Washington (CNN) – A leading Republican strategist and one-time aide to former Vice President Cheney said Sunday that President Obama’s recently announced decision to send an additional 30, 000 troops to Afghanistan is “a reassertion of the Bush doctrine.”
“The [Bush] doctrine is no safe havens [for terrorists intent on harming the United States] and we go after those that provide a harbor [for such terrorists]. That’s the doctrine,” Republican strategist Mary Matalin explained Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.
Obama’s decision to surge additional troops into Afghanistan is “solid policy,’ in Matalin’s view and “a reassertion of the Bush doctrine.”
“Every strategic element is from the Bush doctrine. The tactics are from the Bush surge [in Iraq],” she said.
Matalin added that when civilian contractors and forces supplied by NATO allies are considered “there are enough troops” in Afghanistan.
But, Matalin also said Sunday that, by announcing a date to begin to remove some American troops, Obama had sent a mixed message about the United States’ commitment in Afghanistan.
In laying out his new strategy, Obama gave “a discordant speech,” the Republican strategist said of the president’s address last week at West Point.
“It’s hard to reconcile [saying] this is for the security of the whole world, but we’re going to get out in 18 months,” Matalin said.
“The problem for Democrats,” Matalin also said Sunday, “is that they’ve bashed Bush strategy and tactics for so long and now they have to embrace them because they’re the only ones that do work.”
From CNN Politics
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
Complete crap.... Obama approved the surge because the generals asked for it in the midst of an ongoing war. The Bush doctrine simply states we don't need to be attacked in order to strike a nation harboring terrorists.
Afghanistan is already at war. Therefore Obama made his decision based on THAT fact, not any doctrine by Bush....
The decision doesn't 'resemble' Bush. It resembles any president who has made the hard decision to send American troops in harms way... from FDR to Clinton. None of them operated on the misguided Bush Doctrine. Neither did Obama.
I've heard all of the delusion baseless criticisms of our President, from the most racist to the crazy, but being compared to GW Bush would have to be the most insulting.
I disagree with Matlin, President Obama's surge has an exit without continued payment to Karzai's corrupt government, Bush's didn't. Karzai himself disagrees with President Obama. I think it's clear we have no friends in the Middle East because if we did Pakistan would play a key role. If Pakistan has the resources and technology to have built a nuclear weapon then they have the ability to find bin Laden and fight terrorism. Think about it.
Oh, sure, it's TOTALLY Republican. Except. That's not what Mr. Bush did, was it? Or, to use the argument in another setting: Mr. Obama lives in the White House. Mr. Bush lived in the White House. Therefore, Mr. Obama a Republican.
Well, thank you Mary Matalin. We were all waiting with bated
breath your opinion on the subject.
No mary, The Obama plan actually is a plan, with an EXIT STRATEGY
I often thought MARY MATALIN HAD THE ABILITY TO REASON
I now feel I was wrong . for her to think that president Obama is in any way like not only George Bush but his administration is (NUTS )
8 years of republican lies threats and greed. how in tha name of ___ ____ ___ and NATO is starting to get envoled and the rest of the world wants peace and safety in the world .. so back up MARY . and why not use our education and be possative and not be another ney sayer.. like most of the republicans ..your party lost and you like GEORGE WILL just can't stand it .. and progress is being made in our great nation with out the help from the republicans .. also when the rest of the so called blue dogs (joke) get on board ,our country will see a health care public plane that will set the standard for insurance companies loss of high profit . and it will be a great day indeed
President Obama "resembles" George W. Bush about as much as Matalin resembles Nancy Pelosi! Not even close!
Please don't compare Obama to that imbecile. This president isn't stupid or driven by need to help the very few and disadvantage the very many.
You should be ashamed for suggesting any similarity. You're an idiot who doesn't deserve to be on the air spewing your stupid baloney.
Ms. Matalin you will always be a negative, Democrat-bashing, nabob for the Right. There is a huge difference here vs Jet Pilot. Obama has carefully calculated the need based on the generals' reports and established a firm guideline for withdrawal. Bush didn't care when we got out so long as Halliburton and the rest of the friends of the program got theirs before he would ever consider pulling out. Oh, and it also helps if your taking the battle to the enemy in the right country to begin with, too.
She is a republican doesn't know exactly what to think
Who cares what Matalin has to say. And I'm real disappointed at Obama that he's excalating a war that can't possibly be won.
How sick and pathetic it is to compare President Obama after spending 'months' with his advisers before sending any extra troops to Afghanistan, to former Bush jr. that told his advisers, Congress and Senators, 'you are either with us, or again us'.
After months of daily slaughter by the Shiite Muslims against the Sunni Muslims where dozens of body's were left on the streets of Baghdad every morning for collection, the surge which the utterly disgusting Bush jr. took entire credit for, was greatly effective because of two things:
1) The Shiite's ran out of Sunni victims to murder.
2) The Iraqi residents grew tired of having piles of corpses piled in front of their homes and business each night.
It was Bush jr. who directed the US State Dept. in Iraq to disband the million member Iraqi Security Force, leaving 1 million armed men without paychecks. That directly led to the violence in Iraq. Bush jr. screwed up in a extremely large way. In that poor nation, you don't kick 1 million armed men into the ranks of the unemployed without grave consequences.
Little missy is so confused. First she states that President Obama's plan resembles the former chump-in-chief, and then states President Obama's exit plan complicates the matter.
What was the exit of plan of HRH King George the II?
Seems the shrub and the cons want to make this an endless war for his oil and big business buddies to continue to make a buck off the deaths of young Americans without end
This is just too funny, the liberal Bush haters having to admit that Obama followed the Bush strategy in Iraq. General Petraus confirmed this today, along with Obama's secretary of defense Gates. It has to be like a dagger in the heart to see the so-called "intellegent" Obama unable to come up with a better strategy than the "imbecile" Bush. It has to be devasting to the Obama lemmings to find out his intelligence doesn't match up to Bush's. Ah, the irony. LMAO
Take it back, take it back right now. That crosses the line.
Agree with Robert here. Obama decision is to protect our troops, stop the terrorists from fomenting violence and it sends a message to the Iranians that when faced with a choice we will protect our interests and the interests of freedom. Time honored and correct decision at this point in time.
We can blame IRAQ on Bush and Cheyney. Not this. We should have surged here years ago.
exactly like Bush! No change here.
The Bush Doctine?
If the Bush Doctrine had been in effect in 1941, we would have invaded Korea because Japan attacked us.
Hello Mr. President You are certainly doing a great job and I like your agenda from the economy to healthcare and you are very honest with us when the republicans are not. They partner with the insurance company to lye to us with adds just to oppose change that is good for the people. Mr. President, I heard John McCain waiting to sit with you on Afghanistan and you should never sit with him and I believe that you have your advisors for that reason. So you do not need his advice. McCain went to war long time ago and the same old strategies that he has in his head from Vietnam cannot be used in Afghanistan because it is a different war. We need twenty first century approach for Afghanistan which I believe you and your advisors understand.
Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is a war in which we were attacked first. We were the aggressors in a war that was waged for false reasons and handled poorly. President Bush never gave Afghanistan the energy or resources required to finish the job; which is exactly why we are 8 years into the war and are still in such a mess. Obama also took the necessary time to talk to many experts who have differing views on the right strategy and came to a decision based on information and knowledge, not on gut and personal feelings. The fact that under President Bush we were losing the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan and it wasn't until Bush did what Obama thought we should do in Iraq and turn over security to the Iraqi's did things improve. Now Obama is fixing Bush's mess in Afghanistan. Matalin is an idiot who is grasping for any negative spin to put on President Obama to make the American people fear him.
Those two belong on SNL, and stay out of the news.......
big mistake. It's Vietnam all over again.
And Bush was the dumbest President in our lifetime.
There are still 3 unanswered questions that no Republican will answer, including the clowns at Fox News.
1. Why did we invade Iraq? Was it oil money for Bush and his equally lame father?
2. Why was Haliburton given the contract to rebuild Iraq with no outside bids permitted.
3. And where are the alleged WMD?
If you can answer the questions, you in a prize.
Then why didn't Matalin run for President ? These really smart people that know everything and do nothing are sure amazing armchair quarterbacks.
