USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Maybe it's because I come from an exceptionally loud and emotional family, but I never though Dean's meltdown was all that bad? They made it like he was ready for the asylum, playing that clip over and over! I like it as a verb, though.

It made him look nuts, its that simple....especially the way the media portrayed it.

[melliedee]

Perhaps the Brits agree with Obama?

"These reports come amid much discussion of the state of the "special relationship" between Britain and the US, now that Gordon Brown has replaced Tony Blair at No 10. Much was made of Mr Brown's businesslike tone at his joint press conference with the US president, George Bush, last month. Mr Brown pointedly told reporters that Afghanistan was the frontline in the struggle against terrorism rather than Iraq."

More bulldog than poodle, Brown has signalled a new special relationship | Comment | Guardian Unlimited Politics

[PlayadelSoul]

There is no frontline in the war against terrorism. That is why it is so difficult to define and and wage. People are quick to criticize the Pres for his handling of the war, but rarely take into account that this is a new form of warfare. No uniforms, combatants look like and hide behind civilians, the enemy does not discriminate between military and civilian targets, and the bad guys are dispersed throughout the world. We are killing many of them in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a good thing. They are also being sent to hell in Pakistan, Algeria, Indonesia, Lebanon and a host of other countries.

Support going into Iraq or not, it is hard to deny that, today, some very bad people are being taken out of the equation on a daily basis.

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Based on the historically small amount of money the Conservatives are contributing to their candidates, I suspect that "they" generally do not feel strongly about any of their candidates at this point.

We dont need no stinking money!

We have Karl Rove!

*cues evil mastermind music*

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

There is no frontline in the war against terrorism. That is why it is so difficult to define and and wage. People are quick to criticize the Pres for his handling of the war, but rarely take into account that this is a new form of warfare. No uniforms, combatants look like and hide behind civilians, the enemy does not discriminate between military and civilian targets, and the bad guys are dispersed throughout the world. We are killing many of them in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a good thing. They are also being sent to hell in Pakistan, Algeria, Indonesia, Lebanon and a host of other countries.

Support going into Iraq or not, it is hard to deny that, today, some very bad people are being taken out of the equation on a daily basis.

Then why was everyone so quick to criticize Obama for focusing his comments on battlefields other than Iraq? No one disputes that this is a different kind of enemy, but the GOP and other frienemey Dems basically called him a loose canon for his comments about Afganistan, a stance our closest ally clearly shares with him?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

There is no frontline in the war against terrorism. That is why it is so difficult to define and and wage. People are quick to criticize the Pres for his handling of the war, but rarely take into account that this is a new form of warfare. No uniforms, combatants look like and hide behind civilians, the enemy does not discriminate between military and civilian targets, and the bad guys are dispersed throughout the world. We are killing many of them in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a good thing. They are also being sent to hell in Pakistan, Algeria, Indonesia, Lebanon and a host of other countries.

Support going into Iraq or not, it is hard to deny that, today, some very bad people are being taken out of the equation on a daily basis.

I agree...so why are we spending these vast sums of our available money, and our good soldiers lives using conventional forces in Iraq, in the middle of a civil war, as the "fall-guy" to other countries interests in the region (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.) while defocusing our energy and our resources from the "bad guys dispersed throughout the world"?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

We dont need no stinking money!

We have Karl Rove!

*cues evil mastermind music*

You mean he is not in jail yet?

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

There is no frontline in the war against terrorism. That is why it is so difficult to define and and wage. People are quick to criticize the Pres for his handling of the war, but rarely take into account that this is a new form of warfare. No uniforms, combatants look like and hide behind civilians, the enemy does not discriminate between military and civilian targets, and the bad guys are dispersed throughout the world. We are killing many of them in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a good thing. They are also being sent to hell in Pakistan, Algeria, Indonesia, Lebanon and a host of other countries.

Support going into Iraq or not, it is hard to deny that, today, some very bad people are being taken out of the equation on a daily basis.

I don't think it is a "new" kind of warfare. There have been examples of this type of warfare throughout history.
The way I see it the difference is that the US was attacked on home soil. The fact that the ideology is provided by a segment of a religion versus say a Communist insurgency really isn't the main problem in countering it's growth.

Here's a basic interpretation of this type of warfare Major Johnie Gombo, USMC. Understanding Guerrilla Warfare

Here's another take:Asymmetric warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

It made him look nuts, its that simple....especially the way the media portrayed it.

I think the media was certainly the key. They took a small snippet out of a lengthy campaign and played it over and over again. I wasn't a big fan of Dean but it was sort of peculiar the way that snippet was rerun so often.

[JEZ]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

I think you are wrong on this one. The media like to make a big deal out of it, and the Dems hope it's so, but I think when it comes down to crunch time, Republicans (right and middle) are going to look at the alternatives and go with who they think can win.

They would be fools if they didnt...

[PlayadelSoul]

Something funny for my Democrat friends.

The Absurd Comedy of the Dems' Labor Suck Up

[roni]

Republican Iowa Straw Poll today.

Oh, PdS, you'd be more likely to get viewers if you posted something with more reasonable names - like maybe use the word obsequious instead of suck-up

I'll go watch it now.

[roni]

Certainly the New Republic can afford better writers. What a disappointing, sophomoric piece

[roni]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

I think you are wrong on this one. The media like to make a big deal out of it, and the Dems hope it's so, but I think when it comes down to crunch time, Republicans (right and middle) are going to look at the alternatives and go with who they think can win.

When it comes to crunch time, if either Giuliani or Romney ends up as the nominee a proportion of the old guard religious right will stay home or boycott the presidential race. It will not be a majority of them, but it does not need to be to cause substantial pain to the Republican candidate.

Will the candidate make up for it by attracting enough of the independent vote to overcome the anti-Republican wave? Too early to tell - way too early, but it is clearly an uphill battle for any Republican candidate from the perspective of this long before the election

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by roni

Certainly the New Republic can afford better writers. What a disappointing, sophomoric piece

I don't know, roni, I thought this was pretty good...

KUCINICH: I am officially changing my name to "Sea Biscuit."