Soul-twisted Mark Angelnacht has decided he went too easy on the Ohbummer-Hillary handling of the coup last year in Honduras:
"Back in January, I gave the White House a “D“ for its response to the coup. Even though it totally botched its approach to the elections in the country last November—reversing its demand that Zelaya be reinstated..." This type of backward-looking guff deserves no quarter. Engelbird here ought to get a long stretch hung by his thumbs, in some town square in outer Honduras.I argued against giving the White House an “F” for its response. My rationale at the time was that the Obama administration’s approach was distinctly better than what we might have expected from the Bush cabal...[But] In early June, [Hillary] defied the rest of the hemisphere by arguing at the Organization of American States that Honduras should be readmitted to the body...
But no. He'll stay here, behind the human-rights plate, calling strikes, balls, and walking Uncle Sam's unclean agents around the bases.
(Editor's note: If you really want to get depressed, do a Google image search on the phrase "report card".)
Comments (2)
"I argued against giving the White House an “F” for its response. My rationale at the time was that the Obama administration’s approach was distinctly better than what we might have expected from the Bush caba"
I just find myself wondering in what *distinct* way the Obama administrations' approach at the time was in any way substantively different than what we would have seen from the Bush administration.
But then... I find myself wondering about that on all sorts of policies coming from the Obama administration. In what way is the Obama administration substantively different than the Bush administration?
I can't seem to come up with a good answer.
Posted by Drunk Pundit | July 22, 2010 12:23 AM
Posted on July 22, 2010 00:23
A higher melanin content?
Posted by RedPhillip | July 22, 2010 8:01 AM
Posted on July 22, 2010 08:01