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
No, Ms. Matlin.
President Obama is trying to clean up the mess President Bush left behind when he let Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora almost nine years ago. But Bin Laden and al Qaeda aren't in Afghanistan anymore, so Obama's trying to extract us as best he can.
I thought you were a more intelligent conservative than to argue for perpetual war.
Mary, Yeah, the Bush strategy and tactics really worked great. That's why Afghanistan and Iraq are in the state they're in, why we failed to catch Osama Bin Laden, why we are broke......with no end in sight.
Of course, they will act the same. Their control is from the same source...the financiers who own the Federal Reserve and want america to continue to wage and pay for the war and allow the financiers to make more money, from no real investment.
Palin/Matalin 2012!!!
LOL!!!
They may be similar in that particular action other than that it's possibly the same puppeteer is pulling the strings.
This comment is obviously a no brainer since the fundamental job of any commander in chief is to protect the country. So for Obama and Bush or whoever this has to be job #1. Of course Bush screwed it up because he was, and still is, basically lazy and asleep art the switch. This is why he left everything to Chaney and Rumsfeldt. If you don't believe this then compare the amount of time he spent on holiday while Obama has been flat out since he took office. Which is why Obama will win out in the end.....
It's called Hard Work..
You still have to protect the country though which is why 9/11 happened on Bush's watch.
Matalin is full of it! This is NOT the Bush Doctrine. This is the Powell Doctrine...It is show of force with a WELL THOUGHT OUT objective and a strategy for GETTING OUT. That is why Powell was pushed out of the scene by Republicans because he didn't believe in shoot first ask questions later. Nice try Matalin, but you are transparent. Bush messed up and there is no getting around it. The Bush Doctrine would be if in the middle of this uptick in Afghanistan Pres. Obama decided to start a totally unrelated and unsubstantiated war with Iran or some other country and drain all the resources from the one that matters.
Governing is a lot different than campaigning....Obama and the rest of the Liberals are starting to find that out.
No, the Bush Doctrine is preemptive war, i.e. attacking countries that don't attack us first (or, in the case of Iraq, even provoke us). It has nothing whatsoever to do with "the surge," which occurred five years into a six-year war.
Republicans seem like they're surprised. Obama campaigned on stepping up the effort in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I guess they weren't listening.
Nice strategy Matalin... try to compare Obama to Bush, hoping voters will return to the party that spawned Bush, and supported Bush for 8 years, claiming anyone who disagreed with Bush for that 8 years was an unamerican, unpatriotic, bleeding heart liberal. The people aren't stupid Matalin, you are. The difference between Bush and Obama, Bush bailed on Afghanistan to invade Iraq... Bush never tried. The bush doctorine isn't being used by Obama to invade more countries... Obama is remaining in Afghanistan to clean up Bush's failure, if it can even be cleaned up.
We realized that the 'War on Poverty' was a metaphor, no troops were sent, so surge was made.
We realized that the 'War on Drugs' was a metaphor, no troops were sent, so surge was made.
We do not realize that the 'War on Terror' is also simply a metaphor, we send troops, we surge–we drone against our fears.
We realized that the 'War on Poverty' was a metaphor, no troops were sent, no surge was made.
We realized that the 'War on Drugs' was a metaphor, no troops were sent, no surge was made.
We do not realize that the 'War on Terror' is also simply a metaphor, we send troops, we surge–we drone against our fears.
Civilians are killed.
Terrorists are collateral damage.
This coming from a women wearing a piano key tie and a suit that appears to me some sort of mettalic "Gotti" type? The only thing that resembles bush went down my commode this morning.
Whine, whine, moan and complain. You people make me sick. You complain that Obama can't do this or that right. You're so blinded by your hatred that you've lost touch with reality. This is a perfect example of why we are having problems in this country. No President is perfect, but we have to be the "United" States in order to survive.
Bush's third term-you're living it.
Someday American workers will wise up and realize that lesser 'evilism'-i.e., voting for Democrats-is a political dead end. After all, why should working people vote for representatives of the state capitalist ruling class? Because they're liberal? Pffft! The liberal bourgeoisie, like the conservative bourgeoisie, couldn't care less about working people. It's time for a mass based workers party!