And all of you Peaceniks thought you were voting for an end to the war when you voted for Obama.
SUCKERRRRRS!!!!
Matalin and Carville's comments are so predictable I don't even bother watching. She is just repeating the Republican talking points mouthed by Kyl and Romney and to suggest she has anything to add to any conversation is bizarre.
They have made a fortune being political hacks and really are no longer relevant. One belongs to the Cheney era and the other to the Clintons.
is that the same Bush Doctrine that candidate Sarah Palin had no idea even existed?
That may be a useful point politically to divide Dems from the anti-war, anti-Bushie left, but it's not really true, in my opinion.
Obama intentions are totally different even if it appears to be more of the same. The late timing, along with a promised timetable, and no clear objectives demonstrate his lack of commitment to victory. This administration won't even acknowledge the war on terror much less carry one out. Obama's speech and the sending of 30,000 more troops has to be taken together with all his other actions, foreign and domestic. Instead we have a policy much more in line with the Obama Doctrine than the Bush Doctrine.
"Undermine our allies, embolden our enemies, and diminish America."
For all the liberals who attack conservatives as uneducated rednecks, it seems they all have horrible spelling. I guess you only need to learn how to sign your name to endorse a welfare check.
Her "tie" says it all, confused memoirs of a clown!
No, Ma'am, the Bush doctrine was preemptive strike based on unproven intention. Iraq was attacked on the basis first that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, when that was not proven, the rationale was changed to "intent" to develop to weapons of mass [deception]. What you call the Bush doctrine is the same one that he departed from and set out his unilateral doctrine. If , as you said: “The [Bush] doctrine is no safe havens [for terrorists intent on harming the United States] and we go after those that provide a harbor [for such terrorists], how is this consistent with our attack on Iraq that has led to the loss of several lives of our troops, unfunded, destroyed our credibility around the world, while at the same has led to windfall for weapons industry and military contractors. Do not use your access to the media to misinform and engage is revisionism. At best, the Bush doctrine is to enrich his cronies.
It's like night and day.
President Obama’s and former President Bush’s “doctrines” have nothing in common at all.
President Obama considered his options and wants to help Afghanistan in its “Nation building”, but is also putting pressure on them to take action to make things work for their future.
Bush did not think the whole thing through and had no plan in 7 years – besides “surge”, pile up a gigantic (secrete) (conservative?) deficits and drive the American economy up to the brink – leaving the cleanup to his successor. And President Obama has to deal with all of it now at the same time with the GOP jacking in the background. One can only get nightmares imagining McCain/Palin in the White House.
I have a bright idea. How about an "Exit" strategy that say's we will leave when we have Won? Liberals! Heh, General Patton would smack every one of you!
Yea...right.....if you exclude fradulent intelligence for persuation of a war of false pretenses, Wall Street's deregualted looting of our American banking system over fradulent CDO accounts for sub-prime mortgages, and leaving people to die in New Orleans by diverting all the funding from FEMA prior to the Katrina disaster.....just to name a few........
Mary Matalin doesn't quite realize the "doctrine" isn't Republican. Its a United Nations ammendment resolution....and it's already occuring with drones flying missions in Pakistan......
Not Quite Matalin. Bush told the American people a LIE to go into Iraq. On the other hand Obama is going into Afghanistan because it was Afgahns who killed 3,000 americans NOT Iraqis. He is taking the fight to where it should have gone in the first place.
For some reason this HUGE part of the puzzle is missed by certain media consultants!
The Bush Doctrine was no safe haven for Saddam Hussein. 9/11 just gave W an excuse to invade Iraq. As soon as the Taliban were forced from power he started selling the lies that were the foundation for his war.
What I would really like to know about his plans for A-stan is any major changes in tactics. Are we going to take the war to the enemy or try to react to their moves?
If Bush and company had not abandoned Afghanistan to start a war in Iraq which was based upon lies ,America and allies more than likely, would have accomplished the mission in Afghanistan and all or most of our troops would have been home with their families. There would have been fewer lives lost for all the troops, billions saved in money and resources. The country of Iraq would not have been destroyed and we would not have to rebuild that country. I could go on and on, but you get the point.
Think what might have been, folks, had you not "elected" the Moron.
Please do not compare Mr. Obama to Bush. Bush would have to climb up on a ladder, to touch Obama's toes!!!!!!
Mary Matalin, and all others who are making the same claim, all seem to conveniently disregard the fact that Obama didn't go into Afghanistan. He inherited the situation and is doing what he and his advisers think is best prior to ending the war there. Seems they're ensuring a proper job is done in the short time we plan on being there. Will it work? No idea.
That is not true. Anyone with common sense can tell you that there is very little in common between Obama and Bush in policy or governance. This is the problem with listening to the pundits, they are idiots. Matalin does not have my respect as an analyst because she does not deserve it.
If it's the Bush doctrine, whey didn't Bush use it in Afghanistan?
That's where the 9/11 attack was planned.
It's one thing to pretend Bush never happened, but trying to tie your enemies to a disaster that is essentially your own fault is slimy.
Hopefully it blows up in their faces.
Just like Bush? Does that mean that Obama is also a criminal? I can't imagine a greater insult!
This is to slp from a current post who called me "immature."
I am glad you have the guts to challenge what I said, and I am glad that you at least back up your claim with some logical facts; but, however, accusing me of only seeing the liberal point of view is very judgemental and inaccurate, in my opinion. You do not even know who I am, or what I am really like. Well, if you have proof that I am that way, I will be more than happy to have an online, professional debate with you. You at least , even though it is clear that you and me do not see eye to eye, seem like the type of man or woman that I can have a healthy debate with. I have a facebook account, a yahoo account, and I live in Cape County, Missouri. If you can put that into a location picture inside your mind, and locate me, I will be more than happy to have a professional debate with. I am currently taking Fundementals of Oral Communication and Advanced College Writing, just go give you a heads up. The topic we can debate is, "Is a timetable for any war strategy necessary?"
Ron Paul asserted this last week, asking SoS Clinton and SecDef Gates if they supported the Bush doctrine. They both evaded the question, and tried to distinguish "preventive" and "preemptive" war while never stating which of those categories the Afpak war falls into, or if they support either.
Last I checked, Rep. Paul is also a GOP member, so why no prominent news story then? Mary Matalin is very astute in pointing out that the actual war planning is taking the exact same path that McCain's would have, with different rhetoric and different promises.
In June 2011 the US will still have troops in Afghanistan, and will be fighting in Pakistan. Warring in this region of the world has brought down Empires for 3000 years, and the US is falling into the traps, hook line and sinker.
There is no difference between Bush and Obama. Both support surges. The only reason that Obama is not being criticized is that his supporters see him as a messiah with a golden halo around his head. In reality, there is no reason Bush should be criticized so much for the Iraq War when Obama has done nothing to end the Iraq War; there is no reason to blame Bush for the escalation in Afghanistan when he didn't author it. Lastly, you'll see what will happen next year: Obama will say we can't pull out of Iraq because there is no agreement between Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. You can't criticize Bush forever and never give Obama any criticism anymore. It's silly.
We are committed to training the Afghan army to defend itself so we can get out of there.
The Bush Doctrine? Then why did Bush send our troops to Iraq instead of Afghanistan?
Matlin and the rest of the right wing-nut couldn't be more wrong. After years of leaving the real threat of afganistan on hold to devote resources to Iraq, they have made our job more dangerous and deadly for our troops. Obama has correctly devoted our resourses to the real threat where we should have been all along.
Well it does resemble Bush in the fact that finally a democrat wants to defend America.
What is truly interesting is that Obama said in his campaign that he would focus on Afghanistan, and get us out of Iraq. Seems that the average joe doesn't remember anything from 6 months ago – which is why it is possible for conseratives to claim Obama is like Bush, or that Bush didn't cause the current problems, or Bush was a good president... and actually believe it. People – the 'strategists' know your memory is weak, and they are playing you (both Democrats and Republicans). Divide and conquer!
Ms. Matalin would be well served to read Peter Beinart's column on TIme.com from last Thursday. He very cogently explains how different President Obama's approach is from "Cowboy W."
