#Romneyshambles: More patronizing of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as Mitt Romney now says the U.S. embassy should be in Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv.
Romney says, he doesn’t endorse an immediate move from Tel Aviv, but it’s a decision “I would want to take in consultation with the leadership of the government which exists at the time,” Buzzfeed reports. Excuse me while I barf from the nauseating hypocrisy emanating from Mitt Romney’s lips. This man is acting as though Israel is the super-power and the U.S. isn’t its largest donor of foreign aid. The goal would be to prevent a war with Iran, but Mitt Romney is encouraging one, that will include the U.S., for sure. Can we afford to engage in another war? He’s talking tough on Iran to score browning points with Bibi Netanyahu and his cronies.
This comes as Newsweek magazine calls Mitt Romney a “wimp.”
#Romneyshambles: Newsweek Calls GOP Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney a Wimp.
Here’s an excerpt from the Daily Beast:
It was an astonishing faux pas—one of many packed into his brief visit. And it makes one wonder: if elected, Romney is going to have to work hand-in-glove with Prime Minister David Cameron and other world leaders on the ongoing global financial crisis and other issues. What unintended offenses are going to tumble out of his mouth then, when he’s representing our nation on the world stage?
The episode highlights what’s really wrong with Romney. He’s kind of lame, and he’s really … annoying. He keeps saying these … things, these incredibly off-key things. Then he apologizes immediately—with all the sincerity of a hostage. Or maybe he doesn’t: sometimes he whines about the subsequent attacks on him. But the one thing he never does? Man up, double down, take his lumps.
Mitt Romney’s response to the cover was that he doesn’t take stuff said about him in the media seriously. Um, my guess is that he does. He’s an egomaniac, albeit a weak one. Surely he must be embarrassed by the derision he suffered at the hands of both the British and American press over his train wreck of a visit.
Update#1: Robert O’Brien, a foreign policy adviser for Romney, responded to the Newsweek cover:
…The fact is that Mitt Romney is a steely-nerved businessman, who has turned around failed companies, the corruption-plagued 2002 Olympic Winter Games and an almost-bankrupt Massachusetts – against all odds in each case. Moreover, he has raised a great family with his wife, Ann.
Steely-nerved businessman? Is that the characteristic of one who has records destroyed and won’t tell the truth about his business activities? Wow, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen Mittens’ questionable practices described in that way.
Watch Mitt Romney sucking up to Israel:
Related articles
Iran: "Death to bloggers who write stuff we don’t like"
Somehow I just cannot get over the idea that WORDS on a screen (be they offensive or not) warrants the death penalty. Just think about it, individuals and groups get offended over the smallest things. To think that someone’s life will hang in the balance over something as subjective as an act being interpreted as offensive is ridiculous!
Even though this case is about a nation, I want to address the notion of being “offended” on both an individual scale and as a collective group.
First it is important to understand that being “offended” is the problem of the person or group who finds the offense, not the accused offender.
Second, one should also note that a natural byproduct of “being offended” is to make an attempt to control that which you find offensive; either by eliminating it all together, or at a minimum stopping the offensive behavior.
It seems to me that when groups (or countries) maintain a position that they are offended, it is about maintaining a certain level of control over the minds of the members of that group. In the end, we know that groups are made up of individuals. Therefore, it seems unlikely to me that everyone in that group was offended by a particular action upon its occurrence. On the contrary, there are typically a few who claim to represent the group who find the offense. And these few among the group incite others to feel the same way.
When people are individually offended they need to recognize that allowing themselves to be offended is essentially allowing themselves to be controlled by the actions of others. Ironically, this reactionary behavior is what causes people to feel that they lack control. As a result, they attempt to force others into adhere to their code of conduct to regain control of the situation.
Nine times out of ten the “offense” occurs when someone does not believe or think as one does. The notion of the possibility of offending someone has led to more self-censoring under the guise of political correctness than anything else.
If people spent just half the time focusing on the quality of their own lives, instead of looking over their neighbor’s shoulder, they might actually find some enjoyment out of life.
And back to Iran, if they choose to move forward with executions of “offensive” bloggers, there is no doubt that they will incite their base to support this wickedness. There are lots of reasons I’m glad not to live in Iran, and another just got added to the list…
So what do you think?