-called centrists stand? Those in DU that are always taking pot shots at progressives wont say what their stand is and I believe that's because they side with the republicants. The few centrists that I have gotten to respond to questions regarding their stands on issues, agree with progressives. The fact that you are willing to trust the President does not make you a centrist. Many progressives are taking that stand.

[Faryn Balyncd]

204. It's no secret that "centrists" are't centrist . . . . . . .

"Centrist" has for several years been re-defined in such a way as to re-enforce the Fox/RNC/RW world view.

By constantly re-enforcing the central assumptions of RW talking points by using the twisted linguistics of Frank Luntz and friends, we are marginalizing the real issues.

Since "centrists" are not centrist, why don't we call them what they are?




(You're right, of course.)

[winyanstaz]

250. you are correct.....

any further right and they would fall off the cliff

[pokercat999]

108. It was a weak speech and as the camera panned the Cadets

you could see a few nodding off. Not typical Obama fare, of course he was using Bush's words so it may be no fault of his own.

Obviously securing the support of the corporations in the MIC is the most important thing. Can't win re-election without them with their control of the media and unending supply of cash.

[theFrankFactor]

125. Democrats = Republican Straigh Men

They are a joke, a very bad joke.

Hi everyone, I posted a new episode to my podcast, The Frank Factor | Liberal and Proud!.

Please click the link below to view it.
http://thefrankfactor.podOmatic.com/entry/2009-11-30T16_37_38-08_00

Join actual Liberals and unconventional Democrats.
http://TheFrankFactor.com
See you there!

- TheFrankFactor

[subsuelo]

2. Thy Mission shall be Accomplished

It's irrelevant who the President happens to be

[arcadian]

3. +2

[jus_the_facts]

4. I recall saying earlier today in another thread of yours....

....something about the INSANITY of doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results. :yoiks:

[Mz Pip]

15. No exit strategy

is more of the same.

This was a warning to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Get your shit together because we will not hang around indefinitely. Capice?

Bush was all about endless war with no time line. Drag it out, on and on.

[tiny elvis]

52. please don't throw us in that briar patch

smilie goes here

[RaleighNCDUer]

135. Thank you.

I was beginning to wonder if the people here listened to a different speech than I did.

He set the deadline for withdrawals at 18 months - summer of 2011. If it isn't happening by then, he'll be a one term president AND HE KNOWS IT.

Why else were all the brass at the speech looking so unhappy? Iraq is winding down, there is an exit plan for Afghanistan, and the era of rapid promotions is over.

End the war in Iraq, and recommit to Afghanistan and get it right. Seems I heard that a lot - during the campaign.

[jus_the_facts]

169. We'll have to wait and see ... just because something is said doesn't make it so....

....there could be lots of other factors that arise between now and then to make this hope fade away too.

[RaleighNCDUer]

176. And if it does fade away, Obama will not be re-elected.

So you KNOW he will do his damnedest to make sure it works.

That is why he set the date to be BEFORE the election, rather than after it as Bush always did - every time Bush announced a long-term goal, the crucial date was at some point AFTER he would be out of office, so that if it happened he could take the credit and if it didn't he could lay the blame on his successor.

Obama is not playing that game. You gotta give him that.

[jus_the_facts]

190. They're both Pentagon and Contractor Puppets regardless...

....it's all a game...another 18 months won't make any difference except to the people who will PROFIT from this...that will most certainly NOT include our soldiers or the Afghans. :think:

[RaleighNCDUer]

199. Thank you for not reading my post. nt

[jus_the_facts]

208. I read it...but it's all irrelevant ...in my opinion. n/t

[aquart]

214. Really, who is the strong Democrat who will oppose him in a primary?

He's the incumbent. And who will the Republicans run?

Throughout the campaign he portrayed Afghanistan as the "good" war and everybody let him skate. Because this nation can't elect a peace ticket. Only a good war ticket.

NOBODY INVADES AFGHANISTAN AND WINS. NOBODY.

[RaleighNCDUer]

236. No strong democrat needed - any remotely qualified republican will beat him

because he will not hold his base if there is not movement out of Afghanistan by the time of the election.

without the left 10%, the centrists dems are not going to be enough to overcome the republicans and independents.

And he knows it.

BTW he is not invading afghanistan. That was done years ago by Bush. He is making it possible to LEAVE Afghanistan without it blowing up in our faces.

the last time we abandoned it, we wound up with a trade center bombing, a couple plane bombings, two embassies bombed, a Navy destroyer bombed and then 9/11.

You really want to abandon afghanistan again, to see what new tricks they'll come up with?

[JuniperLea]

252. Exactly... this was political suicide for him otherwise...

It was a bold step, and a dangerous one. I hope he keeps the goal in sight.

[druidity33]

259. he will START withdrawing in 18 months...

that's a big difference from a deadline of 18 months for withdrawal. No final target date, no benchmarks, no specifics, etc.

The questions he asked Condi Rice in January 2007 (in re: Iraq):


-What if things don't go according to plan?
-What if the occupied country's government remains in shambles? What exactly are the benchmarks for success?
-And what are the consequences if they are not met?
-Is the United States really willing to walk away?


did he answer ANY of those questions last night?

:shrug:


read Froomkin's piece here...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/obamas-questions-for-obam_n_376390.html



then read Glenn Greenwald's current piece here...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/



then let me know whether you still feel the same way about the speech.

[Individualist]

5. Hear, hear!

Before the speech, I said it would be like listening to Bush without the verbal screwups.

[Beetwasher]

6. I Recced Yr Post But I Disagree

I recced because it's thoughtful and sincere and I will post more when I'm not using my Ipod.

[WilliamPitt]

7. Thank you, sir

I look forward to it. PM me when you've got something up.

Cheers.

[Beetwasher]

12. U Got It Bud

n/t

[newspeak]

25. [phone]

I told hubby the same thing. I was listening to an articulate *. Do you think he hired the same speech writer?

[Chisox08]

70. He found one of Bush's speeches in his desk written in crayon

He translated into English and used it.

[Mira]

112. Weak smile here N/T

[pjt7]

175. The war machine doesn't care who delivers the

speech they write.

Obama is owned.

[Demeter]

96. Just the Same NeoCon Advisors

What does it take to get a REAL change in government around here?

[Beetwasher]

198. Posted Below

n/t

[nomaco-10]

8. I call BULLSHIT....

BULLSHIT.

We need to exit Afghanistan asap.

[pleah]

9. K&R

[Horse with no Name]

10. Excellent. n/t

[Why Syzygy]

11. Original turn of phrase

or typo?

But then, as Bush so often did with Iraq, Mr. Obama threw the responsibility for putting the pieces of that shattered nation back together squarely on the shoulders of the Afghan people. In effect, the occupier demanded that the occupied ship up and fly right.

Gave me chills, Will. Must be deep.

[WilliamPitt]

14. Good eye

Fixed. Thank you.

And thank you.

[MichiganVote]

13. From Shock Doctine to Jock Doctrine...its all so much bull.

[EFerrari]

16. If speaking out for human dignity of all the peoples of the world

is what gives America its authority, what do we make of the silence of the Obama admiistration on the rapes, murders and detentions in Honduras?

I've a bunch of notes but it would be too depressing to post them here.

[corpseratemedia]

55. +1

[Ken Burch]

63. ACTUALLY speaking out for human dignity for all the peoples of the world

Would mean speaking out for ditching globalization and forgiving all Third World Debt.

Dignity and austerity do not mix. Neither do dignity and western economic domination of the planet's Rainbow Majority.

[leftstreet]

83. +1

[inna]

285. "it would be too depressing to post them here" - Please do!

I'd LOVE to read them, and so would many others, I'm sure!

:yourock:


If you posted them in another thread or elsewhere, I'd love to have a link. :)

[EFerrari]

294. Thank you for the vote of confidence.

I'm thinking that letting this situation cool off a little might not be a bad idea. And no way am I hijacking Pitt's thread.

:hi:

[Canuckistanian]

17. Well, Karl Rove liked it

The former chief spokesperson for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq wasn't the only one-time Bush hand to lavish praise on the current president. Appearing on NBC's "Today Show" Tuesday morning, Karl Rove said that if reports of a 30,000-plus-troop surge were true, it constituted "a definitive action."

"And if the president does do that, I'll be among the first to stand up and applaud," Rove said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/bush-officials-rnc-praise_n_375400.html

[Harry Monroe]

35. If KKKarl Rove liked it, then we are truly fucked!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

137. No, if Karl Rove says he likes it he is saying it because he wants to

split liberal dems from conservadems on the issue. He never says ANYTHING that is not meant to either help the republicans or hurt the democrats.

Get real.

[Harry Monroe]

145. I AM real. You said more than me, but I distilled it down and said the same in 3 words.

[bamacrat]

73. I saw him on Billo (eww that felt gross) and he didnt like it.

Pretty much said he was a pussy for taking so long and that no one should have confidence in him.

[Frank Cannon]

88. Obama could save Rove's family from a burning building...

and he wouldn't like it. Nothing new there.

[peace frog]

113. Enough censure in itself

when Rove approves an Obama speech. Quick - what year is this?? which presidency is this??

[bigtree]

18. that's good to hear you acknowledge this

sad, though.

I wonder at the folks cheering this president on. What have we learned?

[Raven]

19. So, Obama is George Bush only smoother?

I am awed by your analysis of his speech, honestly. I could never have parsed all of that and you are right in every comparison. This is why you got your brain cells from your father and you sense of humor from me! :-) But what would you have had this man do given what he has been presented with. Cleaning up after a careless slob is a messy business.

[WilliamPitt]

23. I'm not addressing the complexity of the situation

Did that here:

http://www.truthout.org/1116094

and here:

http://www.truthout.org/1201093

This is about the methods and rhetoric he used to sell the decision. All too familiar.

Hi Mom! :hug: :)

[Raven]

26. Hi sweetie! But is that form over substance? After all

he must live in a grossly political world.

[WilliamPitt]

30. It is

But form is important. Form means not using soldiers as props. It means not repeating the jargon and slogans of a disgraced and disreputable era. It alsoi means telling a lot more of the truth than we heard tonight.

There was not much new substance here, anyway. It was a lot of the old stuff with a coat of paint slapped over it. He's so good at this, he really does make it seem like he's laying everything out, but he didn't. It was mostly form, and that's what caught most of my attention.

[blues90]

20. The main thing in that speech that caught my attention

Was not Obamas speech even though I did hear and understand it and even thoough I dissagree with the entire concept of this insane war where we cannot win. What caught my attention was the look on the faces of the cadets , this told me the whole story . They had not the look of hope and pride , they had the look of numbness and worry and personal concern.

Obama spoke of the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan as if it could be compared to Texas and New Mexico .

I have seen the landscape of this border, far from an easy task.

This is an abomination of the highest order and I feel america is done , forget about moving forward with new jobs and health ins re-form or re-building this economy.

We can do one or the other but not both and the choice has been made for us.