I thought the Bush Doctrine was 'If ya ain't fer us, yer agin us. If yer fer us, you do what yer told and keep yer trap shut. If yer agin us, we will kill you (and your women and children, too)"
I thought the Bush Doctrine was that we didn't need to wait to be attacked to attack, ala Iraq. As for Afghanistan, I believe the actual Bush doctrine was to pretend it wasn't even there and to outsource the war to the CIA and local tribes. In regards to the Surge, that was NOT the Bush doctrine, that was the Petreaus doctrine, which Bush reluctantly accepted against all advice from Rumsfield. Matalin, just like all good GOPers these days, it seems that hind sight is 40-20, not just 20-20.
uh, the bush doctrine was to shoot first and ask questions later, think obama is asking questions first like a real president should.
ps dont forget to get your copy of "Going Rouge, How the GOP Put Lipstick on a Pig".
if that was the bush doctrine, then why didn't bush send extra troops? he had plenty of chances, and as we recently heard, if he would have done it, bin laden might not be around anymore.
if anything the bush doctrine is just to make sure bush's friends get more money and power.
No way can you compare the President with Bush........the GOP are just plain out of touch with this Country, with the people of America and with the World.........
I'd say that Shrub never had enough of a fungus in his skull cavity to formulate what could be called a "doctrine". On the other hand, Obama is as dumb as a box of rocks and wins a Nobel Peace Prize for doing as Shrub did, and merely is sending in more troops. No difference in either idiot. This country is on a failing path until the likes of another FDR or Harry S. Truman enters the realm of president again, and there simply is not a man from that mold left on the planet!
Mary Matalin is incorrect. Obama is not reasserting a failed Bush doctrine. He is merely trying to correct the mistakes made by the Bush administration. Maybe her husband needs to explain the difference to her.
I call on Mary Matalin once and for all to get a LIFE. The only person that resembles George w Bush is Dick The Prick Cheney. President Obama was always for the war in Afganistan.
There are two differences. One is that the Afghans now have a timetable. The Afghans must shape up and provide for their own security because the U.S will not stay indedfinitely. Obama's doctrine is not Bush's doctrine of stayjng forever and placing the United States in the position of being the policeman of the world. Two, I also don't believe the intent of Obama's policy is the same as Bush's of providing war profits for political cronies such as Halliburtin and Blackwater.
Obama is cleaning up Bush's mess.
Absolutely agree!!! Now that Obama has access to the Intel, isn't it amazing just how Bush-like he has become!!! Um what about Gitmo people?? Closing next month right???? The only difference is that CNN and all the rest of the Lame Stream media will give Obama a pass and blame Bush for Obama's "strategic" decisions! It's PREDICTABLE!!! Come on Bush Haters – bring it on!!!
The Bush Doctrine =
To be incompetently prepared in the planning, deployment and operations of Intelligence, Military and Civil Services.
I belive that Bush Doctrine FAILED, due to the fact that Geroge Walker Bush and Dick Cheney drop the ball by proclaiming that Iraq had WMD and must be taken out. While leaving Afgan hanging. If George Walker Bush had keep eye on the ball instead of making up false information to go to war in Iraq then MAYBE we would've been done with Afgan by now. Instead we are not, due to the fact that our FORCES are split between 2 wars that George Walk Bush put us in. And the GOP failure to acknowledge the fact and are in denail.
Let's get this straight: President Obama is no Bush. He is cleaning up after that mess of a presidency and has had to make decisions that were against his original wishes because of that sad fact. We should stop attacking him for decisions that are a result of the Bush's failures.
**result of Bush's failures
Also the idiots that are giving away Nobel Peace Prizes for sending in more troops to enhance war efforts better find out what giving away such prizes implies! Something simply don't smell right in Denmark when "Peace Prizes" are handed out to recipients to FIGHT more wars!
I think that we better ask Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh about this. LOL
Ms. Mat, You, Jr, and Cheney did noting in 8 yrs! For your talking is say's to me you like the money at CNN!
What? So let me get this straight – the "Bush doctrine" prioritized Iraq under false pretenses instead of going after the real terrorists and created a huge safe haven and "breeding ground" for more terrorists in a previously more secular Iraq ? Actually, I think Obama's Afghan troop buildup is entirely practical – he's in a tough spot due to the terrible policies of the last administration and is finally putting our forces closer to where they need to be, not manufacturing evidence and making something out of nothing as Bush did with Iraq. Someday, hopefully soon, the lies of Bush and Cheney will be fully exposed and get them jailed for life, maybe for a permanent stay in sunny Guantanamo Bay...
