thatsrightimirish
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-08-06 11:23 PM
Original message |
So, how will North Korea play out in the elections? |
|
Will people think that this is another example of Bush's weak foreign policy?
or
Will people vote republican to feel "protected"
|
cboy4
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-08-06 11:25 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Good question. Let's ask the idiot in the White House himself : |
Taoschick
(391 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-08-06 11:26 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I don't think it will have |
buff2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-08-06 11:28 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I'd say the latter......... |
|
Bu$h licker Andrea Mitchell just said that this is what "the President" has been trying to talk about...."National Security" and this will help the repukes to take the focus away from the scandals. If the repukes are still in power after Nov. 7th,I fucking give up.
|
bigdarryl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-09-06 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
8. Andrea Mitchell might as well lick Bush's toes |
|
She is a ass kisser when it comes to this Administration
|
DemFromMem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-08-06 11:29 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Frankly, I don't think the public will pay much attention. The rocket tests during the summer got a fair amount of media attention, but did very little to shift public opinion. I think for those who care, the issue will be a wash with people's views being reinforced in both directions as you note in your message. I doubt Bush will do anything hinting of a military response. We'll likely see the same paralysis in the UN and North Korea will likely be heard from again when it decides in a few months that we're not paying enough attention. I'd look for a quiet buy off of Pyongyang - money for not doing anything crazy.
|
Fresh_Start
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-08-06 11:33 PM
Response to Original message |
|
if Bush is unable to win against untrained insurgents armed with 20 year old weapons, how the hell can he win against a nuclear armed enemy.
Why did you think Bush welcomed Pakistan to his group of allies even though Pakistan sold nuke secrets?
|
Stinky The Clown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-08-06 11:37 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Depends on the message the sheeple absorb |
|
There will be something like this one:
"Dems condemn North Korea's nuclear test. Cite Bush failure of diplomacy"
and something like this one
"Dems would have wimped out. Vote Republic."
|
Jim Sagle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-08-06 11:48 PM
Response to Original message |
7. No, but that'll be the MSM cover after we get Diebolded again. |
Monk06
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-09-06 02:02 AM
Response to Original message |
9. Bush invaded Iraq to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon |
|
For which they lacked the technology, expertise and the most basic raw material; unrefined yellowcake.
Meanwhile he doesn't invade North Korea which has all the above resources thanks to Pakistan the Shrubs most valuable ally in the WOT.
This 'crisis' makes him look even more of a dork if that were possible. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bush gang do everything they can in the next four weeks not to draw attention to NK nukes.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 10:22 PM
Response to Original message |