President Bush used the Afghan/al-Qaeda connection to 911 as an excuse for world wide adventurism in the name of a "war on terror" while losing sight of the avowed goal which was stopping al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and getting Bin Laden. Finally we are back on the right track.
Also, let's not lose sight of the fact that V.P. Cheney had a lot to do with W's blunder.
If he decides to quit Afghanistan and invade say, the Maldives, then he would be like Bush
If Obama had not given a date when we would "begin" pulling out the neocons would have screamed that he does not have an exit strategy.
So wanting to finish Afghanistan and get the hell out resembles Bush? Given the chance Bush/Cheney would have made sure we never left. Actually, in Iraq they tried to push through an agreement to establish permanent bases in the last few months but the Iraqis stalled and the US senate balked.
If you want to get into semantics, the purpose of the Bush Doctrine is preemptive military action. Since we are already there, this doesnt apply. If Obama decides to invade Venezuela to get rid of Chavez then we'll talk.
Did she criticize Bush while he was starting two unilateral wars? Not likely.
i think the only mission acomplished was the destruction of america by bush and cheney was to keeo peoples eyes of what was going on in america bad banks jobs shutting down shipped to china,and last of the class macain if it was.t for his grandfather and father and marrying into money would have been another home less vet and traitor,without health care because of pre sisting conditions
When the Pres...O does not get his way as he did numerous times
during the 2008 campeign is turns to INSULTS,,,,He did the same in
the Afghanistan-strategy ...istead informing Mr Kazai and get him on side...Obama's speech was insulting to Mr Kazai and the Afgan People not
to mention that he left Pakistan in the dark as well...Partnersips he says.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It goes well beyond that. Obama seems to be bought and paid for by the exact same people that brought us George W.
Obama wishes he resembled George Bush. President Bush was in charge and a leader. In this administration, everyone else is in charge and Obama just tries to keep everyone happy. That's not leadership.
Maitlin much be a little "touched" today. Bush never went after terrorists- EVER.
Before Americans foolishly elected a President based on media hype, Canada's leading newspaper did a policy comparison and found that Obama had more in common with Dubya than McCain, especially on foreign policy (as a bonus, McCain would have actually cut military spending where Jesus is increasing it).
From allowing everybody the right to argue with insurance companies over what's covered and what's not (universal insurance isn't universal healthcare as some people believe) to half-baked students seeing their tuitions rise instead of fall as promised and then having the deficit more than doubled, Obama has delivered very little besides primetime speeches and feel good townhalls.
Although I'm generally fond of Americans, you get the President that you deserve.
This woman is on mind altering drugs; just like Cheney is/was. There's no such thing as the Bush doctrine; he was a shoot from the hip and hope you hit something type. Big guns, no plans other than to ensure his friends and cronies profited from the war(s). Bush and Cheney are war criminals and should be prosecuted in the Hague for crimes against humanity; then sentenced to death by hanging. Their illegal war in Iraq has caused the deaths of over 500,000 people(both civilian and military) needlessly. We had Saddam contained, the coalition was working. He was already 66 years old and regime change was gonna happen soon enough. Idiots!
The only reason President Obama is pursuing this path is to give Karzi and the people of his nation a chance to lead themselves out of the wilderness. To portray anything else like the wingnuts are asserting is pure, unaldultered fantasy. Bush and the GOP got our nation into this mess. At this point, I say shoot any of them if they open their mouths because they are a treasonous bunch.
James Carvelle knows they get their money from both parties. As for the comments, the comments against are always the same. Why is thePresident crashing in the polls if these persons against are always right.
Obama said from DAY ONE in his campaign that he would shift focus from Iraq to Afganistan.
What is this obession with FOX and the GOP with tying Obama to Bush with this? FOX has front page that Obama used Bush's strategy.
LOL. Does the GOP not know the difference between Iraq and Afganistan?
Obama has always had his eye on Afganistan. He's picking up where Bush dropped the ball.
How would Matalin know that Obama sends mixed messages about our commitment in Afghanistan? Robert Gates, the generals, etc think its a great strategy. May be she knows more by serving as an advisor to MR.DICK CHENEY!!
Bush had a doctrine alright. Bush's doctrine consisted of leveling the nations economy, while invading the wrong country, while dismantling the constitution, while pandering to the evangelicals. The list is endless. Bush, will be placed in historical records properly as a clueless person who never should have been elected. Also, add to this the Republican majority in the congress and senate during most of his tenure and it's a wonder that the American people are able to put food on the table, or keep a roof over their heads. I hope the people have sense enough to make sure this never happens again.
The major difference is that contrary to Bush who rushed us into an unecessary war, President Obama weighted carefully all issues with his analytical mind. therefore I trust his decision.
WOW we are using the same military strategy in two different countries.
By this logic, Bush was using the "Lydon B. Johnson Doctrine" lol...seriously, no one with an IQ over room temperature cares if Obama is using the same troop deployment tactics. What matters is the end result....and Obama has always said that his plan was to get out of Iraq and back into Afganistan. Duh.
I agree that this escalation is very Bush-like. However, the Bush "doctrine" calls for invading other countries if there is any shred of suspicion (real or, most likely, imagined) that they may in some way be helping terrorists or making weapons. It has nothing to say about what to do once we are there. The surge came way after the formulation of this doctrine and is not part of it.
Personal to Irish, German American:
One big exception here – Obama didn't go through generals until he found one to tell him what HE wanted to hear, and Obama has put forth an exit strategy which Bush never did. Funny, too, that when Obama did all this, NATO said they would help by sending troops, which never happened under fearless, Jet-Pilot.
There once was an American president who used the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the threat of WMDs to justify an unpopular war in the Middle East. He detained enemy combatants indefinitely at a military prison in Guantanamo Bay. He authorized the use of Predator Drones, resulting in the deaths of many civilians. That's right, I'm talking about... Barack H. Obama.
Nice try but no cigar. The "Bush Doctrine" was intimidate, harass, demean, degrade and destroy desenting opinions and people not anything about fighting terrorism. There was no intelligence, no planning, no discussion with Bush. It was strictly his way or the highway. That went for the Generals too. He is gone and we have a big mess to clean up and get out of with the least amount of future repercussions. Something Bush never considered.
Obama is bad. Bush was meh. Who else is next? I can't believe how all of a sudden the Democrats are so sympathetic to President Obama. If this was Bush we wouldn't hear the end of it.
Thank heavens not at all like Bush. This President actually thinks before he acts. A preemptive strike against a sovereign nation that poses no imminent danger to us would have been like Bush.
So Obama has a Bush Surge policy, except, he advertises our exit... although our exit is conditional and changes based on conditions on the ground. So if the exit strategy plan fails, we have an indefinite exit timeline... exactly like the Bush surges. If we meet the exit plan (which based on which Obama official you talk to varies so much, no one believes there really is an exit plan), resurgents will be quietly waiting in the wings, let our troops leave, and THEN reek havoc on Afghanistan. Lose-Lose situation for Obama.
Reading the Liberal criticisms here is laughable. Had McCain won, put out this EXACT plan, exact speech, etc, you all would be fuming right now. Why do you guys keep lying to yourselves? Hypocrisy is not flattering.
Let's not forget, she says things not because she believes it to be true. Doesn't matter. Republicans will twist, spin and twirl to get the uninformed marching to their song again. And there are alot of uniformed and easily swayed voting nits to be had.
“The [Bush] doctrine is no safe havens [for terrorists intent on harming the United States] and we go after those that provide a harbor [for such terrorists]. That’s the doctrine,” Republican strategist Mary Matalin explained Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.
That's funny that she calls that the "Bush Doctrine" when really Bush didn't follow this so-called doctrine... if I remember correctly, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban for the most part fled into Pakistan. And what did Bush do? Pretty much twiddled his thumbs and lobbed some bombs every so often from Predator drones into the area... if you're going to name some doctrine after someone, at least define the doctrine by what that person did. So the Bush Doctrine would be... start a war somewhere. Then get distracted by some other place you don't like and shift all of your focus on that other place, which has no relation to where you started the first war. Then pretty much ignore the first place where you originally started the first war, until it pretty much start going to hell in a handbasket... that my friends, is the actual "Bush Doctrine."
