Reply With Quote
I dont think anyone is claiming that the death of Osama will significantly change ops, or bring about world peace, etc etc.
But a very evil man is dead, and that's something to celebrate. At the least, it's not a negative in my eyes.
,,,
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-25-2011 at 07:34 AM.
I dont think anyone is claiming that the death of Osama will significantly change ops, or bring about world peace, etc etc.
But a very evil man is dead, and that's something to celebrate. At the least, it's not a negative in my eyes.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...-for-how-long/But I’m not sure that the magnitude of the bump that Mr. Obama might get in the Gallup tracking poll is going to be especially predictive of how much the residue of this news might produce for him 19 months from now.
In 1991, the top 8 or 10 Democratic candidates skipped the presidential race because George H.W. Bush seemed unbeatable in the wake of the popular Gulf War. But by November 1992, Mr. Bush’s approval ratings were in the 30s, and Bill Clinton defeated him easily — as most any Democratic candidate would have.
That is not to suggest that this news won’t be helpful to the President. Of course it will help him.
But, the 2012 election was probably not going to revolve around national security. Instead, the Republican nominee was probably going to attempt to make the campaign about the size of government and the future of the welfare state: how to deal with en lement programs in the face of an increasing national debt.
This news may not change the focal point of the campaign. And it may not cause Americans to forget about the direction of the economy, which they remain largely unhappy about.
The biggest mistake that Republican candidates could make would be to be intimated by the approval ratings of a president who, while not easy to defeat, may still be quite vulnerable in November 2012.
Or, a distraction from how Jimmy Carter-esque this presidency is.
Pockystahn. If you ask me, those ers have some questions to answer.
I'll celebrate when our serving men and women come home. Osama was evil, but there is no shortage of that in this world. His death changes little, and probably doesn't even alter the scope of terrorism we face. 1,200,000,000,000 is a of a medical bill for someone who's on dialysis.
I have a feeling that the timing is not what bothers you at all, but the fact you can't claim he can't do anything right anymore, rendering the 'Jimmy Carter-esque' claim somewhat moot.
There's still a year and a half until the elections. A long, long time by any political standards, to the point that the GOP hasn't even yet sorted out who their candidate is going to be.
While this is undoubtedly an historic event, it will be forgotten in a matter of days/weeks, and replaced with the news of the day.
His death is, at best, symbolic more than anything. But it will hurt the resolve of some terrorists. And they do lose a masterful strategist.
Your wrong. Al Quaeda and their threats are not going away.
Nah. This will fade, but when elections come around you will hear the drum beat again and again -- this is the president that got Osama. Something the GOP didn't/couldn't do. It'll be a symbol for them, a message that, "Obama keeps his promises." Whether he deserves credit for any of it or not is moot, it's a huge win for the Dems and another setback for Republicans, who already had a pretty lousy chance of winning the White House in 2012. Now it's all but gone. Obama can play it safe as the in bent and probably win very convincingly, where as before he might have had to have taken SOME risks.
Sorry, the Jimmy Carter card is gone now. At best, as Nathan Silver points out, he could be a George H.W., as long as market gains resulting from foreign risk minimization are fleeting.
I do agree on your second point though. Pakistan needs to tread lightly right now, as India's claims that they are a terrorist sanctuary have been significantly bolstered.
So you mean the world isn't all fuzzy rainbows? Well, thats right, but I guess I don't understand the point because no one claimed as much.
If you can't see why people are happy and why they are celebrating then I don't know what to tell you.
I didn't write that. I just don't see this as that great of a victory. Yes, we got him, good for us... look how long it took and how much money is gone that could have gone somewhere that needed it. Small victories, I guess, but it seems so distinctly hollow to me.
So who is their leader now?
Darrin's obvious discomfort is simply icing on a very tasty cake.
The comparison with Carter falls far short, especially vis a vis Operation Eagle Claw.
The chances of Obama getting re-elected got measurably greater, in that I will agree with y'all.
The only question in my mind about the next election cycle is how many seats the Democrats will pick up in the house.
Operation Eagle Claw
.... is painted by the Repugs as Carter's PERSONAL failure while the incompetent military is completely innocent.
Now, the Repugs and right-wingers here are saying Barry had nothing to do with getting OBL (and/or dubya deserves the same credit (but dubya deserves no blame for 9/11) ), and killing OBL was all on the military.
At the risk of giving the guy a break, since I didn't know the answer:
Adnan Gulshair el Shukrijumah
Although the organization is now highly decentralized.
They will have a *very* hard time replacing such a monumental figurehead, in terms of visibility, although I am uncertain how aware the average "muslim-hardliner-on-the-street" is of the remaining leaders.
We can be fairly certaint that US efforts will keep the leadership of this organization from ac ulating much in the way of experience or notoriety, simply due to the probable short length of their term in "office".
Still, the idea that "the US is evil" that forms the basis for the ideology enspoused by the late bin Laden, is not one that is likely to ever go away.
The next phase of our "war" should be a realization that we need to really concentrate on making this idea less credible.
So you're saying the military deserves zero credit for killing OBL........I see.
And Chump....were you boozing last night when you were posting here?
Like no one saw that coming.
There is no other way for Fox "News" to spin it that would give a Democrat any cred.
Like or not, Barack Hussein had the nuts to say " it" and authorize the operation.
Ain't no spinning *that*, although I would not put it past the hacks at Fox to do so.
No one saw what coming? Darrin and Boutons talking about Eagleclaw?
Like no one saw that coming.
There is no other way for Fox "News" to spin it that would give a Democrat any cred.
Like or not, Barack Hussein had the nuts to say " it" and authorize the operation.
Ain't no spinning *that*, although I would not put it past the hacks at Fox to do so.
And what does that have to do with Fox news?
No, no one saw the Republican/conservative attempts to spin this to mimize any credit that might be given to a Democratic president. (edit) ...and by no one, I mean everyone.
Fox "news" being the propaganda wing of the Republican party, whose job it will be to regurgitate the RNC's talking points on this, whatever they turn out to be.
What Republican/conservative attempts have you seen so far?
And from where?
I see. So they haven't yet, but they will, right?
Daily affirmation much?
What all did Obama have to do with it boutons? Order the kill. Same thing any other president would have done. Props to him for making the right call.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