Obama spoke of an voted in Afghan government , not according to the tribal people who live there.

[NoSheep]

138. He also said that election was marred by corruption. Something Bush would have never said.

[blues90]

229. Yes yet he still accepts this so called election. nt

[BeHereNow]

21. Hell yes Will. K&R

Tell it like it is.
Some are still delusional about it.

BHN

[ShamelessHussy]

22. reminds me of what some say about Clinton: Best republican president in our lifetime

but as we are constantly reminded, he promised to escalate the war during his campaign, as if we are supposed to shut-up about it already, so it is not that surprising, just tragically disappointing.

one thing is for sure, not only are our leaders consistent, they are also terminally righteous.

[Gregorian]

24. I'm unhappy, yet hopeful that perhaps it's what he didn't say that makes this different.

I want to know what would have happened had Obama not escalated this military action in the Middle East.

I am wondering if he is playing poker with Pakistan.

And yet the bottom line for me it to end this asap. There will be more mothers mourning death on both sides of this military activity over there.

I see no good in it. But I do think it's significantly different than Bush's intentions. He wanted endless war. I know Obama wants to end it, but not as soon as we do.

[Dystopian]

27. KandR

It was a horrific nightmare.....flashbacks...visions of *.
Had to turn the TV off...

And life goes on....as more die for a lie.

peace~

[BrklynLiberal]

28. Sad. Sad. Sad.

I fervently hope that we are somehow, pleasantly surprised soon.

[MindPilot]

29. Nailed it Will; I cringe when the leader of any country invokes "moral authority"

especially one with our military capabilities.

Accepting any of what the president said tonight, begins with believing that this whole "Al Qaeda" threat actually exits. For someone who spent his entire life close to the cold war, I have a hard time believing they are any more of a threat than a bad thunderstorm.

[Generic Other]

31. "we must beat our swords into ploughshares by using swords"

Aint that the truth! That was an upsetting speech.

[quiet.american]

32. Hogwash and bullshit. nt

[bullwinkle428]

33. BWAH-HA-HA-HA!!! I brought up the concept of "Bushiness" (with regards

to Colbert's "truthiness") as I was attempting to describe the vibe I was getting, in the speech thread!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7129033&mesg_id=7129397

[rhett o rick]

34. Fool me once and shame on you, damnit Obama, dont be trying to fool me no more. nt

[knightinwhitesatin]

36. Will Pitt

under the bus???

I hope not.

[WilliamPitt]

37. ?

[knightinwhitesatin]

41. Olbermann

did not agree and some folks here threw him under the bus

Maddow did not agree and the same happened.

I am waiting for the cheerleading squad to find this thread and label you a heretic who must go under the bus.........

I am hoping they don't find it.

[WilliamPitt]

43. Meh.

When the Democrats were running against Bush in 2004, I went all over the country preaching the same gospel: vote for the Democrat no matter what, so we can get Bush out, and so we can be in a position to kick a Democratic president squarely in the ass whenever he/she deserves it. Well, we got the Democrat four years later, and our obligation to kick him in the ass has not changed.

When he does well, I will sing his praises all over the place. When he doesn't, well...

He didn't do well tonight, and I can live with the approbation of those who don't agree. They have the right to their opinions, too.

Cheers, and thanks.

[TornadoTN]

120. I appreciate this post Will - it sums things up perfectly

I'm with you on this. We have to hold our President to account. I just hope it actually matters this time.

[ChiciB1]

142. I've Had My Reservations About More & More Issues Regarding Obama, But NOW

I'm afraid he LOST me! People here in America hanging on by a thread should be rising up and storming the Bastille 'er WHITE HOUSE!

I'm ready to REVOLT! So far my family and ours have been keeping up, but now I truly believe we are going to tighten our belts even more than we have been! I've been very frugal so far and tried to stock up on non-perishable food that goes on sale! Not a hoarder here, but thinking ahead about my financial situation. Just thinking 3 months at a time, but I'm now more worried than ever. I was wishing that by next year we might be seeing some improvement in our economy but I don't feel that way anymore. Am I being too negative about this? Perhaps, but I'd rather try to prepare than be caught in a vise!

I didn't want to sell our investment property yet, but by this time next year THAT prospect goes out the window! The taxes on 5 acres aren't cheap and I scraped by this year. Our house needs a new roof and that's an extra expense too, so yes this is killing part of MY American Dream that I worked hard for and thought I was making wise decisions to insure security for retirement!

I'm so mad, so depressed, so angry and feel DUPED and FOOLISH!

WHEN DO WE RELOLT IF NOI NOW? How long are we going to let ourselves get screwed over and over? I don't see our Representatives looking out for us and will it take a real depression before we wake up??

As for the cadets, "they said" (the media) that he was greeted like a Rock Star, well I don't even believe that... I saw many faces that didn't look all that happy, some even were frowning! THAT'S WHAT I SAW! And I didn't vote for a ROCK STAR either!!!!

Obama, I don't understand what is going on anymore, but I know you have LOST A LOT OF PEOPLE! YOUR BAD!!

[dgibby]

69. One of them already did, damn the bad luck! n/t

[TheWraith]

38. You should be ashamed of this pile of bullshit.

Let's see: hard timeline for withdrawal, cleaning up the mess we were left, realistic goals, no jingoism, and we leave in 2011... To try and equate that with Bush is a travesty of intellectual dishonesty.

[nomaco-10]

40. TIMES TEN!!! n/t

[xiamiam]

45. intellectual dishonesty to say that you have not heard that exact speech from bush...nt

[quiet.american]

58. ? lol

[RaleighNCDUer]

144. Oh? When did Bush EVER set a timetable for withdrawal - particularly

one that goes into effect RIGHT BEFORE AN ELECTION.

Obama laid his cards on the table for everyone to see. If the withdrawal doesn't happen as scheduled, his political career is over.

Bush always said 'we will leave when the (whoever) is ready to fend for themselves'.

Obama said 'you better get to fending for yourselves, because we are leaving.'

You don't see a difference?

Whether they are ready or not, we WILL start leaving in 18 months. This was not a Bush escalation speech - this was fair warning to Karzai and the world that we are taking our toys and going home, regardless.

[liberation]

235. The Bush admin gave fairly optimistic deadlines for Iraq...

... yeah, what happened to those?

And when the 18 month mark comes, I am sure you will be screaming at the top of your lungs how the situation has "changed" and Obama is simply showing leadership by adapting to said changes by extending our involvement (pick another nice sounding round number, like I dunno 12 months of 1.5 years or other marketing friendly sums).

I find it fascinating that the ardent Obama supporters seem to think that answering with all sorts of hand waving, it is somehow a competent answer to people posting with specific policy and action items by this administration. When the Obama camp has to list "statements of intentions" as "achievements" me thinks they are running low on real concrete actions/achievements.

Unfortunately, this is now Obama's war. Enjoy. At least, the excuses this time will be far more creative than the half assed crap the previous troglodites were feeding us... so a small reason to cheer I guess.

[8 track mind]

105. Thank You!!!! n/t

[TornadoTN]

121. Hope you are still around in 2011

We won't be out by 2011, the administration is already backing off of this statement. They are now claiming "a small draw-down could begin in 2011, but only if conditions are right."


Over a year ago, this speech would have been roundly lambasted by this board. Now, this speech is met with some cheerleaders willing to swallow anything that they are fed.

[RaleighNCDUer]

146. He NEVER said we would be out by 2011. Never.

You are making shit up to bolster your point. It never works when the repukes do it, so why emulate them?

[RaleighNCDUer]

301. That was Gates, not 'the administration'.

The military has always had reservations about withdrawal deadlines.

But they are not going to change his mind. If there is not a significant draw down before the election Obama's career will come to a screeching stop. He knows that. He's putting it on the line. Would he do that if he didn't have every expectation that it can be done?

[closeupready]

212. self-delete

n/t

[Whisp]

247. that's where Will always goes, wherever the most are.

he times it with the temperature of the forums, and lots of people are yelping and whining now, so here's Will like clockwork milking the moment. Wait a couple weeks/months and he'll 180 and forget he ever posted this thing of his and contradict himself completely.

then swear at you and have a fit if you point it out to him. ;)

:rofl:
class clown

[trumad]

298. Been here just a couple of years and you're an expert on Will

Oh I know---you'll chime that you were a lurker..

Nah--you're just a douche.

[AllyCat]

281. We will still be there in 2011.

[progressoid]

39. Yeah, I had to tune out after getting that deja vu feeling.

And then he'll receive the Nobel Peace Prize. That should be interesting.

[Better Believe It]

42. Welcome to the not so silent majority. K & R

[xiamiam]

44. bless you william pitt..i said the same thing..it got buried..i said it again..it got buried

bless you for being a great writer who is respected enough to get the message across...bless you for seeing thru the nonsense..

the speech was handed to bush..and it was handed to obama..their speechwriters added their magic ..but it was the same speech..from the same guys..i am so sick of it..my stomach has been churning since i watched...

i didnt expect that from obama..i expected something to try to convince me that this escalation was a good idea..i was prepared not to buy it..but in a million years, i never expected the same speech...ever....at times, i felt even obama didnt believe he was saying it..

it was stale...its been used before and im sick of fear and 911 as the motivation....there was at least one outright lie...i still cant quite believe it...and i was prepared...

[inna]

291. +1

[Johonny]

46. what I thought too :(

Really I wanted a clear coherent plan. Instead I got a lot of Patriotism and very little reasoning. This did nothing to convince me at the very basic level this is going to work. I gave him his chance... now I'm against it.

[David Zephyr]

47. Kick and Recommend.

There's nothing to add. You summed it up.

[nc4bo]

48. Disheartening, all of it. Regrettably giving a big K&R.

I admit I did not and will not watch this speech, DUer's reactions during the speech was about all I could stand and told me all I needed to know.

[WilliamPitt]

49. Read it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02prexy.text.html

:hug:

[girl gone mad]

50. I really wanted to vomit..

when ObamaBush said that we should go back to feeling like we did right after 9/11, united by fear, shell shocked and hungry for revenge. Truly a new low for this administration.

[ProSense]

51. Here is a good

comparison

[NoSheep]

140. Thank you thank you thank you for posting this.

Some people have lost the ability to understand language.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. Aren't you yourself constantly evoking 9-11?

I don't mean the twoofer stuff, just generally.

[JVS]

54. Good God! You are about to get flamed!

:hide:

[mirrera]

56. K&R!! At least he talks nice to us before we get F#%cked...

[TexasObserver]

57. I posted the same thought in one of your threads today.

Imagine that!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7126429&mesg_id=7126914

"I have seen this speech before. Bush gave it many times."

[bertman]

59. When he mentioned a "future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those

who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity" it made me wonder if there isn't some new boycott of the U.S. that's about to begin. The obscenity of alluding to the innocents killed by terrorists who are not pro-American while ignoring the mass slaughter of innocents which we have perpetrated for the last eight years in Afghanistan and Iraq leaves me speechless.