From 2002 to 2008, Bush left our troops in Afghanistan without a strategy and without leadership. Matalin is an IDIOT (but you already knew that).
Whaa? Obama's plan is “a reassertion of the Bush doctrine" but yet the Rwnuts still complain about it?
Matlin says “there are enough troops” in Afghanistan but yet the Generals are begging for more?
According to Matlin, the Bush Doctrine is the only one that works but yet after seven years of occupation we are no closer to an Afghan solution than the day we invaded.
He hit the nail on the head. I haven't noticed any difference. Maybe they were seperated at birth. Explains the Birth Certificate he won't show. He's a chip off the old block.
I think Obama's "New" plan for Afghanistan is definitely the right direction. It is an exact copy of the Bush plan to eliminate the threat in Iraq and establish a secure government that has allowed the US to draw down troops. This plan will work just like Bush's plan did in Iraq. I am please to see that Obama can operate in a bipartisian manner and accept the recommendation of his generals in spite of critisim that his policy is just like Bush's.
Actually it is nothing like Bush's Doctrine. Bush sent a miniscule amount of under equipped troops with zero ally support to babysit the Afghans. Obama by contrast has sent / is sending the troop numbers needed to kill all the Al Quaida Idiots we should have wasted 8 years ago. Yet one more Bush / GOP mess the Democrats are forced to clean up after!
I wouldn't compare that spineless chump to Bush. Bush might have not been right on all issues but he took a stand on issues and didn't waiver.
Matalin,
With your comments, you resemble Palin! And it's a compliment - just ask any repug!
Seriously – do any republicans live in the same reality as the rest of the world?
Bush Doctrine: Attack countries that deny us access to their oil reserves.
The strategy is the same as Bush, except President Bush would not have voiced a decision to leave on a certain date, win, lose or draw. This is a brand new way to fight a war. Announce the start and finish dates all in the same sentence. Unbelievable!
Democrats need to stop making Obama into flawless hero. It's become clear that he is no less of an establishment president as George W Bush as we would want to believe. Stop making excuses for him. The office of the President may have changed faces, but the function of government has not.
wow even people from the Bush state of TEXAS believe that president OBAMA by listening to the right people has decided to act on the recomindations from qualified people to go get the terrorists and have a end date . and now the generals have the ability to strick back .and become agressive . we are at war so act like it and go get the enemy. and take them out .. I am again impressed in reading todays blogs .. america is waking up and we are getting back to the way the world will see us as a nation after 9/11
WE JOIN TOGETHER AND ACT
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND THE PEOPLE YOUNG AND OLD THAT SUPPORT ALL OF US FIGHTING THIS WAR . WE THE PEOPLE SUPPORT EACH AND EVERYONE OF YOU. AND DON'T BELEIVE THE RADICAL IDIOTS ON ANY BLOG THAT DON'T SUPPORT YOU . WE THE PEOPLE WILL STAND WITH YOU .
I don't understand this couple at all. How can these two live in the same house together, much less the same bedroom. All I can think is that neither of them really believes in what they're saying. If they did, Carvell would reach across the table and strangle his lovely, bone-headed wife. Or she would pull his Spock-like ears off. The suggestion that Obama is anything remotely like George W. Bush is just stupendously ignorant of the facts.
On the contrary, Obama is reverting to a different Republican military doctrine, first enunciated during the Reagan administration:
"Matalin also said Sunday that, by announcing a date to begin to remove some American troops, Obama had sent a mixed message about the United States’ commitment in Afghanistan."
Have a goal, a plan, and a firm timetable: The Powell Doctrine (from General Powell's stint as Chairman of JCS under Reagan.) Worked well for both Reagan and Bush 41; can't see why Ms. Matalin is criticizing a policy of Ronald Reagan's that Bush 43 threw out the window, jeopardizing our national security by invading Iraq when, if anywhere, our troops should have been in Afghanistan. Bush 43 had no clear goal, no plan, and neither a timetable nor an exit strategy.
Bush was a true leader, Obama is not.
Obama does not have a viable plan for defending our country. He had all of the answers before he became President, but look at him now. I am so disappointed.
This woman's argument is flat out wrong. The Bush doctrine is all about pre-emption and nothing to do with how wars are fought. While this may be an affirmation of COIN or counter-insurgency as a means of fighting wars, this is most definitely not an affirmation of pre-emptive war. This lady is seemingly trying to defend George Bush and is using the fact that President Obama is signing off on the same operational strategy that Bush signed off on in Iraq circa 2007 as a means of such.
If Obama is truly like Bush, then the Republicans should give Obama their total, grovelling support to everything he puts before the House and the Senate.
Another Fool.
The buzz word "mixed message" about the Afghan war needs to end NOW. He is not sending a 'mixed message,' he is refusing to be ignorantly determined about a complex issue. The crappy media like CNN seems to love terms like 'mixed message' and 'flip flop' as if deliberating and reconsidering issues was a bad thing.
Why Matalin? Was that other dumb broad Sarah Palin not available?
dont trust osamaObama
Is she really wearing a piano necktie?
Good, then maybe that partisan hack and her husband can shut up now?
BUSH DOCTRINE! Well, I do not buy that, I see as either Powell doctrine or American policy in effect against foreign sabateurs AND TERRORIST! If, this was Bush doctrine for Afganistan, where was its implementation the last eight years! THIS IS JUST A REPUGLICAN TRYING TO TAKE CREDIT FOR PROBABLE SUCCESS OF THIS STARTEGY!
Jeez listen to all the sycophants HOWL
I think most people are reasonable enough to know that the timeline is to be hopeful we won't be needed longer with the goals set, but are informed enough to know that anything can happen to change the timeline.
I wish some of these Media strategist figure out how to cross the street not to mention executing a whole military strategist to go in battle and know how to disengage the enemy.
So does this mean Matalin is going to be the pundit who finally stands up and says that there is a small group of people pulling the strings in this world and that our elected officials are mere puppets and that party politics is a distraction to keep us from seeing what is REALLY going on?
Yes, W was/is an imbecile – he could not have won an election without cheating, but he was a needed pawn in the world game (Middle East) and Obama is the next piece of the puzzle. He is our link to the wealth in Africa, our next conquest. Mark my words.
We are all cattle and there is nothing we can do about it.
If it wasn't for Bush unleashing the unnecessary Iraq war, Afghanistan wouldn't be such the mess that it is now because there would've been more than enough troops to deploy there. Afghanistan should have always been the central fight on terror, but instead more troops were sent to Iraq than there.
bwahahahahahahahahaha
whatever.
seriously,
after getting military recommendations and then pondering them for a very long time. deciding in the end to reluctantly give them only something of what the military wanted ... that's like bush?
WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON?
She just doesn't get it. There should never have been an "Iraq war/surge" in the first place. Saying strategic and Bush Doctrine in the same sentence? The lives wasted, resources, reputation wasted. Because of an outright lie. If a surge is required , Thanks to the bush doctrine it is sadly, long overdue.
Comparing anyone to GW Bush is a really low blow. She should be ashamed. The Bush administration did as much damage to America as Mao's Cultural Revolution did to China. Eight years of failure. Eight years of cultural stagnation. Eight years of decline.
This was nothing like the Bush method. It involved consultation, deliberation, debate.... you know, like actual intelligent thought processes.
Its amazing when we are blessed with the best statesman the country has had in decades, and republicans seem intent on undermining the progress our country needs to make for the 21st century.
No! The Bush doctrine was to start never ending meaningless wars that the American people would be saddled with paying. All the while cutting taxes on the wealthiest while he tells the average citizen to spend/borrow themselves into bankruptcy. Bush was a schmuck! He is much better now that he is a harmless idiot that’s ashamed to show his face for "Breaking the World" That was the Bush doctrine!
It looks like we have our 3rd term after all.
During his campaign, Obama said he would be sending more troops to Afghanistan. Why is everyone on both sides so surprised when he did? The only new aspect is in the planning and, as others have stated here, the exit strategy.
And why is anyone surprised Matalin says something offensive and just plain stupid? She's an Ann Coulter wannabe. If she's a 'strategist' for the Republicans, part of her strategy must be to say stupid things to put all the non-Republicans off the scent of the trail.
