Sunday, August 02, 2009

We see the difference between the military under Bush and under Obama

Bush was unbelievably successful in Iraq and Afghanistan...here is how Obama runs it:

The international military mission in Afghanistan has delivered "much less than it promised" due to the lack of a realistic strategy, an influential committee of lawmakers said Sunday.

13 comments:

Jim said...

Hmmm. A highly subjective and debatable assertion and no link to anything to back up your headline.

Post rating = 0 stars out of 5.

PCD said...

Proof is in the Pudding, and Pudding Head has produced no results in the middle east.

Jim said...

Six months and there's no progress in the middle east? Six months?

What kind of progress are you expecting?

American said...

"Bush was unbelievably successful in Iraq and Afghanistan"
Ummmm...very fair and balanced analysis!!

I tend to agree with Jim. Don't you think it's unfair to compare 8 years of performance with six months ?

The Game said...

really guys? really?
the military should be able to continue doing its job..
based on what the people actually trying to meet objectives think, Bush did a great job, Obama..doing what most liberals do w/the military...and that is run it like crap

American said...

Game,
You are still missing the point. Let's say you are totally fair (wihch I highly doubt). Even then, comparing 8 years to six months doesn't make any sense.

One could have argued the same thing when Donald Rumsfeld was in charge - Military always felt they never had enough resources (men, material, better equipment etc) to do a good job.

It's sad that we have people who wanted him fail even before he took office. Then, there are individuals like you judging him from day-1 and declaring him a 'failure'!!

I'm sure he will fail in some and do good in others. Let's give him a chance and judge based on the results.

Anonymous said...

"Bush was unbelievably successful in Iraq and Afghanistan..."

And the Washington Nationals are unbelievably successful in the National League East.

The Game said...

not comparing 6mo to 8 years..and when is it that obama can start being blamed for anything, based on your standards?
I layed off for the most part, only drilled him early with the hard core socialist turn he has taken..
But now it is about time to start seeing if he is doing a good job...

Anonymous said...

"...when is it that obama can start being blamed for anything, based on your standards?"

Hmmm...let's see. Bush allowed us to be attacked on 9/11 nearly 8 months after taking office. The radical right blamed it on Clinton. So using that baseline you can't blame Obama for a couple more months. And if we aren't attacked again before the end of the year, what does that say about how well Obama is keeping us safe?

Jim said...

I'm still waiting for some link to your statement so we can see who made it and how much credibility we should give it.

PCD said...

jim, you have no credibility. What are you talking about? Go back to your obama kool-aid.

Norm said...

Exactly! Jim is crazy to ask for substantiation rather than accepting a statement as fact....

An influential committee of lawmakers said that Rush had a sex change. Using PCD's logic, that statement is factual and requires no substantiation.

Jim said...

Thank you Norm. You'll have to excuse PCDummy. Or not.

My credibility is not relevant in this post. I haven't offered facts or opinions. I've only asked Game to cite SOMETHING that supports his headline.