...
He said pretty much the same thing, and he has pretty much the same opinions on these subjects.
This blanket denial doesn't leave much to discuss.
Oh wait, that's what I predicted your response would be if I wasted my time responding to your claims.
...
The end result is the same, both presidents are saying America is at war with those extremists, and that the Muslims should help fight against them for their own good.
You are not addressing the differences I pointed out.
...The way he says it is irrelevant if the content is the same.
I noted a number of places where the content was not the same. Please address those differences:
Admitting the US role in overthrowing Mosaddeq,
Speaking to the world as equals, and
Condemning Israel's role in oppressing Palestinians, to name 3.
And, the way the two men worded their speeches made a huge difference to everyone except the few Bush holdouts who just don't get the concept of arrogance vs cooperation.
...Big difference.
Let me make it more clear: Bush "You must all do as we say because we say it must be done."
Obama: "We are all responsible for the problems and so we must all work together to achieve the goals which are important to all of us."
...Not to me, you have not made your case.
No worries, it wasn't important to me to make the case for you.
I repeat, "Bush doesn't mention the word treaty and [the paragraph I quoted] is the only paragraph with the word, nuclear, in it."
I searched for the words treaty and nuclear. My statement is correct. You should read more carefully.
But as for your view of what the two men said, this is an incredible example of why you think Bush said the same thing, you think like Bush.
Obama said a treaty was agreed to. Bush said the UN told Iran tough titties, they can't have a nuke. When people don't view the authority of the UN as unbiased and when they see the double standard of how the US ignores the UN resolutions against Israel, invoking "the UN said so" is not going to play well in a lot of countries.
...
Is that the best you can come up with?
Did I miss the part where Bush said Israel has some of the blame?
...Not very convincing argument.
To you. No worries, that wasn't my goal.
...You say they say "it" in different ways, but the "it" is the same.
Bush gave a pie in the sky solution. Maybe he was going for the, "I have a dream", effect. But MLK he ain't. Obama said the Palestinians future mattered. You can view that as you like.
...
So what, he did say it nonetheless.
And the fact you posted the last dozen Presidents making the same hollow demand of Israel only serves to negate Bush's saying it as well. That and the fact Bush did not enforce that demand in any meaningful way said the people who viewed his statement as insincere were right.
If Obama also fails to, it will make that 'content' of the speech the same. Most comments I've heard about the way Obama addressed the Israel/Palestinian situation is, they will believe it when they see it, they've heard it before. I agree. And we really won't know for 8 more years (or less).
...Clearly, you have not made your case. You see differences but cannot share them with others who don't share your viewpoint.
Really, Pard. I had no expectations of changing the mind of anyone who already bought the right wing Kool-Aid. I told you that from the beginning. I said I'm not sure I should waste the time doing this because there's no doubt you won't re-evaluate your position.
In the end I did it for myself. There were enough editorials claiming the speeches were the same that I thought I should see for myself. And I did. The speeches were indeed like I thought, 'Bush the arrogant' and 'Obama the equal'. And there were a number of differences in content. When did Bush ever say anything close to America is not pure goodness and the Iranians are pure not evil?
I heard an excellent point today discussing the Iranian unrest after their election. Here is a country where there truly is a large portion of the population that like America. This is an educated very large population within Iran than wants peace, women's rights, and democracy. And all Bush did was paint them with the axis of evil brush. Obama has the opportunity to encourage these people.
It's just possible Iran will be the country that ends up with the stable democracy in that region, not Iraq. And that isn't necessarily because of anything Obama will do, except to stop the demonizing. My parents lived in Iran just before the Shaw was ousted. I know a bit about their Iranian friends. There are many good people in that country who don't want to be repressed by extremists any more than they wanted to be repressed by the Shaw.
Getting back to the speeches, why do you think the speeches received such a different reaction? Do you really think that many people were merely reacting to preconceived biases? You don't think a large number of them were actually reacting to the speeches themselves? People were angered by Bush's words, not just his persona. They were listening to Obama and they did not hear more of the same. To think the world's reaction was fake and only Pard and a few NeoCons can see that is a rather arrogant position yourself.
...Your responses so far have all been quite subjective. I don't share your subjectivity, so it was your job to communicate your views with me objectively, and you have failed.
No, that was not my job. That would have been a silly goal.
...Nothing in what you wrote above is convincing. It's all a matter of whether you trust Obama more than Bush, and trust is subjective to you, and only you. I'm not an American, so I don't care one way or the other, although I agree Obama seems to be the the more intelligent and secular of the two. But all in all, I never particularly distrusted or trusted Bush anymore than I distrust or trust Obama.
It seems it's all about the way you like to be stroked (figure of speech, of course).
Well you missed a lot of the 'content' of my posts, then. As for the trust issue, I didn't trust Bush from the start because it was clear what his Presidency was going to be about. He turned out worse than I ever imagined.
Obama is off to a good start. I'm not sure he is standing up to big money and big business the way I would hope. That could be because Congress is too in bed with the same people regardless of their political side of the isle. It could be because Obama doesn't want to alienate everyone all at once. That's what Bush did, so I have mixed feelings about it.
So far Obama has been able to diffuse the right wing propaganda machine very effectively. The Clintons were not good at that and the country suffered because of it.
As for your neutrality, that's nonsense. Every once in a while you post something rational in the political forums. But most of the time you supported Bush policies and even now don't seem to acknowledge the significant harm Bush did to this country. Maybe being in Canada gives you a different perspective. You don't feel the gutting of all our regulatory agencies or replacing thousands of career employees with incompetent Bush minions. Maybe you are further removed from the tragedy of Katrina than those of us who were stunned by that government failure.
That you can't see the importance of the differences in Obama's, we are all equals, and Bush's, my way or the highway, however, I cannot understand except in the context of your particular political bias compared to mine.