No! The Bush doctrine was to start never ending meaningless wars that the American people would be saddled with paying. All the while cutting taxes on the wealthiest while he tells the average citizen to spend/borrow themselves into bankruptcy. Bush was a schmuck! He is much better now that he is a harmless idiot that’s ashamed to show his face for "Breaking the World" That was the Bush doctrine!
We all wish Obama was more like Bush. Bush was not the greatest president, but Obama is shaping up to be much WORSE.
Do you mean when I voted for Pepsi I should have been voting for Coke? Seems to me there is only one issue dividing Dem's & Rep's and it sure isn't fixing the economy for working Americans. Seems like this chess match is working out strictly for the super rich. And those that make money shilling for them.
Once again, the Republicans are continuing their NO NO NO, splatter theory rhetoric. Mary Matalin, you are no Lou Dobbs.
It is truly entertaining to watch the intellectual gymnastics of the libs who support the President. Uh, no way is Obama like Bush when it come to Afghanistan...uh, no way he is like Bush in running up deficits of immoral proportions....
After deciding on their nominee in 2012, the GOP's soundbite ought to be: "Could We Do Worse? YES WE CAN!"
LOL
If Bush would have finished the job in Afganistan, instead of running off to Iraq, Obama wouldn't have to send more troops.
Matalin lacks any credibility.
I would disagree that he is like Bush. I would like to think Pres. Obama is more calculated on approach to help Afgan poeple and take out the bad guys. Time will tell success. Keep on fighting the good fight Pres. Obama!
Yeah, actually we invaded Germany when Japan attacked, then fought japan. Which according to liberal thought, Germany never attacked us and should have never been attacked.
The idea that
'no safe havens [for terrorists intent on harming the United States] and we go after those that provide a harbor [for such terrorists]..'
is a "Bush" doctrine is lunacy. For the most part this has been the American doctrine since terrorists have been called terrorists. Also, we did not go in, topple the government that we put in, and enact "regime change" as part of the plan. Can we please stop allowing moronic Re-pubicans to have a platform for their "ideas" in the media?
Carvell can't you keep that women of your's in line, I think SHE should sleep on the couch tonight
Obama is not like Bush. He is not following the same game plan as Bush. Bush had a way in but Obama has a way in and a way out.
this is too funny. Obama is like Bush?!! Maybe Obama finally realized he is not able to keep all those "promises" he made. Maybe he realized that his predecessor was doing what was right all along.
Obama-fans. Where are your "yes we can" chants now? Obama is only a celebrity that just been praised for nothing. What is his accomplishment? Nothing. How has be improved our nation? I don't know either...oh wait, we get to pay back $700 billion, which no one knows where it went. I haven't seen any new jobs appearing, in fact, the unemployment rate is worse than ever.
Maybe I too can get a Nobel Peace Prize for writing this comment. No no, we should ALL get a Nobel Peace Prize.
Whats this woman talking about? She is a Bush supporter. Get her off the air and stop listening to her garbage. She's very confused. What! Has she turned from the GOPers and Bush! I don't think so.
I don't think so. Bush had no brain and distroyed the USA
Being so close to the Dick has warped her mind.
The "surge" was NOT the Bush strategy by any stretch of the imagination, it was the general's strategy – and for once Bush listened to his general. Does everyone forget Mr. Bush claiming that he would send as many troops as needed to fight in Iraq whenever the generals asked for them? The generals did ask for them, however, Rumsfield (who was appointed by Bush/Cheney) quashed all of those requests before they ever made it to his desk (I would be willing to bet). Therefore, there was no such thing as a "Bush Strategy" in fact, I beg all of you to read the book "Fiasco" about the early Iraq war. Then you will actually see that Bush had no strategy at all – he had tactics – but no strategy.
He is definitely friendlier to the terrorists. In that respect he is different. Unfortunately, he is continuing some of the unfriendly domestic policies (Wall Street bailouts, etc) and even making some worse (health care, domestic spending, etc).
The United States needs to get the heck out of Afghanistan as soon as possible and not look back.
We are not paying enough attention to our own homeland security.
No one listens to the people of this country. The majority want OUT OF AFGHANISTAN!
What do we have to do to get this point across?????
It's not surprising that GOP (demand) specific direction on an issue, then once done he criticized by the GOP as like bush. One would be a fool not to see through the foolish GOP – hay, but what about standing up for America GOP?
Then we can still say this is 'Bush's war' .....a war that he started but never finished, because he unintelligently got in the Iraq war. If he had kept focus on the Afghan war we would have eliminated most of the extremists
by now and might have captured Bin Laden. But instead trillions of dollars and thousands of lives have been lost in a war that should have never been in Iraq.
I have confidence in our intelligent President military THAT THIS NECESSARY WAR WILL PREVENT a terrible outcome for future generations. Read the revealing details of how the President came to his decision in the NY Times. Very interesting.
Bush didn't have the balls to declare an 18 month limit.
Well of course its the same plan, the same banks/corporations that Bush worked for are the same banks/corporations that obama works for. You think there is a difference between a Republican and a Democrat?
No... this move in Afghanistan resembles Obama.
Passing healthcare without a Public Option would resemble no new advancement past Bush policy.
Just wondering, are you liberals who are very vocal in not supporting this surge racists? Because you know that's what you called Republicans when we didn't support Obama. If not, then either you were wrong before, are wrong now, or are just hypocrites.
So any surge now automatically becomes a Bush doctrine?? Let me remind you what the Bush doctrine was.....
The Bush doctrine was "take troops out Afghanistan and give Osama a head start...so that we can surge in Iraq, where we never need to be in to begin with, but it does have oil and wealth....we got rid of Saddam who was not the reason we went there, but it worked out...so it makes it all ok"
NO this is a wrong assertion. The Bush Doctrine entailed lying to the American public after 9/11 to invade a country that wasn't a threat (IRAQ). Obama wants to go to Afghanistan to war against and defeat the enemy AKA the ones who took out NYC. Bush was just cleaning up for his dad and Reagan and pretending that terrorists were there. Saddam hated terrorists.
What an utterly stupid comment...
Absolutely NOTHING like Bush...
Always amused by the marriage of these two so politically opposed, and missed the show today but, from the pic, were they on TOGETHER? If so, great work by producers and John.
AAAnd...who wears the pants in that marriage? Dunno, but did note BOTH wearing a tie in the pic.
(Am a moderate Dem, and obviously agree with James more so than Mar)y, but if THEY can "get along" at their dinner table (and wherever else) (!!!) maybe we ALL need tone down our anger, if not the rhetoric that just seems to be getting parabolic, over political issues over the last few years!
Unfortunately I have to agree , I don't see a lot of difference between Obama's approach and Bush's. There's a troop surge into a very amorphous and poorly understood war zone , no mention of a draft, no mention of a war tax, just hammer the troops into the ground and give speaches about the countries sacrifice. Meanwhile , young people are still coming home in boxes and the generals are still running the show. The war machine storms ahead against all reason – what is different?????
Sad but true. To date Obama's Mid East policy has copied Bush's in almost every way. What a disappointment. We had hoped for a man with brains, and integerty. Oh well, he's still better than McCain, and the bimbo.
Exactly. Meet the old boss, same as the new boss. I voted for Obama, hoping for some change that would benefit the people and that he really was as liberal as the Republicans complained about. Instead, we have more war, corporate welfare for the health insurance companies, and bailouts for rich bankers who pay a lower tax rate that most in the middle class. Single Payer health care (Medicare for All) was off the table from the start. There has been no pressure on China to end their unfair trade practices. There has been no effort to create an environment suitable for the creation of good Middle Class jobs. Just more of the same nonsense.
Count me as one of those who do not approve of President Obama. I'm thinking of staying home for awhile. Its obvious that voting is meaningless if you're in the Middle Class.
It’s not a mixed message. The President is saying to Afghanistan, we’ll help you roust the bad guys because it’s in our best interest to do so, but you’ll need to step up at this specific time because we’re not going to me there for you forever. And he’s not ruling out other options for responding to threats to America should different action become necessary. This is an improved philosophy.
