Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rachel Maddow knocked it outta the park: continuation of the Bush doctrine.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
VMI Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:29 PM
Original message
Rachel Maddow knocked it outta the park: continuation of the Bush doctrine.
The waging of war based on the possibility of a future threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bigjohn16 Donating Member (747 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. I love when people smarter than me say it better than I ever could. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. And she is absolutely correct...like since McCarthyism....:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. ...
:scared: :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. I preferred Richard Wolffe's summary
it was all about getting out.

I think Rachel got it wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hansel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. I absolutely agree.
Rachel is not very good at speculative analysis. She is wrong far more than she is right.

She is good at putting black and white facts and events together and connecting the dots. But she is nearly always wrong in predicting future events. It's definitely not her strong suit.

Richard Wolffe is the only pundit who got it right tonight. It was clear as crystal, but so many people had pre-judged and listened to this speech with such a jaundiced eye that they were incapable of hearing what he said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Sure............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
29. Exactly. It's all about getting out with some sense of stability
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #4
38. You prefer the opinion of the guy that wrote this?
Obama's Bad Trip by Richard Wolffe

He bowed to Japan. He treaded lightly with China. And then Israel thumbed its nose at Obamas calls to freeze settlements. Richard Wolffe on why the president cant wait to come home.

To the presidents critics, this weeks White House trip to Asia has largely failed because of excessive deference. Obama bowed to the Japanese emperor, and he metaphorically genuflected to the Chinese leadership by refusing to confront them publicly about human rights.

Yet the presidents biggest foreign-policy setback of the weekby several orders of magnitudecame on the other side of Asia. And its negative impact was worsened by an administration policy that started with public confrontation, not compromise.

That setback came in the Middle East, where Israel ignored once again White House pressure to freeze settlements. Israel also ignored the much more positive message from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who recently offered effusive praise of the countrys offer to curb settlement growth.

Both approaches now look foolish, thanks to Israels decision to move ahead with plans to expand a Jewish sector of southern Jerusalem, on land captured in the 1967 war.

*snip*

More Daily Beast contributors on Palins book tour. Small wonder that the White House issued an unusually heated statement on Tuesday, placing the words in the mouth of the hot-headed press secretary, Robert Gibbs. We are dismayed at the Jerusalem Planning Committees decision to move forward on the approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem. At a time when we are working to re-launch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed, he said. Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-... /


You prefer the opinion of a lobbyist who works for Dan Bartlett than Rachel Maddow?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. People do not have all good and all bad opinions.
Sometimes people get it right, sometimes only once.

His article about Obama grated me, to the point where I wished he did not appear on KO anymore.

But, he did understand that this was Obama's way of getting out of Afghanistan, and for that, I have to swallow my bile, and say he got it right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
63. If it was all about getting out we would be getting out, not sending more troops in. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
5. Yes, the Poppy Curtain, an excuse for endless war. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. When I was listening to Pres. Obama, that was what I was
thinking and feeling the whole time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
7. for Oil
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
8. How stupid and insulting.
Most people consider the Bush doctrine void of thought. Ugh!

Sometimes Democrats can be just stupid.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hansel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Amen. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. True that. And I ain't talking about Maddow. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
44. Maddow is a joke sometimes
I can't watch her show anymore. It is tediously Noobtopian and soporifically predictable.

You'd would expect some Kootchie dork mumbling such garbage at some smelly bar... Obama demands a goddamn withdrawal in 18 months... that's a "Bush doctrine"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hieronymus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #44
56. I'm quite sure Rachel doesn't give a damn, and neither do I.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
9. She's dead on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hieronymus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
61. Yes, Rachel is dead on. Not blinded, as many are, to the flaws of Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
13. knr nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
14. According to you..I disagree.
The president knows more about this than Rachel Maddow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moodforaday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
49. So did Bush.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld - each of them knew more (had access to more factual information) than she does or you or me. Does that make Bush's wars right? What a strange thing to say!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
VMI Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Spokesman for the escalation.
Awesome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. "Rachel Maddow is anti war which is total insane"
Awesome. Don't go changing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
19. In what respect, Charlie?
Sorry. Nervous tic of mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
20. Did Bush's doctrine give us an exit strategy,
cause I don't remember it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. "When they stand up, we will stand down."
Exit strategies are a dime a dozen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MollieBradford Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #20
42. so Obama is
better than bush, that's not saying much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
22. Total oversimplification of the situation.
That's like saying that since the Japanese destroyed our fleet at Pearl Harbor, they were no longer a threat to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansasVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Yes, you are smarter than her! LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
24. Sometimes Rachel cand be really fucking stupid.
This is not a continuation of the Bush doctrine. Bush invaded Afghanistan and then let it fester because "there were no targets." The mess that we're in is because Bush never bothered to get the job done.

This IS change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneplanet Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. Agreed. Stupidest OP I've seen on DU all day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #24
46. So how do you get the "job done", win the war against Afghanistan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moodforaday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #24
50. You mean, now there ARE targets
Edited on Wed Dec-02-09 05:24 PM by moodforaday
in Afghanistan? Enumerate them, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techn0Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #24
66. Considering your choice of User Name ...
you may understand why I believe Madow is more intelligent then you.

Has the forum been invaded by 6 year olds?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
25. Yea that Bush doctrine of exit plan and withdrawal timetables... oh wait a minute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moodforaday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #25
52. What do you want to bet that Obama's timetable
for withdrawal from Afghanistan isn't any better than his timetable for closing down Gitmo?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneplanet Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
26. Nonsense, she hit a foul ball
The threat from Al Qaeda is here and now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
28. Yea, she knocked the ultimate Left-Cliche out of the park
Bush-Doctrine my butt. By the end of his first term, this president would end both wars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
30. Rachel is smarter than all of us.
She is the voice of reason, and she is right this is a continuation of the same dumb Bush doctrine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Speak for yourself
She's no doubt smarter than SOME around here, but she's human and not 100% correct. And I disagree with her on this one.

If people think this President is Bush III and things are just the same as when Bush II was in office, then maybe they need to have a Republican back in the WH to remind them what it's like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moodforaday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #32
55. No need to be reminded.
If you look at what is being done, it's eerily similar, only in better English.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sultana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 01:44 AM
Response to Original message
31. Didn't Rachel think that Obama was going to lose to McCan't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullwinkle428 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. So did lots of DUers, given the right-wing's history with election "trickeration"!
It sure made me work even harder in my volunteer efforts to help get the vote out on Election Day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #31
37. And Hillary before that
Actually, you can do worse than to take her pessimism as grounds for optimism, so often is she wrong in her prognostications.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
33. K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 06:22 AM
Response to Original message
34. The Bush doctrine did NOT give us a timely, goal based, definative exit strategy....
...to say the whole thing is like the Bush doctrine is hyperbole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. The exit promise is "based on conditions on the ground."
It's damn close to Bush only they actually gave it some thought first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Techn0Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #34
67. The Bush doctrine had nothing to do with timetables maybe is why...
Bush Doctrine: The believe that was can be made upon only the POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE threat - as opposed to actual threat which is what the U.S. has always needed to have previously.

But you're in good company - Sarah Palin didn't know what it was either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
39. wasn't that what fighting in Europe during WW II was?
and the Bush doctrine was Iraq.

Couldn't stand more than 5 minutes of her last night. Ditto Matthews and Olbermann.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
41. Rachel isn't the brightest of bulbs.
The Bush Doctrine is preemptive warfare.

How can Obama be conducting preemptive warfare when we're already there?

The hate is strong in you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moodforaday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #41
53. So, at what point did it stop being preemptive?
Edited on Wed Dec-02-09 05:30 PM by moodforaday
The day Obama took office?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
43. I think she is generally wrong but the assessment has a kernel of truth in it
and that kernel is the line of thinking that we can make people want to and proactively do what we want them to do.

I don't subscribe to Obama continuing the whole tragic belief system but the action he is taking seems dangerously dependent on the type of thinking that lead to a policy of preemption. He's not swearing to play Superman and Nostradamus by sweeping in and destroying threats before they exist while spreading democracy at the point of a gun and it is pure bullshit to pretend that was what he was saying but you'd have to be eyes wide shut to miss that the current plan still depends on the logic that lead to such a policy.

I'd speculate that the neocon sickness has spread almost completely through our security establishment and military brass to the point that almost anyone in the loop is damn near polar opposite meaning we have no real ability to evaluate threats or plan to deal with them separate from minds utterly predisposed to an ever expanding and aggressively active military. This smacks of forcing a huge compromise from such minds but the only way to play it is the way they play.

We've retired, run off, and trained out all the people who are reluctant but willing at great need while being ever vigilant and able warriors while brainwashing away similar sentiment in the general population. This puts us in a double bind. First, all we have all hawks and doves and to compound that shaky (imo) state there are way more hawks than doves.

We have lost the ability to see or even think objectively while we have little if any leash on the warmongers. No wonder he had to reject so many options and end up with some hopeful patchwork of happy bullshit. Even if he could navigate a clearer course the institutions in place couldn't executed that complex of a dance if they wanted to with all their little hearts (which of course they absolutely wouldn't).

He might be able to bail. I believe the political will for that could be mustered for sure but I suspect that is also a bad choice because it would require an accompanying message/warning of grow the fuck up America, we might get hit, maybe even Pakistan's nukes get loose but that there is little to nothing we can do about that with an army mucking around next door pissing off the locals. That the main reason we are talking about counterinsurgency is because we created an insurgency because we did such a horrific job over their that we blew the amazing luck of not being utterly despised over there from the Soviet days and now the people are pissed, want us out, and are increasingly rising up to kill us.

You gotta tell Muricka that we screwed the pooch, that we're shuffling out with our tails between our legs, and that we just have to go about our business and hope that most of em chill now that we're out of their face and not blowing them up. Ohh and by the way we're going to be just kinda paying them off to lay back for some time but its cheaper than hanging out over there aggravating people that we could give a shit about and don't give a shit about us until its time to hurl some.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apnu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
45. I like Rachael, but I disagree with her on this point.
People keep talking about Obama's "waging" war. And they have no evidence of that. Obama inherited this shit storm and has to do something about it. Something he said he'd do on the campaign trail: send in more troops to stabilize then get the fuck out. So far he's doing exactly what he said he'd do and she voted for him so she voted for that. Anybody who voted for Obama voted for that. If the voter was unaware, they were that way willingly, because Obama's been very open about his point-of-view on this situation for a long time now.

Many people, including Rachael, are running around invoking Nixon and Bush and every other war ghoul they can drudge up to smear the guy we put in office. The guy hasn't been given a chance to implement his plans to see if they work to achieve the goal of getting us out of Afghanistan. Let's see if Obama gets us out on his time table as suggested before we roast his balls. If in three years he's not getting us out of Afghanistan then by all means knock the guy down and hope the next POTUS gets us out.

Nobody gave a shit about Afghanistan when Iraq was in full swing. Not here on DU, and not anywhere else. After Obama was elected nobody said a word about Afghanistan, all we heard was Prop 8, Iraq, GitMo and the financial collapse. Now, all of a sudden this is an issue? This has always been an issue and people are now just talking about it? Come on. Obama's gotta do something about it and as I see it he can do one of a few things:

1) Maintain the status quo
2) Plan and implement an exit strategy that works for us and the Afghan people
3) Drop everything and get out now.

To me it looks like he's going with #2, but in time we might realize that he's done #1. But right now, today, you, me, Rachael and everybody else has zero evidence to that fact. Saying other wise means people are just making stuff up.

It also seems to me that there are many loud people on this board advocating #3 and are crying they aren't getting that. The folks I've talked to who back #3 have no answers when I ask them about the power vacuum, the horrific crime, and narco state that's in Afghanistan now, and none of them can speak to the Taliban hiding, fighting and destabilizing Pakistan who's got nukes. We drop everything and get out now and all we've done is break the place worse than it was before. Is that any way to treat the innocents of Afghanistan? At least try to fix the damn thing that Bush fucked up. It's our responsibility after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moodforaday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #45
60. "send in more troops to __stabilize__"
Would the resident DU war supporters PLEASE stop using euphemisms when referring to killing people? It's not "stabilize", it's "kill and maim more people". It looks like this.

No need to be coy about it when stating your views. Thank you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
47. Rachel tagged out at Second Base...
The Bush Doctrine was to wage war in Iraq, needlessly antagonize Iran, and allow Afghanistan to slide into chaos. The Obama Doctrine is to end our pointless involvement in Iraq, stabilize our relationship with Iran, and take the fight to Al-Queda in Afghanistan.

Seriously, I love Rachel, but she pretty much phoned that one in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
budkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
48. Couldn't agree more once again.. Obama is wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
51. Isn't she the doomsday talking head who predicted Obama would lose to John McCain last year?
Well, she was wrong then and she's wrong now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msallied Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. It's funny how her attempts to be bold and nuanced
end up making her look the exact opposite. And I can say the same for a lot of the left on this issue right now. It's disappointing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #54
59. She's a paid rabble-rouser so I stopped watching her long ago. Her doomsday schtick got old fast.
<<And I can say the same for a lot of the left on this issue right now. It's disappointing.>>

Well, the average I.Q. in the U.S. is 100. ;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msallied Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #59
65. Ha!
Good point. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
57. Wasn't she the one always worried about whether Obama would win the election?
Now that he won, she thinks he's doing what Bush would have done? Why did she worry, then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #57
62. Yeah, she's such a political genius that she predicted McCain would win for months.
<<Now that he won, she thinks he's doing what Bush would have done? Why did she worry, then?>>

Good point. Like many here, she never complained about his campaign promise to "finish the job in Afghanistan" then.
I guess she has to earn her salary by fomenting controversy, no matter how idiotic she sounds.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
58. Ridiculous.
I've never seen Rachel miss so badly. The two situations are not remotely comparable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
64. She surprised me with that one, but I think she's right. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
68. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 21st 2014, 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC