For The 2nd Day In A Row, Bush Administration Adopts Obama's Policies
@lloydanthony111 (4698)
United States
July 17, 2008 1:35am CST
#1 -- The Bush administration has decided to break with previous policy by sending one of its most senior diplomats to engage Iran's top nuclear official, the White House announced Wednesday.
Undersecretary of State William Burns will head to Switzerland for talks on Saturday. The move could dramatically alter the three-decade stand-off between the U.S. and Iran.
Here is what John McCain said on May 15, 2008.
Senator John McCain on Thursday morning wholeheartedly endorsed Mr. Bush’s veiled rebuke in the Israeli Knesset of Senator Barack Obama that talking to “terrorists and radicals'’ was no different than appeasing Hitler and the Nazis.
“Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain,'’ Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. “I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home".
#2. -- Barack Obama has said time and time again, that we took our eye off of the prize by focusing on Iraq istead of Afghanistan. Just yesterday Barack Obama pledged to send at least 7,000 more US troops to Afghanistan if elected president in response to mounting concern about worsening violence in the country.
The presumptive Democratic presidential candidate made the commitment after nine soldiers were killed on Sunday in the deadliest attack against US forces in Afghanistan for three years.
Mr Obama said he would send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan as part of plans to withdraw US forces from Iraq and refocus attention on the original battleground of the US "war on terror".
Here was John McCain reply to Barack Obama:
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement that Obama was also “committing to a policy” for Afghanistan before even visiting the country, and that “Barack Obama has shown he views foreign policy through a lens of ideology rather than through looking at facts.”
Well, well, well , well , well. Here is today's news. PLEASE READ!
The US wants to up its military commitment in Afghanistan (Reuters: Goran Tomasevic, file photo)
Violence is increasing in Afghanistan and there are now questions about whether a Taliban-led insurgency is gaining ground almost seven years after the US invasion.
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has today acknowledged that America will have to provide additional forces.
"We are clearly working very hard to see if there are opportunities to send additional forces sooner rather than later," he said.
For the 2nd day in a row, the Bush Administration has adopted Barack Obama's policies.
This is more evidence that Barack Obama is the best candidate for the Presidency of the United States. He is more energetic, has fresher ideas and has the best interest of the United States in mind.
If Barack Obama is so inexperienced, then why are the Republicans doing the things he has called for?
What is your opinion? Are the higher-ups in the Republica Party secretly admiring Barack Obama's knowledge of the issues?
Lloyd
4 people like this
9 responses
@clrumfelt (5490)
• United States
17 Jul 08
It's not surprising to me that President Bush would send diplomats to Iran to try and negotiate before sending in troops to do the job. It just wouldn't make sense to do otherwise. All the tough rhetoric has not produced the desired results, and diplomcy is the next logical step toward resolution. I don't think anyone should jump to give Obama credit for the action because it is just the next logical step.
@lloydanthony111 (4698)
• United States
17 Jul 08
I think you are giving President Bush too much credit. He realizes that the America people do not want to be involved in another war and now is looking for a way to get out of the box he has put himself in.
I think Obama has to get some of the credit because the majority of the American people support his postion over Bush's and the Bush Administration has to listen to the will of the people.
Why is Bush now negotiating when he earlier said he would never negoitiate with a terrorist nation, epecially on he called the "Axis Of Evil"?
Lloyd
2 people like this
@clrumfelt (5490)
• United States
18 Jul 08
In 2004, the same year Barack Obama was elected to the senate(hence his claim that he had never voted for war in Iraq-he never could have as he never had the opportunity!) That year president Bush had rejected the idea of war with Iran because the USA had only recently begun the diplomatic process with that country.
Four years later, it is only natural the war retoric has become more heated because diplomatic efforts have failed to achieve the desired end. And let me
add....the Bush-unfreindly news media has not been ready to report on the diplomatic efforts of the USA with Iran, that is, until they could claim President
Bush was "stealing" Barack Obama's idea. Of course the intent of the leftist media is to promote more Bush-Bashing in the light of the coming presidential election.
All this, when in fact the Bush administration has been involved in the diplomatic
process with Iran for four years now. I think we also know that the leadership of Iran realizes where the Bush administration stands on issues of diplomacy with them and, as such his diplomats would never meet with the dangerous leaders of that country "without precondition" as in his naivete Obama has suggested the USA would do under his leadership. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5874792/
@N4life (851)
• United States
19 Jul 08
Why then did Bush and McCain repeatedly say that we should not negotiate or talk with countries such as Iran who support terrorists? Magically, after Obama talks about sitting down with Iran he sends a convoy. This can not be denied. I seriously think Bush would rather go to war he just has his highest ranking miltary man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff get up in the white house and say it would put a great stress on U.S. troops. If Bush had the support and capability he would try to take over the world to gain control of all the oil. Of course he would screw that up worse than Hitler.