As a nation, we have become so self-absorbed that we cannot see that what we are doing to stop "terrorism" is worse by a magnitude of 100 in terms of destruction wrought upon the innocent people in the nations we feel so compelled to invade.

Maybe he raised his cred with the warmongers, but he sure damaged my confidence in his understanding of what we are doing in the name of freedom and security.

There's a very good chance that a high percentage of those young men and women at West Point are chafing at the bit to "get into some action" rather than being all insecure about the future and their fates. Speaking from experience, those who go through that level of military training have to be dedicated to the idea of doing battle. After all, that's why they are training to be Military Officers. The subtleties of where and who they will be fighting are usually way in the background. That's one of the problem we have with allowing all of those high-ranking generals and admirals to exert such influence on the President. Many of them are looking for "a good war somewhere" and it doesn't matter a whole lot where it is--as long as it's a war.

Recommend.

And I agree wholeheartedly that the martial motif was a crude propaganda ploy. Very sad for our nation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. K&R Sugar coated Bush.

[madrchsod]

61. i`m glad i was doing something constructive tonight

thanks for the summation on his speech.

[defendandprotect]

62. Sadly "recommend" . . . !!!

[swag]

64. Did you vote for Obama?

If so, why, since what he announced he was doing tonight is exactly what he said he would do?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html

[SOS]

162. Good point

Escalation in Afghanistan has been the centerpiece of Obama's war strategy for years.
Wind down Iraq, ramp up Afghanistan.
He said it speeches, in debates and in articles.

He did exactly what he said he would do.

And now suddenly he's George Bush?

:shrug:

[man4allcats]

65. Well, it got Lieberman's vote - which in itself tells you a lot.

According to Joe:

Obama did get support from some unfamiliar quarters. Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, a former Democratic vice presidential nominee who backed Republican John McCain in last year's presidential election, said he was encouraged by Obama's decision and suggested he had learned from President George W. Bush's experience. "It's the strategy that worked in Iraq," Lieberman said of increased troop levels.

Yeah right, Joe. Like that whole Iraq thing worked out so well!

[LibDemAlways]

75. Lieberman is the biggest waste of DNA in the Senate, and

that's saying a lot given that there are turds like Inhofe and Coburn floating around.

If he's for something, you can bet it sucks.

[BobTheSubgenius]

66. I don't know how you could come to a conclusion much different than you have.

Given the set piece that it was, using phrases that push the responsibility off onto the Iraqis\Afghanis to make their respective countries "work"...depressing.

Worst of all might be borrowing *'s little black dress. Used to make me want to vomit; now it makes me want to weep.

[impik]

67. BS

Just load of BS. One cliche after another.

[FrenchieCat]

68. Joined the Kool Kids, hey?

Cadets who were "forced" to applaud?
just like the RW characterized it!
you'd make FR proud.

The Cadets could have left, and yet, most stayed
and were clapping even 5 minutes after the speech was done.












And Bush may have pimped 9/11, but he doesn't get to own it!

I'll be damned if a Democrat is now fucking restricted from
talking about 9/11 as though they should be punished
for how the Republican over used it by Democrats.
How stupid is that?


Things that Obama said that Bush never did:


I did not make this decision lightly.....

I have read the letter of those and their loved one who have been deployed

I visited our courageous men and women at Walter Reed.

I went to Dover to meet the casket of those courageous Service people

We do not seek to occupy Afghanistan

We must end this war

Transfer our forces OUT OF Afghanistan starting July 2011.

We've made mistake too

America seeks an end to this era of war.

We will seek a partnership with Afghanistan where we will seek their respect.

We do not want your natural resources.

[Postman]

72. I wonder if they'll still want a picture of Obama when they come back home like this...

all for what? It ain't for defending America I can tell you that....

[FrenchieCat]

76. I don't know......

But I know that a majority of them voted for George Bush and Dick Cheney twice,
and chose to enlist knowing we'd been in this war for years.

Those who chose this school deliberately as a career path,
understand they will be serving in Iraq or Afghanistan
as that is part of their commitment that they agree to when they choose to apply
at West Point.

I think that unlike Iraq, most believe in this particular mission.

What I do know is that they are not embryos that need protection from Abortion...
and you carting around photos of them as though they are aborted fetuses
doesn't move me, cause I'm pro-choice, not pro-life.
There is no draft.

[cornermouse]

97. Most of the enlistees "chose" to enlist because they were

unable to find a job to support themselves and their families due to the lousy economy that Obama is ignoring while he goes haring off to Afghanistan a la' Bush. I suppose that could technically be considered "choosing" but the reality of trying to live without income sort of puts the lie to your argument.

[Tigermoose]

161. West Point Officers don't fit your characterization.

nt

[proteus_lives]

80. Stay classy.

Well, aren't you happy to use his picture and to wish harm on US service-people.

[RetroLounge]

122. "wish harm on US service-people"

Fuck your right-wing bullshit.

Nowhere did poster "wish harm on US service-people"

RL

[LibDemAlways]

87. Looks like some posters here aren't too fond of reality. Thanks for

the reminder. War is hell.

[inna]

260. I was so shocked by that image that I was compelled to do a search...

Here's what I found, what an absolutely heartbreaking story:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2329296



Ty Zeigel before Iraq:




:cry:

[NoSheep]

136. Also said: "we cannot afford these wars". Bush would NEVER have said that.

And if someone can't see the difference between George Bush and a man who inherited a war and seeks to end it, I question that person's ability to reason properly.

[ChickMagic]

139. "We do not want your natural resources."

I actually laughed out loud at that little nugget.
Obama did not have the same gravitas during that
speech that he usually has. He seemed to know it
was bullshit and maybe even embarrassed by it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

277. OMG - thanks Frenchie cat - man, I thought the whole world

had turned upside down! thanks

[LibDemAlways]

74. It's seeming to me as though it doesn't matter who the hell we "elect."

Obama, like Bush, is taking his marching orders from the pentagon and the CEOs. And whoever is stage-managing Obama took lessons from the Bush handlers. Using the military as a backdrop is shameless.

Why continue with the pretense and the big, expensive Presidential campaigns? Let's just declare this a one party government, adopt the corporate version of the flag, and be done with it.

[create.peace]

84. i hear you! nt

[AllyCat]

282. All illusions that this is a democracy were lost for me in about March of this year.

This is a corporatocracy through and through. Has been for many decades. We still have a little money left in our bank accounts and some of us still have our kids, so they aren't done rolling us yet.

[tavalon]

77. We are on the same page Will

Obama can speechify like no other but even he can't turn the same old shit into fine fertilizer. He has decided to make a war that should never have been, his own. It's a true shame and will be death for many.

[FrenchieCat]

78. Lockstepping?

[tavalon]

82. I'm often of the same opinion as Will Pitt

Sometimes I trail behind and sometimes he trails behind but 95% of the time, we get to the same place. I'm rarely that close in thought with anyone here, including my spouse, though he comes in a close second.

[Forkboy]

130. You tell us. You've become the expert.

[pam4water]

79. Funny.

The speak seem more sad and embattled too me. Obama seem lost that is very Bush like.

[AllyCat]

81. It all sounded vaguely familiar...Put through a voice filter, I don't think I'd know who said what

[VHamrick]

85. Bull Shit

Your template sucks.

[shanti]

86. 100 recs!

you go, will! :thumbsup:

[Frank Cannon]

89. Except for the nonslurred words and the coherent sentences...

this easily could have been a GWB speech. I found myself heckling the TV screen just as much as I did with Dubya, and that is just fucking sad.

[Divine Discontent]

93. Isn't it? not much to say other than what you said! it's so sad - it coulda been Dubya's speech.

[MSchreader]

90. +101

I think you nailed it, Will. Nice to see the Ronin Democrat again. :hi:

[demigoddess]

91. looks like even Pres. Obama is too young to learn from history, he is too young

to remember vietnam. All those young cadets are really too young to remember vietnam. that is why we make the same stupid mistakes all over again every generation.

[Divine Discontent]

94. I will attest, this is one of the better opinion posts you've written. Sad that it comes on one of

the most important matters ever, that I'd not want to see our president go through with!

He's failing a large portion of his base on many issues.

We needed Kerry or Gore, they somehow 'lost', but we get a landslide victory with a centrist... great.

[ima_sinnic]

95. red'd for the title alone--

though I was confident that Will Pitt would write a recommendable screed, and I was right!
The murder, destruction, and hell-making will continue, and any "change" will continue to be in superficial features: the race and political party of the president and of the particular individuals making up Congress--and all for the flimsiest, most transparently phony excuses!

This is just the latest in a rather long line of corrupt warmonger presidents. This one did a particularly good job of fooling the voters into thinking he was not one of those--like the others, he sees his bottom line in a few years and it exceeds his wildest expectations with policies like these. May he retire in blood-soaked contentment after conning the world.

on edit: minor word change for clarification.

[uppityperson]

98. Most times I agree with you Will, but this time, I don't. I know what you are saying but disagre

"At the end of Mr. Obama's address, the cadet corps of West Point stood and applauded. They had to; here was the commander in chief, and they are required to stand whenever he enters and exits. One wonders, however, what they really thought about what they heard."

I disagree. Did you see the pictures elsewhere in this thread? Compare them to the wooden faced people in mrbush's audience. Can you truly NOT see a difference?

Maybe we were listening to 2 different speeches because I thought he gave quite a rebuke to the bush-war-years. Or maybe you are just to jaded from the last 8 bush yrs to actually believe someone could say what they mean, mean what they say.

Sorry Will, your writing is much more eloquent than mine will ever be, but I very much disagree with you.

[waronbanks]

99. When I heard 911

Within the first minute of the speech I turned it off. And then I thought back to his FISA vote, which was my first clue we were being sold a marketing scheme...not the leader we all needed so badly. And almost every decision he as made since (or non decision like his terrible handling of health care) has made it clear...he is either in bed with the moneyed interests or just a political pussy who cant stand up to those same corporate criminals. Either of which is not what we were "sold" during the campaign. And now this.

One thing is very clear...we need a 3rd party.

[Carolina]

202. welcome to DU

And I did the same thing... turned off the speech the minute 911 was evoked and he essentially spewed BS about how we did not start this but rather it was brought to us. Please! I thought he was supposed to be smart; I thought he studied history.

US/CIA/Pentagon/Corporate interests have meant meddling in others' political affairs covertly or overtly (through war) for decades. We, the little people, are REAPING what they, the military-industrial complex (and their puppets in political office, have SOWN!

We were sold a good speechifier, obviously nothing more. LBJ -- bless his soul -- gave us Medicare and Civil Rights but couldn't get the rest of his Great Society programs accomplished because of Vietnam. Duh. Obama will NEVER accomplish REAL healthcare reform or anything else because of the senseless, wasteful wars that are now HIS!

You're absolutely right, it's 3rd party time!

