Bush and Obama: what change?

[Derek]

If Bush had ordered 17,000 extra army and marine personnel to Afghanistan, you'd call him a warmonger.

Obama orders 17,000 extra army and marine personnel to Afghanistan and he's seen as a reasonable guy.

Again, there's no difference between Rep and Dem, Conservative and Labour. They're two sides of the same coin, all controlled by the same forces.


No?

[RichD]

Re: Bush and Obama: what change?

well ascording to the right wing talking heads ..is jus 30 days and they don't even recognize the country anymore....

[LusciousJohnson]

Re: Bush and Obama: what change?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If Bush had ordered 17,000 extra army and marine personnel to Afghanistan, you'd call him a warmonger.

Obama orders 17,000 extra army and marine personnel to Afghanistan and he's seen as a reasonable guy.

Again, there's no difference between Rep and Dem, Conservative and Labour. They're two sides of the same coin, all controlled by the same forces.


No? </div></div>



Obama is sending them where they are needed. Bush sent them where he wanted to for his own personal reasons that had nothing to do with national security. if Bush had ordered the troops to go to Afghanistan INSTEAD of Iraq he woulda been seen as &quot;reasonable&quot; too

thats just my opinion

[jah_yout]

Re: Bush and Obama: what change?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If Bush had ordered 17,000 extra army and marine personnel to Afghanistan, you'd call him a warmonger.

Obama orders 17,000 extra army and marine personnel to Afghanistan and he's seen as a reasonable guy.

Again, there's no difference between Rep and Dem, Conservative and Labour. They're two sides of the same coin, all controlled by the same forces.


No? </div></div>

bun di war in afghanistan...
well derek right now to a lot of people obama can do no wrong...suh yu haffi si wid it...

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Bush and Obama: what change?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">well derek right now to a lot of people obama can do no wrong...suh yu haffi si wid it... </div></div>

Where or who are those lot of people?

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Bush and Obama: what change?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If Bush had ordered 17,000 extra army and marine personnel to Afghanistan, you'd call him a warmonger.

Obama orders 17,000 extra army and marine personnel to Afghanistan and he's seen as a reasonable guy.

Again, there's no difference between Rep and Dem, Conservative and Labour. They're two sides of the same coin, all controlled by the same forces.

No? </div></div><span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">It was part of his Campaign promise</span>.
It is bad idea to expand the war, but even without a qualitative expansion of the war, personnel was short in Afghanistan which dangerous situation for troops and the civilian population.

World Organizations on Climate change and the environment, Human Rights, folks who commented on Foreign Policy and the World Economy are all hailing the sea change that has taken place with the incoming Administration, so maybe you no difference between Bush and Barack's Administration so far but there are other observers who are not in agreement with your observations.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Bush and Obama: what change?


In any case this is a non-argument Barack is not a pacifist, he did not run a platform of no war ever, in fact he promised more war on groups that would challenge the USA.

Go read his campaign literature, re=watch the debates (watch if you haven't) and listen to his victory speech at Grant Park on the night of the Presidential Elections.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Bush and Obama: what change?


Let me just stick this here because I am 99.9% sure that folks who do not read or only listen to their own filth will continue to post just enough to pretend as if they care one way or the other. As if the ultimate intent is any different from the Rash Limpballs wish.

<span style="font-style: italic">The Plum LineGreg Sargent's blog</span>

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">Obama And Michelle Ask Progressive Groups For Help Driving White House Agenda</span>

At a private White House cocktail reception last night for leaders of major progressive groups, Barack Obama and his wife Michelle appealed to these leaders and signaled that their groups would play a key role in driving the big progressive changes at the heart of the White House’s legislative agenda, an attendee tells me.

The message was that these groups would be valuable as a kind of progressive outside “echo chamber,” as the attendee puts it.

The party — which was organized by top Obama aide Valerie Jarrett — signals that the White House is moving forward with efforts to build coordination with outside progressive groups in order to drive the White House’s message and beat back its foes. As I reported recently, Jarrett is at the center of those efforts.

Obama didn’t give a talk, and the President, Michelle, and Joe Biden mingled informally with various groups of progressive leaders. The message, the attendee adds, was that “it’s very clear that there will need to be an echo chamber and a way for groups on the outside to build the case for big progressive legislation.”

“The gist was, `We’re gonna need people out there telling the story of the stimulus and telling the story about how much we need big health care reform and clean energy and green jobs,’” the attendee says.

Among those on the guest list: Labor leaders Jimmy Hoffa, Gerry McEntee and Andy Stern; MoveOn’s Eli Pariser; Sierra Club’s Carl Pope; Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richardson; and Joe Solomonese of the Human Rights Campaign.

Word of the gathering first leaked out when Ben Smith posted Andy Stern’s Twitter saying he’d just been at the reception.

This is a key development for progressive leaders; more soon.

[jah_yout]

Re: Bush and Obama: what change?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">well derek right now to a lot of people obama can do no wrong...suh yu haffi si wid it... </div></div>

Where or who are those lot of people? </div></div>

i don't see a lot of opposition to escalation of the war in afghanistan...do you?

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Bush and Obama: what change?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">well derek right now to a lot of people obama can do no wrong...suh yu haffi si wid it... </div></div>

Where or who are those lot of people? </div></div>

i don't see a lot of opposition to escalation of the war in afghanistan...do you? </div></div>

I honestly do not see how this is an answer to my questions but be that as it may, yes do you want me to post the links to group opposing the escalation of war in Afghanistan?
Not only that on this very site in the International News Section I and other have posted many times that the USA should avoid an escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

I have also said Barack is a creature of the USA Foreign Policy. He will not deviate from it and there is no sense that the citizens of the USA want a President who will not make war.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Bush and Obama: what change?

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/19/obama-lets-progressives-i_n_168389.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">Obama Lets Progressives In The Gate... Now What?</span>
<span style="font-style: italic">February 19, 2009 07:01 PM </span></a>

News that a cadre of progressive groups and leaders schmoozed with the president represents a symbolic end-note of sorts to eight years that saw the same constituency navigating the political wilderness.

On Wednesday night, officials with several major labor unions, environmental organizations, human and woman's rights groups, and liberal stalwarts attended a private White House reception with the president, his wife, and select members of his staff.

Notably, the guests discussed ways in which the progressive infrastructure could help the administration amplify its message. But it was the meeting itself -- and its specific attendees -- that seemed most poignant.

For the past eight years, and in some cases beyond that, groups like the Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood, and unions at large have been banging against the White House gates, focused as much on defeating the president's agenda as championing their own priorities. Now inside the doors of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the dynamics are different and better... but, perhaps, no less daunting.

&quot;I think progressive groups will be in a position of needing to step out front and create the political environment for a fundamentally progressive president to do what he really wants to do,&quot; explained Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and former Director of Strategic Campaigns for MoveOn.org. &quot;The White House won't always find this pushing to be politically convenient in the short term, but that's the way big, long-term change happens, and everyone gets that.&quot;

Added a guest at last night's affair: &quot;I think a lot of the groups there were used to rallying outside the White House gates. Those 100 feet [between the gate and door] make a big difference. It was a very gracious move on their part and it signals an openness to have the conversation with the progressive movement. But I don't think anyone thought to themselves: 'we will agree on all things all the time'&quot;

That description may be most apt for MoveOn. Founded in the 1990s to beat back calls for President Clinton's impeachment, the organization grew into a political behemoth on the back of its opposition to George W. Bush and the Iraq war. Its membership, clicking in at a cool 5 million, is a major force for governance. It can provide President Obama with critical grassroots support. But officials with the organization aren't approaching their new access with naivete. <span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">There will be moments of confrontation between MoveOn and the president.

&quot;The calibration of advocating for their issue, and praising when things go well, and criticizing when things don't go in the right direction is something they are going to have to learn,&quot; said one MoveOn alumnus. Among the issues that seem bound to create the most tensions are those of the foreign policy realm. If, say, Obama should deviate in his plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq or push for greater military engagement in Afghanistan, it will be curious to see how MoveOn reacts.</span>