I am NOT a hypocrite.

There are some anti-Obama critics around the web that are claiming that Obama supporters like myself are being hypocritical for opposing Bush and supporting Obama, because they claim there is “no difference”.

I can only speak for myself - I would not presume to speak for others. However, I believe there are others who will agree with the majority of my points. There are others who will disagree, but I hope we can reach a consensus through genuine discussion. For those around the web who think they are “right” no matter what and refuse to have a discussion - IMHO They’re the problem. They’re just the same as Repuglicans who yell “my way or the highway”.

First of all, they are mostly ignoring domestic policy because there is a BIG difference between Obama and Bush on these points. They tend to forget the Lily Ledbetter Act, the ACA (along with Obama’s insistence that Health Care include contraception, abortion, other women’s rights issues, etc.) along with the fact that Obama ended DADT and has made a statement that he believes that DOMA is unconstitutional (the repeal is imminent), etc., etc.

I support Obama because he rejects the concept of the “Unitary Executive” that Bush embraced and tries to get his policies accomplished via Congress, despite the gridlock. If you were to ask me, I’d say that first-term Obama was stuck in the Lincoln concept of government where people actually talked to one another. I think he has gotten over that in his discussions and concessions with the Republicans.

As far as his foreign policy is concerned, there are still BIG differences with Bush, despite what some blogs would have you believe.

I supported the Afghanistan war, I did NOT support the war in Iraq. One of the reasons I did not support the Iraq war was because it took our resources from Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda attacked us. This is unprecedented territory, because it was an “organization” rather than a State. The Geneva Convention dealt with two or more States at war, not non-State affiliated “organizations”. But, there are some things a State just doesn’t do, or else they lose their “heart”. Such as torture.

But remember, Bush justified all of his actions under the “Theory of the Unitary Executive”. Obama rejects that theory and asks for guidance, but doesn’t get it. Therefore, he has to do what he feels is needed.

Obama promised to close GITMO, and he issued an XO to that end. He was blocked by Congress.

People like to criticize him for killing an “American Citizen”. They are talking about al Awalki. He had been recruiting within the US for decades, to kill innocent American citizens as was tied to the Shoe -Bomber; a failed attempt to kill innocent Americans. He immigrated to a foreign country known to have ties with al Qaeda and was taken out by an armed drone. If he had stayed within US borders I would have insisted that he have a fair trial. He ran, not to a neutral country, but to attack the US. IMHO, a self-admission.

Yes, drone attacks have a certain amount of “collateral damage”, but the collateral damage is much LESS than that involved with more conventional methods.

I don’t think that’s “right”. But, as I said, this is unconventional territory that we need to discuss, seriously. And I don’t think these “Obama Is the same as Bush” posts are helpful.

Can we talk about the inherent reasons that we are involved in the Mid-East (oil), and the ways we can just get the hell out of there? Oh, and Bush left Obama with 2 wars - he got one of them over, and he’s about to get us out of the other. WITHOUT starting another one, as many want us to do in Iran.