Yes, it is true, we all just roll over on our backs and let horrible dictators scratch our bellies...it is the true history of us Pinkos.
Though, for example, I remember a time when it was the US which didn't have so many problems with some of the horrible dictators and in some cases "terror" supporters we're all now and appropriately condemning.
I recall that Commie Eisenhower making a state visit to Spain and riding in an open car with Franco...because we wanted/NATO wanted a base there.
I remember photos of that pinko Donald Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam because we liked his position with regard to Iran (not for the fact that his facisitic dictatorship was pretty secular and progressive especially about women in society until his regional ambitions were in direct conflict with US policy and he started to more directly use Islam as an organizing tool against the west).
I remember Reagan finding ways to make under the table deals with Iran.
I remember decades of supporting brutal military dictarships in South Korea -- before we apparently figured out that a functioning western-style liberal democracy in S. Korea would make it much stronger economically and even militarilly against the North.
I remember our kissing up to Rummania (State visit by Nixon) in an effort to weaken the Warsaw Pact.
I remember decades of supporting the Shah of Iran as he repressed democratic and nationalist forces in Iran and thereby allowed the religious zealots to be the only viable opposition to his rule.
I've seen pictures of Roosevelt sitting down with Stalin.
Nixon meeting with Mao.
The list is a long one.
So, the outrage here can't just be dictators or even terrorists. Because, apparently, dictators -- even pretty foul ones who suport terrorism like Saddam or Iran -- can at times be tolerated so long as real politic is involved, or we like something they are doing.
But, god forbid a reporter ever voice an opinion...especially a stupid or ill considered one...that is contrary to conventional politically correct wisdom regarding the situation in the Middle East.
Now, I completely understand and buy that the guy she tweeted about was a supporter of terrorism, and terrorism against the US. He is a bad guy. The reporter is wrong. But is her opinion so wrong as to require her firing? That's where I've got my problem.
If she were a diplomat? Absolutely.
If she were running for office in the US? Beat her to death with it.
If she her reporting was shown to be manifestly false, or her opinion shown to color her reporting to the point where it was completely non-objective...she should lose her job.
That isn't, as I understand it, what has been alleged. She tweeted a stupid opinion. She has apparently back-peddled from it (something that never happens anywhere else in the media/puditacracy). But -- and I could be wrong -- no one has called into question her 20 years of reporting, demonstrated overt bias or distortion. All that they've demonstrated is that at one particular moment she voiced a politically incorrect and stupid opinion favorable to a pretty dispicable cleric and once...not a pattern.
So, she should lose her job. And, anyone who thinks she shouldn't have lost here job and livelyhood for a mistaken opinion obviously not only is a secrete supporter of terrorist, a lefty, pinko and probably anti-Semetic.
I don't know anymore what I'm trying to argue here. The world is better off, I think, with this guy not in it. But, whatever, I just don't think it was a firing offence.
Run awayyyyy!!!