He did what he had to do. PERIOD! It was a war he didn't start, but somehow has to get out of.
Perhaps some GOPer will this – but then GOPers rarely question their leaders and dive into the reasoning behind what they say.
Yes, Obama wants to go after terrorists that have an imminent threat of attacking the US. Yes, those terrorists are in Afghanistan. The difference is that BUSH went to war in Iraq over oil – there was NO evidence of terrorists – esp in relation to 9/11 in Iraq. We did nothing but create a war that we could not leave in Iraq.
There will be some continuity from one president to another... there was between Bush no. 1 and Clinton also.
Obama's strategy now is not so much continuity but a correction to Bush/Cheney's neglect of Afghanistan. The major addition here holding the Afghan government responsible for results and giving them a deadline.
The essence of most Republican assertions right now is WE WERE RIGHT... whether right or wrong.
The Republicans offer excuses, self-justifications and spin... nothing from them of a responsible, mature and conservative nature... there's no stepping up and facing things that should have been done better.
Since Ms. Matlin is a staunch Republican, I am not sure whether she is complementing Obama as being like Bush or she is thrashing him for being like Bush. Mary, Mary, quite contrary, where your where your elephant goes?
The big news today isn't how much Obama is like Bush because he's not. Obama has now admitted that the Bush Surge worked after years of claiming there was no way of success. All you libs can split hair about how much different Obama is to Bush but the fact is, Obama is mimicking Bush and you Libs don't have the guts to go protest Obama the same you did Bush.
I've never known Mary Matalan to get it right yet. This is no exception.
Using Bush to defend Obama is not only insulting, it's one more whitewash of the worst President in the history of the United States. Comparing Obama's surge to the criminal invasion and subsequent mess Bush left us in Iraq and Afghanistan simply shows the lengths to which Republicans and their spin doctors will go to prove to the rest of the world evil and corruption still flourish within this party.
As if they didn't already know.
The difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama actually feels guilty about having to send more troops overseas. Bush would've cuddled up with a big bag of potato chips and turned on NASCAR. In both cases, Cheney, of course, continues to count the number of dollars per American casualty that his companies is making.
Ms. Matalin, thank you for the flattering compliment to the President of my country. It was very kind of you, and I shall enjoy it every day.
In fact, the more frequently Obama is compared to President George W. Bush, the more intense will be my pleasure in your beautiful gift.
I don't see how the surge of troops into Afghanistan is like the Bush "doctrine," since they basically dropped the fight in Afghanistan to go and attack Iraq.
This is just like GWB's strategy, except the part where the USA surrenders in 2011. That's the Obama add-on.
If President Obama is so much like Bush than why don't the Republicans like him? Get a life Mary... Unlike your President who got us into 2 wars (One a complete waste of time, lives, and money) our President has an exit strategy.
P.S. What ever happened to NOT questioning our President during times of war??? We should dixie chick all these Republicans who are insulting our President.
Maybe Ms. Matlin can now inform Sarah Palin what the Bush Doctorine is.
Comparing Obama to Bush is laughable. Bush pulled troops out of Afghanastan to fight a war in Iraq using trumped up information. Obama said from the beginning he would finish the job Bush should have. I believe Obama's strategy will get us Bin Laden.
The reality is the General asked for 140,000 troops and only got 30,000
YAWN. ZZZZzzzzzzzzz. SNORT!!!
These self-important, know everything, talking head journalists have gotten SO BORING!!!!
Who cares what they think about ANYTHING!!!!
They're journalists – THAT'S ALL!!! Nothing more!!!!
There are many problems with Ms. Matalin's statement...some of which have been noted above. I would add that if Bush hadn't taken his eye off the ball to go into Iraq, this escalation probably would not be necessary. And we will not be "getting out in 18 months." If conditions on the ground warrant, we will begin a gradual withdrawal in 18 months–starting in relatively safe areas.
The Bush strategy's central point was that as a nation we could take unilateral action against perceived terrorist havens. This is a bit different than increasing and refocusing troops in an ongoing conflict.
Comparisons to Iraq can be instructive if the huge differences in these conflicts are taken into account. One common theme is that troop increases alone will not spell the difference in either theatre.
Many would have reservations about any policy in this troubled region. We can all hope that our path forward works for us and the nations themselves.
Obama inherited the mess called Afghanistan. He is listening to the generals who have experience there. What is interesting is that this is the only thing the Republicans will find to commend him for. Interesting that they continue to be so pro-warand are anti everything else that he may be proposing. Yes, we should have gotten Ben Ladin in Afganistan starting in 2001. It is interesting that so many of the Republicans that speak up "war" were able to get out of service. Suddenly they and their ilk are praising the President, even if most is faint praise. He really doesn't have much choice regarding Afganistan. Shame on those Republicans how rattle the sabre. They don't study history and think that we need to win the war within a country that no one has ever been able to win. Foolish folk.
Obviously. Obama is Bush on steroids. Spending, Inflation, Bailing out Union and Wall Street Buddies, Warmongering, and a continuation of the Bush "legacy".
Can't believe the sheeple are upset that their Messiah is nothing but a politician and a dishonest one at that! Welcome to reality!
Obama promised and stated several times in his run for the presidency that he would send more troops to the region.
What is not happening as promised is the reurn from Iraq of those troops.
Mr Pesident- if you want people to trust you and believe in this "surge" then do what you said you would do- bring our troops home or at least begin to show us a drop in troop levels.
Well, since the Republicans liked GW so much they must now like Obama so much. So maybe they can shut their mouths and quit criticizing him so much. ALL Republicans are losers and morons, each one of them.
Party Purity will never bring Political Power! wrote:
"Little missy is so confused. First she states that President Obama's plan resembles the former chump-in-chief, and then states President Obama's exit plan complicates the matter.
What was the exit of plan of HRH King George the II?
Seems the shrub and the cons want to make this an endless war for his oil and big business buddies to continue to make a buck off the deaths of young Americans without end"
--
This doesn't make a lick of sense. All of the 3rd grade clever namecalling drowns out whatever point you were trying to make. Thank you, come again.
Jon, Not to burst your bubble but Korea was occupied by Japan during WWII. SO your analogy is completely incorrect.
Mary Matalin is a Cheneyite hack. End of story.
Obama, Bush, Republican, Democrat, they are all in to screw up this country. Only dumper out there believed and voted for them.
Fat chance, Mary. !!!!!! Bush and Obama are polar opposites. Bush rode into Iraq like John Wayne. Guns blazing without a thought as to what the mission would be or any sort of exit plan. Obama LISTENS to people, not just "yes men", weighs his options carefully before sending in troops. You go, Obama!!! Bush isn't fit to shine your shoes.
Mary, Mary quite contrary, We know why you keep this crap of yours going honey. It's your meal ticket!!! Don't even go there, Your Bushey Boy is the worst president this WORLD has ever seen, now go do something useful Mary and stir up something about all the money that administration stole and how the war was so very wrong on all fronts.
Give me a break. George Bush is dumber than I am. No one can be compared to Bush other than a homeless person and if he is a vet, he is smarter than Bush. Let's get some Americans like Obama running the country and let's get rid of the money hungry, greedy people like McConnell and Boehner who are only concerned about themselves. We need to protect our people and not have GOP people running around being greedy.
Yes! Obama is just like Bush...because they've both been commander in chief...
...and Luciano Pavarotti is just like Sid Vicious because they've both performed music in public...
...and Ben Affleck is just like Ben Franklin because they're both named Ben...
My point is that intelligent people recognize the differences between Obama and Bush.
Obama is an brilliant leader who cares about his country and actually practices Christianity, while Bush is just a selfish dolt who cares only for himself and merely pretends to be a Christian.
Some halfwit Bush fanatic is calling Obama supporters "lemmings?" Wow, speak of irony!
I really don't care what the republicans say anymore. They will say anything to get re-elected. When are we going to elect people that want whats best for America not Corporate America. Maybe we should change the name to The United American Corporation. Corporate America wants less government in their business but they demand half the revenues collected. Tax, rebates, abatement's, bail outs, less taxes, abandon environment clean up funds, pay people less, don't want to pay for benefits, government contracts without bidding, privatize more government programs it goes on and on. When corporate America stops demanding hand outs from the government then maybe I would allow less oversight.
