"Stategy vs. Strategery" on Maddow now. Not pretty.

[rug]

[FrenchieCat]

1. Seems balanced to me.

The perfect is not the enemy of the way better
is how I interpret it.

She is into the Nuance, rather than only the rethoric....
He did the rhetoric for the benefit of the Republicans.
He did the nuance for the rest of us.

And remember, the work has just begun......

Now, we will be awaiting an exit strategy, and that will be important....
but I have some patience.


PS. Its Maddow not Maddox.

[rug]

2. Yes, it is Maddow. Corrected.

[FrenchieCat]

3. What's your take on what she's saying?

[rug]

5. She seems to be trying to draw a fine line between Bush's expansion and Obama's expansion.

The line she's drawing is very thin.

[FrenchieCat]

6. I disagree, I think the dictinction, though not night and day......

was damn near sunrise vs. sunset.

Obama's sunrise approach on this is a whole new day.

Her statement that those who attempt to liken what Obama is doing in Afghanistan
as the Bush Iraq surge are incorrect.

She said that Obama's strategy is very different from that of George Bush,
although Obama employed some of Bush's rethoric to articulate it.

In otherwords, she's quite smart and fair on this.

[rug]

7. She also mentioned four U.S. "advisers" were killed. The distinction is still thin.

[FrenchieCat]

8. So that's your interpretation then......of what Maddow reported then?

that there is little difference between the two.
If so, you have misconstrued her entire report
based on the first 2 minutes in which she speaks of the superficial
similarity in their rhetorics....even when she makes the point that
this is where most of the similarities ended?

I would have thought you were more strategically sophisticated than that.
I didn't think that superficial veneer wouldn't allow you to see through it,
especially after Rachel Pointed it out.

Or perhaps you already made up your mind, and only agreed with Rachel,
when she was agreeing with you....and when she stopped, you just kept right on going.

Cool. Not a problem for me, because I understood every point she made,
and took the bad with the good, instead of being selective.

[rug]

11. As I said, she tried to draw a fine line between them. She didn't.

Intentions aside, methods aside, the goals and the underlying assumptions are too similar to be effectively distinguished.

[FrenchieCat]

12. What's the goal?

[Xipe Totec]

4. "Stategy vs. Stragedy" in my opinion n/t

[NYC_SKP]

9. "Strategery" From SNL mocking of Bush. And FFS, there IS an f'n difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptAoJedxFzU

Regarding the thin line you say separates the two administrations:

They couldn't be further apart.

When Bush/Cheney said we're fighting terrorism, he was doing anything but, if anything it served him well. All of these efforts were about furthering a PNAC vision, perpetuating the strife and our fear, taking away our liberties, enriching their friends, etc., etc.

When Obama says he's going to Afghanistan and Pakistan to weaken or eliminate a terrorist threat, it is exactly what he means to do.

Now we can quibble about the similarities in the details, but at the heart of it the differences could not be greater.

:patriot:

[FrenchieCat]

10. Rachel Maddow agrees with you.

Rug only liked the first minute or so of the broadcast.

He may be disappointed and therefore not responding was one would expect.

[rug]

14. You're much too impatient, Frenchie.

And a prisoner of your expectations.

[rug]

13. To be precise, the thin line is between the Afghan policy, not the administrations.

The Bush invasions were not an intentional fraud as you imply but a cynical exploitation of a single terror attack.

The problem with an expansion of the Afghan war is that it essentially accepts the Bush definition of a terror threat and it opposes it asymmetrically.

If he is escalating in Afghanistan "to eliminate a terrorist threat" he is both endorsing and outblundering Bush's policy.

[NYC_SKP]

15. "The Bush invasions were not an intentional fraud" Really?

Really?

And as for endorsing Bush in Afghanistan:

"Obama Afghan strategy not just about bullets, bombs

6 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The new Afghan war strategy unveiled Friday by US President Barack Obama goes beyond "bullets and bombs" to a plan to overhaul international aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Dismissing past aid efforts as ill-organized and underfunded, it calls for a civilian surge in Afghanistan to match the military one as well as for a 7.5 billion dollar development plan and special economic zones for Pakistan.

"We need agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers," Obama said. "That's how we can help the Afghan government serve its people and develop an economy that isn't dominated by illicit drugs."

more at the link.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gin0xXv_8ynP2n3Q3aQeamSyqYQw

AND:

EU praises Obama on Afghanistan, vows civilian surge
Hluboka Castle, Czech Republic - The EU will embrace US President Barack Obama's "European-style" strategy for Afghanistan and will contribute to a "civilian surge" by providing more money and more police trainers, the bloc's foreign ministers said Friday. "(Obama's) new strategy comes very close to the European ideas about the mission in Afghanistan," said German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier during informal EU talks in the Czech Republic.

Obama was later Friday expected to unveil his administration's strategic review for Afghanistan. This was likely to echo a long-standing European view that the Taliban insurgency cannot be defeated by military means alone.

Instead, Western forces should take a wider approach to the problem, involving Pakistan and other regional players, and help Afghanistan take care of its own security.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/261822,1stlead-eupraises-obama-on-afghanistan-vows-civilian-surge.html

:patriot:

[rug]

17. Yes, really.

It was a cynical exploitation. If you believe it was orchestrated and not exploited I suggest a visit to the 9/11 forum.

[NYC_SKP]

20. It was all these thing; it was cynical, exploitative, and fraudulent. nt

[Nancy Waterman]

16. Bush was about bringing democracy

and freedom to the Middle East, liberating the people, and regime change. Obama is very specifically after the people who attacked us, and he wants to not include anything or anyone else that isn't part of that specific goal, as much as he can. This is a big difference.

[rug]

18. Yes, the absence of an ideological overlay is a big difference.

What is not a big difference is the escalating use of conventional military forces to destroy a paramilitary political movement that does not have state borders.

[madamesilverspurs]

19. I would argue that

Bush was about SAYING that he was bringing democracy and freedom. Those words provided, in his mind anyway, a facade of legitimacy for his actions. He vacated the pursuit of those who attacked us in order to engage in, shall we say, more profitable pursuits for those in his inner circle - thus, regime change; Saddam had to go, to be silenced less for what he'd done or might do than what he knew about the movers and shakers inside the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal.

[fadedrose]

21. I learn more from Rachel Maddow...

than any other pundit. She really gets down to the marrow of things and really makes me think. The girl is brilliant.

And she WILL criticize my or your favorite politician when they deserve it, which is not rare - hope she doesn't lose her job.

[Clio the Leo]

22. She gets all kinds of bonus points for quoting the Princess Bride...

.... I will point out that the "never get into a land war in Asia" guy got outsmarted, beaten and killed by a young man much more clever and ... dare I say it, charming than he was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUee1WvtQZU

But other than that .... seemed like a pretty decent explanation to me. Although I still dont like the comparisons to Bush, I dont care what either man said. It's about the intent.

[Clio the Leo]

23. And Brzezinski just agreed with the President that...

... we didn't CHOOSE this war. Which goes to what we were talking about earlier...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8296281#8296293

Y'all will forgive me if I conceed Mr. Brzezinski's superior knowledge on this matter over ours.

[jenmito]

24. Yup! He said we didn't choose the war. I trust his knowledge and expertise more

than anyone on this board.

[Clio the Leo]

25. Even more than MINE? :-) NT

[jenmito]

26. Well...

not if you agree with him (like I do). :D