I've gotten a bunch of questions (and assertions!) from Goldbloggers who are wondering if the neocons were somehow outflanked by Romney in last night's foreign policy debate. After all, Romney spent most of his time agreeing with Obama; he made no effort to suggest that Afghanistan may become a more complicated, and dangerous, place, once American troops leave in 2014; he took no stand in favor of greater intervention in Syria, and so on. One reader wrote, 'It seems like the neocons have lost the battle for the soul of Romney. He said nothing about having a desire for state-building, or about the importance of intervention in humanitarian crises, etc. So what happened?"What happened? The waiters for Romney's fundraiser at John Bolton's crypt were body cavity searched and then subject to extraordinary rendition.
Goldberg seems almost ready to acknowledge that Romney is prevaricating sack, but reassures readers that Romney simply has no principles and will allow the Boltonites to fill his empty cranium once he achieves office.
Since I don't get paid by the word, I can explain what happened in two words.
Which are the title of this post.
1 comment:
Yes, those two words are always right. If Romney's speaking he's either lying or pandering or both. What's depressing is that since the Republican convention his targets are the soulless suck-ups in the national media who keep elevating his candidacy by catapulting the propaganda. Sadly, I think the story they most want to tell, forever and ever, is how he trounced the socialist usurper on election day.
Post a Comment