Obama credits Bush with Afghan success but continues to criticize Bush's war policies.

Obama's double-speak catches up with him as he unwittingly establishes Bush's Afghan War Policy as successful. Read on !!
There is a liberal blog - Marxist Liberal - calling itself the fanciful name, Think Progress. In its current postings, we have these words in its lead story:

Official Army History: Bush Administration Neglected Afghan War, Diverted Resources to Iraq.

During President Obama’s December speech announcing a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, he noted that the effort was finally getting the resources it needed. During the previous administration, Obama said, “commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.” “In early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq,” Obama said, and “for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention.”

***************

So there you have it; the unread and willfully ignorant Think Progress reporting on what they should have known to be not true -- but hey, the ends justify the means so who cares about truth or accuracy when the end game is so clearly righteous ?!!

While "they" are thinking "progress," let's cast a little light on the subject:

First, the military loves George Bush and shows little respect for the current Commander - if raucous applause versus polite applause counts for anything. Secondly, military brass currently serving have a code of silence they live by - there are no official statements suggesting that Bush refused Afghan commanders' request for more troops. And finally, there is the matter of the "official" military history. Could we all agree that you cannot get more "official" than the Freshman Senator now living in our White House?

Here are his words in the speech Think Progress references:

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country. Obama's December 1, 2009 Afghan War policy speech.

Almost sounds as thou we kicked their little terrorist rumps, doesn't it. "The Taliban was driven from power . . ." cannot describe anything less than a full-out success story in Afghanistan. An international Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country" suggests that peace was present (the Taliban was driven from power, right? so peace HAD to be the result) and, in that context, Bush moved on to Iraq.

That's the official history and we agree.

Let's ask this question: when Obama begins his withdrawal in 18 months, will the "Taliban have been driven from power?" And IF they have, why wouldn't he (Obama) move on to other concerns, just as did Bush?

What is a fact, here, is that Obama admits success in Afghanistan. If he has the same success, will he not leave that country? And if the Taliban reappear, will he, then, bring the troops back as he suggests should have been the case for Bush? We didn't think so.

Just know that the "official story" is that Bush accomplished his military objective in Afghanistan before he moved on to Iraq - at least, according to the foot-in-mouth, Mr. Obama.