Thread: Is Obama just really Bush II?

Originally Posted by Paschendale

He's certainly an improvement over Bush, but not nearly as much of one as I would have liked. There's a lot that Bush did that I would have liked Obama to oppose, but to some degree, a president kinda has to support his predecessors, or else every successive president will spend half their time just undoing what the past ones did. I would have loved to have seen a grand scale attack on a lot of the war on terror, closing of Gitmo, and a real look at the Patriot Act and attempts to get it repealed. Seems like a lot of people can get behind repealing laws that keep poor people healthy, but stopping warrantless surveillance on American citizens? Hell no. He's a moderate in an increasingly un-moderate country. And it would be damn nice to have a real liberal in office.

Maybe he didnt revisit the Patriot Act because he LIKES it. He has EXPANDED many of those provisions...not repealed them> He has EXPANDED black-ops prison activity in Afghanistan. On top of the things he has let the liberal left down on he has been completely vacant with regard to foreign policy, the green energy companies are bombing left and right (with no accountability...but hey...they DID make large campaign contributions), gas and oil prices are skyrocketing, unemployment is still beyond critical and in fact only reported as low as it is because people are no longer eligible for benefits...

Bush light? If only.

Hey...he does throw a mean party and can vacation plan like a ****ing BEAST though...so...he has that going for him...

Don't forget, the conservatives are all jealous that our "liberal" President has a Nobel Peace Prize.

A mistaken case for Syrian regime change

"The blueprint for this project is essentially a report produced by the neo-conservative Brookings Institute for regime change in Iran in 2009. The report - "Which Path to Persia?" [3] - continues to be the generic strategic approach for US-led regime change in the region."
"The authors of these reports include, among others, John Hannah and Martin Indyk, both former senior neo-conservative officials from the George W Bush/Dick Cheney administration, and both advocates for regime change in Syria. "

Asia Times Online :: A mistaken case for Syrian regime change

"But the most obvious test of the president's claim that we're not really engaged in an act of war is to ask: What if the shoe were on the other foot? Let's say a coalition of foreign forces was bombing American cities and killing our citizens with the intent to overthrow our political leadership. How would we respond to an argument by one party to that assault that their use of unmanned weapons to kill Americans shouldn't be deemed an engagement of hostilities with us? Merely to pose the question is to understand the utter preposterousness of the administration's position. The administration's real goal, since it almost certainly would have received congressional approval for war in Libya had it sought it from the beginning, appears to be to extend the principle that when it comes to war and "national security" (increasingly broadly defined), the executive branch should be unconstrained to act as it sees fit. As James Fallows has written, "after three months of combat, and after several decades of drift toward unilateral Executive Branch action on matters of war and peace, Obama is doing a disservice to the nation, history, and himself by insisting that the decision should be left strictly to him."

Obama and Libya: From hopemonger to warmonger
Obama and Libya: From hopemonger to warmonger | Jonathan Weiler | Independent Weekly[/

Originally Posted by Kane

Don't forget, the conservatives are all jealous that our "liberal" President has a Nobel Peace Prize.

A mistaken case for Syrian regime change

"The blueprint for this project is essentially a report produced by the neo-conservative Brookings Institute for regime change in Iran in 2009. The report - "Which Path to Persia?" [3] - continues to be the generic strategic approach for US-led regime change in the region."
"The authors of these reports include, among others, John Hannah and Martin Indyk, both former senior neo-conservative officials from the George W Bush/Dick Cheney administration, and both advocates for regime change in Syria. "

Asia Times Online :: A mistaken case for Syrian regime change

"But the most obvious test of the president's claim that we're not really engaged in an act of war is to ask: What if the shoe were on the other foot? Let's say a coalition of foreign forces was bombing American cities and killing our citizens with the intent to overthrow our political leadership. How would we respond to an argument by one party to that assault that their use of unmanned weapons to kill Americans shouldn't be deemed an engagement of hostilities with us? Merely to pose the question is to understand the utter preposterousness of the administration's position. The administration's real goal, since it almost certainly would have received congressional approval for war in Libya had it sought it from the beginning, appears to be to extend the principle that when it comes to war and "national security" (increasingly broadly defined), the executive branch should be unconstrained to act as it sees fit. As James Fallows has written, "after three months of combat, and after several decades of drift toward unilateral Executive Branch action on matters of war and peace, Obama is doing a disservice to the nation, history, and himself by insisting that the decision should be left strictly to him."

Obama and Libya: From hopemonger to warmonger
Obama and Libya: From hopemonger to warmonger | Jonathan Weiler | Independent Weekly[/

What did he do to deserve that again? Oh, nothing? Like he's done the vast majority of his presidency? Oh, cool.

Originally Posted by Your Star

Sadly, he is Bush light.

Bush on steroids

Originally Posted by Kane

Don't forget, the conservatives are all jealous that our "liberal" President has a Nobel Peace Prize.

A mistaken case for Syrian regime change

"The blueprint for this project is essentially a report produced by the neo-conservative Brookings Institute for regime change in Iran in 2009. The report - "Which Path to Persia?" [3] - continues to be the generic strategic approach for US-led regime change in the region."
"The authors of these reports include, among others, John Hannah and Martin Indyk, both former senior neo-conservative officials from the George W Bush/Dick Cheney administration, and both advocates for regime change in Syria. "

Asia Times Online :: A mistaken case for Syrian regime change

"But the most obvious test of the president's claim that we're not really engaged in an act of war is to ask: What if the shoe were on the other foot? Let's say a coalition of foreign forces was bombing American cities and killing our citizens with the intent to overthrow our political leadership. How would we respond to an argument by one party to that assault that their use of unmanned weapons to kill Americans shouldn't be deemed an engagement of hostilities with us? Merely to pose the question is to understand the utter preposterousness of the administration's position. The administration's real goal, since it almost certainly would have received congressional approval for war in Libya had it sought it from the beginning, appears to be to extend the principle that when it comes to war and "national security" (increasingly broadly defined), the executive branch should be unconstrained to act as it sees fit. As James Fallows has written, "after three months of combat, and after several decades of drift toward unilateral Executive Branch action on matters of war and peace, Obama is doing a disservice to the nation, history, and himself by insisting that the decision should be left strictly to him."

Obama and Libya: From hopemonger to warmonger
Obama and Libya: From hopemonger to warmonger | Jonathan Weiler | Independent Weekly[/

The Brookings Institute is now considered neoconservative? Now I have seen everything.

All of the funders and most of the contributors to neoconservative thought have been connected to other think tanks (AEI, Heritage), but not generally Brookings or RAND (minus Wohlstetter)

Obama has reversed some of Bush's policies, but his big policy changes, the stimulus package and Obamacare, aren't reversals. He didn't turn the ship around. We're going the same direction, only much faster. Bush was Obama Light. Other Bush policies that were supposedly hated, have been left alone and forgotten.
warrantless wiretaps? check
Gitmo? check
Patriot Act? check

Originally Posted by DiAnna

If I cared enough to spend more time on this topic, I could probably fill the entire page... but I don't care enough. Bottom line with me is a slight +... but damned slight. I would say he disappointed me, but since he's nothing more than a professional campaigner with a great smile, I had no real expectation of him in the first place.

Cheer up and consider the alternative, McCain and Palin. This year, the alternative isn't any better.

Originally Posted by Captain America

Other than that, he is EXACTLY like Bush.

Not hardly...

I also forgot to mention another similarity where Obama's lack of action in the oil spill disaster can be compared to Bush's lack of action at Katrina.