Are Obama and Bush really that different?

[Pat Coyle]

From NPR.ORG - President Obama is seeking $83.4 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for a war supplemental spending bill like the ones he repeatedly voted against when he was senator and George W. Bush was president.

Obama's request would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The additional money would cover operations into the fall.

Is Obama merely following Bush's policies, but changing the rhetoric?
If so, then what does the say about our new President, and our old one for that matter? Read this WSJ article, "The words have changed, but not the policies," and share your comments here.

[Steve Stuck]

He only voted "No" one time...............

Major war-funding legislation while Barack Obama was in the Senate, and how he voted:

_May 2005: Congress approved an $82 billion bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and international anti-terrorism efforts. Obama voted yes.

_June 2006: Congress cleared a $94.5 billion bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as provide aid to hurricane victims. Obama voted yes.

_September 2006: Congress cleared a $448 billion Pentagon funding bill that included $70 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama voted yes.

_April 2007: Congress cleared a $124 billion spending bill that provided $90 billion for war costs but mandated the withdrawal of U.S. troops within six months. Obama voted yes, but President George W. Bush vetoed the legislation.

_May 2007: Congress approved a roughly $100 billion spending measure to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and domestic projects, including hurricane relief. Obama voted no.

_December 2007: Congress cleared a $555 billion catchall spending bill that included $70 billion for U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama did not vote.

_June 2008: Congress approved a measure to spend $162 billion for war costs as well as provide a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits and emergency relief for the flood-ravaged Midwest. Obama voted yes.

[Douglas Karr]

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
New Euphemisms - Redefinition Accomplished
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

[Kristle Morris]

Yes, Obama and Bush are completely different, and Obama has done more for this country in 2 months then Bush did his first year and some. At the begining and end of the day, Obama focus is on the "american people plus +" in general not just him self and his pockets like Bush. AND the US is going to get even better, SO people stop believing the HYPE.

It's time for a change and that's what he is trying to do "make a change. Some of the people who did and who didn't put him in office won't change that's the problem in the house and out not him! 'Congressional Research' uh please.

[Jeff Zuber]

Hype? It's part of his voting record, it's in the congessional record.

[Sarah Brown]

He may have done more, but more is not always better. I don't think Bush was a great leader at all, but we didn't have anymore terrorist attacks on his watch after September 11th. They are not the same, but they are both big spenders.

[Joe Shoemaker]

....ummmm.... hello?!?!

September 11, 2001 happened on his watch. Only weeks after an August 9th briefing report titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US."

[Kristle Morris]

Well more is better in this case, because he is cleaning up Bush's mess, he has no other choice. The policies set by the Bush adminatration has forced the type of change that Obama is implementing. Obama is trying to stimulate the economy something we all need ,which is a positive thing, change always bring discomfort somewhat, and Obama is a politician that spoke of change and is practicing what he is preaching and not just blowing hot air. So what he change his mine, voted once twice or whatever he is not perfect he should have room for error "Bush did a few time"

Obama is spending the money for a better cause not to hurt anyone, give the man some credit, You will see a positive TURN AROUND and we all will see by the end of his "" SECOND TERM"" ;^)

[Kristle Morris]

Yes "HYPE", I'm speaking of all the negative crape that people are saying about Obama, any we don't know the records could be rigged, he's not perfect, so what at least he did damage control, Bush didn't even do that, he wasn't smart enough, C- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
Obama is the man, and he is NOT GOING TO LIE TO THE PEOPLE, like bush did.

[Theresia Whitfield]

This is why I love you, Chris!!! Thank you for speaking so eloquently!

[Patrick Sullivan]

I think there is a flawed assumption in the question, namely, that policies that have been in place for at least 7 years, and that create the kind of spending that supports a two-front war can be turned on a dime, and without disastrous consequences. The war policies and spending have a lot -many months- of momentum carried over from the previous administration (which, let's not forget, went through the motions to began taking steps towards a wind-down in Iraq right at the end- to that extent, any smart president will continue the basic policies of the previous administration if there's fundamental agreement on the objectives. Let's also not forget that one of the critical errors of the Bush administration, if not a leading indicator of its ideological hubris, was to throw out the baby with the bath water when they came into office, rejecting anything from the Clinton administration simply because it was Clinton). Redirecting the Bush-Cheney war policies and spending is like redirecting a fully loaded oil tanker going full speed in the middle of the ocean; changing who's in charge at the start of the turn does not make that task instantly simpler. That's true of a lot of the policies from any previous administration.

[Kristle Morris]

Amen!! Well Well Mr. Sullivan.

[Joe Shoemaker]

Yes.