he shouldn't have exploited this incident for personal gain. He could have stood in solidarity with the victims, instead, or attacked the real causes of the incident: the terrorists who held the smoking gun, and the Americans who gave them the ammunition they needed.
And you shouldn't be cheerfully carrying Romney's water either. But you always do.
You expect the nation's enemies to try to hurt us for their benefit, You expect our enemies to attack, and you fight back. You don't expect our presidential candidates to seize on the tragedy to attack their political opponents, fellow Americans.
In another thread here I defended GW Bush from an attack based on his failure to anticipate the WTC attacks. I felt it wasn't fair. Maybe he can be criticized for a lot of things, and I have, but not for this, not for failing to see 9/11 coming.
TB, I have never seen you give the other side an even break. They are always the bad guys, and your side is always the good guys. You have lost all credibility.
Flame » in reply to Look around. I'm not the one doing the "spinning" here.
If Romney didn't want to be attacked,
The whole thread (14 posts)
- Is knee-jerk hate driving the Romney agitprop machine?
- What a response worthy of a presidential candidate look like from John McCain
- Yeah, I'm watching the media circling the wagons around their hero today.
- Romney doubles down on his campaign's remarks.
