Obama v. Bush, on wars and Nobel Prizes

On Politico: "Conservative praise for Nobel speech"

Some quotes from some really important people:

Sarah Palin: “I liked what he said," Palin told USA Today. "Of course, war is the last thing I believe any American wants to engage in, but it's necessary. We have to stop these terrorists."
But who gives a shit --- she's a non-entity.

Newt Gingrich: “I think having a liberal president who goes to Oslo on behalf of a peace prize and reminds the committee that they would not be free, they wouldn't be able to have a peace prize, without having [the ability to use] force,” Gingrich said. “I thought in some ways it's a very historic speech.”
But who gives a shit --- he's a non-entity.

But here are the really telling, and ignorant, quotes:

“The irony is that George W. Bush could have delivered the very same speech. It was a truly an American president's message to the world,” said Bradley A. Blakeman, a Republican strategist and CEO of Kent Strategies LLC who worked in the Bush White House.

Added Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations: “If Bush had said these things the world would be filled with violent denunciations. When Obama says them, people purr. That is fine by me.”

I don't know who these two guys are, but the first one, Blakeman, I don't like simply because he was part of Dubya's administration.  The second guy, Mead, perhaps he's a decent fellow, or perhaps not; I don't know.  I haven't done any background research on either.
 
My point (the ignorance and telling issue, that is): Both say that Obama said these words, and therefore people loved them, but if Dubya had said the same words then people would hate them.  FALSE!!!  To me the biggest issue here isn't Obama vs. Dubya, the man saying the speech, but rather the completely ignored fact that Dubya took our country into Afghanistan and completely screwed it up by not committing enough troops.  He did the same damned thing in Iraq --- Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, said that we should put 300,000 - 400,000 troops into the initial war in Iraq.  Why?  To be sure that we had enough.  And what did Rumsfeld do?  He went in on the cheap; he nitpicked his commanders down to ... what ... 150,000 or so troops?  And what happened?  We got bogged down for years because we didn't have enough troops there (or equipment --- remember all of those land mine-vulnerable Humvees we kept hearing about?).  Had Dubya and Rumsfeld done it right the first time, perhaps, JUST PERHAPS, that wouldn't have taken quite so long.  And maybe we wouldn't have had to go through "The Surge", which simply added to the already low troop levels there.

In Afghanistan the idiots did the same freakin' thing, but worse --- we were initially committed, but then the geniuses took just about everyone out of there and sent them over to Iraq, leaving a pittance and a bunch of other countries to carry on in our wake.  I wasn't a Kerry fan at all, but he absolutely pegged it in the 2004 Presidential debates when he looked Dubya in the eye said "You took your eye off the ball Mr. President."  And so here we are now, 8 freakin' years later, going through yet another "Surge".  Why?  Because our previous president screwed it up the first time and Obama has to use a "Surge" to make it all better.
 
Why doesn't anyone ever talk about this?