I was going to post on how the US media are up to their old tricks again, blaming Romney’s habit of making statements for their inability to hold the president to account. It’s not that Romney said anything stupid – actually the president agreed with him – but the press are able to make the public believe he’s said something stupid so somehow that makes their inability to do their job Romney’s fault.
If you can follow that you’re doing better than I am. I’m still trying to work out what why Romney taking his dog on holiday was a big deal.
But I was looking up a link I saved earlier in the week, and I re-read this:
Jim Bennett compares Mrs. Thatcher’s response to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s Rushdie fatwa with Obama’s to the Muslim Brotherhood’s demands. Salman Rushdie had been a vicious critic of the Conservative party and the prime minister — he called her “Mrs. Torture” — but Her Majesty’s Government has provided him with safe houses and Special Branch protection for almost a quarter-century. By contrast, within 72 hours of Morsi’s demands, Mr Nakoula is in a jail cell — “rounded up at midnight by brownshirted men for making a movie that embarrasses El Presidente.”
I still agree with Mark Steyn that the US government is doing the precise opposite of what it should be doing, and that action is of massive concern.
But re-reading that, I am wondering if the US government might just have saved themselves, and the victim(Mr Nakoula), a quarter-century of protection? I suppose in one sense that was their intention all along. But I do remain unconvinced that their actions were intended to be in the best interest of Mr Nakoula.