[democrank]

100. K & R

http://icasualties.org/oif/

[Vidar]

101. K&R.

[Hubert Flottz]

102. At least Obama didn't wear a bomber jacket.

Or smirk...

[peace frog]

106. Or a stuffed-codpiece flight suit

"Sunny nobility", my ass.

[PVnRT]

104. Well said

Fortunately, I know you have a good fireproof suit.

[MadHound]

107. Excellent analysis Will,

I felt much the same way watching the speech last night. Like I had seen and heard all of this before. Deja vu.

And like Bush, Obama is going to wage an endless war, one that is illegal, and immoral. And we will all pay the price.

[Owl]

109. Agreed. K&R

[Politicub]

110. Does Pres. Obama possess a goal of becoming beloved by the right?

I can't think of a better reason why he would have followed the Bush template in his speech last night. Of course, the right will continue to hate him no matter what he does to try and win their affection. And I can't understand why he would want it, but he sure seems comfortable with losing much of his base to pick up some of the crumbs from the right's table.

I cringed along with many of my fellow DUers when he evoked Sept. 11, promoted the fanciful idea that Iraqis somehow control their own destiny with an occupying power in their midst, and whipping up fear by talking about loose nukes.

I suppose his delivery bested Bush's, but I didn't pay as much attention to how he said the war will be expanded, just that he did say the war would be prolonged and the reasons for doing so.

The kids in the audience looked so young, but West Point's goal of turning out military officers cements the fact that most of the fighting on the front lines will continue to be waged by the poor and minorities -- not by the majority of people in the audience in their striking gray outfits. Some things never change in America.

[LibDemAlways]

134. Obama is managing the seemingly impossible.....alienate his base

with rw rhetoric and escalation of an unwinnable war, and at the same time continue to be an object of ridicule and derision by the rightwing he's bending over backwards to please. Makes no sense at all.

[wisteria]

114. It wasn't necessary and it serves no good purpose to reference Bush

in comparison to President Obama's speech. Placing blame for where we are now is fine, but to suggest that Obama is somehow channeling Bush is just wrong and does nothing but stir the pot. President Obama is not Bush.

[Tigermoose]

181. Stirring the pot WAS the point of this article.

nt

[daggahead]

115. Who got to him? Who is holding the knife to his throat?

This is not the same person I thought I voted for.

[AllyCat]

283. Corporate America, our true masters

[mmonk]

116. Well done.

[BennyD]

117. Hilarious title to your rant. n/t

[MissDeeds]

118. Unfortunately, you're right n/t

[soarsboard2]

119. One of the Best Written Posts - thank you

PREDICTION: Obama's poll numbers are about to plummet.

WHY? America wants a FOCUS on JOBS BABY JOBS

[Soylent Brice]

123. K&R

[Robb]

124. Good one, Pitt. Lazy, but good. nt

[Forkboy]

132. Lazy like a one line response?

:shrug:

[Robb]

155. Lazy like Pitt's a good writer.

I think he phoned this one in, frankly, given his chops.

But it's elegantly lazy. :)

[leeroysphitz]

126. Hey, at least he didn't wear the kahki members only jacket.

You have to be thankful for the little things.

[PA Democrat]

127. I couldn't force myself to watch his speech and haven't even read it as of yet.

I will read in time, but I am still so incredibly ANGRY at his use of those cadets as a fucking prop for his speech that my anger would cloud my analysis of his speech. I am opposed to the escalation and at this point I doubt there is anything in that speech that will change my mind. The fact that Obama pulled a cheap Bush stunt by using a captive audience of cannon fodder makes me ill.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PA Democrat]

205. Oh yes, I'm a freeper. That's why I knocked on hundreds of doors for Obama last year.

I waited to read the speech because I knew the visuals which were reminscent of Bush with the captive military audience would influence my interpretation of the message. How the FUCK is that freeperish?

Wow. I wanted to be objective. Save your nasty accusations for the real enemy. It's not me.

[Carolina]

206. totally agree!

about the captive cannon fodder, although I did listen until I found myself screaming at the TV the way I used to when shrub spoke.

I'm done. The speechifier-in-chief should have a talk show to replace Oprah, since talking appears to be his strong and ONLY suit.

[NJmaverick]

129. Yes he did. It was reassuring to see an intelligent and thoughtful man

leading our nation. It was nice that he talked to us like adults. It's such a great change compared to the previous 8 years

[jonnyblitz]

143. and here i thought you would be rationializing this abomination.

that will teach me to ASSume. I already recommended this earlier. I was surprised to read it, to be honest.

[inna]

292. +1

i felt exactly the same way, and ... i applaud Will for this post.

[Raster]

147. Outstanding, Mr. Pitt. Thank you.

:kick:

[NikRik]

148. Just bring our young boys home already !

The milatary wants to keep those checks rolling in of tax payers $ no natter how many more lives will be lost while they drag their feet on getting a plan for withdrawal in motion! This is so ridiculious the excuses we a given. Certainly our intelligence should be able to monitor the movenmets of the taliban ! Iam sorry to say that so far I whom voted for President Obama am so disappointed by his failure of leadership and grabbing the bull by the horns. Get the lobbiest out of Washington restore our middle class ! There is so much more I have to say however my rant will end for today !
Thanks ,NikRik

[Tigermoose]

149. Rabble Rouser Pitt

President Obama has a moral obligation as Commander in Chief to do the right thing in this situation. He presented a well reasoned argument that I found convincing. If you weren't so interested in being popular on Cynics Undergound, you might have found the arguments compelling. I think you sometimes get in "writer' mode and want to generate enthusiasm in your readers at the expense of making a moral and rational response to a sincere argument from the President. Your false analogy rhetoric is blatantly irrational and mere propaganda. I guess that's journalism. And apparently you fancy yourself a journalist. I do not find journalist opinion pieces to be particularly persuasive. Interesting - maybe. Persuasive, no. But the majority of the cynical rabble on this site love it when an articulate leader emerges to lead them to further feelings of outrage that helps to compsenate for their sense of powerlessness in today's complex society. Enjoy the limelight Pitt. Maybe you will make it big someday and be the Leftwing version of Glenn Beck.

[Amonester]

158. How big is your paycheck?

the Leftwing version of Glenn Beck??

How dare u, warmongers minion. :thumbsdown:

[LaPera]

174. What you mean is "a well reasoned republican argument"-Which is complete & total bullshit from what

any sensible thinking person would call republican rhetoric & war mongering that will ONLY serve to give billions of our tax dollars to weapons makers, corporations and other war profiteers for years as Obama just given them them tens of billions more....

[Tigermoose]

177. Your use of "ONLY" betrays your narrow minded vision.

Reality is much more complex than any of us can comprehend. To simplify it like you might make you feel better, but making decisions in a complex world really defies the narrow exclusivism of an ONLY worldview.

[LaPera]

182. This bullshit moronic war will ONLY serve the wealthy' interest as all wars ONLY do!!

Yo Scarecrow....We hear your plea, "If you ONLY had a brain" Unfortunately, ridiculous which-ever-way-the wind-blows moderates don't have brains....ONLY straw!

[Bluenorthwest]

209. You know the personal attack is just an avoidance of substance

And a petty political trick that all the pro war people are using. Name calling, taunting. From outside your clique, that just makes Pitt look better. You read like a mouthpiece, he reads like a writer. The contrast in ideas and content is great.

[Tigermoose]

232. His critique on Obama is a critique on himself.

Form over substance.

Pitt is shadow boxing.

I don't need to write a thousand words to say something simple. You want flowers? Visit a rose garden.

[WilliamPitt]

286. What does that even mean?

:shrug:

[salib]

150. Exactly what I said to my wife

Before we got fed up, turned off the "tube", and went to dinner.

[Locrian]

151. the neo-cons and corporate masters never went away...

The neo-cons and corporate masters never went away...they just got a new puppet.

[alarimer]

152. The only difference between him and Bush is that Obama pronounces words correctly.

Otherwise it's the same "rah, rah, USA number 1" jinogistic bullshit. And using 9/11 as an excuse just fucking sucks.

Fuck Obama. He is toast with me.

Vietnamistan here we come.

[AlphaCentauri]

153. TTT

[Javaman]

154. Cold War 2.0

Communism has been replaced with radical islamic fundamentalism.

A new "domino theory" has been rehashed and being served to us in the form of yet another type of fear. Islamic extremism is threating to take over the universe!!

Who is a sympathizer?? Who was a member of the American Islamic Party? Who give support to the Islamics during the Afghan-Russian war??

The list goes on and on.

Like Truman who passed the cold war to Eisenhower to Kennedy to LBJ to Nixon, etc, etc, etc we are seeing nothing more then the same bullshit rehashed, repackaged and resold.

Those of us who know better are squelched as "bitter old timers" out of touch with reality and the new focus is on the young who know nothing of history nor do they want to know.

Like my dad said when ray-gun came into office, "the war brain washing has begun". He knew. He was a life long pacifist, He saw through all the bullshit and he taught me well.

We are now into the permanent war. War now drives our economy, we have nothing else. It's what keeps the dollar afloat. It's what pays the bills, creates jobs and keeps the massed distracted.

I had my hopes with Obama, but he's now defaulted back to the tried and true bullshit, that served moron* well.

Our economy is still hemorrhaging, yet, the power of war and all it's grand stupidity, still sells soap.

Like someone else said, "what happens after two years?" Exactly, what does happen after two years more of this colossal pile of bullshit war? If it's still failing are we going to be treated to yet another excuse as to why the US, the earth and the universe will explode if we leave?

Folks, war is about money and right now, it's the only thing we have. Very sad to say.

[thereismore]

156. Yes they were painfully young but NOT children. nt

[redqueen]

159. Response:

On Tuesday night, President Barack Obama delivered the best speech George W. Bush ever gave in his life. Mr. Bush, if he was watching, would have recognized virtually every facet of Obama's speech, for it was the Bush administration that hammered out the template used by Mr. Obama to deliver the news that he is doubling down on the war in Afghanistan.

Fluffy rhetoric, repeating and expanding on your subject line... on to the next.


Obama's eloquence was far superior to anything Mr. Bush could have ever hoped to achieve - for the first time in the 21st century, the United States has a president who can pronounce "nuclear" correctly - but at the end of the day, it was the same script all over again.

Another restatement of the subject line. Oh, and Carter said "nucular" too... but you did specify that this is the first time this century, as if that's meaningful. Odd, but... well, wordiness is the goal here, yes? So, maybe not so odd.


Mr. Obama's speech contained all the well-worn Bushian touchstones, one above all: sharing a stage with soldiers in uniform - and how heartbreakingly young were the faces in that room; one could hear a pin drop throughout in that roomful of children whose lives will be directly affected by the decision that was announced - as a means of political defense and to augment his martial profile. Mr. Bush pulled this sickening stunt more times than can be counted, and it burned like acid to see another president defile their service by using them as props in a bit of political theater.

