In Romney’s hands, this has come to mean more or less the same thing as not being sufficiently supportive of Benjamin Netanyahu, although, as David Remnick has pointed out, these are not at all the same things. “Bumps in the road” is likely to join “ leading from behind” in the repertoire of Republican criticisms of Obama’s foreign policy, along with the notion that Obama has somehow apologized for America (he hasn’t, but it comes up a lot) and that he is less supportive of Israel than he ought to be. These are far from being bumps in the road.” He told ABC, “I can’t imagine saying something like the assassination of ambassadors is a bump in the road, when you look at the entire context, the assassination, the Muslim brotherhood president being elected in Egypt, 20,000 people killed in Syria, Iran close to becoming a nuclear nation. Obama said no: “But I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road, because you know in a lot of these places, the one organizing principle has been Islam.” For Romney, this was tantamount to saying that Stevens’s body had, in effect, been a bump in the road. Romney’s attack was centered on Obama’s answer to a question he was asked on “60 Minutes,” about whether the recent violence in the regions that Stevens was so attached to had made him doubt the larger project of the Arab Spring, and wonder whether we were supporting the right governments.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |