Remember 2007, when the war in Iraq was going badly and President Bush proposed a bold new strategy of a surge of nearly 30,000 troops?

Remember 2007, when the war in Iraq was going badly and President Bush proposed a bold new strategy of a surge of nearly 30,000 troops?

Flash-forward to present day, and the war in Iraq seems to have stabilized but the war in Afghanistan is going badly. This time, the problem will be tackled by a bold new leader with the audacity to hope, change and ... yes we can! What shall his answer be?

"I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan," said President Obama in his Dec. 1 address to the nation.

Is 30,000 troops the military equivalent of two Advil?

What do you got? A problem there in Afghanistan? Take 30,000 troops. If it doesn't work, call my service.

Maybe he actually gave the same surge speech that Bush gave. No, that's crazy. If that were the case, he would open with some type of 9/11 reference.

"On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four planes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people," Obama said.

What the ... ?! If he's really channeling Bush, let me hear some of that absolutist rhetoric - our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. Or how about referencing vague, unnamed critics and defensively knocking them down?

"Our cause is just, our resolve unwavering," Obama said. "There are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam ... I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history."

Well, huh. Is there at least something in the speech that shows you're a different kind of war president?

"We can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars," Obama said. "Our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended ... this will allow us to begin the transfer of our forces in Afghanistan in July of 2011."

Our resolve is unwavering, but it turns out our Discover card is over the limit.

Bottom line, he wasn't necessarily Bush, but he certainly wasn't the Communist Kenyan Obama we've heard so much about lately. Now it's time to turn our analysis over to our vaunted fourth estate.

Let's not bother examining every network, let's just go with the two schools of thought represented by them. The right hates Obama because he's all "style over substance." Let's see how this speech played with them.

"It was badly delivered ... I think he might need a new teleprompter with some Energizer Bunny batteries in it," Karl Rove said on Fox News.

"It's not exactly the Gettysburg address," added Bill O'Reilly.

By the way, my guess is that if Fox were around during the Gettysburg address, they'd take a dump all over that speech. "Four score and seven years ago" - slow down, Harvard, real Americans say "87."

The right is bummed out, so according to the fundamental laws of Newtonian physics, the left has to be elated, right?

"I worry that the 30,000 troops, in terms of the escalation, will just fuel the insurgency," said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-California.

Wow, the right hated the style and the left hated the substance. It turns out the president doesn't always give the speech that each member of their audience would most appreciate. I'm sensing a no-win.