BETTER GET A NET
There’s just not much reasonable ground to stand on in suggesting that Barack Obama his mishandled the situation or “symphathized” with terrorists. Dave Weigel reminds us today that even the supposedly craven statement from the Embassy in Cairo (which preceded any violence and was clearly aimed at preventing it) is precisely in line with how past administrations—most notably that of George W. Bush during the backlash to the Danish cartoon incident in 2006—talked about the “offense” caused by anti-Muslim agitprop:Free speech advocates, then and now, retch at the thought of governments “sympathizing” with murderous thugs. But it’s not some innovation of the Kenyan anti-colonial Obama administration. It’s how our government’s acted, when either party’s been in control, in an age of heavy involvement in the Muslim world. If you’re going to maintain embassies in the hearts of Arab capitals, you’re not going to be able to respond to these situations the way Christopher Hitchens would’ve.
although his campaign and the entire republican effort has been a clown show of dishonesty and misleading, balancing anything they say with reality under minds any possibility of fruition. free speech is not a truth even here in America. it's incumbent on who controls those strings of the truth and it's aim to allow them to be heard, but not always the end result.
biggest most visibly invisible as an example, FCC you can not say George Carlin's 7 words you can't say, more notorious different races in different neighborhoods saying "the wrong thing", work place sexual harassment, talking back to your boss or military commander, verbal assault. just a few to show my point is not without reference. politicians need to stop "running around the world" claiming superiority and things that are not true.
GW Bush "they hate us for our freedom" , how about because we invade their lands and try to turn around thousands of years of religious beliefs, to what we have here? republicans have made no bones about their hate and disdain for Islam, this is what free speech can do, kill American's, the world does not operate on the American political agenda, when we except that and respect that things will change for the better. this has little hope of happening under a right wing government.
No question about that, and the tepid reaction of Republicans to Romney’s gambit (despite Jennifer Rubin’s hilarious effort to search high and low to create a list of conservatives backing him) reflects that underlying reality.
So what was Team Mitt thinking? Jonathan Chait is probably right in suggesting that they simply couldn’t resist the opportunity to supply some fresh example of the fictitious Obama “apology tour” that has always been at the center of Romney’s critique of Obama’s foreign policy. They saw the Cairo embassy statement, plugged it into their messaging formula, and then today made the questionable decision to emphasize it.
Perhaps the political calculation was that American voters would react viscerally to the images from Egypt and Libya, so who cares what the experts say? Trouble is, Mitt’s not only getting beaten up in the MSM, but the type of people defending him now and the arguments they advance are bound to be disquieting to the majority of Americans who see no particular reason to pursue dangerous brinkmanship in the Middle East.
their re-entry to the WH would affect our lives more than domestically, they are already waving swords against Iran, Syria and "our biggest geo-political enemy" Russia, does that make you say hmmmmmm, "war" again and they haven't been elected.
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20120327/172411482.html this man has a foreign, foreign policy he learned from a Dr. Seuss book , no direspect to the Dr., but much disdain for "the man who would be king" in that same book.
