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

Obama praises America: "We have not sought world domination, [we fight for freedom!]"

Obama: "We have spilled American blood to help others rebuild from ruble and develop their own economies". This sounds like one bad-ass people that Obama is talking about, a people who give more than they take. Is this the same Obama who has spent nearly a year going around the world apologizing for America? Is this the same Obama who announced last year that it was the first time in his adult life that he was proud of America? Or was that his wife? I forget. It all seems like one long national nightmare to me. I can't wait until it's over. - jbranstetter04

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2qseXkmLuo

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_al...

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.

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

War booster: Obama sends 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan

President Obama has committed thirty thousand more troops to Afghanistan, but has also announced a withdrawal could begin as early as the middle of 2011. Meanwhile, some in the U.S are skeptical Obama's new strategy will work.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

President Obama has decided to send more than 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, at a cost of more than $100 billion/year. But America cannot afford a war that does not make us safer, and Congress has the power to stop the escalation. Vote NO on any spending bill that would send more troops to Afghanistan."

http://rethinkafghanistan.com

Promote

0 members promoted this

Comment

You need to be a member of i-Tube to add comments!

Join i-Tube

Comment by guidoOMGaf on December 3, 2009 at 6:52pm: "'The Base' is really a fluid, compartmentalized logistical system."

I 100% agree here.

Which actuially speaks to the reality of the futility of trying to "destroy" Al Q completely. Just won't ever happen.

The GWOT is a war which cannot be won. Honestly, it makes the "struggle" against Communism seem pale in comparison. Fighting a war against a purely political ideology is one thing...Fighting against a religious ideology....where the radical followers thereof are GUARANTEED "paradise" through their DEATH in the fight...is quite another.

Comment by guidoOMGaf on December 3, 2009 at 4:43pm: "Actually, no. Although the term Al Qaeda is another Western invention."

Ah No, Al Q Literally means "The base". It is what radical Islamists invented all on their own.
It is the "tangible" and visible "Base" from which any/all Jihadist activities draw support from. Be it training, weaponry, or finances.
You're right though, Geographically, Al Q isn't tied to any ONE region, or ethnicity. It's a Global organization.
And yes, the Taliban, are generally only in the Afghan/Pakistan region..Kinda like Hamas in Gaza.

Comment by guidoOMGaf on December 3, 2009 at 1:26pm: I think I've seen it. TBCH, We created the Taliban really...and fostered Al Q as well.

These types of groups there were "All good" in the U.S's eyes whilst they were fighting the Soviets...After the fact of course, we shit all over them by dropping any further support to them like a bad habit.

Comment by ☠Realize Lies☠ on December 3, 2009 at 1:19pm: guidoOMGaf, That actually reminds me of yet ANOTHER documentary.... "The Power of Nightmares" ... it's a rather long one, there's three parts, an hour long each part. If you haven't seen it already, it's definitely worth a looksy. =)

Comment by guidoOMGaf on December 3, 2009 at 12:56pm: beach, I think you're confusing the term "Al Qaeda" (meaning "the base") with the Taliban.

Comment by ☠Realize Lies☠ on December 3, 2009 at 12:52pm: LOL, I actually sent Bob a message a couple days ago asking him to address this 'drinkingwithbob' style.... I kinda figured he was already on top of it, but here's the result anyways. =)

Comment by ☠Realize Lies☠ on December 3, 2009 at 12:39pm: Yeah beach, that's an excellent point..... as well as another reason why it's so difficult to express in detail how and why our opinions on these type of subjects may differ from mainstream implications..... with the need for time, good attention spans and with a lacking sense of concision, it's very difficult to get one's point across.... which in turn always ends up with one calling the other certain labels like righty, lefty, extremist, liberal, moron, nutjob....because it's nearly impossible to paint a picture within a few comments and your best choice of words.