How long before Obama tests the waters by sending someone to argue for releasing the blind sheik?
The state dept has continued it's resolve saying that it will not release the blind sheik. But how long you all think before somebody out there on the left either makes a news article, writes a book, or simply talks to a news anchor about the wisdom of giving the blind sheik over to some middle east government to keep his incarceration?
I don't know if any of you have noticed, probably not if your liberal, but since Obama has become president, there isn't much that Obama decides upon without leftist news and talkers going on about it first, allowing Obama to get sense of the political ramifications of whatever decision he announces or acts upon.
It was the same with that whole Michelletti - Zelaya affair where the White House waited too long to guage public opinion, leftist news didn't have enough time to spin it, although they tried once they figured out what the White House position finally was. It was funny. All the leftist news was completely nuetral, not really supporting either Michelletti nor Zelaya, not saying one way or the other. Then finally the White House spoke up in support of Zelaya, and suddenly they were all making Zelaya look like the good guy. Then that didn't set well with most people who by then mostly new the truth of what was going on Honduras because of all the neutral reporting of the news which hadn't spun it soon enough, and then the White House sees the outcry, changes it's mind about Zelaya, and says it will look into the matter further. I suppose it could have been the close-knit friendship Zelaya had with Hugo Chavez, and the fact that he was practicing Chavez's pattern that led to his becoming virtually the dictator of Venezuela. But all that was known before the White House made it's announcement thanks to the White House taking too long to instruct their news media on how to spin it. In fact the only ones who didn't spin it in favor of Zelaya after the White House announcement was Fox News. Fascinating how that is..
Funniest, most blatant error of bias I ever saw out of this administration.
Anyhow, I digress, how long. I give it a couple years if Obama wins this next election before Obama starts testing the waters of public opinion regarding this matter. Maybe sooner if those who want him play it just right so that Obama can make it look like he's not giving in to terrorists.
- djc1175Lv 68 years agoFavorite Answer
Sure, why not..that blind sheik screwed up in 1993..why not release him and give him another chance at a terrorist attack!
- camarilloLv 44 years ago
Justifying Fox New's creditability by means of the quantity of audience is a dull *** argument. Fox News due to the fact that it used to be based has constantly been recognized to be biased, and best advertise the correct. They've best been standard due to the fact that the Iraq battle, and after we are completed with our wars Fox News will simply die down right into a cricket orchestra. First off Fox News fails at broadcasting exact information. All they do is take a seat round having their little correct wing debates, and pre pick correct personalities to name them. Its not anything greater than a Jerry Springer speak exhibit long gone dangerous. Do you spot Fox News anchors out within the center east? No however I see CNN men and women in the market. Did you spot Fox News out on the tea events? Not almost as many as CNN men and women. Fox News fail, recover from it. You claiming its the correct supply situated on audience rather simply indicates how retarded you're.