Children? LOL... love the demagoguery, Will. Top notch.

Politcal defense? Yes, he's really scored some points with... whom? Democrats are pissed, Republicans are pissed... the electorate is pissed.

Tell me Will... was it equally acidic when Roosevelt delivered his speech at West Point? Or was that bit of political theater more palatable because it was only the little war in Cuba he was cheering?


It took exactly 130 words for Mr. Obama to invoke the attacks of September 11, which is just about how long it usually took Mr. Bush whenever he unleashed one of his linguistic muggings upon the populace.

Yes, because anytime anyone mentions September 11, it's all the same, right? Despite the fact that that attack was the catalyzing event which led to our forces being there in the first place. That's logic!


Mr. Obama blessed the calamity of Iraq as a success - "We have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people," said the president - which was a favorite habit of Mr. Bush, no matter how brazen facts to the contrary happened to be.

Are you aware of the facts, Mr. Pitt? That November just may have been the least violent month out of the last 79? This is of course only according to official figures, and who knows how reliable they are... and God knows I'm aware of the tendency of far too many on the left to seize on the worst possible news and cling to it so tightly... but I just had to ask... are you aware of that fact?

Or were you just tossing that crap in about Bush as a way to add more words... and as such, not intending to imply that Obama was doing the same thing (i.e. lying)?


Mr. Obama likewise blessed the recent fraud-riddled election in Afghanistan as a positive thing, despite the cancerous effect that farce of a vote has had on the confidence of the Afghan people. In this, the president echoed Mr. Bush once again, as it was often Mr. Bush's practice to fete Iraqi elections that were controlled by Iran and riven with violence as successful steps towards democracy.

So... it would be better if there were no elections at all? Or should he have expounded on how they were fraudulent? Not sure what you're looking for here.

Maybe it's just me, but IMO when people who face such obstacles in exercising their right to vote do so anyway -- despite the threat to their own personal safety -- that's a good thing. Perhaps Mr. Obama expected everyone watching to... oh, I don't know... already know that they were rife with fraud? And yet still considered them to be a positive step? Hm? What do you think?


Mr. Obama re-introduced the American people to the menace of weapons of mass destruction, a favorite note of Mr. Bush. Obama did not go so far as to say that Afghanistan is in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 missiles to deliver the stuff, mobile biological weapons labs, and uranium from Niger for use in a robust nuclear weapons program, as Mr. Bush did during another memorable prime-time speech, but the call to dread was there all the same. The threat of "loose nukes" is indeed real enough, but it was a kick in the stomach to see the Bush Handbook on Fear put into play once again.

So... he should never mention weapons? In military speeches? Is that your contention?

Also, saying "weapons" three whole times in a speech about his policy in Afghanistan... that is somehow equivalent, to you, to saying, "Afghanistan is in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 missiles to deliver the stuff, mobile biological weapons labs, and uranium from Niger for use in a robust nuclear weapons program"? Why go to the bother of typing all that out? What is the point? Is it just for demagoguery?


Mr. Obama acknowledged in his speech that America's war in Afghanistan has lasted eight long years, and even tipped a wink at America's share of responsibility for helping to shape the bleak and battered history of that nation. But then, as Bush so often did with Iraq, Mr. Obama threw the responsibility for putting the pieces of that shattered nation back together squarely on the shoulders of the Afghan people. In effect, the occupier demanded that the occupied shape up and fly right. The Hebrew word for this is "chutzpah," and it fits the situation like a glove.

So... he shouldn't be sending more of our troops to help them do it... and he shouldn't be "throwing the responsibility" onto them either. Just who do you think should be doing it, Will? It's dishonest for you to claim he's throwing that responsibility squarely onto their shoulders, while at the same time complaining that we're sending troops to help them deal with it. Don't you think?

And are you somehow unaware of the fact that the Afghan security forces are in a fairly poor condition? Do you honestly consider it serious and worthwhile criticism to label his seven mentions of either the transfer of responsibility or the need for Afghan's security forces to step up their efforts as "chutzpah"?


Mr. Obama never used the words "Coalition of the Willing," but his high-flown rhetoric about NATO and an international alliance to deal with Afghanistan stood in stark contrast to reality. Hardly anyone in the international community appears to have much interest in sharing or increasing the burden of continued warfare - a few of those hesitant nations have personal experience with that region in their history, none of it positive - leaving Mr. Obama and the United States pretty much on their own going forward. This may change, but not by much.

So I guess that the WH's expectation that NATO will send 10K more troops pales in comparison to your knowledge of what they appear to be willing to do.


Where Mr. Obama departed from the well-worn script of Mr. Bush was in the realm of the rhetorical. He weaved a tapestry of interconnected American interests - economic, social, diplomatic - to explain why the war in Afghanistan must not just go on, but grow. Take this gem, for example:

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended - because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.

Indeed, it was all wonderfully phrased and brilliantly delivered. But in the end, Mr. Obama simply told us what we have been hearing for too long already: we must beat our swords into ploughshares by using swords. Mr. Bush never said it so well, but he said it all the time nonetheless.

Nothing really to add there. He said something about why he set a timeline and you have a problem with that, too... of course.


Mr. Bush was proud to call himself a war president - "I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind," he famously boasted to Tim Russert with that signature smirk on his face. On Tuesday, Mr. Obama was nowhere near as blunt, but nonetheless, the torch has been passed. Whether or not his strategy for Afghanistan will be successful remains to be seen, but he sold it to the American people in exactly the same fashion as his predecessor. There was a little more sugar to make the medicine go down, but the taste of it remained all too terribly familiar.

"Exactly the same fashion."

Yes... exactly. :sarcasm:


At the end of Mr. Obama's address, the cadet corps of West Point stood and applauded. They had to; here was the commander in chief, and they are required to stand whenever he enters and exits. One wonders, however, what they really thought about what they heard. After all, it wasn't anything new; they, and we, have heard it all before.

Yes... all those timelines Bush set... damn him to hell!



See, this is why I stopped reading truthout.

Thanks for giving me something to while away my morning boredom with, though.

[Tigermoose]

163. Thanks. I enjoyed your response.

nt

[Richardo]

170. Nicely done, redqueen.

:patriot:

Despite the fevered caterwauling of many posters, the motivations behind these superficially similar speeches could not be more distinct. One guy was selling a knee-jerk response to a terrorist attack, the other a tempered, thoughtful mop-up and shit-shoveling operation to extricate us from the results of the first guy's blood-soaked incompetence.

The first guy was a war monger of the first order -- his only tool a sledgehammer, the world a vast collection of thumbtacks. The new guy is taking dozens of strategic implications into account and has articulated his vision for the best way out.

[get the red out]

173. Thank you for sanity rather than rage

We have so few comments that discuss rather than attack at DU anymore.

[redqueen]

178. I like how you put that.

A tempered, thoughtful mop-up and shit-shoveling operation.

Thanks... I wonder how long before the "an articulate bush" meme gets old. I don't see the "third bush administration" one so often anymore... so there's hope.

[zipplewrath]

180. None the less, the OP is right

I had similar thoughts as the OP. The only difference between this speech, and one that Bush would have given, is that Obama can actually speak this way. The content was almost indentical to a speach that Bush would have given, right down the the quick and extensive jump to invoking 9-11. There was one singular difference and that was the willingness to express time tables.

So in the end it was one big "trust me, I'm different, even if this speach doesn't particularly reflect that".

And really, he is fudging even his own facts. He is discussing draw downs, but there is no real commitment in the speach to truly ending our occupation. Much like Iraq, there may be forces IN Afghanistan for a long time. Their purpose will be merely reclassified as "supporting Pakistan". He's merely going to declare some "end" to our occupation that doesn't correlate to any functional reality. It was funny that he invoked his Gitmo policy considering that we are already hearing that he isn't going to be able to have it closed down by January. I fully expect that he reserves the right to change his policy in Afghanistan as he sees fit.

And the line that really ticked me off, the one about "refusing to believe that we cannot be united again". I don't see how he's going to achieve that by merely continuing the policies that divided us to begin with. Half of NATO isn't on board, a chunk of the far right isn't, and most of the left isn't, but somehow he's going to "unite" us.

[redqueen]

183. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. (nt)

[zipplewrath]

191. On what?

On whether it was a speech that predominately Bush could have given? I'd be hard pressed to see how it was particularly different.

[redqueen]

200. Yes, I'm sure you would. (nt)

[zipplewrath]

215. I presume you can't

I'm presuming then that you are part of the "trust" crowd that can't make the case, merely that you trust him anyway.

[redqueen]

216. I already did. Post 159.

Oh and hey... good luck with the whole 'electing another Nixon' thing you've got going! I'm sure there are many "Dems" on this site who'll get right on board! :hi:

[cliffordu]

187. Note to self: Don't EVER piss off the redqueen.....

:rofl:

That dismantling of this whole OP is breathtaking. Brilliant.

:applause:

[azmouse]

188. well done.

Thank you. :thumbsup:

[patrice]

217. Well done.

[pjt7]

242. Speeches don't mean anything

Obama is now, another Pro-War President. Our ambasador to Afghanistan, who just recently commanded our entire armed forces there, told him not to put anymore soldiers in.

[JuniperLea]

255. Well done, redqueen!

I'm glad I read through the thread before replying, because you captured it perfectly.

I'm rarely this far from Will's train of thought, but I can't even see the track from here.

This decision was political suicide for Obama. If he didn't think he had a good chance of succeeding within his time-line, I'm quite sure we'd be having a different argument today about how lame Obama is on another matter... like how unsafe we'll all be once we're pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The goalposts keep moving.

[Kajsa]

272. Thank you, Redqueen.

:)

[zipplewrath]

300. I'd bet you've also stopped watching Stewart

Jon Stewart seems to seen the same thing as the same poster. Guess you won't be watching him either.

[redqueen]

303. LOL

:rofl:

[Bobbie Jo]

160. No, it's the speech George W. Bush SHOULD have given. nt

[Romulox]

165. Likely it was very similar to the speach John McCain would've given, too...

:shrug:

[caseymoz]

166. "Beat our swords into plowshares by using swords."

Obama's Orwellian twist of phrase couldn't have been described better. It also couldn't describe the impossibility of it better.

[snooper2]

168. So you are not wishy washy any more...

greatness! :rofl:

[WhiteTara]

171. Thanks Will, you expressed my feelings

very aptly. I found myself raging at the screen just like in times of old (last year.)

[Better Today]

172. Damn you're harsh, but dead on the money.

So much of what he said was just the same lines of BS Bush used to stumble over in his speeches.

[pjt7]

179. The war machine is the ghost writer for both pres.

that's why the b.s. sounded the same.

Obama is owned & does whatever the $money$ masters & war machines wants.

It's pathetic, how fools think he will be pulling out, when he ordered 30,000 more troops IN.

Obama lost me last night & everyone else with a working heart & brain.

[katty]

184. He sure did, now he's off to pickup his Nobel PEACE Prize?!

Merry Christmas, America more war in your stockings.

