lies romney told me

in one of my classes, the students consider the leadership of kings, specifically king david from the bible and some of his failings.  in it all, there is a question about moral failings of leaders, and the unwillingness to admit fault.  in the context, students frequently make connection to bill clinton, and his lying about the lewinski scandal.  fair point.  some will throw out nixon & watergate.  okay.  a rare few will throw out jfk and the alleged affairs he had.  i'm sure they could go on further, mainly because our leaders continue to demonstrate the ability to screw up.

this brings us to this week and some of the political situation our world is in.  let's look @ facts:

• a strange film promo pops up online, and it's some sort of film that defames islam.  at the time, no one really knows who made this low budget film.
• people in the islamic world react with displeasure to the promo, speaking out against it
• the u.s. embassy in cairo tweeted that it was displeased with the film, that the u.s. was against mocking anyone's religion, and so on.  their tweets, although not the official u.s. government response, were almost identical to the statements released by the bush administration when muslims were upset by a cartoon in a dutch paper.  yep, very similar statement, but not the official u.s. response.  as it should be noted, this statement was made on twitter, before any protests in cairo or libya.  the embassy later deleted these tweets.
• protests began in several countries.
• the  u.s. embassy in libya was attacked.  many credible sources say that this was a preplanned attack.  the snafu over the movie trailer was used as cover for the attack.  it had nothing to do with film, or the tweets, or really the muslim protests over insults to their religion.  the attacks resulted in the deaths of several u.s. citizens at the embassy, including an ambassador.

that's the timeline.  it's clear, it's verifiable.  but, willard romney and his campaign are going to ignore that.  romney's campaign claimed that the obama administration was apologizing for the film, apologizing after the attack, and that obama's foreign policy was weak.  willard romney is willfully ignoring the fact that it wasn't any official statement by the administration.  nope, the official words from the president's office completely condemned the attacks, the loss of life.  when this has been pointed out to willard romney, he refuses to accept it.  he maintains his stance.  he stubbornly refuses, almost childishly, digging in his heels about what he sees as obama's foreign policy, which he clearly is wrong about.  he says that the president shouldn't apologize ever for america.  well, he didn't here.  but, i disagree with that statement anyway.  if our country does something wrong, we should admit it.  in fact, i have no problem with the fact that our president has apologized for the actions of the u.s. gov't in central america during the 40's and 50's.  now, we haven't admitted or apologized for everything we did, but last year we did admit that we did medical experiments on people.  it was unethical, although not illegal.  so, we apologized for our participation.  but, in the situations of this week, no apologies were issued, or needed.

all willard romney needs to do is admit that they were wrong.  they were misinformed about the timeline of events, and that under their initial understanding of the situation, it looked different.  upon being given the correct order of events, the full situation, they have a better understanding, and respond appropriately.  nope, not going to do it.  days later, with tons of time, with a political isht-storm swirling about, willard romney continues to stand his ground.  he is defiant in his interviews about it.

frankly, i'm mystified.  willard as seen as strong, full of resolve in the situation.  he's sticking to his guns.  well, he's also wrong.  who would celebrate his stick-to-itedness when you're completely wrong about a situation?  i guess it's one of those things that you never want to let facts get in the way of a good argument.

someone sounds a lot like bush

either the bbc isn't that good at reporting the news, or someone's campaign may be a hair out of touch.

"The economy once again emerged as the most important issue for voters, with more than 80% of those surveyed saying the nation was already in a recession.

On Tuesday, Mrs Clinton emphasised what she says is a strength - her leadership ability and foreign affairs credentials."

hmm, economy, #1. clinton stresses foreign policy & leadership. which one of those is economy.

and then she said, "If I'm the president, we will attack Iran... we would be able to totally obliterate them."

sure, it was in response to the idea that iran had attacked israel, so it wasn't like it was some sort of preemptive strike on them (cough cough, i'm looking at you mc cain). but, obliterate isn't exactly the type word that cries out diplomacy, or even wise foreign policy.

what it does remind me of is a certain other president that loved to sabre rattle. but he was a decider, so i guess it all works out.

difficult transitions to freedom

as i skimmed the bbc's website this morning, i saw several articles that highlight the difficulties that exist in changing a repressive system to democracy.

south africa, twelve years out of apartheid, struggles with so much. crushing poverty, an increasing gap between rich and poor, aids, and racial strife are tremendous hurdles for this nation. nobel peace prize winner desmond tutu warns that this "powder keg" of unrest could soon explode.

in russia, contract killers are the latest sign that the transistion from communism to capitalism is a long, hard struggle. perhaps i shouldn't say latest, as they have been a problem since the fall of communism and rise of organized crime and easily available weaponry. the killers, which can be hired for as little as $100, are suspected in the recent high profile murder of a journalist.

and finally, in iraq, it remains apparent that the war is far from over. 51 tortured bodies have recently been found. the u.s. military, alongside the iraqi defense forces, are engaged in battle with militants.

the first two situations really make it difficult for me to have much hope for the third. they transitioned from difficult situations, but not through violent upheaval and war. both have had plenty of opportunity to change and develop, but haven't been able to excell. heck, they're barely making it work at all. of course, i'm not sure how idealic the u.s. was to live in during it's first 15 years. i think we can all see that it will be a long, hard road in iraq.