Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Those who long for Putin as ‘head of the United States’
Uh-uh. Not The Onion. 
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/those-who-long-putin-head-the-united-states
From time to time in recent years, Republicans and conservative pundits have celebrated Russian President Vladimir Putin as their kind of leader. The more reckless and autocratic the Russian president became, the more conservative lawmakers and their allies lauded Putin as some kind of heroic genius....
But Guilfoyle’s appeal seems predicated on some bizarre assumptions. The first is the notion that a bold, get-tough leader – apparently someone in the mold of Netanyahu or Putin – could simply use military force, deploy troops, and wipe out ISIS … somehow. This shouldn’t be necessary, but it might be worth noting that counter-terrorism and a coherent national-security policy doesn’t work this way. It’s not like a U.S. president could wake up, decide to eliminate ISIS, make an order, and watch it happen.
Indeed, as the Fox hosts might recall, the Bush/Cheney team thought it could invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and in the process, wipe out al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other foes. How’d that work out?
The second is the belief that Putin, were he “head of the United States … for 48 hours,” could work wonders through his autocratic ways. In case the right has lost sight of this, the Russian president has made a series of bold moves this year, and all of them were fairly disastrous for his country. Russia’s international standing (outside of Fox headquarters) is in shambles; Putin’s policies have led to an economic recession; and the conflict with Ukraine hasn’t advanced Russia’s interests at all.
But Guilfoyle’s appeal seems predicated on some bizarre assumptions. The first is the notion that a bold, get-tough leader – apparently someone in the mold of Netanyahu or Putin – could simply use military force, deploy troops, and wipe out ISIS … somehow. This shouldn’t be necessary, but it might be worth noting that counter-terrorism and a coherent national-security policy doesn’t work this way. It’s not like a U.S. president could wake up, decide to eliminate ISIS, make an order, and watch it happen.
Indeed, as the Fox hosts might recall, the Bush/Cheney team thought it could invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and in the process, wipe out al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other foes. How’d that work out?
The second is the belief that Putin, were he “head of the United States … for 48 hours,” could work wonders through his autocratic ways. In case the right has lost sight of this, the Russian president has made a series of bold moves this year, and all of them were fairly disastrous for his country. Russia’s international standing (outside of Fox headquarters) is in shambles; Putin’s policies have led to an economic recession; and the conflict with Ukraine hasn’t advanced Russia’s interests at all.