President Bush had no policy for Afghanistan, that was obvious from 8 years of nothing happening,except for the taliban getting stronger, al queda getting stronger, bin laden no where to be found, oh yeah and do not forget the narcocracy government.
the far right has come up with all kinds of insults for President Obama from calling him everything from a sociolist to a communist, BUT to compare him to President Bush has to be the ULTIMATE insult.
Actually Bush put the surge in the wrong country...
Well, Mary, he's kind of stuck here, isn't he? Make no mistake, this is Bush's war, Bush's legacy, and Obama should not be sending more troops to an unwinnable war. We have killed enough people, suffered too many losses, and spent too much money already, but the Republicans would be after him with their precious artillery if he had decided to pull out. So he's stuck, and the rest of us are stuck with the dead and wounded and the drain on our fragile economy for decades to come. Thank you, President Bush, for your rush to war.
Isbn't it funny thay Obama loves blaming anything that is wrong on Bush, but when he actually (almost) continues his types of actions, like the surge, there is no mention.
Of course it took Obama 3 months to decide that a surge like Bush's was the best idea.
I say you make the Afghanistan front a priority, get specific objectives accomplished, then get the hell out! If Obama isn't lying to us about those objectives, 18 months should be enough time to do those things.
It seems like this administration's dates are never firm, but that's OK as long as they get things moving. If this all goes as planned, great. If not, it's Obama's Vietnam and he'll go the way of LBJ.
Either this woman is one of the biggest hypocrites that are in the world or she's delusional. The Bush Doctrine failed miserably and had to be switched for a better and more elaborated militar strategy which produced the surge, so if the President is using a surge-like strategy for Afghanistan HE IS DEFENITELY NOT USING THE BUSH DOCTRINE!!!
Ms. Matalin is somewhat correct, but the difference between the two President's is that Obama actually has a plan whereas Bush took his eye off the ball and had no exit strategy for either war. The Bush administration had their eyes on taking over the Middle East. In Bush's state of the union address where he listed the "axis of evil," he pre-emptively was telling the country that these are the countries we are going to war with.
President Obama is doing what Bush was incapable of doing which is to finish what was started by Bush. If Bush had not gone into Iraq this war would be either over or near the end.
Bush had 8 yrs to take care of this issue. President Obama has had 1 yr. Give him a break.
All of our current problems happen on Bush and Republican watch. Instead of President Obama getting to do his thing he has to first clean up Bush's messes.
People do not reward the GOP in 2010/2012 because things are not going as fast as we want. Remember Bush/Republicans got us into the messes and now the Republicans want to keep us in these messes so they hope you will vote them back in. Don't fall for it.
Mary Matalin is an idiot; Bush screwed up the entire mid east war strategy from start to finish; aided and abtted but the uber incompetent Rumsfeld and Cheney.
The surge was a last minute Hail Mary forced on him by his generals and Secretary Gates.
Bush is a serial failure without a single success in his long, drunken, sordid, misbegotten career. Long propped up by his family; he failed his way into the oval office where not even Poppy could save him. A disgraceful man and a decade that will live in infamy
I don't think that is the case really. Bush just did what his handlers told him to do with Iraq because of the mistaken assumptions. Afghanistan was so neglected. Sec. Gates even said so on Meet the Press that there were unfilled requests for more troops from the generals in the Afghanistan theater of operations. It was that there were too many in Iraq that couldn't be spared.
The only difference with the war now vs GWBush admin is the reversal of each party – GOP is now against and DEms are for it. Obama has no authority when he talks afghanistan or Iraq. Harry Reid has even less, Schumer, Pelosi, and Durbin are the lowest of the low. Dems are going to take a drubbing in 2010 because of these phonies. A divided govt is best for the American People. Vote these clowns out in 2010. Send Obama and the socialists a message.
I disagree with Matalin.
Bush was a much better man, with far more dignity and respect for our troops.
Not like Bush at all.
No matter what happens, Obama will begin pulling out of Afghanistan in summer 2011. The ONLY reason for that is to allow Obama to tell the voters during the next campaign that the troops are coming home.
I've never seen a president use human lives in such a blatant political manner for electoral purposes only.
For the first time in my life, I am ashamed of an American president.
I don't know... I just have a hard time taking seriously the political commentary of a person wearing a piano tie...
The Bush doctrine said, "Let's pretend we're interested in Afghanistan while we pursue a different war in Iraq." Had Bush employed all available resources to the task at hand, instead of diverting to Iraq, we might have captured or killed bin Laden several years ago.
HARDLY!!! Obama at least took the time to think this strategy through and made decisions with our troops in mind, where George Bush (aka Cheney) used our men and women of the armed services with disregard for their well being.
Carville and Matalin are opportunists who have more than milked their socalled relevance and are "creatures" of the past. Carville is tied to the Clintons and Matalin, with all of her sarcasm, to Bush/Cheney.
If Bush would have used the time, sought out opposing views and actually LISTENED to advisors and allies, their wouldn't have been an invasion into Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't be in the mess it is in.
"Bush doctrine?" As if he's the one that came up with some fine piece of written work. Bush couldn't even spell doctrine.
Matalin is wrong. Bush (1) invaded the wrong country, (2) used a "shoot-from-the-hip, top-gun, cowboy" strategy in both wars for years, (3) wasted American lives in the process, and (4) only after years of fumbling, stumbling, bumbling strategy did he finally listen to his generals and approve the surge – not in Afghanistan but in the country that he invaded by mistake.
Obama is taking his time, listening to all sides and points of view, and implementing the strategy that seems most likely to work. Bush, like all Conservatives, only needs a second or two to make a decision – no deliberation, no exploration of other approaches, no devil's advocate to argue a contrary point of view.
The two are not at all alike, to Obama's credit.
America's Conservative leaders are not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer.
I am so sick of people like Matalin telling people that Obama is sending mixed messages. Nomatter what decision he makes – he is not going to make someone happy. And there will be someone out there taking advantage of whatever decision is made. I also COMPLETELY disagree that Obama's speech was "discordant". While he brought up the Bush's lack of strategy in his speech, his tone was that of someone who felt that we are DONE with this war. He was trying to convey, essentially, that we will not be in this war forever. That we need to get in, do our thing, and get out. Republican's like Matalin think we should apparantly be there for the rest of history...the president, however, is listening to the American people who are sick and tired of this war. DONT COMPARE OBAMA TO BUSH – there is no comparison. Bush is a criminal.
That would only be true if he decides more tax cuts for the rich.
the difference between Obama and bush is that he did not start this
war and he needs to finish it with out any feed back that will affect us
all that is the crap the was left to him buy the so called republicans that
change there platform from moral values to fiscally responsible what
a joke
The one main thing about Obama's plan that differs with the Bush doctrine is that our focus now is not on 'Nation Building.' In other words, a nation the United States can exploit. Obama also does have an exit plan, something that the Republicans are opposed to, despite the lessons they should have learned from Vietnam.
It is starting to feel like we have another Bush in the White House.......
The only difference between Bush & Obama is the party they represent. Both are extremists and both do damage to our country. Time for someone to get elected President who cares first about the people of our nation and not themselves.
It's not a reassertion of the bush doctrine at all. The bush doctrine is concerned with preemptive strikes to stop attack on America. The United States was already in this war when Obama took office. He's playing cleanup.
The criticism of the Bush Doctrine came from candidate Obama, a guy who didn't have the experience of running a Dairy Queen. My, hasn't his viewpoint changed since he now has the reins! Yes, Bush wasn't as glib as the "messiah" but he ACTED correctlly. Matlin is spot on. The best thing that President Teleprompter can do is stay with the Bush Doctrine until his sad term of office is over.
Good Speech Mary. He bashes Bush and then repeats him anyway. So, maybe Bush wasn't so bad after all, Obie!!1
Does this mean Limbaugh and Palin will start calling Bush a socialist?
Good Morning! Please stop. Bush sent troops into the wrong country for his and his friends financial benefit. Oil, oil, oil, interspersed with the IMAGINARY weapons of mass destruction. I don't appreciate the comparison between an intelligent President and the shrub. But that's just me!!:)
Just like Bush except that Bush attacked a sovereign country (Iraq) for no reason and without a plan for occupation, Bush let the generals decide policy, Bush ignored the threat in Afghanistan (and the economy, and infrastructure, and everything else), Bush believed in shoot-first-ask-questions-later hands off management with no thought other than what the next slogan should be, Bush allowed the mismanagement of the war in Iraq to go on far, far too long, Bush denied the requests for more troops in Afghanistan and lied about it, just for a start. The threat is and always has been from Afghanistan based terrorists, with a very unstable nuclear-weapon-enabled Pakistan next door, which Bush ignored in favor of an unnecessary excursion into a country which in fact did not pose a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States but instead held vast amounts of oil, other than all that Obama is just like Bush. I think most reasonable people realize the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq, even if Disk Cheneys she-puppet doesn't.
If that's the case, why is the right screeching like little children at every move Obama makes?
It must be like viewing yourself in the looking glass. You don't like what you see in yourselves?
Allow me to add, on a more objective note: how can you re-assert something that you never implemented? The Bush Doctrine TALKS about 'no safe haven for terrorists intent on harming the USA'. At what point, and in what country did Bush implement that? Not in Iraq. And what are these rumors I keep hearing about his family assisting the Bin Laden family to leave the USA? I'm hoping that the latter are nothing more than "left-fringe" allegations. So, no, there's no comparison bewteen someone that talked the talk, and one who is actually implementing the walk.
Like the Bush Doctrine, Matalin's outfit's message is "everything old is new again." Just look at what she is wearing. Was it New Wave Theme Night? Is she going clubbing with Laurie Anderson and Grace Jones after the interview?
Nice try, Matalin, but your effort to drive Obama's base away from him with this comparison won't work.
Far too many Americans recognize that the problems created in the region by the recklessness and failures of Bush and Cheney will not be easily solved.
Polls already show that a majority of Americans support his new strategy for Afghanistan, and that support will continue so long as measurable progress is being made toward creating the conditions that will allow Obama to begin withdrawing troops by July 2011 and so long as he reevaluates his decision to launch increasing numbers of unmanned aerial predator drone strikes into Pakistan, which is a means to an end that is immoral and unacceptable.
The bottom line, Matalin, is that Obama knows what the Republican spin machine has long since forgotten:
Good policy is good politics.
Sorry Mary, you have it wrong. The democrats bashed Bush for mainly going into Iraq, which we now know was a huge mistake. There never was any criicism of Bush going into Afgan. We are critical of the wmd theory and nation building strategy of Bush. Yes, some democrats were critical of the surge, but we realized that one of the reasons it worked was the enormous amount of money used to buy off terrorists allies. It's amazing that a republican finally agreed with one of Obama's policies, oh, but there is always a BUT in there.
Hmmm, this seems more like the "How did we get into this mess" doctrine to me. When Obama lets his VP attack some random country in order to get more votes, I'll agree he's acting like Bush.
Republicans are jumping all over the "out by 2011" claim. It's a goal, not a set-in-stone deadline. And we're going to be there a lot longer than that anyway...
"[Democrats have] bashed Bush strategy and tactics for so long and now they have to embrace them because they’re the only ones that do work.”
Yup, like going to war under false pretenses with no regard to local conditions or exit strategy. And aren't we now using a lot more drone strikes, protecting civilians in population hubs and rebuilding infrastructure versus increasing Taliban body counts. Sounds like a different strategy to me.
there is no "change". It's still war.... there are still body bags every day....
and let's be sure that Obama gets credit every day for this as he has now adopted the war as his own.
Okay does that mean you hate him less or are you trying to get me to love him less........ I'd say there is a slim chance (or is it a fat chance) that either will happen.
And what country has Obama invaded unneccessarily? It is one thing to start wars. It is another thing entirely to end inherited wars responsibly.
What a crock. If they had worked thus far, Afghanistan would no longer be current news.
You mean the lady with the keyboard neck tie?? It's okay...I wouldn't worry too much about what she has to say....
The Bush doctrine asserts our ability to act preemtively against threats that may or may not currently exist.
Sending additional troops to reinforce those already in a warzone (a war which Bush started and failed to finish) is hardly preemptive. I'd hardly say Bush's tactics worked as it is another President who is cleaning up HIS wars.
Stop spouting off lies and deceit.
Morass Matalin's "tie" says it all.
This is the confused and muddled memoirs of a clown.
The shrub had no exit strategy.
I think it's a waste of time and money to send more troops to Afghanistan, but at the same time, I don't buy the phony argument about setting a date for withdrawal. If al Qaeda and the Taliban get any news from America, they already know that we've run out of patience with the war and that we won't stay forever. They knew this from day one. Their tactic has always been to wait us out, and knowing when we might begin pulling out will not change that tactic one iota.