1 person likes this
@N4life (851)
• United States
17 Jul 08
Great observations! I thought the same thing when I saw the headine about Bush sending Burns to Switzerland. I wonder what McCain has to say about this. Oh no now Bush is the great appeaser..lol. It seems likely that Bush's adviors are responding to Obama's views that have been recieved well by the people. Go Obama!!
@lloydanthony111 (4698)
• United States
17 Jul 08
It's just amazing how hypocritical both John McCain and the Bush Administration are.
Just last month Barack was the great appeaser. Now they are doing exactly what Barack called for.
This only goes to show that Barack Obama was right. He's more educated than both Bush and McCain and is able to put together realistic plans for moving forward.
This is part of the "Change" that Barack Obama speaks of.
I am more confident that he is the best person for the job. It appears that all that experience both John McCain and George Bush speak of amounts to nothing.
I'm glad you appreciate the observation.
Lloyd
2 people like this
@N4life (851)
• United States
17 Jul 08
Obama is more educated than Bush or McCain. I find it funny when some of the big words he uses are used by Republicans for painting Obama as an elitist. I want my President to speak well. You can not graduate from Harvard Law School and come out speaking like a "good old boy" if you are being true to yourself. I think more voters need to stay up on politics so more would see McCain and Bush taking on Obama ideas.
2 people like this
@N4life (851)
• United States
17 Jul 08
For those of us who want real change from a man with a brain and an agenda other than making money for oil companies Obama makes sence. Oil drilling in the U.S will not do a thing for gas prices for 5-10 years. The recent decline will probably be made up for in two or three days. This is just another excuse to keep us dependent on oil. There are other ways the government can help those who need it and boost the economy. Increase child tax credit, money for college, paid maternity leaves, mandatory paid vacations. All of these are standard in Europe where surveys consistently say people are happier with their lives. These would also boost the economy, put money in peoples pockets and we could quit wasting money subsidizing oil drilling companies. In 5-10 years there are several alternative energy cars that could vitually take over the market. Bush is for the filthy rich. Oil prices started rising at record rates while he is in office. Him and Cheney are getting more rich off this whole thing.
2 people like this
@revdauphinee (5703)
• United States
17 Jul 08
the republican powers that be see the popularity of the democratic candidate and decided at this low point in history for them they could use some of that
2 people like this
@lloydanthony111 (4698)
• United States
17 Jul 08
I agree with you. They must be wondering what is fueling this movement.
It's only logical for them to steal some of Barack Obama's postions.
I just don't think Iran will fall for it. I don't think they trust President Bush.
Lloyd
3 people like this
@revdauphinee (5703)
• United States
18 Jul 08
i dont trust him myself but then i wary about any politian
1 person likes this
@jillmalitz (5131)
• United States
17 Jul 08
There is an OP-ED piece in the New York Times which talks about Obama's thoughtful approach to the problems in the middle east and how McCain seems to be slower to decide. Obama has made good points about how the United States went into Iraq and now we can't get out easily and the fact that Iraq leaders really want us gone. They do need to stand on their own feet. Obama realized that we will probably have to have a certain number of troops there to help but the Iraqis need to take care of themselves. Obama also knows that we need to , instead of spending billions on Iraq, spend money on Pakistan and Afghanistan to secure their countries. He knows that we need to entice these two countries to control the lawlessness between the borders by showing them the carrot of money and help if they make the effort to get rid of the problems. Even Robert Gates knows this and Bush is so desperate he will say anything to make people think he is in control. Plus he thinks this will help McCain.
2 people like this
@lloydanthony111 (4698)
• United States
17 Jul 08
Barack Obama's approach to the problems in the Middle East is well thought out. The Bush Administration approach of "Cowboy Diplomacy" has been failure.
Now you see the Republicans using Barack's strategies in dealing with some of the problems we face throughout the world.
I'm glad they are finally coming around and getting on board.
Lloyd
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
17 Jul 08
I see how it is. Now Bush does something you agree with and you give Obama the credit. It was a no brainer that the US would be sending more troops into Afghanistan after that attack. He could have made that decision even before Obama made his statements and it was just a matter of which story got printed first.
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5490)
• United States
20 Jul 08
Taskr, as usual you have put my thoughts into print perfectly. President Bush is going to be dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't achieve the goals he has set out to achieve. Today he is talking about having diologue with the leaders in Iraq about pulling out. Instead of admitting the troop surge he fought Congress for has worked and brought enough stability to the country to begin looking at pullingsome of the troops out, his opposition is going to say he took Obama's adviceand started the troop withdrawal. Never mind it is the goal he has been working toward all along! What a vicious circle!
@clrumfelt (5490)
• United States
20 Jul 08
Here is a link that chronicles the US plans and progress in Iraq in recent months. No one can deny they had a plan for success in the region and have been working toward it all along. http://www.uspolicy.be/issues/iraq/iraq.asp
@N4life (851)
• United States
20 Jul 08
There may have been a plan for Iraq. The problem is I don't agree with the reasons for the war to begin with and the notion that it is making us safer. Bush can be defended it makes no difference. He will be gone in November and Obama will be president. Then the few who defend Bush can reverse rolls and degrade everything Obama does.
@jerzgirl (9234)
• United States
18 Jul 08
Are they admiring him? Only in the mildest sense of the word competitively speaking. They see that the things he has been saying are hurting them politically. The Taliban have been re-taking parts of Afghanistan for well over a year now, but suddenly they see a problem? Bush's eyes were on Iraq from day one - that's all he cared about. McCain was expected to easily defeat Obama, but Obama's number increased - even internal advisors were saying they needed to do the things Obama suggested doing. But, Bush wouldn't listen. Bush only cares about Bush, Cheney about Cheney. But, with the possibility of losing to the Democrats increasing, they had to do something to draw people back to their side of the fence. So, they're finally giving in so it looks like it's 1) Republicans who are listening to the people and 2) Republicans who are making changes in policy. Take the steam away from the Dems in order to defeat them in advance. Obama will have no policy changes to offer of the Republicans usurp them. His position as a leader of change will be weakened. I seriously don't think they'd have done this if Obama stood no chance of winning. Maybe statistically, he wouldn't have won - but with questions of McCain's age coming into play and people increasingly uniting against Bush policies in the Middle East, winning for Obama wouldn't have been impossible. So, they have to do something. I don't believe for a minute they want to do this - I really don't think Bush gives a crap about what happens in Afghanistan. But, if he wants the Republicans to stay in charge, he has to do what will turn things around for them at election time.
Yes, I'm cynical - but the last 8 years have been shown to what depths someone will go who has a personal agenda, the power to pull it off, and lots of money to be made from accomplishing it. I see no true admiration in these actions - only calculated undermining of the opposition.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
18 Jul 08
McCain was NEVER expected to easily defeat Obama. After Bush's terrible approval ratings the odds on a Republican winning were so low it was ridiculous. From the start this election has been the Democrat's to lose. Had Obama and Clinton not battled so fiercely and hit so low, McCain wouldn't have had a chance. As it is, Obama's had enough racist and anti-American associates to bring him down a notch.
@lloydanthony111 (4698)
• United States
20 Jul 08
I know they admire Barack Obama. He has be right on all these issues.
Isn't funny how a little common sense can trump all of the Neocon's experience.
It's called Barack's "thoughtful" approach to diplomacy. I'm glad to see that Bush is finally seeing the light.
Lloyd
1 person likes this
@KrauseHome (36448)
• United States
26 Jul 08
Personally, I have always wondered why they do not consider Afganistan a threat and think by Obama wanting to move more Soldiers there instead of Iraq is such a Bad idea? Personally, I think a lot of times there are people not wanting to look at the real issue at hand, and I think that him wanting to get more people there is a Smart idea. There might be other things backlining this that many of us do not know about, but then again who really ever knows about any of the stuff going on these days. Just my thoughts.
@lloydanthony111 (4698)
• United States
27 Jul 08
I believe they know that the real threat lies on the Afganistan/Pakistan boarder. But there's something about Iraq that irks them.
Could it be that Iraq has vast amounts of oil?
Could it be that Iraq was the easier target to conquer after it was softened during Gulf War I?
Could it be that Saddam Hussein once attempted to assasinate former President George Bush?
Who knows why the Neocons are so obsessed with Iraq. All I know is that spending 12 billion dollars a week there is insane. And the cost in American lives is criminal.
Hopefully Barack Obama will bring an end to this madness. We need his thoughtful approach at this time.
Lloyd
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
17 Jul 08
I think you said it all, Lloyd, and I agree with you. The Bush Administration and the GOP will of course try to mask the fact that they've actually done what Obama has suggested all along but thanks to you at least some people will be made aware of the facts instead of the crap they get on Fox Noise or Fixed News, whichever you prefer.
Annie
1 person likes this
@lloydanthony111 (4698)
• United States
20 Jul 08
I think they've decided to talk to the Iranians because the majority of Americans agree with Barack Obama's ideas when it comes to dealing with our adversaries.
"Cowboy diplomacy" just doesn't work when it comes to rogue nations. Hopefully the Bush Administration will tone down some of its rhetoric and move towards negoatiating with the Iranian leadership.
Fox News should ashamed of calling themselves "Fair and Balanced". I don't think most Americans really take them seriously.
George Bush has governed in step with the Neocons over at Fox for the last 7 years and look at the mess we are in.
Llo0yd
1 person likes this
@snowy22315 (170140)
• United States
18 Jul 08
I'm glad Bush administrations has finally decided to listen to reason and talk with enemies. I'm not sure what the motivation is other than to do something
different. I'm sure there are those in athe admin. who realize the current policy is not working and that they need to do somehting different. They should have done this about 5 years ago.
1 person likes this
@lloydanthony111 (4698)
• United States
20 Jul 08
I agree with you. If they would have done this 5 years ago, we wouldn't be speaking of going to war with another Middle Eastern country.
Countries will always resist being bullied with idle threats.
Lloyd