[ShortnFiery]

189. Woo Hoo! Extra chocolate rations for everybody!

GOD BLESS AMERICA ... OR ELSE ! ! !

[Beetwasher]

186. "I Ain't No Fortunate Son"

Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail To The Chief",
oh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,

First of all let me say right off I'm not a big supporter of the escalation and I didn't see the speech, but I did read it and I don't know how much difference that would make. I also read what you wrote carefully and w/ much consideration. Several times.
And I did some thinking about why my reaction was not as visceral as yours. In fact, I came away from reading his speech feeling a little better about the escalation, though still not too great.

I think my real problems with the escalation have more to do with the fact that I don't know if the situation in Afg. is salvageable. At one point it may have been, but after so much incompetence and neglect it may be too hopeless a situation for ANYONE to salvage. And that's essentially what I see Obama as trying to do. But I digress because that's not really what you were writing about.

I think you are looking in a sense too closely at how the speech was constructed. Your view is too granular. Your looking at it as a writer would, picking it apart and holding it against the back drop of a Bush speech rhetorical point by rhetorical point, which of course is only natural for you. However, I think you have to look at the speech as a totality, taking into account the person giving it and the totality of the situation we now find ourselves. There's a bigger picture and there are deeper underlying reasons why this type of speech is in some ways unnavoidable when discussing this subject and why coming from Obama it may not necessarily be as horribly trite as it seems you think it is.

Yes, some of the language and imagery used was eerily similar to a "Rovian special". But I think in some ways it's almost unavoidable to NOT be similar. Look at it this way, Obama is coming to a rhetorical table that has already been set. The gaudiest, ugliest most hideous dinnerware has had over 8 years to be cemented to the table top. This is a story that's right smack in the middle and now the author has changed, but the readers are used to reading it with the previous hack's vocabulary. Sure, Obama could start reframing the issues (and he is), but it would take more than one speech and he faces a hostile media that fights his message every step of the way. He's got to eat at the table that's been set, at least for now. That's why you have to take what he said and not put them up against past Bush speeches, but rather put them next to what he has done and is doing NOW.

For example, when he used the word "homeland" I gotta tell you my first reaction was to throw up in my mouth a bit. And there's a part of me that wishes that word would just dissapear from the lexicon altogether. Unfortunately, that word is now ingrained into the American psyche. There's now a fucking behemoth beauracracy that's got "Homeland" in it's name and unfortunately we're stuck with that monster. So while my gorge rises when I hear that word, I understand in some ways I better get used to it. That's the language we speak now, and while I wish Obama would change it, that's not necessarily his job right now. His job is to get his message across as effectively as he thinks is possible using the language that's available.

As for his use of 9/11, well, when giving our reasons for being in Afghanistan, honestly, how can you tell that story w/ out mentioning 9/11? You can't. You just can't. And honestly, how often does Obama do this? Think about it. I know we're used to Bush using it constantly for everything, but Obama just doesn't do that. Yes, we may be sick of it because of Bush, but that doesn't mean it never happened or never can be used in a valid context, and Afg. is the valid context.

And as much as we don't like to think about it because Bush so abused the notion of WMD's, this is really the area where this IS a threat and frankly people may need to be reminded about that precisely because Bush so abused the notion. Pakistan's nukes really are a very real threat. And this also gets back to my point about taking things in totality. Obama's not just talking the talk here about nuclear security. He's walking the walk. Take a look at his actions regarding disarmament. There's a there there. He's deadly serious about this.

I could go on, point by point, but I really actually have to get to work! But just one final thing, yes, he's making this speech in front of cadets. Cadets that Bush abused as props. And it's easy to say Obama's doing the same, and perhaps he is, I don't really know his heart, nor do you. But I also see him allowing the photographing of the dead now. I saw him at Arlington. I know Obama's humble background. He's no "Fortunate Son". Again, look at the totality. Look at the actions. Look at the man. So is he using them as props or is he is respectfully telling the young men and women to their faces his reasons for sending them into danger? Where else should he give this speech if not in front of these people who's very lives he knows hang in the balance because of his decision? I can't say for sure which is true, are they props or is he giving them props, but I don't think it's necessarily fair to automatically assume the former.

I don't know. I think a lot of people had to high expectations of Obama and maybe he's partly responsible for that. But he is human and he has to eat at the table that's been set and his plate is piled to the ceiling with shit, the last tenants trashed the place maybe irrevocably and it's infested w/ rats and roaches, it's on fire and the villagers are surrounding the house w/ pitchforks and burning crosses on the lawn. Meanwhile he's expected to somehow, put out the fire, fix the foundation, placate the mob, exterminate the pests, finish his dinner and complement the cook. And do it all w/ a smile on his face.

[pjt7]

193. I know a couple people linked to the Global Heroin trade

& they were nearly doing cartwheels, with Obama's speech & he crucial decison to keep the game protected.

[Beetwasher]

197. How Pithy

When are you appearing at "The Laugh Factory"?

[ShortnFiery]

194. You feel mildly better because it was a representation, ...

a much more eloquent representation of the following from Full Metal Jacket.

Obama's speech was, in essence, a spiel for "The Americanization of Afghanistan" not unlike we attempted (and FAILED!) to do with the Vietnamese in 1968?

It. Will. Fail.

------------------------------

Pogue Colonel: Don't you love your country?
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Then how about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Son, all I've ever asked of my Marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over.
Private Joker: Aye-aye, sir.

[Beetwasher]

196. No, I Feel Better Because I Do Believe He Wants To End It

And he made that very clear and I believe him. You don't.

[pjt7]

222. Do you believe

the king-pins in the Heroin trade, have NO influence over Obama?

[Beetwasher]

224. WTF Are You Talking About?

Please tell me you are not implying that Obama somehow has ties to and interests in the Afghan heroin trade.

Yes, I believe they have no influence on him, other than he will probably try to curb their activities. And if you believe they DO have influence on him, please provide the evidence. Otherwise you're in loony territory.

[pjt7]

227. Good

So Obama & our troops are going to dramticaly decrease the Heroin?

Good.

[Beetwasher]

228. I Would Think Stabilizing The Gov't Would Certainly Help In That Regard

And since the Heroin growers are backing and linked w/ the Taliban and AQ there may in fact be operations aimed at disrupting their activities.

[pjt7]

230. Can't wait to see the Heroin

numbers go down to Sept 11th 2001 levels.

[Beetwasher]

248. Well, I'm Sure Your Friends Involved In It WIll Keep You Well Informed

n/t

[WilliamPitt]

201. Thoughtful response.

Now I have to read your post several times. ;)

Thank you for doing this. Gotta chew a while.

[Barrymores Ghost]

237. Will, I'm sure you already know where you and I stand in general...

...but I'm in BeetWasher's camp on this one. I'll write more later. Peace to you.

[LSK]

263. I like your response and share its sentiments

People need to stop and ask themselves, "Where is Obama coming from?" "Why is he doing this?"

Many believe one of the chief reasons for Bush's wars was that War = Profit. Bush/Cheney have deep ties to the defense industry and the oil/energy industries. Obama does not have this past. War = Profit does not fit the Obama motivations.

Obama was handed a clusterfuck that didnt have to be. Right or wrong regarding the initial invasion of Afghanistan, we should have taken care of business 7-8 years ago and NOT have messed around with Iraq.

For me it keeps coming back to Iraq. Afghanistan is a mess because of Iraq. Iran is emboldened because of Iraq. The world lost its respect for us because of Iraq. We have such a huge deficit because of Iraq. The military is in shambles because of Iraq.

Obama from the start said Iraq was a bad idea. However its done now and these are the cards he has to play.

Obama seems to think he can fix Afghanistan and also he is worried about Pakistan becoming a nightmare mess with nukes.

Obama campaigned on ending Iraq and fixing Afghanistan. We all worked our butts off to get him in office when he told us that was his plan.

Now he is doing what he said he would do.

I dont know if he is right or wrong, time will tell.

[WilliamPitt]

287. Reply

Your response motivated me to re-write this whole post. Much of it is the same, but the additions I hope are worthy as a response. Cheers, brother.

===

In the aftermath of President Obama's speech on Tuesday night, it is hard not to feel a bit disgusted. There is form, and there is substance, and it is always perilous to confuse the two. The substance of Obama's speech was one thing, but the form was something else entirely.

In substance, Obama made it clear all throughout his campaign that he believed Afghanistan to be the "real" war, the one America should be devoting its resources to, so there should be no surprise whatsoever about his decision on the matter. He offered a vague timetable for withdrawal, something the Bush administration flatly refused to do. In the final analysis, he said he was going to do this, and now he has done it, and we must all wait and see if he manages to find a way to be the first world leader in two centuries to win a war in Afghanistan.

In form, however, the president went in a direction that was deeply troubling. On Tuesday night, Barack Obama delivered the best speech George W. Bush ever gave in his life. Mr. Bush, if he was watching, would have recognized virtually every facet of Obama's speech, for it was the Bush administration that hammered out the template used by Mr. Obama to deliver the news that he is doubling down on the war in Afghanistan.

Obama's eloquence was far superior to anything Mr. Bush could have ever hoped to achieve - for the first time in the 21st century, the United States has a president who can pronounce "nuclear" correctly - but at the end of the day, it was the same script all over again.

Mr. Obama's speech contained all the well-worn Bushian touchstones, one above all: sharing a stage with soldiers in uniform - and how heartbreakingly young were the faces in that room; one could hear a pin drop throughout in that roomful of children whose lives will be directly affected by the decision that was announced - as a means of political defense and to augment his martial profile. Mr. Bush pulled this sickening stunt more times than can be counted, and it burned like acid to see another president defile their service by using them as props in a bit of political theater.

It took exactly 130 words for Mr. Obama to invoke the attacks of September 11, which is just about how long it usually took Mr. Bush whenever he unleashed one of his linguistic muggings upon the populace. Mr. Obama blessed the calamity of Iraq as a success - "We have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people," said the president - which was a favorite habit of Mr. Bush, no matter how brazen facts to the contrary happened to be.

Mr. Obama likewise blessed the recent fraud-riddled election in Afghanistan as a positive thing, despite the cancerous effect that farce of a vote has had on the confidence of the Afghan people. In this, the president echoed Mr. Bush once again, as it was often Mr. Bush's practice to fete Iraqi elections that were controlled by Iran and riven with violence as successful steps towards democracy.

Mr. Obama re-introduced the American people to the menace of weapons of mass destruction, a favorite note of Mr. Bush. Obama did not go so far as to say that Afghanistan is in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 missiles to deliver the stuff, mobile biological weapons labs, and uranium from Niger for use in a robust nuclear weapons program, as Mr. Bush did during another memorable prime-time speech, but the call to dread was there all the same. The threat of "loose nukes" is indeed real enough, but it was a kick in the stomach to see the Bush Handbook on Fear put into play once again.