Matalin is another brean-dead Republican. She is COMPLETELY out of the loop.
These morons don't realize the damage 8 years of "Bushonomics" did to this country...REAGAN WAS WRONG!
The Bush Doctrine was an illegal piece of crap and he, as well as those in his administration who had a hand in crafting it (ahem...CHENEY), should be tried for war crimes.
If McCain/Palin were to become a reality in the last general election, the ONLY job available would be to join the military. The rest of us would be on bread lines, eating roadkill to survive, and living in cardboard boxes.
GOP: Evolve or die.
Hello obama/biden,
Yhe president is not listening to you here. Go back to your dream world. Thank you.
actually Mary if you keep going down that road of stupid ,you might catch up to Palin .. and that would be stupid
But Bush is an idiot, inarticulate and inept. Therefore, President Obama is left attempting to clean up the Bush admin. mess. I wish our President was not left with a recession-depression, 2 wars and distrust from around the world. However, he was and I believe that in less than a year he has done the best that anyone could expect. I also wish that everyone would give him the time needed to fix eight years of chaos. Wishful thinking – I know.
Hello obama/biden,
The president is not listening to you here. He does not read these comments. This is not letters to Santa. Also, you cannot spell or use words correctly. Go back to your dream world. Thank you.
Wow! Didn’t think I would be able to agree with a Republican but stranger things have happened. Mat is right on some things but she forgot that Bush failed to have a clear strategy for leaving either Iraq or Afghanistan. He even declared mission accomplished ahead of the worse period of the war when most allied lives were lost.
Only a republican strategist would wear a piano key necktie. Their strategies haven't worked since movies like "Big" hit the box office.
L O L ...
Bush never once had a doctrine to do anything, except to shove his poor leadership up Americas butt ...
8 long years, starting with a stolen election, fraud, lies, murder of our young soldiers in a war that should never been started, sucking up to corporate America while our population suffered, starting with NO deficit and taking us to where we are now
L O L ... The Bush Doctrine ...
The Legacy of an IDIOT ...
I think this is just a ploy to get the uneducated group of Americans to place Obama in the same category as Bush to give their candidates a better time. Educated Americans, however, notice that Obama is actually making a priority to listen to the commanders, formulate a plan BEFORE acting and avoiding an inevitable mistake like Iraq was that cost us allies, and is making sure we don't stay there for eternity.
Besides, how can Obama know what the Bush Doctrine is when conservatives (probably even Bush himself) don't know what it is?
Ya, he deserves second term just like bush!
This is fairly humorous. I wonder if she really believes the stuff she's saying, or is it just for show?
Obama's aim is completely different than Bush's was in 2001. Obama is trying to stabilize a mess that W created after deciding to go after Saddam instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan.
Sounds to me as if Matlin is trying to blur the lines.
Yes, I've always felt that the fact that 80% of our manpower and logistics were tied up in Iraq, which never attacked us...While the leftovers were left to fend for themselves in the one country that DID attack us, Afghanistan, was criminal and unjustified, as well as downright stupid.
We missed bin Laden at the beginning because we were concentrating on Iraq.
I cannot for the life of me imagine HOW the American people haven't ever demanded accountability and reasons.
Is this lady serious?
The Bush Doctrine is the main reason why there are US troops in Afghanistan 8 years after the first ones arrived there, the reason why the Secretary of State have been working on the double to get back our support from our allies and the reason of why Iran saw its influence grow without any effective resistance from the USA!!!
What's that? An attempt to rewrite story that early so we can look back at the Bush (the son) Years with some respect?
Lame, very lame...
hello people...The things that obama has done that wouldn't differ from Bush begin to mount....increasing our troop presence overseas (now ~500K troops and contractors in Iraq/Afghanistan) and well on our way to doubling the debt (2009 beat Bush's record deficit by ~300%). Heck, the obama administration just expanded the drone attacks in pakistan this weekend. In 4 years do y'all really think obama won't double the debt and there won't be 700K troops in 70% of the world's countries. Obama and Bush are about as different as a pair and apple if you ask me.
Get real Mary – President Obama is a far cry from George W....Thank God!!
Wrong My Dear. The Bush doctrine is to invade countries willy nilly.
Good ole Mary....she's still stepping to the tunes of Rush and Rove.
She is exactly right. The Dems bashed Bush for 8 years and now they have to face to the unpleasant fact that Obama is doing what Bush had to do.
This is Obama's war now.
Listening to a repug is getting harder and harder.....they will never ever get a vote from me.....I refuse to be stuck on stupid.....these so called bright minds are being reduced to nothing......maybe that the way its always been.....we didn't notice because of all the smoke.
This is not a Bush Jr. plan. Bush Jr actually stayed until the battle was won. There is no way Obama will stand up to the complainers until we win if Afghanistan.
If his statergy is so much like G.W. Bush then what is all the fuss thats coming from the Republicans about. that show they have a problem with the man not so much his policies as far as foreign affairs. Come on Republicans can you give the man even a little credit enough with the criticism.
Obama is also the same as Bush on lack of transparency and the use of executive privilege to stonewall.....we didn't get the change we voted for...
Obama is ONE and DONE. Start the chant.
Unlike Bush, Obama has the support of other nations and they
are considering adding additional troops. Unlike Bush, Obama
isn't saying "Mission Accomplished". Unlike Bush, Obama
isn't saying "Bring it On". If Obama is so much like Bush,
then why are all the Republicans not supporting him?
Setting a date for withdrawal is showing that we will not have an open ended war that is going to last for 20 years; if it is going to take more than three more years to get Afghanistan under control then it is not worth it.
This is the Bush plan. Nothing has changed at all and for good reason, It works. Just cause you tag it with a "exit plan" doesn't make it different. When the exit time comes along and the job isn't done it will be extended. George learned a lesson from his dads presidency with the NO NEW TAXES statement just to have the democrats undermine him into raising taxes. You don't say something and then if things don't work out change your mind. The job has to get done period. It's important for all of our futures. We can't start something and then run if were not done completely.
Two peas in a pod. Wage war, save the banks, save wall street, save the insurance companies. SOL and Goodnight America.
The 'war on terror' will end when the militants stop strapping bombs on their children, or we start strapping them on ours. Until then nothing will change.
Hmmmm .... lets see -- Bush was dumb as a doorknob and Obama is miles and miles smarter than Bush. Yup, Matilin they are definitely alike. Wishes do not make it so.
So matlin thinks this is a unilateral war based on lies in order to gain some unknown and hidden objective, but an objective that somehow intertwines corporate proiftis and oil revenue?
If bush had been a tad more like President Obama this Afgahn war would have been over in 2002, and UBL would be rotting in hell. And we never would have started the illegal war in Iraq.
However, because bush did not behave in the manner of a responsible, or even sane and mediocre, leader, he left a complete mess in our foreign policy. This one aspect requires that the US do what it should have done almost 8 years ago and finish the job against the criminals who attacked our nation in 2001.
Comparing President Obama to bush is as misguided as when bush used to compare himself to Winston Churchill. The fact that the both had feet and eyes, and had alcohol problems. was about as far as one can go.
Yes, you are correct. Announcing a planned pullout date does send a mixed message.
That is of course what the President intended to do- the message from the US government to the Afghan government is a mixture of "we will support you," and "but you must step up, stop the corruption, and serve and protect your own people, because we cannot and will not do your work and pay your bills forever."
Does the GOP have a different position on the second half of that message? By all means, please, share it with the voters.
And BTW- the Bush Doctrine said "we reserve the right to attack anyone whom we decide might someday maybe possibly try to do something to harm us." That's quite a bit different from "we will use military power against those who actually did harm us."
over the Afghan war? Let's start seeing those numbers every day and make sure Obama gets the proper credit.
the Bush Doctrine, Charlie, is preventive attack to prevent the possibility of a regime obtaining WMDS. It was born of paranoia, nurtured by fear and raised to be a wholly incompetent, amoral and useless foreign policy.
If "Concern Troll" MM thinks Obama's policy is the same, then she's as idiotic as she is partisan.