The deadline should have been set before we went in there. It should have been on the order of a few months, not 8 years and counting. The objective should have been to capture or kill bin Laden and other top al Qaeda and disrupt the Taliban government as much as possible within the time limit. Instead, Bush and Cheney got us bogged down in a war that Obama is having to extract us from.
It's too bad President Obama feels he has to give it one more try. The result will be the same, whether we pull out today or in a year and a half.
You'd be ripping Obama part if he didn't send the troops, so stop complaining about it! Just cause you and your Republican friends have been screwing the world up for the first 8 years of this century doesn't mean you can keep doing it now with impunity.
If you're going to criticize, then do so constructively. Stop bashing!
Obama used campaign had much of Bush's empty rhetoric, too. People vote for the best used car salesman. It would make much more sense to tighten up our borders and become better friends with China and Russia because those two countries don't want Muslim extremists obtaining more military might. Europe should be much more worried about Muslim extremists because that is their backyard not ours. The US has much more physical distance and can afford more emotional distance. If Europe doesn't ramp up then we should save our dollars and stay home. The only thing worth sending to Afghanistan is a nuclear bomb to send a message on what is going to happen if Islamic extremists take Pakistan. Israel will level Pakistan then chaos will reign until people start realizing the stupidity of it all. One day it will be self evident that Obama and Bush made horrible decisions on economic and military matters.
Unfortunately I have to agree, I don't see much difference between Bush's approach and Obama's. There is a troop surge into an amorphous and poorly understood war zone, no mention of a draft , no mention of a war tax – just shameful misuse of the troops again and again and the same speaches extolling the nation's 'sacrifice' .
Meanwhile young men and women are still coming home in boxes and the generals are still running the show. The war machine charges ahead against all reason... what's different?????
I personly side with president Obama policy of troops increament because the security of world and America can not be compromise . we cant afford to lose in Ahghanistan cos the result would be disastrous. Time table for redrawal is absolutely wrong cos the redrawal would depend on situation on the ground.
No, the Bush doctrine says "go attack anyone you want so they won't attach you". That's not what is going on in Afghanistan. More importantly, big O is a leader who does not find it necessary to LIE. Bush was a big LIAR.
Oh, Come Now! It's a different country and a different war. Also, this time there is an exit strategy, thank goodness.
"And since he likes Hamburgers, clearly he's just like Nixon".
Good gravy people.
Same as Bush? Only Bush was better and more of a leader. (and for those doubters, the first 6 years of Bush were very prosperous, it was only the last 2 when things fell apart. What changed those last 2 years you ask? Democrats took control of Congress. Funny that democrats forget that. It's easier to blame Bush and ignore the facts. It's the democratic way!)
obama is just a community organizer, (never a leader at anything who is getting on the job training as president. Only in America!), who gives good speeches.
It is that thought keeping Democrats up at night.
Don't try to make GW Bush seem like some kind of success. The truth is, President Obama shouldn't have to be trying to clean up another Bush/Cheney disaster. They started the war in Afghanistan, and it should be further along than it is now. If handle right by those two our troops should be on their way home instead going back over there.
That's like saying "cleaning my child's dirty diaper means that I embraced the act of pooping in your pants." It's our responsibility to clean up our messes, but that doesn't mean that the original cause of the problem is justified. That's just typical 'spin'.
Ms Matalin, you are right and I would add: Obama IS a mixed message. This country is suffering because of Obama's mixed messages. In other words, he doesn't know what he is doing but he thinks noone out in the country here have noticed?
“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.”
The problem with MATALIN is – for saying this – is that the WAR in Iraq should have NEVER started and the WAR in Afghanistan should have been ENDED – under BUSHwack and his sidekick CHENgang!! CASE and POINT!
She states the above but also states that Obama decision is DIFFERENT because he set a DEADLINE to get out!!! Therefore, it cannot be the SAME!!!
President Obama will end the war in Iraq and end the war in Afghanistan........... Something the PREVIOUS administration could not do!!!
That is about as lame of a comparison as lame can be.
There is no preparation under the window of "axis of evil" cresendo–more patience and deliberation, analysis, input from all kind of experts, not limited to a handful of cronies and lakies. Again-someone "just do not get it".
The Bush strategy is the military's strategy. Bush followed his military leaders guidance. Obama for the most part is following his military leaders guidance. Ms. Matalin should give credit where credit is due.