Mr. Obama never used the words "Coalition of the Willing," but his high-flown rhetoric about NATO and an international alliance to deal with Afghanistan stood in stark contrast to reality. Hardly anyone in the international community appears to have much interest in sharing or increasing the burden of continued warfare - a few of those hesitant nations have personal experience with that region in their history, none of it positive - leaving Mr. Obama and the United States pretty much on their own going forward. This may change, but not by much.

Where Mr. Obama departed from the well-worn script of Mr. Bush was in the realm of the rhetorical. He weaved a tapestry of interconnected American interests - economic, social, diplomatic - to explain why the war in Afghanistan must not just go on, but grow. Take this gem, for example:

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended - because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.

Indeed, it was all wonderfully phrased and brilliantly delivered. But in the end, Mr. Obama simply told us what we have been hearing for too long already: we must beat our swords into ploughshares by using swords. Mr. Bush never said it so well, but he said it all the time nonetheless.

Mr. Bush was proud to call himself a war president - "I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind," he famously boasted to Tim Russert with that signature smirk on his face. On Tuesday, Mr. Obama was nowhere near as blunt, but nonetheless, the torch has been passed. Whether or not his strategy for Afghanistan will be successful remains to be seen, but he sold it to the American people in exactly the same fashion as his predecessor. There was a little more sugar to make the medicine go down, but the taste of it remained all too terribly familiar.

And it was the familiarity of it all that made the response of members of congress, Democratic and Republican alike, so dizzyingly preposterous. After the president's speech, <a href=" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/02/AR2009120201013.html?hpid=topnews">according</a> to the Washington Post, administration officials "promptly came under tough questioning from Democrats and Republicans who challenged different aspects of President Obama's new war plan."

So many questions. It's a brave new world on Capitol Hill, one where members of congress actually stand up and question the course of a war. Where were these outraged voices when Mr. Bush was running two wars into the ground? Where were they when Bush scooped up American forces arrayed in Afghanistan and threw them into the quagmire of Iraq? It is almost as if they are saying, "Well, when things were really, really bad in Afghanistan, I didn't feel the need to step up. But now that things might get really, really, really bad, of course it is my solemn duty to speak out."

At the end of Mr. Obama's address, the cadet corps of West Point stood and applauded. They had to; here was the commander in chief, and they are required to stand whenever he enters and exits. One wonders, however, what they really thought about what they heard. After all, it wasn't anything new; they, and we, have heard it all before. Now they, and we, must wait and see whether a new president can navigate his way through a lot of very old and terrible mistakes without making any new ones of his own. Many argue that, with this decision, he has already made one. We will all find out soon enough.

[Beetwasher]

299. You Didn't Have To Do That For Li'l Ol' Me

I do get what you're saying, but I still disagree. I understand the visceral reaction that spurs your critique. Because of our political bent and abhorrence of how Bush handled and spoke about these issues for 8 years, we're in a very real way conditioned to hating these concepts when spoken about. And when Obama's words seem to be built upon what Bush has said we have an almost automatic revulsion.

I think you're too hung up on the form, I guess. You expect Obama to break the mold and to find some other way to communicate about these issues because you're expectations of him may be set a bit too high. For an issue this complex, this emotional and this important, he has to use the most efficent and effective way to communicate his message, and that means using the existing framework upon which he is now, unfortately, standing. Sometimes politicians have to, well, be politicians and use tools from that set.

As your mom said, "After all he must live in a grossly political world."

And mom's always right! ;)

:toast:

[showpan]

192. The warmongers are still in denial

The reason he is sending more troops is obvious. The pipeline deal ends next year if they can't start construction. Since the warlords are giving us a hard time, we are going to send more troops to bring them into perspective. The troop reductions will start when we have replaced enough of these warlords with people who understand that being paid off to protect the construction crews and the finished product is in their best interest.

[PADemD]

207. Ah, the real reason this war will continue.

[JVS]

297. If the pipeline deal ends, will there be no more motive to stay?

[TransitJohn]

195. He sure did.

The only thing different was giving a nebulous date in 2011 instead of saying, "as the Afghanis stand up, we'll stand down."

[whatacountry09]

203. OMG WILLIAMPITT...

Your post was, unfortunately, exactly what I took away from his speech. Only I would've been unable to decipher the message so articulately. You see it the way I see it... EXACTLY!!! How sad.

[closeupready]

210. Yup. I hope he's proud of himself.

:sarcasm:

[patrice]

218. I'm still trying to deal with this. #1 in my mind is how childish it is to start something you don't

finish.

As much as I am and always have been against any of this, my POV did not prevail. The people who wanted WAR prevailed and then those who supported in numerous ways were voted BACK in office.

"We" started this thing and now that "we" are fed up with it and it is an inconvenience to our domestic politics and our financial situation, "we" want to walk away. "Oooooppps! Pardon us. Sorry about all the people we killed and helped others kill. Too bad about that. See you around."

To the extent that anyone who wanted this, or supported it in any way shape or form, but now wants out, I call BULLSHIT on that. As much as I wish it were otherwise, we CANNOT unconditionally leave. Two wrongs don't make a right and Killing a bunch of folks and then just walking away because it was a mistake, is not right.

Grow up America, there are some mistakes you just don't walk away from.

This is OUR war. Deal with it.

[ShortnFiery]

219. That's EXACTLY what was said before the escalation of troops in Vietnam - leading to 30,000

more DEAD before we realized that "occupations don't work." :(

[patrice]

220. I'm sorry about all of that. Looks like 6 of one:.5doz of the other whether we stay or leave, but

at least, if we stay, the ones responsible for it have to pay the price and MAYBE, just holy-fucking MAYBE, we'll LEARN something from that that will be helpful to us in the future.

We are NOT Exceptional. We are NOT Saved. What we do has consequences and living like that isn't true is what the fuck is WRONG with America.

[Bluerthanblue]

221. your last sentence should be a Post of it's own-

It is profound- painfully so.

:hi:

[ShortnFiery]

226. After Vietnam, we promised each other "Never Again" ... I go to The Wall twice a year and

mourn ... OCCUPATIONS are not winnable. We should get out NOW! :(

[pjt7]

223. patrice

what are you're thoughts on the booming Heroin trade, that has increased under the guise of OUR WAR & the proposed gas-pipeline that sits under 5 of our military bases?

[pjt7]

225. You don't think 7,000+ new teenage marines

aren't going to kill some more innocents?

[billh58]

233. Any POTUS/CIC

who manages to piss off both ends of the fringe political spectrum MUST be doing something right!

[PuraVidaDreamin]

238. candle light vigils tonight

in front of all town halls, city halls from 5p-6p

On Dec 1st and 2nd (if Obama makes the announcement on Tuesday), UFPJ is joining with many other groups around the country to call for people to be out on the streets, at federal buildings or other busy locations with vigils, protests, and marches of the dead to express our dismay and outrage over continuing this war that is having devastating affects on the Afghan people, the troops and for people here at home suffering from the billions of dollars that are not being spent on healthcare, education, housing, jobs and other human needs.

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/

http://peaceoftheaction.org/ SLOW DC to a grinding halt

[PuraVidaDreamin]

239. PS- RECOMMENDED and kicked

Thanks Will

[Greyhound]

240. K&R. The numbers of DUers that seem to have turned around in the last year

is impressive.

I applaud the gesture.
:applause:

[KoKo]

241. "we must beat our swords into ploughshares by using swords"

Indeed, it was all wonderfully phrased and brilliantly delivered. But in the end, Mr. Obama simply told us what we have been hearing for too long already: we must beat our swords into ploughshares by using swords.

Well said...the whole thing. And excellent read. Thanks...

[f the letter]

243. Amen.

Thank you! DU has become remarkably hawkish since Obama started escalating the war.

[Individualist]

244. 259 well deserved recs

:thumbsup:

[demmiblue]

246. Bullshit...

351 well deserved recs (according to the Top Tens)!

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[inna]

288. omg this thread got 100 unrecs??

wow.

well, i rec'd.

[onethatcares]

245. you have hit the proverbial nail on the head Mr. William Pitt

and I find that I am not alone in my thoughts as to his speech last evening.

Thank you.

[winyanstaz]

249. K & R,,,,

This whole mess just breaks my heart.
I had such high hopes for America because we got Obama into office.
Now I am just sick at heart at this continuing mess.
Nothing has really changed..its still more betrayal of the taxpayers and the death of our sons and daughtors for the corporations.
End the wars NOW

[LulaMay]

257. Well keep it up and you can have the Glen Becks at the helm again

[winyanstaz]

258. oh baloney....

We can still be in power.
In fact..we will have a much better chance come the next election time if we end the wars now.
Anyways..Obama himself said to "make him do what we want him to do."...
so what? YOU are refusing to do what he said we should?
We, as responsible American citizens need to hold our representatives ACCOUNTABLE and that includes Obama.

[LulaMay]

253. So now it's time to take down our knight in shining armor? Did you read his Op-Ed?

Here is my post, written after I read yours. Oh, and before I'm called a PUMA, I'll posit that some people here like to call any anti-war feminist who supported Hillary a traitor or troll or PUMA. Apparently even when they can see that attacking Pres Obama is unfair and unwise and entirely beside the point.



Excerpt of Op-Ed in NY Times, July 14, 2008:

by Barack Obama

"Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. ..."


I remember this Op-Ed very well. I remember it being discussed here. I remember thinking that of course he was right, about Afghanistan and the Taliban, and feeling so angry about it, and at Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld (isn't there a single name we can come up with for the lot, like Beyruwolf?) for ignoring the Clinton administrations actions and warnings.

I remember a memo about Bin-Laden and Afghanistan that Bush blew his nose at before going on a brush clearing vacation in August 2001.


Why is this news to anyone? Why are people angry? Is it because we are prone to selective memory the more powerless we feel in the grip of horror, and we need to believe in a God or Camelot that will save us? If we allow ourselves to do this, the inevitable outcome is fury when the appointed one oh so humanly fails to deliver us from evil.

He told us what he would do, but that was swept aside long enough to shine up his armor for the coming election. That is fine, but unfair now to compare him to the monster we sent him in to do battle with. Fairy Tales; they always end up a mess in the real world.


My rage is that, as always, nearly nothing is said about who the Taliban are and what they are doing, their utter HATRED of women, their bloody war to force a progressing world to it's knees, shoving women into black robes and out of sight, old men raping girls as young as ten and 'marrying' them, after murdering entire families of men and women who dare to try and stop them. It's genocide and misogyny.

I abhor war, killing, violence. Yet I know that as long as there is a male dominated world it will go on. The Taliban is very clear about their goals in that regard, not unlike other 'brotherhoods' of men in which male dominance is yet at minimum an embarrassing feature of every government the world over. The Taliban is in contention for being the most immediately bloody and Dark Ages about it though, and I for one do not want what they are doing trivialized or ignored.