Obama is clearly following the Bush Doctrine. You squirrely leftists can tie yourselves in knots all you wish, but Obama is in fact following the Bush Doctrine to the letter.
IF GW Bush has done his job well, he wouldn't have wasted military resources in a useless Iraq war, and would have focused on solving Afghanistan.
Democrats are in favor of a war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan from the beginning.
Comparing Obama to Bush is as stupid as comparing Bush to Hitler. After all, Hitler was elected.
I'm not buying it! It's hard to believe that Mary Matalin, the GOP strategist quoted here, and James Carville (Democratic strategist) are married because they are at such opposite ends of the political ideology spectrum. (I guess it's true: "Opposites Attract". ) Despite the fact that I disagree with Ms. Matalin over just about everytime she speaks, there is something endearing about her. That said, she's simply doing her job as a Republican strategist to try to lay the groundwork to say the GOP and Dems are the same in hopes of making significant gains by the GOP during the upcoming mid-term elections. President Obama took his time to study the options available and went with what determined to be the best option. Policy decisions–both proactive and reactive–will change as related to Afghanistan as are necessary. We, the American people, must unify, respect and support our President as he he is focused on doing what is right for the whole country, for all Americans–not just Democrats. Where would be as country if the destructive messengers of divisiveness had prevailed during previous times that the U.S. was at war? Thank you, Mr. President, for not simply pursuing popularity and doing the right things!
Oh come on now Mary, George Bush had integrity and honesty, this president is a lying, hypocriticall gangster.
Hey Mary, Paul Shaffer called, he wants his outfit back. thanks.
There is one major difference between the Obama surge and the Bush surge: Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were and are in Afghanistan. They were never in Iraq. Afghanistan is the actual theatre of operations against the true enemies of America.
How many of you are familiar with the term, "path dependence?" If Bush hadn't created the horrible situations we are now in, Obama wouldn't have such poor options facing him, particularly in Afghanistan.
If Bush's agenda had been successful, there would be no call for Obama to do this in the first place. It is precisely because Bush has failed that Obama is in this mess...
I like Matlin because she's good at spin. This spin though is so bad. It's grabbing at straws to try to justify the failed presidency of one of her modern heroes. I completely disagree with this crap about an exit date. Matlin and other ugly Republicans know that it doesn't matter to a bunch of terrorists if you announce a date or not. What are they going to do – go into hiding for 18 months. How stupid. And of course Obama is going to reassess things and continue if needed. However, he is the only adult in the room (something GW never could be, and Dick Cheney is an adult, but an angry misguided one – more like a wife beater – SNL reference here.) Ugh. So Silly Sara.
This is hilarious. Liberals are realizing that Obama = Bush III, and they can't stand it!
theres plenty of differences between Obama and Bush who started the war on a false pretenx claiming weapons of mas destruction and poorly mismanages the war
Matalin forgot one big difference–if our troops are once again within hours of capturing Osama bin Laden, the Obama administration won't pull back, then lose focus by attacking an irrelevant country.
Mary Matalin is in no position to offer any comments or advice. One only has to wonder what kind of advice she used to give to George Bush that America was in such a mess when Obama took over. God save us Ms. Matalin. Her husband, James Carville, is a lot wiser and smarter than his wife.
So, Ms. Matalin, here is a piece of advice for you. Keep your advice to yourself. America had enough of your kind of advice. All of ou, including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove, should take a leave of absence, and leave the country in the wiser hands of obama and his administration. He can only do better.
Moreover, the only Bush Doctrine concerning conflicts has to do with preemptive strikes. Obama is merely using the best ideas to clean up the mess that Bush made.
Bush held and Obama is holding the office of president. All similarity between the two ends there.
All he needs to do now is start touting making all Mexicans U.S. citizens and we won't know the difference between them at all.
Obama should be honored that he's being compared to President Bush. Everything Bush did was to protect Americans from terrorists. Obama tried to be the anti-Bush candidate and now that he's President, he realizes he has to follow in Bush's footsteps in order to be a responsible leader. He criticized Bush for allowing torture, yet he is allowing outright assassinations by Predator every day in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And now, Obama is starting The Surge Part II.
There is not a penny's difference between Bush and Obozo.. Obozo is all smoke and mirrors 2012 can not get here soon enough to send this guy back to Chicago, with the rest of his thug administration..
But as long as there is jet fuel in AF-1 this jerk will continue to amuse himself...He is off on another vacation Thursday..
The "Bush Doctrine"? Are you kidding me? There's no doctrine. He allowed Rumsfeld and others to convince him and everybody that a) Iraq could be invaded successfully with a tiny force and that b) stealing troops from Afghanistan whole-sale wouldn't impact the mission there.
All the "surge" did in Iraq was to FINALLY add BARELY enough troops to Iraq to allow for bare-minimum safety and coverage for our allies and friendly citizens. The "surge" was not a brilliant piece of strategy. It was simply adding troops that should have been there in the first place. It doesn't take a genius to come up with some sort of master doctrine to realize the basic math of a "safe" invasion. More troops = more presence on the ground = more safety.
Bush never had a doctrine. He had a teleprompter and horrendously unqualified crooks giving him bad advice at best and the wholesale negligence of our troops at worst.
When or if Obamas plan fails, Bush will still get the the blame even though it's Obamas war now.
Obama like Bush.
Does not compute.
that is Partisan spin if I ever heard it. the Bush Doctrine claims America has the right to pre-emptive attack; to characterize an existing military operation as pre-emption is absurd by definition. This is more of a correction of Bush's war policy, because it more adequately resources the mission already there. calling that a "surge" could only possibly make sense to an underachiever.
I think it's funny that all the negative commenters on this article seem a bit fuzzy over what the "Bush Doctrine" is. I seem to remember a certain 'news' woman asked Sarah Palin about it out of context. Because she didn't have a good answer she's the dumbest person in the country and yet all of you are obviously not remembering it correctly either.
If you've misstated the "Bush Doctrine" in your comment you have a new title. Dumber than Sarah Palin. That doesn't mean anything to me, but I bet it does to you.
I though Matalin was smart until now. It's not the external that drives things, it's the internal ... the thought processes, that drives things, and that is a miles apart between the two. Bush fights with guts, Obama fights with intelligence ... miles apart ... there's no comparison.
Who cares? It's stuff like this that makes me happy I cancelled my voter registration
Like Bush? How, Bush ignored Afganistan for 5 years while we invaded Iraq.
Can't compare at all, Obama and all of his sheep are trying to destroy the USA – just read most of the comments on this anti-USA comment page.
To the contrary, Obama's approach to military strategy does not resemble Geo. W. Bush at all. Bush liked to shoot from the hip, Conservative style. It only takes a Conservative a second or two to decide the fate of the nation. Bush only agreed to the surge after years of bumbling, fumbling, stumbling, top-gun blundering before he finally sat down with his generals and listened to them.
Obama, I have read, was chairman of ten strategy sessions in which he listened to all points of view, appointed people to play Devil's Desciple, and considered all arguments carefully before deciding on an approach. This president is proceeding reasonably. I trust his team's judgement so far. Let's let him do the job as he thinks best.
Let us also remember that no war goes as planned. War is a dynamic thing. WWII certainly didn't go as Hitler planned, nor as Stalin planned, nor as Churchill planned. The war you start is seldom the war you finish.
Wrong Matalin. The Afghan surge resemble Obama as an Indian chief attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan. George Bush retired about a year ago.
There is no question that Obama is exactly following Bush's doctrines. He thought he could do something completely different from Bush's strategies, because he was elected simply by not being Bush. Having dithering for so long and wasted 3-4 months to hold a dozen of meetings with his civil and military advisors, he still ends up to follow Bush's doctrines. Hahahaha, how intelligent he and the ultra liberals have claimed he is, but he is clearly not. Remember, Kerry claimed that Bush was dumb in 2004, but Kerry was much more stupid at Yale than Demacrupts said Bush was!
Well... if Bush had of 'surged' Afghanistan 8 years ago, instead of securing the oil wells in Iraq, maybe we would be looking at a Walmart opening in Kandahar this xmas, instead of a new morgue...