Killing and war only perpetuates male supremacy, yet the Taliban and all misogynist 'brotherhoods' and ideas must be stopped. That requires people to stop believing in fairy tales, stop being 'romantics' who shine up a chosen ones righteous armor and believe in Camelot, yet remain silent about the woman hating state of this world while demanding an end to war. The power of the one (men) over the 'other' (women), is the model for all divisions and prejudice, the cause of all war and violence, and we are charged with facing it, speaking it out loud, acting to make male supremacy worldwide UNACCEPTABLE and the topic of all time until it is dismantled. Or, surrender ourselves to a never ending march of death and destruction that is borne of it. It's our choice.

No shining knight on 'our side' will ever be able to save us from that crisis.


And nothing will change as long as we hold onto Fairy Tales where battles never really end.

[LulaMay]

256. perhaps a good title and easy shot isn't such a wise thing to celebrate for the Democratic party?

Every time something like this happens, I cringe to think how Republicans are overjoyed at the stupidity of it all, while they work unceasingly for the success of their party and candidates.


Why not just hand them our heads on a platter?

[thegoodfight]

269. It isn't about republican or democratic. Its about the right thing to do.

[JTFrog]

295. You are a PUMA. You were a member of a PUMA forum and you used PUMA propaganda

here at DU to tear down Barack and Michelle Obama.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..... :shrug:

Nobody is interested in your tired old bullshit here. Go play with your little friends who said they'd vote for Palin and McCain.

[highplainsdem]

254. I wish I could rec this again,

but since I can't, at least I can help keep it kicked with a reply.

[Major Hogwash]

262. We're already bombing Pakistan with drones, as Rachel pointed out last night.

How many countries are we going to invade?

[democracy1st]

264. K & R

[freddie mertz]

265. Thank you, Will Pitt, for a very fair, honest, and compelling piece.

I don't know how you did it.

I felt so conflicted and upset after watching, especially after watching those beautiful young people, some of whom will surely end up in that terrible war over there.

They are the same age as my students here and it's hard for me to think of them facing this terrible situation.

I feel so let down by the president right now, a president I was happy to support in the primaries as well as the election.

I still want to support him, and shall do so when he deserves it.

But this has been a distressing week, and I thank you for saying it so much better than I ever could.

And please, don't let the snipping of the nay-sayers deter or distress you.

You did good.

[emsimon33]

266. Well said!

If Obama keeps this up, he will top Clinton for best Republican president since Lincoln.

[emsimon33]

267. Eloquent as always

[KoKo]

268. It really was an exceptional Pitt Post...and

glad to see him back to his old form...fighting for what's good for the America he knew..that I knew...that we "hoped would be."

[msatty99]

270. The Nobel Peace Prize winner who just escalated War

Count me as one of those who had so much hope and was so relieved when Obama won. I feel SO VERY disappointed by this
decision.

My 80-something, die hard liberal friend and I spoke the other day. He was worried. (before the Afghan war decision) that
Obama seems to "Lack the Imagination" for greatness which is otherwise his potential. I have to agree.

What a bitter disappointment. More death and killing. Sickening.

[KoKo]

274. Here's what I'm thinking... "Nobel Peace Prize" was given to Keep him from going with Neo-Cons...

Given what we've seen of Obama he went with Bushbots all the way...Followed the folks who brought us the Financial Emplosion (Bush's Parting Gift to Americans) and allowed the SAME FOLKS under BUSH to deal with America's Embarrassing Financial Emplosion to PROFIT! Not only Profit but he allowed the banks and the rest the SEC/FED and FANNY & FREDDIE to GET AWAY WITH what THEY HAD DONE TO BRING DOWN THE SYSTEM!

He gives the "Investment Banks" like GOLDMAN-SACHS (VAMPIRE SQUID) and the rest the whole ACCESS TO AMERICAN TAXPAYERS MONEY...and the GIVE BONUSES in the MILLIONS!

On and ON and On and On....

I'M GLAD THAT the "NOBEL PEACE PRIZE" was given to OBAMA. BECAUSE....WHAT HAVOC would OBAMA HAVE DONE...if he DIDN'T HAVE THE NOBEL COMMITTEE BREATHING DOWN HIS NECK????

If NOBEL hadn't given him that we might already be at WAR WITH IRAN! AYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.. :banghead:

[trof]

271. Just wanted to put this back up on top. K&R.

[mnhtnbb]

273. Didn't listen to the speech--busy with my life--but continuing a war in Afghanistan

has been done...and done...and done...and with no beneficial outcome.

Follow the money.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

275. -1..sorry WP first time I am doing this to you- ever. cynicism just doesn't

suit you. what in the world would obama gain from doing this? absolutely zero. we all worked so hard for him. I (obviously one of the few) will give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. and I am the biggest pacifist around. But, if they are plotting as we speak to kill thousands and thousands of us - I say stop it before it happens.

[Kajsa]

276. Will, I have agreed with you on many occasions.

This is not one of them.

I am not happy at all with the news that 30,000 more US troops
will be sent to fight in Afghanistan,
but I recognize this;

My understanding of what is really going on there is limited.

I have deep concerns about the current government in Afghanistan,
why did the Taliban so quickly infiltrate the country, AGAIN once our troops
were sent to Iraq? This tells me something very necessary is missing in
Afghanistan, good, legitimate leadership.

Will this surge provide the foundation for this leadership?
Not if it is corrupt.

A change needs to take place on the highest levels of government there
for any surge to work, imo.

Why do I disagree with you then?

President Obama never has been, nor will he ever be the
Illegitimate Commander-in- Thief GW was.

I may have lots of reservations about this decision, but I know
he did not make it on a whim. GW strikes me as someone who
made major decisions on a whim, just because he was
"the goddamn President!", or because Cheney told him to.

Obama is nowhere near the smug, ignorant ass GW was.

[quickesst]

278. Yeah....

...but where were all the motherfuckers who thought he walked on water when it counted? With their proverbial "the savior has come" heads up their collective asses. I get so goddamn tired of listening to this hindsight's 20/20 bullshit that it wants to make me fucking puke. When are the "critics" going to step up and say "we fucked up". We were so fucking eager to show how far we have progressed that the goddamn reality was overshadowed by some idealistic fucking dream that still had a long way to go before it was feasible. You'd better get your collective heads out of your collective asses, and for better or worse, back this president in his endeavors. If you don't, then the apocolypse will be here sooner than you think. Sometime soon after 2012 I suspect. So many people tried to persuade the majority to use their fucking heads during the primaries, but those same people, the majority, were so enraptured by the idea of being a part of history by electing the first black president that their sense of logic was simply not a factor in their decision. They were so goddamned determined to be a part of that crowd that could lord it over those who questioned whether Obama was the correct choice that they couldn't fathom that any question was necessary. Well, you got it, you own it, and it's yours whether you like it or not. Did I vote for Obama? Absolutely, because no matter how bad things seem for the daydreamers, the alternative would have been far worse. Suck it up, support this president, and quit whining like a bunch of suckling pigs. It could be much worse, and if you keep this shit up, it probably will. Thanks.
quickesst

[grahamhgreen]

279. I support the president - just not this policy. His job is to represent us not the other way around.

[WilliamPitt]

284. "Suck it up, support this president, and quit whining like a bunch of suckling pigs"

Maybe the worst advice I've ever heard in my life.

I appreciate and thank you for your opinion, but I do desperately disagree.

I know all the political angles, and you'll not find a bigger Dem supporter than me when 2010 and 2012 comes around. But "Suck it up, support this president, and quit whining like a bunch of suckling pigs," ain't gonna get it done, my friend.

I'm with you, against this decision, and for a better day.

Conflicted? Only if you think in two colors.

:toast:

[rtassi]

290. He attempted to sell it .. he didn't sell me

K&R

[johnaries]

293. Will, I love you and your logic, your reason, and your writing, BUT

this time I have to disagree with you.

First of all, I reject any and all comparisons with Bush. It's very easy to compare any subsequent leader and action with Bush, but I don't think it's fair or honest to say "he's just like Bush" any more so than to say "at least he's not Bush". For one thing, there are 2 different Bush'es. There is the Bush rhetoric, and the Bush reality which (as we all well know) are entirely different things. For instance, at the risk of donning a tin-foil hat, most of us here are familiar with PNAC (I remember you wrote some very informative articles yourself on PNAC). Although "Bush rhetoric" was to "eliminate WMD's, and allow Iraq to have a Democratic government", many of us here asked why if we were going to leave Iraq why then were so many "temporary" US bases built with concrete as permanent bases? That is Bush reality. On the other hand, Obama is following through with the Bush rhetoric that we will leave Iraq and the Iraqi people to their own destiny.

Please consider Obama's decisions on their own merits. Let's face it, there is no "good" answer to Afghanistan. Part of the problem is our past history with Afghanistan. Yes, we helped drive the Soviets out. But, while the Soviets were there they built schools, hospitals, etc. We helped them drive out the Soviet occupiers, and left their country devastated. There can be no doubt, our own actions contributed to the takeover of Afghanistan. We can't be directly blamed, but we left it open and ripe for the taking.

Another difference between Bush rhetoric and Bush reality is the widespread corruption in Afghanistan. Not just by the Afghan central government, but by local governments and American "forces" (Blackwater, anyone?). It is a travesty that Karzai was re-elected in an election fraught with fraud. Considering that the Obama administration pressured Karzai to agree to a run-off, I can only imagine the chagrin of Obama when Abdullah backed out. So, what should we do at this point? Should we forcibly remove Karzai from office?

There are obviously no "good" answers. I believe that the reports that during Obama's "dithering" he basically rejected all ideas presented to him and told his advisors to come back with new answers. Unfortunately, no one could.

Here is a big difference between Bush and Obama, if you really want to compare the two. Obama listens to his advisors and carefully weighs all options. Bush basically fell asleep during strategy meetings and listened to the voice of "God", which was probably just Cheney under his bed while he slept.

Another point I would like to make, Bush constantly used the 9/11 mantra to instill fear to motivate people. Obama did refer to 9/11 (once), but because so many people have forgotten why we attacked the Taliban and the reason for the mission in the first place. Unlike Bush, Obama's invocation of 9/11 was entirely appropriate.

So, looking at Obama's proposals on their own merits, I personally believe that they are entirely appropriate and are the best approaches to multiple problems for which there are no easy answers or responses.

If anyone wants to discuss and/or debate Obama's strategies on their own merits, I will be happy to do so. But I will invoke Godwin's law with a new twist - if you make a comparison to Bush: you lose.

[underpants]

296. Jon Stewart last night

said the same thing

I noticed the strawmen littering the speech

[deaniac21]

304. "roomful of children"

I'm guessing any of those children could mop up the barroom floor with either of us.

[WilliamPitt]

305. But how many of them are even old enough to buy a beer?

That was the point. A lot of them were children, no matter how tough they may be.

[HopeOverFear]

306. Thank you for your mature, reasoned, non-whiny dissent of Obama's decision.

It's a rare thing around here.